imum
mlimmmmm'^mi^m^m
No. 94
ONTARIO
%tqiiiatmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 27, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliamera Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Monday, May 27, 1968
Training Schools Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, first reading 3385
Department of Correctional Services Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Grossman,
first reading 3385
Employment Standards Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Wages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Industrial Safety Act, 1964, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Ontario human rights code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Statement re appointment of a Lakehead interim municipal committee, Mr. McKeough 3387
Statement re fatal accident at Chapleau, Mr. Brunelle 3388
Introducing Mr. T. M. Hegab of the United Arab Republic, Mr. Yaremko 3388
Questions to Mr. Dymond re a comprehensive dental care plan, Mr. Nixon 3388
Question to Mr. McKeough re the Hardy report, Mr. Stokes 3388
Questions to Mr. Bales re fatality involving three Italian-bom labourers, Mr. Pilkey .... 3389
Questions to Mr. Wishart re the abduction of Valerie and John Martin, Mr. Shulman .. 3389
Questions to Mr. Rowntree re food plan operators, Mr. Makarchuk 3390
Questions to Mr. Dymond re self-care units, Mr. Ben 3390
Presenting report, Mr. Dymond 3390
Third readings 3391
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3391
Recess, 6 o'clock 3424
3385
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon in the
Speaker's gallery we have students from
Sunnyview public school, Toronto, and in
the other two public galleries from Beams-
ville high school in Beamsville.
Later this afternoon in the west gallery we
anticipate having the members of the women's
institute from Collingwood with us,
I am sure we welcome these young people
who are with us now.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions) moves first reading of bill inti-
tuled. An Act to amend The Training Schools
Act, 1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is to provide relief to the
local property taxpayer for a cost which he
now bears, relating to training schools. The
bill will relieve municipaHties of the cost
of transferring wards from the courts to
training schools, and of the per diem charges
for maintenance of wards in these schools.
The bill is one of a series transferring
costs of the administration of justice from
municipalities to the province as recom-
mended in the report of the Ontario com-
mittee on taxation.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES ACT, 1968
Hon. Mr. Grossman moves first reading of
bill intituled, The Department of Correc-
tional Services Act, 1968.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Monday, May 27, 1968
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the
objectives of this bill are:
1. To consolidate into one Act 18 present
Acts having to do with adult offenders. With
the recent transference of the costs of the
administration of justice from municipalities
to the province, the department is now
charged with the responsibihty of operating
the county and city jails, hence new legisla-
tion is needed to eflFect this change.
2. To change the name of The Department
of Reform Institutions to The Department of
Correctional Services, in keeping with the
practice followed by most, if not all, jurisdic-
tions within the western world concerned
with the correction and rehabilitation of
oflFenders.
3. To provide for the incorporation into
this bill of the proposed amendments con-
tained in the federal Bill C-195 which deals
with the temporary absence of an inmate for
medical, rehabilitative or humanitarian rea-
sons, and the equalization of provincial with
federal remission of sentence.
Bill C-195 received its first reading in the
House of Commons, December 21, 1967.
While this bill died with the dissolution of
the last federal Parliament, there is little doubt
it will be reintroduced when the next Parlia-
ment convenes— at least, I and my depart-
ment hope so. And, as a matter of fact, we
hope they will accept other recommendations
we made at the same time.
It is felt advisable to be ready to institute
into our system, as soon as federal legislation
is enacted, many of the progressive measures
for which we have been awaiting legal
authority.
4. To grant the Minister authority to estab-
lish a programme whereby inmates will be
able to participate in vocational or educational
training programmes in the community. It
will also provide for a work release on a live-
in, work-out basis, with the possibility of
remaining in the community for stated com-
paratively short periods.
One of the most important aspects of this
bill is to give the department authority to
grant temporary absence to certain selected
3386
ONTAKIO LEGISLATURE
inmates from correctional institutions for tlie
following reasons:
(a) Medical— for an unlimited period.
(b) For a period not exceeding 15 dass at
.iMv one time to assist in his rehabilitation.
This will apply to situations such as:
(1) Humanitarian reasons, e.g. visitinj^
members of tlie family who are seriously sick
attending family funerals, etc.;
(2) Job interviews with prospective em-
ployers.
(3) Any urgent family matter requiring
the inmate's personal attention, e.g. problems
vvitli children, and so on.
(4) To make special arrangements to per-
mit a convicted person to be able, where it
is deemed advisable to continue in his em-
ployment in the community, to visit his
business during crucial periods, or to pennit
someone like a farmer to be absent for a
period not exceeding 15 days at any one time
during a critical period, such as tlie harvest.
This bill will reduce tlie possibility of a
family break-up due to prolonged absence
and lack of a breadwinner.
(5) The foregoing will be conducive to
keeping families together and will reduce the
necessity of canying families of some inmates
on public welfare. It is, of course, to be
understood that it is only in those cases wlierc
ha\ing regartl for public safety, all of the
factors are such that it appears an inmate is
likely to benefit from and can be trusted
to participate in such a programme, that such
a privilege will be made available. This is now
in eftect in some jurisdictions particularly in
the United States and Europe where it is
meeting with some success.
All of the foregoing is dependent upon the
passage of the federal legislation which is
pending. All prisoners in these programmes
will, of course, be under varying degrees of
Mipt rvisioM !)>■ our rehabilitation staff.
.Viiother iiuportant feature of this bill-
section 21- is that, as soon as proposed federal
legislation is enacted, provincial remission of
sentence will l>e eciualized with that allowed
in institutions under federal jurisdiction.
At the present time prisoners in federal
penitentiaries, under The Penitentiary Act,
are automatically granted statutoiy remission
of one quarter off their total sentences and,
in addition, they may earn three days per
month good conduct remission. Prisoners .sen-
tenced to provincial instituticms are not
granted any statutory remission, but may earn
only good conduct remission at a rate not
exceeding five days per month, in accordance
with section 10 of The Prisons and Reforma-
tories Act, Canada. The net result is that,
under present federal legislation, a prisoner
sentenced to two years less one day in reform-
atory actually ser\es over four months more
than he would have served had he been sen-
tenced to two years in penitentiary.
This change in legislation should bring
about the following beneficial results:
1. In keeping with our statement of puipose
our task of changing attitudes should be less
difficult as the inmate will not feel cheated
out of remission time because he was sen-
tenced to reformatory rather than penitentiary.
Obviously it is more difficult to rehabilitate a
person whose hostility to society is increased
by inconsistencies in the law.
2. The number of escapes should be re-
duced. At the present time, a person serving
a sentence of two years less one day who
escapes and subsequently receives an addi-
tional six months in penitentiary for escaping
actually serves less time than he would have
served had he not escaped and remained in a
provincial institution.
3. The granting of statutory and earned re-
mission provides an incentive to the irunate
to conduct himself in such a manner as to
earn release from the institution at an earlier
date, thus contributing to his successful re-
habilitation and, at tlie same time, alleviating
the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining him
in prison longer than is necessary.
THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
ACT, 1968
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled, The
Employment Standards Act, 1968.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE WAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Wages Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
IHE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT, 1964
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safety Act, 1964.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
MAY 27, 1968
3387
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS
CODE, 1961-1962
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario human
rights code, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this legisla-
tion is designed to improve working conditions
for many employees in Ontario. At the same
time, it will make it easier for employers to
fulfill the terms of our employment standards
legislation.
This bill will consolidate and considerably
strengthen the legislation which forms the
basis of my department's continuing efforts to
protect that segment of our work force that
has little or no bargaining power.
A number of existing provisions have been
revised and several new standards introduced.
The net effect will be to bring Ontario's
emiployment standards legislation into line
with working conditions that have wide
acceptance in this province.
And, Mr. Speaker, I intend, in the future,
to introduce further changes to this legisla-
tion as time and circumstances permit, so it
will become truly a bill of employment rights
assuring modem working conditions to all
employees of this province.
Under the authority of this new Act, it is
the government's intention to establish new
and higher minimum wage rates this year.
This step will be taken during the next months
on the basis of surveys and studies in the
course of preparation.
The bill brings together in one modem Act
the following separate statutes or employment
standards provisions that are located, at
present, in other statutes:
The Hours of Work and Vacations with
Pay Act.
The Minimum Wage Act.
Section 10 of The Wages Act.
Homeworker provisions of The Industrial
Safety Act.
Equal pay for equal work provisions of
the human rights code.
This consolidation will give employers and
employees a more concise picture of their
obligations and rights. It also will make it
possible for my department to streamline its
administration in this field.
One of the prime aims of the new Act is
to ensure that employees are not required
to work excessive overtime hours.
While this bill retains the existing maxi-
mum weekly hours of 48 and the permit sys-
tem for overtime, it requires that workers
who do work overtime must be paid at a
rate which is time and one half their regular
rate for all hours beyond 48. We feel that
this will curb the use of excessive overtime
and perhaps create additional employment
opportunities.
The bill also requires that employees be
paid at a rate of time and a half their regular
pay for all work performed on seven statu-
tory holidays: New Year's day, Good Friday,
Victoria day, Dominion day. Labour day,
Thanksgiving day and Christmas day.
The provisions contained in section 10 of
The Wages Act which call for a statement
of earnings, time worked and deductions are
transferred to The Employment Standards
Act.
The department will also be empowered
to collect unpaid wages for employees up to
a total claim of $1,000.
Mr. Speaker, at present, the Ontario human
rights code requires that women doing the
same work as men, in the same establishment,
receive equal pay.
But the commission acts only on the
receipt of a complaint. This provision has
been transferred to The Employment Stan-
dards Act where it will be enforced on a
regular basis by the appropriate field staflF of
the department. The wording of the section
has been broadened and clarified to assist
field stafi^ in making on-the-job assessments.
Also, Mr. Speaker, through this legislation,
the authority for setting minimum wage
rates will be transferred from the industry
and labour board to the Lieutenant-Governor
in council to establish from time to time by
regulation. This is in accord with comments
in the report of the Royal commission on civil
rights.
In this connection my department's
research branch is conducting a province-
wide wages survey, which will be used as a
basis for determining a more appropriate
level of minimum wage. The extent of the
increase will be announced after the legisla-
tion is approved and we review the results
of the survey in the light of wage and price
increases and other economic factors.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs has a statement.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on releasing the
3388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
final report of the Lakehead local govern-
ment review at the Lakehead Universit)' on
Tuesday, April 16, I invited municipal coun-
cils, interested organizations and individuals
of the Lakehead and Thunder Bay district to
express their views regarding the recom-
mendations. These views are to be sub-
mitted to me by June 28 of this year.
An interim municipal committee has been
appointed so that I may have the counsel of
representatives from the Lakehead and
Thunder Bay district on the recommenda-
tions and any views and proposals that they
may have received. The committee has now
i>een formed and I am pleased to advise the
House that the committee consists of the
following: from Fort William, his worship
Mayor Reed, Aldermen Hennessey and Bryan;
from Port Arthur, his worship Mayor Saul
Laskin and Aldermen Amup and McNeil;
from Ncebing, Reeve Tronson and from
Shuniah, Reeve Arthur. And from the
Thunder Bay district, the president, vice-
president and second vice-president of the
Thunder Bay district municipal league,
namely, Mrs. Sadine, Councillor Walsey and
Mr. Rosengrin. And from the Algoma district,
Mr. Bracci, the chairman of the improvement
district of White River.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Lands and
Forests has a statement.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret
that I advise the members of the House of
a fatal accident involving one of our Turbo
Beaver aircraft at Chapleau Saturday morn-
ing. The aircraft was taking off on a flight
to a fire with three men plus the pilot on
board and was barely airborne when it
nosed in, turned over and sank. The pilot
and two firefighters were able to escape.
However, one of our seasonal employees, Mr.
Lome McWatch was trapped inside and was
drowned.
The Department of Transport is investi-
gating the accident to determine the exact
cause.
This is the first fatality involving one of
our department aircraft in many years. So
far this season we have had 736 fires reported
and extinguished to date, which is much
higher than normal. I certainly express my
deepest condolences to the family of Mr.
NtcWatch, in this very unfortunate mishap.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, with your in-
dulgence I should like to extend a word of
welcome to a particular visitor. The federal
government, through The Department of
External Affairs, through liaison with The De-
partment of the Provincial Secretary and
Citizenship, places students from about the
world within our ci\il service, so that they
may learn of our practices and procedures.
One of those is present this afternoon. He is
Mr. T. M. Hegab, a United Nations Fellow,
and in his capacity at home, he is chief of
Sections of Societies and Associations in law
affairs in the Cairo district of the Ministry
of Social Affairs of the United Arab Republic.
At this moment, he is with our child welfare
branch studying programmes. On behalf of
you and members of the Legislature, I extend
a welcome to this United Nations Fellow.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Min-
ister of Health.
Is the Minister in a position to make a state-
ment to the House regarding the announce-
ment by the president of the Ontario dental
association at its annual convention, that a
comprehensive dental care plan for the young,
from age three to 18 might be introduced
in the province by late 1969? And will such
a plan be similar to the Ontario medical serv-
ices plan now in operation?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to com-
ment to any great extent upon this. The pro-
gramme has been spoken of in the press and
I believe it was discussed before the dentists
at their recent association meeting. The news-
papers reported that I had warmly endorsed
it; this is true in part but not as wholly as
the report might have led to believe. I have
no knowledge of the details. I did warmly
endorse the programme in principle but
withheld further comment pending informa-
tion concerning details of the programme.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the Minister, Mr.
Speaker, if he has a group that can assess the
need for such a programme, when the details
from the profession are available, or would
this be something that OMSIP might imder-
take on his behalf?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we have
a group capable of assessing it and we have
a good deal of information already on hand.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay has a question?
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs.
MAY 27. 1968
3389
Will the Minister extend to the end of
September, rather than the end of June, the
time for studying the Hardy report on re-
gional government by municipahties in the
Thtmder Bay area, as requested by them in
a resolution forwarded to the Minister?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
very simple answer would be "no" but per-
haps I might put on the record a letter
which I have written to several of the munici-
palities who have requested this extension.
My letter to the municipalities reads as
follows:
I am replying to your letter enclosing a
resolution requesting an extension of the
date for submissions of briefs in reply to
the recommendations contained in the final
report of the Lakehead local government
review.
The date of June 28 was based upon the
time allowed for such submissions in other
local government review areas where the
period of ten weeks was found to be
sufficient for mimicipal councils to prepare
their submissions. By the same time I will
have received the views of other organiza-
tions and departments of government to
whom I have made similar requests. In
order, therefore, that I may give fair and
equal consideration to the various replies
delivered to me by June 28, I must reaffirm
this date in keeping with my original an-
nouncement of April 16 on the occasion
of the meeting at the Lakehead University
when the final report was distributed to
representatives of Lakehead and district
municipalities.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): To the Minister
of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Would the Minister
inform the House if there was any negligence
involved in the death of three Italian-bom
labourers on a North York apartment project,
which was described as an unfortunate freak
accident by a Department of Labour spokes-
man, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star
May 24? Is it true that the safety inspector on
this project had some 220 other projects to
Investigate in regard to safety practices, and
does the Minister intend to increase safety
inspection on all construction sites in the
future?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question from the hon. member for
Oshawa, the accident is still under investiga-
tion and there will be an inquest. These
steps will help to establish what actually
caused the tragedy and where the respon-
sibility lies.
The second part: Under The Construction
Safety Act the responsibility for inspections
belongs to the municipalities. I have, there-
fore, had my officials contact the officials of
the borough of North York to check the
accuracy of this claim. I have not yet been
able to obtain confirmation.
With reference to the third part of the
question, as I stated in answering the second
part, the responsibility for construction safety
inspections rests with the municipalities. How-
ever, the municipalities across the province,
with a total of approximately 250 inspectors,
are increasing their volume of inspections.
In the calendar year 1965, for example,
separate inspections totalled 106,000. The
figure rose to 118,000 in 1966, and to 132,000
in 1967.
Mr. Pilkey: A supplementary question,
please. If a municipality foregoes this safety
inspector and they do not put anyone on the
job, does the Minister or The Department of
Labour step in to that kind of a situation?
Hon. Mr. Bales: We have a close liaison,
Mr. Speaker, with the municipalities and we
work closely with them on this and many
matters.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have two questions for the Attorney General.
1. Does the Minister intend to cancel the
licence of the Argus Protection and Investigat-
ing Service Limited, of Windsor, because of
the part they played in the abduction of
Valerie and John Martin in Oakville on
Wednesday, May 15, 1968, as submitted to
the Attorney General by the Oakville police?
2. Does the Minister intend to cancel the
investigator's licence issued to Duncan
Stewart, of Windsor, Ontario, for the part he
played in the abduction of Valerie and John
Martin in Oakville on Wednesday, May 15,
1968, as submitted to the Attorney General
by the Oakville police?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, this matter is being investigated at
this time and I am not in a position to say
at the moment what action the facts may
warrant.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister will let us know
in due course?
5390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I prefer to have a ques-
tion submitted in proper form in due course.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): There is an out-
standing question which has been asked of
me by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Makarchuk).
It was in two parts. The first part related
to the failure of a business known as Shoppers'
(iuide Food Service which, after it went out
of business, had left some of its customers in
the position of owing money to finance com-
panies arising from loans which they had
secured to make cash purchases from that
business.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
the food plan operator in question demanded
cash in advance for his services. It was then
a matter for the individuals concerned to
determine whether or not it was a wise choice
to raise money through private sources to
participate in such a plan. Other alternatives
are available, such as plans where a deposit
is made and food is paid for on delivery.
As far as my department is concerned in
this matter, I am informed that officials of
the consumer protection bureau have a work-
ing knowledge of the activities of some 20
food plan operators and have investigated
numerous complaints. Our bureau personnel
have, through mediation, been able to obtain
a large measure of satisfaction for the con-
sumer, and at the same time to correct certain
undesirable practices. It is my hope that,
leased on this experience, we will be able to
determine whether an investigation into this
general area is warranted.
The second part of the question was to do
with legislation covering so-called non-interest
charging contracts. With respect to that
matter, Mr. Speaker, 1 might say that it is
under consideration.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day; the hon. member for
Humber asked a question of me on Friday,
which I took as notice. The question was:
How many hospitals in Ontario have self-care
units, and what is the Minister's department
doing to encourage or compel the establish-
ment of such units in all other public hos-
pitals?
Mr. Speaker, short of polling every hospital
ill the province-and there are more than 200
of them— we cannot tell how many such units
now exist. We can say this: They have never
been very popular. The first, which was
highly advertised and publicized at the time
of its establishment, has now asked to dis-
continue tlie imit and revert to normal care.
It is our belief that there is no need to
encourage, and certainly no intention to
compel hospitals to indulge in this practice. It
is our belief that when a patient is able to
care for himself, he no longer needs the service
provided in costly hospital facilities and
should be encouraged to go home or to
some other kind of facility.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): W^ould you allow a
supplementary question? I do agree with
what the Minister said about encouraging
patients to go home. But, since they are not
going home, is the Minister's department
planning to take any action to compel hos-
pitals to— for want of a better word— evict
those who do not need medical attention,
to make room for operative patients?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We have insisted upon
this constantly and consistently, Mr. Speaker,
and we shall contine to do so. I might say
that this is not a popular undertaking.
May I now present to you, sir, and the
House, the 43rd annual report of The On-
tario Department of Health for the year
1967.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. Pilkey: I would like to ask you a
question, sir, and perhaps you could give
some guidance. There is a situation in the
province of Ontario that I think is appalling
and critical. I have not discussed this with
any one, not even the people in my party.
The guidance that I wish to get is this—
and I would like to tell you that specifically
I am talking about the question of housing.
What I would like to know is how a mem-
ber in this House can attempt to project some
ideas and some of the things that are neces-
sary to relieve this appalling and critical
situation? As a new member in this House,
how do you make these proposals?
It appears to me— and since I have been
elected, sir, I would like to point out that
this has become more pronounced, this ques-
tion of housing and particularly for accommo-
dation on the basis of rental accommodation,
even in my own municipality. I have a few
ideas, that I would like to project. I think
that it should be taken out of the political
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member was ask-
ing for the Speaker's opinion and now he is
giving his.
Perhaps I might reply to tliat; off hand, I
would say that there were several ways. One
MAY 27, 1968
3391
would be for the member to lay his views
before the Minister in charge of these matters
for the government. The second would be,
during the estimates of that particular depart-
ment, to place his views before the Minister.
The third would be to place his views on the
record in the Budget debate, which is still
available to members; I am sure that they
would be read, if not heard, by the officials
concerned.
It would seem to me that this would give
a very wide latitude to the member.
Mr. Pilkey: Someone said, "call a press
conference." I do not think that this is the
way that you attack this one. But, the point
that I would try to make is that where the
situation is critical and is an emergency-
Mr. Speaker: Well, then I would sug-
gest that the member refer to the rules of the
House, which provide for a debate on matters
of immediate public importance. If the mem-
ber and his party feel that this is so, then
the matter can be submitted to Mr. Speaker,
and if deemed proper in that regard, there
will be a space on tlie orders of the day for
that debate.
Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion.
Bill 7, An Act to amend The Private In-
vestigators and Security Guards Act, 1965.
Bill 41, An Act to amend The Lord's Day
(Ontario) Act, 1960-1961.
Bill 63, An Act to amend The Children's
Institutions Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 64, An Act to provide for provincial
courts and judges.
Bill 65, An Act to amend The Centennial
Centre for Science and Technology Act, 1965,
Bill 66, An Act to amend The Public Com-
mercial Vehicles Act.
Bill 69, An Act to provide for the adminis-
tration of justice.
Bill 70, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Act to amend Tlie County
I
Bill 71, An
Courts Act.
Bill 72, An
Judges Act.
Bill 73, An
Attorneys Act.
Act to amend The County
Act to amend The Crown
Clerk of the Il/>use: House in committee
)f supply; Mr. A. E. Reuter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2007;
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2007, (hiy nurseries
branch.
The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on a point of order.
When we were last here in committee dis-
cussing the estimates of this particular depart-
ment, there was some discussion— I refer you
to page 1968-2 of the preliminary Hansard,
in which the hon. Minister of this department,
the Minister of Social and Family Services
stated that I had lied. I quote him in line
13: "I say that the hon. member lied."
If you will look in the next paragraph,
I demanded a retraction. I did not get my
retraction and I once again request a retrac-
tion. If the Minister still does not retract,
I request that you, sir, report this Minister
to the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has heard the
comment from the member for High Park-
lion. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): I have not seen a photo-
copy of the— I do not recall seeing that
retraction— the request for a retraction, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let us read this into the
record again:
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, in pursuance
of our policy I looked into this matter to see the
truth of the allegations made by the hon. member
and he read from the letters and the letter he
wrote to Mr. Markle— one of the questions was,
was the mother informed that her child was going
to Peru? [That is the question in the letter from
the hon. member to Mr. Markle] and then he got
a reply and the reply contained a paragraph which
stated: [I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to
these words] "this case illustrates one of the reasons
why natural mothers who give up their babies
for adoption are never informed as to placement.
Prior to making a statement, in this House,
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wrote a let-
ter and got a reply. I read the reply, which
tells me categorically— and it is as clear as
daylight— that Mr. Markle, in replying to the
hon. member, indicated tliat the mother was
not informed.
3392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. member then got up in the House
and said that Mr. Markle hed. Now, here,
in the correspondence, it is very clear that
Mr. Markle did not lie— at least that is the
way I interpret it. The hon. member said
that Mr. Markle lied. I interpret Mr. Markle
as having told the truth and if I interpret
Mr. Markle as having told the truth and the
hon. member says that Mr. Markle lied, my
interpretation of the hon. member's statement
is that the hon. member hed.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Surely not lied?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What else? He told
an untruth, a falsehood.
Mr. Shuhnan: Mr. Chairman, once again I
say to you, sir, under the rules of this House
and inasmuch as the facts have been gone
over, I will state them once again so there
will be no question in the mind of anyone.
It is very true that Mr. Markle said one
thing in one letter, but he said quite another
thing publicly which was reported in the
press.
However, this is completely irrelevant. The
hon. Minister has stated in this House, and
he has repeated it again today, that I have
lied. I again ask that he retract; if he re-
fuses to retract I ask you to report him to
the Speaker so that he may be called before
the bar of this House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak
to the point of order. I certainly remember
the situation that the two hon. members are
discussing. It came at the end of a long day
of questioning and debate, and I believe it
is quite understandable that under circum-
stances such as that, the Minister or anyone
else might very well use a word that he
might not use under normal circumstances.
My understanding of the rules of this House
would indicate that it is not permissible to
use a word like that under those circum-
stances. Surely the hon. Minister has an
occasion now on which he can set the records
straight— withdraw that word.
Hon. Mr. Yarcmko: Mr. Chairman, I have
never understood it to be one of the rules of
the House that if a member utters a false-
hood, you cannot point that falsehood out to
the House. If it is the rule that it cannot
be pointed out, and you have so ruled that
it cannot be pointed out, then I will with-
draw it but if it is—
Mr. Shulman: That is not acceptable, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps the member
could assist me by telling me wherein I am
wrong in the statement that he said aloud—
Mr. Shulman: I would be only too glad,
Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to pro-
duce a witness. The circumstances were as
follows:
It became a matter of public knowledge
that a certain child had been sent to Peru.
This was reported in the press. It was made
a matter of public knowledge because a
Canadian citizen who is not a member of
this House became privy to all the facts—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do
not think it is necessary to give the whole
story. Let us get back-
Mr. Shulman: I would like to give the
whole story. You have asked me a question.
May I give the answer?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us get back to the
root of the matter. Not the whole story.
Mr. Shulman: I am coming to the root of
the matter, Mr. Chairman, if I can be so
allowed.
The circumstances were that this became
public knowledge because of this individual.
At that time, Mr. Ward Markle was asked
three questions, and I will tell you the per-
son who asked him the questions— Miss Sally
Barnes. He was asked three questions; the
answers were then printed in the Toronto
Daily Star, and the questions were as follows:
Was the mother informed that the child
was sent to Peru? He is reported to have
answered "yes." Secondly, were the parents
related to the adoptive parent? The answer
was "yes," also untrue, and the third ques-
tion was the— sorry, I have forgotten the
third question but in any case, these were
the three questions that were so reported in
the press.
These three questions were subsequently
proved to be untrue. The parents in Peru
were phoned; they said they were not related
in any way. We checked with the family
here in Toronto; they said they did not
know the child had gone to Peru nor did
they know who these people were, nor were
they related to them. And I will repeat it
again: Under these circumstances this man,
Mr. Markle, lied. Now if this has anything
to do with the rules of the House, and this
particular point, I am glad that you have
set the matter straight.
MAY 27, 1968
3393
But now, I come down to the point of
issue again, and it is not whether or not
Mr. Markle Hed, it is the fact that in this
House, the hon. Minister has accused me of
lying. I have told the truth and I want a
retraction.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, let me
put it this way, as I put it the other night.
Like the judge of the Supreme Court of
Ontario, when it comes to a question of be-
lieving either Mr. Markle or the hon. mem-
ber, I believe Mr. Markle.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Retract.
Mr. Shulman: Retract.
Mr. Chairman: I would say that the pro-
cedures of this House do not permit one
member to call another a liar, or accusing
him of having lied. And I would respectfully
suggest to the Minister, that he do so retract
the accusation to the member for High Park
that he is a har.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, having
put myself on the record the way I—
Mr. Shulman: You must retract!
Mr. J. Renwick: Not acceptable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Just a minute now. Do
not get all excited.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: By the rules of this
House-
Mr. J. Renwick: You retract.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: By the rules of this
House which I abide by strictly, and you
having pointed this out to me, Mr. Chairman,
by the rules of this House I am not permittee
nor is any hon. member permitted to call
another member a liar. That is the rule of the
House. There is no rule of the House which
says that when there are two opposite posi-
tions being given as to whom you should
"believe when it comes to believing either Mr.
Markle or the hon. member, I believe Mr.
Markle.
Mr. J. Renwick: Retract.
Mr. Shulman: Retract.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But because the rules
of the House-
Mr. Shuhnan: This is intolerable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —because the rules of
the House do not permit me to do other than
to point that out and do not permit me to call
the hon. member a liar, I retract that state-
ment.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, that is not
acceptable. He must retract unconditionally.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The Minister's last
words were "I retract the statement".
Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, sir, that was a
part of a sentence which indicated he was
not retracting. I demand a retraction— an
unconditional retraction.
Mr. Chairman: There were no conditions
attached. The Minister said "I withdraw the
statement".
An hon. member: Let us go on with the
debate.
Mr. Shulman: It is not a retraction. You are
making a very bad precedent.
Mr. Chairman: In the opinion of the chair
that the Minister has withdrawn the accusa-
tion to the member for High Park.
Vote 2007. Day nurseries branch.
The member for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister if he
has considered requesting industry to include
day nurseries in some of their operations to
enable mothers to become once more gain-
fully employed rather than have to spend
their time at home taking care of their young
o£Fspring?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there is
no objection to such a day nursery being set
up in conjunction with an industry. Unfor-
tunately, there has been very httle interest
shown on the part of industry, management
or union, in setting up such day nurseries.
The only significant example is the one that
was set up in the Riverdale hospital. It has
a day nursery which, although it is not asso-
ciated with an industry, is associated with
employment. I believe that has been highly
successful. We would encourage the other
t)^e. And I hope the interdepartmental
committee will investigate how we can stimu-
late the other type.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the Mini-
ster's department specifically does not ap-
proach industry and does not suggest to them
that they include day nurseries as part of
their operation? I notice that in the city of
394
ONTARIO LEGISLATUUE
Minneapolis this seems to be tlie case rather
than the exception, that industry does provide
day nursery facihties in many of the plants
to enable mothers to take advantaj^e of the
opportimity of working.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Wherever there have
been inquiries we have followed them up but
nothing has come of it. It may be that we
will re-stimulate this since we have made pro-
vision for broader subsidization, that we will
let all industry know, in particular througli
the interdepartmental committee, what is
available.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I nin\
ask one other question on the day nurseries.
Has the Minister been in touch with the Mini-
ster of Trade and Development ( Mr. Randoll ^
so that in any of the housing projects tliat tlie^
may presentiy supervise or may in the future
construct, they include day nurseries in, or as
one of, the ancillary facilities in the housing'
project? I look back at my own communit^-
and I find that there happen to be 1,008
children under the age of six, who come from
one-parent homes, headed by a mother. Of
the 1,003 children, 122 have only a father
rather than a mother. Were day nurseries
provided in some of the housing areas, these
people could once more be gainfully em-
ployed, rather than obtaining assistance from
the Minister's department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
:ire presently two large Ontario housing
developments, Lawrence Heights and Regent
Park, which are providing half-day nursery
programmes, with the parents taking part.
Lawrence Heights has a day nursery for the
children where the mothers are employed. All
of these nurseries, wher(* need(ul, can be sub-
sidized.
Mr. B. Newman: What the Minister says
is absolutely correct and it is good, but this
should not be restricted only to this one com-
numity. There are other communities in the
province of Ontario which could benefit sub-
stantially by the day nurseries in their midst.
It would be a tremendous asset to the depart-
ment, because the Minister would not have
to provide the fimds he has to provide now
for the care of these children.
So, if the Minister sort of made it a rule,
rather than an exception, to go into com-
munities and talk them into, or see that
hou.sing provides, day nurseries in their hous-
ing projects-will the Minister do this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, tl\e interdepart-
mental committee will look into that.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, my earliest recollection of the
day ntusery field in this city goes back to
the war years. I want very much today to
try to pr(>sent to this assembly that thousands
of women work in our province, to present
that they work for econoinic need, and that
the fa(iliti(>s are unrelatt d to tlie need and
that they arc growing at a snail's pace.
I would like, fir.st of all, to point out that
(luring the war years, the federal government
and the provincial gDvernment joined to-
gether to pro\idc 20 day nurseries approxi-
mately in this city, so that mothers could be
released lo go into the labour forces in muni-
tions and arms and airplane factories. They
sent talented help to Birmingham, in the
midlands of England, to study the system
that led to establi.shed day nurseries post-
haste in the areas of Toronto and some other
cities.
It has ne\ er ceased to amaze me that, when
the war was over, the federal government
abandoned their part of the responsibility.
The women and the children who were in
the day nurseries, and the women who
worked in the creches of this city, had no
idea how the care was going to be carried
on. Then the province and the city and
municipalities joined together to carry on
those day care services.
By comparison, since then we have indeed
moved at a snail's pace without any relation-
ship to the need. The time has changetl
when women worked, built a hope chest, and
then got married. Working women in Ontario
are a fact, not a fad; 20 years ago one in
20 women worked. Even in 1965 one in five
worked and, in 1967, in Ontario one in three
women worked. This is a total of 905,000
working women in Ontario.
And I would like to point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that if they ever stopped it would be
tantamount to a strike, to a national strike.
Now, of these women, 881,000 are in the
labour force, 60 per cent are married, 10
per cent were at one time mturied, and 30
per cent are single. What one wonders is
what happens to the children of the women
who are married? Why are women in the
labour force? This was not proved in any of
the previous debates during the last estimates
or the estimates of 1965 in the assembly, be-
cause the figure of the numbers of women
wlio worked were not available.
MAY 27. 1968
3395
Women who work have an average income
of $2,000, in Canada; 79 per cent of these,
according to 1961 DBS statistics, earn less
than $3,500, and their husbands earned less
than $4,000 per year. The average family,
where both are working, has an income of
$7,900 approximately. Where there is one
wag'' earner, the man, the average income is
closer to $6,500.
So women are really working to bring np
the family income of two people in the work
force to be within a very small amount of
money from the average income.
In Ontario, 53 per cent of the children
were in families where the mother earned
less than $2,000 a year and the father's aver-
age wage was $3,800 a year. So a child in
Ontario has a 50/50 chance of being bom
into a family where the motlier works. And
the question is, what is happening to the
children?
I have a number of basic questions that
I would like to ask the Minister because, in
my view, we urgently need a crash pro-
gramme in day nursery expansion. We need
this department to embrace day care facilities,
right down to young children who are being
left at the present time in makeshift arrange-
ments, for mothers who are working for
economic need. But we need also, Mr. Cliair-
man, for the Minister to give his views on
the possibilities of his department supporting
some of the fine pilot projects that have gone
on in this city for after-four care and lunch
time care of children of mothers who work.
Mr. Chairman, there are 90,000 one-parent
families in Ontario, also in need of this serv-
ice.
I would like to ask first of all, Mr. Chair-
man, what is the cost per child to the day
nurseries branch and the cost to the mother
for the day care, per day?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if it would facilitate matters if the
hon. member has a series of questions if she
would place all her questions and I might
deal with them all at one time.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
Has the successful project in the Riverdale
hospital extended to any other hospital or
any other institution in Ontario? I would
like to ask, Mr. Chairman, when that project
was started, because this was a pilot project
which was much needed. I think much should
have been learned from the Riverdale nursery
school project as to how many women it
brought back as nurses into the hospital.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, of the
Minister, how many children have been re-
fused because of not being able to meet the
requirements under the new rates— refused
day care service in the Metropolitan area?
I would like to ask, also, how many ha\'e
been refused because there was no room for
them, and are there any specific experiments
going on in this department in the field of
day nurseries?
I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would
like to keep track of four or five questions at
a time, if that is all right with the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The cost per child
varies from municipality to municipality and
it may vary from $4 to $5.50 per day. Now,
the cost to the mother— the cost of the family
—is, of course, based upon our needs test, an
explanation of which I gave in detail at the
amendment of the regulations not so very
long ago.
The Riverdale hospital programme has not
been extended to my knowledge to any other
institution or any other commercial venture,
as I pointed out to the hon. member for
Windsor a few moments ago. As to the
number of children who have been refused,
of course, it is impossible to have such a figure
because nobody comes forward; they do not
come forward so there is no answer possible
to that.
Now, as to how many have been refused
because of lack of space: From the figures I
have it is believed that any such number
would be very small in the Metropolitan
Toronto area in proportion to the number en-
rolled.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr, Chairman, may I ask
the Minister, are you saying then that we
have no record of how many people have
been refused day-care service in the Metro-
politan area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, 1 do not have those
statistics.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was not in the House,
Mr. Chairman, when the Minister read this
statement on the basis of the new ratio of cost
per child. I wonder if I might ask him to
extend me the courtesy of giving me that
information.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a very full
statement in Hansard. At that time I made
the statement and I supplied the members of
the House with a pro forma of the needs
test. The needs test is a very simple formula;
we calculate all the income which comes into
3396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a family and then we have figures which indi-
cate the budget which is necessary for the
very basic needs of a family of that size, and
in those basic needs we now include a pro-
vision for debt payments and incentive with
respect to earnings. We believe that the needs
test is one of the most generous— in fact it is
to my knowledge the most generous— needs
test compiled in respect of any programme,
certainly in respect of a day-nurseries pro-
gramme. Based on that are worked out the
figures of what tlie parents should pay as
their proportion. This is not a universal
service. In accordance with the Canada assist-
ance plan, this is tailored to the needs test.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
just ask if the Minister would give me a
rough range of what that cost might be? I
have the form, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to get some idea of what women are being
asked to pay now in order to leave children
in the care of subsidized day nurseries, and I
think it is a very important question. My
understanding from tlie field is that many
children have been taken out of the day
nurseries and I am wondering if the Minister
can tell me how many have been taken out
since the institution of the new rates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know, Mr.
Chairman. That amount would vary of
course. If a mother were earning $10,000 a
year she would probably have to pay the full
amount of $5.50. If she were earning just
enough to get along she would not have to
pay anything at all so the amount would vary
up to the $5.50 with a very large substantial
income, and nothing in cases where the in-
come is not sufficient to pay for any part of
the service.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask: Surely we keep some sort of record of
those who are refused this service? Do we
not have any idea how many people are ask-
ing for this service and whom we are not able
to accommodate because of the lack of
facilities? I am thinking, Mr. Chairman, of a
private day nursery which is not far from
where I live, which I have used and worked
in. The waiting list in that day nursery for
one year is no less than 1,500 applications—
and that is just one school. I would like to
get some idea of the truth about how many
women are seeking assistance from the day
nurseries established in our Metropolitan area
and how many are being refused.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the only
figures I have before me show that presently
the municipality-operated day nurseries have
a capacity of 450 with an enrolment of 407
and a waiting Hst of 31. Private day mii-
series receiving public funds have a waiting
list of eight and day-care programmes for
school-age children have a waiting list of
eight.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): I wonder who
compiled tliose figures.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know where
the hon. member gets her figures, but I will
say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian
welfare council is engaged upon a national
study of day-care programmes. They will be
analyzing the situation in the province of
Ontario; they will have the facts and the
figures. Now, as to the figures the hon. member
is concerned with: We passed the regulations
under The Day Nurseries Act, representa-
tions were made to this department, and
those regulations have been amended. I have
no doubt that the agencies involved will be
keeping figures and the inter-departmental
committee which will be studying this matter
will no doubt be meeting with representatives
of the agencies. At that time those figures
will, no doubt, be forthcoming.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, can the
Minister give us some indication when that
study will be available?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Ontario welfare
council has, I believe, already embarked upon
that on a national basis and will be coming
into Ontario quite quickly, 1 imagine.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would
the Minister tell me how many cliildren there
were room for in the subsidized day nurseries
in the province in 1967 and take us back,
if he will, to the number in 1966 and 1965?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the exact
figures, but I do have figures that the nur-
series in operation in Ontario now total 455
and there is preliminary application for 75.
These are the nurseries that are licensed
under our department. Approximately one
quarter of these give care to children of
working motliers. The total programme en-
compasses approximately 21,000 children and
the rate of increase has been about 10 per
cent. As to the exact numbers that are being
subsidized, there were, in 1965, 16,000, and
in 1967, 20,000.
Mrs. M. Renwick: We have made room for
4,000 more children under the day nurseries
in a year? Any of the reports that I have
MAY 2T, 1968
3397
read— the study of day care in tiie greater
Windsor area, the study of day care in eastern
Toronto— show that this is taking care of
about 4 per cent of the children of mothers
who work, and that many of these nurseries
are turning away three out of four applica-
tions. I submit that the figures that we have
heard today and the talk about the
waiting list and about crying need simply
show that people cannot stay forever on a
waiting list.
What I need now, Mr. Chairman, is to
really understand the situation— because I
have worked a little bit in it and I am quite
interested in the fact that there is a desperate
need, and to me it is not operating well at
the present time. In past estimates, the hon.
Mr. Gecile gave the number of nurseries, and
I particularly would like to know the sub-
sidized nurseries in each of the counties in
our province. When he got to the Toronto
area, he broke them down so that we might
understand it more clearly, into the county of
York, taking in East York, Forest Hill, New-
market, King and the various areas. I ask
specifically if the Minister is not able to do
this, both in the number of nurseries and
the number of subsidized nurseries.
If 50 per cent of our women earn less than
$2,000 a year, they cannot afiFord private day
nurseries. Aho, how many children is there
room for? We have got to know how many
children in the Metropolitan area there is
room for, for the present needs, under the
subsidized system and then under the con-
glomeration of taking in all the other kinds
of nursery schools in Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if it would facilitiate matters if I were
to table with you the distribution of nur-
series throughout Ontario by counties and
districts. It will show that there is a total of
482, compared with 441 on December 31,:
1966, and there were, as I say, 20,000 children
enrolled in these nurseries. The breakdown
of figuresr is not yet complete for 1967.
I may say this, Mr. Chairman, that I wel-
come the study of the Ontario welfare coun-
cil. We will be getting the figures as a more
or less objective organization will find them.
Then we will be in a position to say what
the situation is, in Ontario and also= to make
a comparison with other jurisdictions in
Canada and presently throughout the United
States^ This province has made great strides
and is at present, I trust, one of the foremost
on the continent in the provision of day care.
Mr. Trotter: One moment, on a point of
order. If you are going to table that report,
would it be possible to have two or three
copies made, because if it is tabled we have
to go and copy it down. I would like to get
a copy of it and it could easily be run off on
a machine. That would be far better than just
tabling.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I will
arrange to have that done.
Mr. Trotter: I would appreciate that, thank
you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I hope, sir, that you
can understand my view that I would hke
the statement that the Minister is referring
to, to be read into the record. I feel that
if the hon. Mr. Cecile could give us a lucid
explanation of the situation, then we have
every right to know what it is. We are
talking about thousands of children— 500,000
or 700,000 families of children. We do not
really know how they are being cared for
in oiu: province. If they are preschoolers,
they should be in proper cared-for nurseries.
Because the Minister, Mr. Chairman, men-
tioned my figures as if they were something
that I dreamed up, I would hke to read you
a small memo.
"To Margaret Renwick from Miss Belle of
women's bureau. Department of Labour."
That is in this building.
"In 1965, 50 per cent of the male heads
of families earned less than $4,800. To
maintain a decent standard of living, we esti-
njiated that it would require about $6,000.
Therefore a second income is necessary."
Now, from Miss Betcherman upstairs, or in
the related buildings, I learned that the aver-
age income for a woman in our province
is $2,000. If the man is earning less than
$4,000 that is coming up to the $6,000
bracket. We are not talking about $10,000-
a-year incomes, as the Minister previously
said.
I think that we have got to stop dragging
red herrings over various issues like this or
they are going to cause a national crisis,
because, Mr. Chairman, here we are once
again at the stage where the people who
suffer are the children. I think that this is
wrong. There are children in our city with-
out proper after-four supervision. They wear
latch keys around their necks. I think that
what we are doing to them by failing to
modernize our Department of Social and
Family Services is criminal. ... • :.. .
3398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Minister said that we are very modern.
We are going ahead great shakes. I would
just hke to point out one small paragraph
in relation to the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville's question, and my own questions,
and that of any member who lives or works
in a riding where there is an Ontario hous-
ing corporation development.
They want to know what we are going to
do about the children in those developments,
because from the eleventh floor, Mr. Chair-
man, it is very hard to supervise teen-age
children and small children 11 or 12 floors
down. The Minister maintained that we are
very modem? Well, I would just like to read
and I quote from Sweden— The Middle Way,
by Marquis Childs, a primer on socialism,
that is, democratic socialism!
Most remarkable of all are the co-opera-
tive nurseries in each apartment.
This is under low-cost housing, Mr. Chair-
man.
On tlie top floor, they are done in white
and soft colours — often with charming
decorative detail. Here, working mothers
may leave their children in charge of
trained nursery school attendants, from
6:30 in the morning to 6:30 in the evening
for a small sum, each day. Even small
babies may be left with the nurseries.
This takes us into the day care, Mr. Chair-
man.
Assured of the most scrupulous care,
children are put at the first signs of illness
into a small infirmary in connection with
each nursery. Ample play equipment and
open-air play spaces on the roof, provide
activity for the older youngsters. Adult
groups in many apartment houses convert
a part of the nursery into a gymnasium in
the evening and, in some houses, there are
special rooms for meetings and discussions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that book was written
in 1938. Here we are 30 years later, saying
that if we look after 4,000 children in Metro
Toronto, or 5,000 in day care, that we are in
fact modern. In fact, we are not. We arc
growing at a snail's pace, Mr. Chairman.
There are many women who have spent their
lives in the field of day care and nursery
interests, that have valuable contributions to
make to the Minister as to how quickly this
could be done. I think that the after-four
centres are something which have to be co-
related. Because of the educational factor
involved in pre-schoolers, perhaps the pre-
school should be under education, because
they have now come down to junior kinder-
gartens with 4-year-old children in the educa^
tion department. They are pre-schoolers in
the old style of education.
The after-four centres for the latch-key
children could come into this department and
be handled, because they have taken their
schooling for the day and they now will be
children in custody. The small children who
are in day nurseries are not in custody, Mr.
Chairman. They are learning every day that
they are in the school. I would like to ask
the Minister if he has the same report,
broken down as to what nurseries we have in
each county, which of those are subsidized,
and the number of children able to be
accommodated. To give me a total figure
does not tell me anything about what we
are doing in day-nurseries in Ontario.
It does not tell me whether we have any
day nurseries around some of the indus-
trialized centres of Ontario. It simply gives
a lump sum which I present, Mr. Chairman,
is not a realistic view.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all, Mr. Chair-
man, let me assure you and all hon. members
of this House, that any working mother who
cannot afi^ord all or any part of day care for
her child should turn to the municipal wel-
fare officer. That is where the original service
will be supplied and that is where we can
get the original statistic.
Mr. Trotter: So many do nothing, tliat is
not the answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
figures that the hon. member has asked for
are as follows: Algoma, one all day, two
half-day. Brant, three all day, seven half-day.
Carleton, one public all day, six private all
day. No, I will start over again, Mr. Chair-
man. I will give four figures. The first two
figures are public all day, half day, private
all day, half day. Algoma, blank, blank, one,
two; Brant, blank, one, three, seven; Carleton,
one, blank, six, 27; Cochrane, blank, one,
blank, one; DuflFerin, blank, blank, blank, one;
Durham, blank, blank, blank, three.
Mr. Nixon: Careful now, watch your lan-
guage there.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Elgin— no, I think this
will take too long. Elgin: private, one all
day; private one half day. Essex: private
two; private, half day, 12. Frontenac: private
all day, one; private, half day, 13. Grey:
private, half day—
MAY 27, 1968
3399
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may
say, this is confusing. The question, Mr.
Chairman, let us take the one question then.
What facihties are there in each county, just
the facihties for day nurseries? Then isolate
the ones that are subsidized. I am sure there
probably is not a subsidized nursery in
Algoma and so on. To give us a realistic
view, Mr. Chairman, if I may say, of how
many nurseries there are and how many of
those are subsidized by the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if I
cannot table this, perhaps I could make the
question the hon. member asks as an order
for return and then it will be given. Now,
it will not be broken down into the figures
of subsidized and not subsidized, because
presently, under the new regulations, if it
is municipally operated they are subsidized.
The municipalities can enter into agreements
under the new regulations with the private
nurseries for a purchase service. It will be
some time before we will have those new
figures of the municipalities that have entered
into agreements to provide these subsidized
day care services.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
I was interested in what the hon. Minister
said that if the working mother is not able
to aflFord day care, then she should apply to
the department of welfare; that is true
enough. But if the department of welfare
says to her, "But where are you going to put
your child?" and there are no day care centres
within reach of that working mother, then
the problem is compounded. This is not an
answer.
I think this is the point that my hon.
colleague has been making— we just do not
have enough day care centres. She read a
quotation from Sweden, The Middle Way. I
have seen some of those nurseries there.
Then one of the new day nurseries I saw in
Copenhagen a couple of years ago impressed
me profoundly. In an apartment complex on
the ground floor, a beautifully designed and
well equipped area with play space outside,
children of working mothers, from three years
to kindergarten— were looked after with one
attendant for every ten children, one quali-
fied person. The women brought their chil-
dren there to be looked after.
On the next floor, just above this, was
where the children from three we^ks to three
years were looked after, one attendant for
every four. And on the next floor above that
were the workshops, the hobby areas, where
the children came l^efore, if necessary, and
after school, until the working mothers came
to pick up and take them to their own
apartment.
Now, this was integrated, well run, well
designed, and the working mothers paid
something toward the cost if they were above
a certain level of income. Below that level
they paid nothing; it was picked up by the
various levels of government.
I think this is the kind of thing that the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre is get-
ting at, that we just do not have this kind
of systematic planning for our day care
centres in the province of Ontario. To say
that we have not yet planned them or that
we cannot afford it, is just begging the ques-
tion.
When countries not as wealthy as we arc
can see to it that this kind of planning is
done to look after the children of working
mothers, then I think we ought to face up
to our responsibilities. Certainly I think the
hon. Minister or certain members of his staff
have seen the way these things work and
we ought to be facing up to our responsibility
here and making definite plans so that this
need, this fundamental need for the women
who work in our society— today— more and
more of them are being forced to work
through economic necessity, and their chil-
dren should be looked after adequately. I
think this is the thing that the Minister ought
to face and ought to really go into.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
mentioned that if a parent wanted day care
for a child, all they had to do was phone
the local area in which they hve, be it the
township or the borough. Now, this simply
is not good enough.
I give you a practical example. I have a
handful of cases here before me and I do
not intend to start and read a lot of indi-
vidual cases, but certainly you can learn
a lot from them. A woman with two small
children lives in Don Mills and she goes to
work. She phoned to the municipality for
help, but in the area in which she lives,
certainly nine months ago, there just was not
that help. So what do they do? They move
down to the city of Toronto proper, down
in the Beaches area, because there is some
kind of programme in the city of Toronto.
That is, if you can find the facility available,
they have a programme, but they certainly
do not have enough day care centres.
This particular case of the woman from
Don Mills, although she lived in the Beaches
area, her child went to the day care centre
3400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at Bathurst and Adelaide Streets, so she
gets up at seven in the morning, takes the
children to the day care centre and then she
goes to work. You can see what kind of
family life that particular family would have
with those hours, simply because there were
not the facilities available.
There are so many cases, and by the figures
as quoted by the Minister he must know that
they do not nearly meet the demand that is
required. What are these people to do?
These parents, or in most cases they are
women alone, bring up their families, and on
the odd occasion it is the father. Well, what
are they to do? Quit work and go on welfare
and increase the taxes that have to be paid
out on a matter like this?
The thing to do is simply provide the
facilities and keep people at work. In some
instances the children at these day care
centres get far more opportunity to learn
than they would at home, because, as is well
known to many of us, where the mother of
a household does not go to work, we still
like to send the younger children to kinder-
garten before they go to school. Those of
us who can afford it make a point of doing
this, because it is good for the child.
I know the predecessor of the present
Minister was really opposed to day care
centres. He told one distinguished group
from the city of Toronto that women should
not be working. And I would never fault the
present Minister having such outmoded Vic-
torian ideas, because whether a woman wants
to work today or not, a good many thousands
of them have to work. It is not a question
of choice. We simply have to face up to the
fact that our economy has changed in a very
tremendous way and unfortunately, our poli-
cies on day care centres are extremely Vic-
torian.
Last summer— I think it was some time
in August or September, I just forget the
date-the new regulations having to do with
these day care centres were finally issued by
this department. They were an awfully long
time in coming and, in part, the long delay
in bringing out those regulations is partly
responsible for the delay of what work has
been in Metropolitan Toronto. It may well
be that the Metropolitan Toronto authorities
used, as an excuse, the slow issuing of the
regulations.
But I made a point, for a while, of phoning
every week to see when the regulations were
going to be issued. I think I started in June
and maybe I made a nuisance of myself and
finally, they said, "well, we will call you,"
and eventually I got a call. I was particularly
interested in two day care centres that still
are not opened in my own area and I know
how desperately they are needed.
It is true that some of the new day care
centres that we hope will eventually come into
use are installed in churches. I would like to
say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Mini-
ster and to his department, to keep this in
mind; some people both in Metropolitan
Toronto social services agencies and in your
own department think "well, a lot of these
churches are after these day care centres be-
cause the churches are old and rundown and
they need the money."
There are not too many churches that are
wealthy, but in my own experience and in my
own opinion, wherever I have seen churches
try to establish day-care centres and seek
grants from government, it is not so much that
they are run down but that they are in areas
that desperately need day-care centres. The
clergymen who are involved see it every day
and have seen it day in, day out for a number
of years. Tragic family situations, simply be-
cause there is a tremendous dearth of day-
care centres. And I think that the government
should be grateful that such individuals as are
involved around some of the churches, are
taking the interest that they are taking, be-
cause there are many who are strictly volun-
teers—or if they are paid in their work they
are putting far more hours than the usual
nine-to-five, five-day week that many put irt.
This issue is going to be brought up time
and time again over the next number of
years. I am frankly disappointed with the
Minister in that he seems to lack an interest
in this problem and seems to lack a grasp of
the facts. I do not expect him to have an
analysis of the situation— a complete analysis
—because I know that for years this govern-
ment has almost completely neglected this
problem. But I want to give the Minister
one bit of advice. You are never going to
solve the day-care centre problem if you leave
it to the local municipalities. A lot of them
simply do not have the money even to make
the partial grant that they must make. And a
great many of them simply do not have a
sufiicient number of trained personnel.
This is one tremendous advantage that the
Minister of Social and Family Services has
in Ontario, in that he has probably got the
best trained civil service staff in this field in
the country and can certainly compete with
most of the states in the United States. No
municipality can begin to match the personnel
that you have in training. Surely there are
MAY 27, 1968
3401
some well trained people in the city of To-
ronto. I am not saying that, but in comparison
to the facilities that this Minister has— there
is no comparison and there are only two pos-
sible places that you are ever going to get
money for this cause and for most other causes
in this country: from the provincial Treasury
and from the federal Treasury. To look to the
municipalities at the present property tax
rates is almost a hopeless situation.
This argument can be repeated for the day
care centres. It can be repeated for almost
any social facility that is required in this
province today, and the Minister is simply
going to have to take a far more vigorous
stand in this situation than he has to date.
I tell the Minister this for his own sake, that
he has a tremendous opportunity to do a lot of
good. A lot of people in this field would
give their eye teeth to have the power that the
present Minister has actually to do something.
But I do hope that you show far more vigour
and energy and interest in the future than
you have shown to date because this depart-
ment has had very lacklustre political leader-
ship and it is still not too good.
The Minister has not been in oflSce too
long and I am going to prejudge him. But
if I were to judge the Minister by the answers
that he has given the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre, I would say that he has no
interest at all in the day-care centres. You
certainly do not need a detailed analysis on
day-care centres at this point because I could
lead the Minister by the hand in my own
area, and introduce him to people who can
give him very informative answers to his
questions. I can show him areas and people
who are just desperate for help to clear up
this situation that can be solved by day care
centres; and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
from the research of this very department,
that was done a few years ago on the re-
habilitation of families on welfare, one of the
things that was needed was day care centres.
What is the point of spending time and
money and doing research, finding the answers
or finding what is needed and then just doing
literally nothing about it? Even under your
estimates as they ended March 31, 1967, cut
of this— for day nurseries for maintenance and
for grants, over $67,000 was unexpended.
There may be some good reason for it. I
doubt it. They are crying for money for
day-care centres and yet, back in the days
when we voted only $591,000, you still had
a good portion of that unexpended, more
than 10 per cent. Now, because of the new
legislation the estimate is up over $1 million.
You are going to need more and I am not
asking this government to throw money away,
but I feel that in this particular estimate,
where you spend a dollar you can spend it
in keeping families oflF welfare, and I repeat,
from your own research you can rehabilitate
families and get them ofiF the welfare rolls.
I do not believe in just giving people
money to live and do nothing. I think that
what is so important in this department is
that we have far more emphasis on preven-
tion, on rehabilitation. This is one of the
estimates that is so singularly important in
this area. Assuming you have got some of
those Tory- Victorian ideas out of your head
as your predecessor had about "women should
stay at home"— I assume that this Minister will
take a deeper and more thoughtful look at
this estimate. But at this point he has not,
and I know from the numerous phone calls,
just wondering how the regulations were
coming, how tortuously slow it was, and
knowing how many people were waiting—
and I know for two years of two day care
centres— well, we are going to get under way
some time; there are still no children being
taken care of but, true, they are going to be.
It is finally under way, but in the meantime
the population has grown. Maybe the Minis-
ter can heave a sigh of relief that some of
the children who would have been taken care
of will not need to go into a day care centre;
they are too old now. Maybe some of them
are in reform schools; maybe some of them
now that would have had a possibility of
learning something in school are going to
end up as the first of your drop-outs. As
always happens, they are always the first on
the welfare rolls.
Our patchwork view of social welfare, our
whole thinking behind this is completely out-
dated, and I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
that this Minister has probably got the
greatest opportunity of anyone in this prov-
ince in doing something for the people of
this province, and for pioneering and for
making a tremendous amount of progress,
both socially, pohtically, and for the eco-
nomic stability of this province. Heaven
knows, when you look at what goes on in
the world today, we need economic stability.
But you are not going to have it as long as
you have a hard core of depressed people
which we have in these large urban centres.
We can talk about the affluent society until
we are blue in the face but there is a hard
core of people who are depressed and it has
been going on now in some cases for three
generations. This is one way of striking at
3402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it— there is no oiie answer, there is no com-
plete answer— but day care centres are at
least a part of the answer. So I urge the
Minister: For heaven's sake, get busy and
give some leadership on this important esti-
mate.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Dufferin-
Sinxoe.
Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr.
Chairman, we are always glad to welcome
visitors to the House and through you, I
would like to extend to a group from my own
riding a very hearty welcome this afternoon.
They are representing the women's institute
of the Collin gwood area, the ski capital of
Ontario, and we welcome them here.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier this afternoon I brought up the prob-
lem of the day-care centre in my own com-
munity. I would like to pursue it a bit and
point out to tlie Minister figures actually
from his own department concerning the real
emergency as far as day-care centres are
concerned.
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices reported that, from their case load, 100
women presently receiving mothers' allow-
ance would likely avail themselves of day-care
services in order to be retrained and self
supporting. And of the 248 mothers who are
on city welfare, we could rightly assume that
a good percentage of these likewise would
avail themselves of the services of a day-care
centre.
Mr. Minister, maybe you can look upon the
whole problem this summer from an experi-
mental point of view. Why not try to take
advantage of the large number of high school
and university girls that cannot find employ-
ment and see if they could not be used in an
experiment to take care of some of these
children of mothers who would like to work?
You see, we are fortunate in the city of
Windsor that we have a large metropolis like
the city of Detroit across from us and our
women do not have difficulty in obtaining
employment in either the sales field or the
office field in the city of Detroit.
However, they are prevented from taking
this employment because of the family at
home and wishing to bring their families up
in the proper fashion. Now, you could con-
duct some type of experiment in the com-
munity using the large numbers of either higli
school girls or university girls who cannot
find employment, and see if they coiild not
fit into a programme that would alleviate the
day-care centre shortage.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the church
organizations would go into the programme.
However, as soon as they go to set up,
regulations seem to be so stringent that they
become discouraged very easily. I know it
was not too long ago that I had an Italian
church wishing to set up and use tlie religious
sisters to conduct a programme. But because
they were required to have X number of
washroom facilities, they were precluded from
carrying on the programme at that time.
I think greater use could be made of
religious organizations in providing some type
of assistance in the day-care field. It is not
too long l^efore the province is going to
assume the total cost of welfare. The member
for London South (Mr. White) made mention
of it and we assume that he is the govern-
ment spokesman, so that before the next
election you will probably be using this as
an election gimmick. You might as well start
preparing for the take-over of the total cost
of welfare. Why not try taking over the
total cost of day-care services?
Set these up throughout parts of Ontario,
areas that you know need facilities. You
either provide the day care services today or
The Department of Reform Institutions, newly
named, will have these people as charges on
their budget. So it is much better for you to
get into the field completely today to prevent
a situation from deteriorating very greatly in
the not-too-distant future. I certainly would
like to see if the hon. Minister can work out
some programme so that we can provide
employment for our many girls who cannot
obtain employment and who could maybe
be useful in the day-care field.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I
should like to endorse the suggestion of the
member for Windsor-Walkerville and include
in his suggestion the girls from the Alicia
Mason school who have had special training in
nursery care. Some of them have had three-
year training in this respect.
I have one question for the Minister. I was
out of the House, it may have been answered.
Have negotiations for the Windsor day-school
nursery begun yet?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I understand that the
city council has ^^lassed the resolution.
MAY 27, 1968
3403
Mr. Burr: But you have not begun negotiat-
ing yet?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. They have just
passed the resolution and they go on from
there.
Mr. Burr: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo
North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to add a fev^^ words to
this matter of day-nursery care and ask the
Minister a few questions. First I think we
all are agreed that the mothers of many
thousands of pre-school children are working
l>ecause of necessity. It is no longer a matter
of status to have one's children go to the day
nursery. Included in these groups of mothers
who must find places for their children are,
of course, widowed and divorced mothers,
single mothers, deserted mothers. It is this
group that is finding it most diflficult.
There are two reasons why they are find-
ing difficulty'— lack of facilities and the cost
involved in placing their children in day
nurseries under day-nursery care. Having
been somewhat involved in a church nursery,
I would like to point out a few facts and
then ask a few questions.
It is the elimination of the possibility for
leaving children in neglected circumstances
during the day that makes it imperative that
these working mothers find places for their
children. Now, when a municipality sub-
sidizes the care of this child in a private
nursery, I understand it is to 80 per cent of
the cost. This, I believe, is a shared pro-
gramme, Mr. Chairman, and if that is correct
what portion of that cost is shared federally?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The municipality pays
20 per cent and is reimbursed, that is, the
province picks up 80 per cent and we share
that with the federal government under the
Canada assistance plan.
Mr. Good: To what extent, sir?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty-fifty.
Mr. Good: Fifty-fifty. That is what I want.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that Waterloo
has just entered into an agreement for the
purchase of such services.
Mr. Good: Yes, that is what I have been
given to understand. Now, can the munici-
pality pay for care of children in both private
and municipally-operated nurseries? Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we subsidize 80
per cent.
Mr. Good: Now, what help— in capital costs
and equipment grants— is there for municipali-
ties organizing a day nursery? What percent-
age?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will share 80 per
cent of the renovations.
Mr. Good: Is there any help for the estab-
lishment of private day nurseries on the
capital costs or equipment point of view?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there is none.
Mr. Good: There is none. This brings me
to the final point and that is the matter under
which—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Excuse me, it is pointed
out to me that, in some circumstances, the
depreciation might be included in the daily
rate.
Mr. Good: In a private nursery? Now, for
those who need help— and I understand, Mr.
Chairman, there are a great many who need
help— the only way a working mother can
get financial help to have her child in a day
nursery school, is to apply to the municipal
welfare office. This is where the rub comes
This has been described by many people as
a complicated ordeal which causes the resent-
ment of a great many applicants. Operators of
nurseries tell me that mothers would rather
struggle along as best they can and probably
put their child in a nursery under proper
care rather than make that trek down to the
municipal welfare office.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we
should not be concerting this system. I think
all are agreed with studies showing that
this is a very important matter in the life
of pre-school children— that they be looked
after properly. We should not be considering
this as an extension of our educational system.
Get the needs test away from the welfare
officer; get it into subsidies for the day care
nurseries, so that there would not be this
stigma attached to placing one's child in a
day care nursery and having to get the
assistance through the welfare department of
a municipality.
We have a very fine programme here and
my sentiments are those of the others that
3404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this needs to be extended. I think the one
thing holding it back is the fact that sub-
sidies have to come through the welfare
department to the working mother,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to add my word to those of the last
speaker, that the needs test applied to chil-
dren for day nurseries should be judged
according to the needs of the child rather
than whether the parents can or will pay.
These are children of working parents, by
and large, and at the present time they are
going out to other forms of day care which
are not necessarily safe— not necessarily any
sort of a learning programme for the children.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, of
the Minister, how many new day nurseries we
have built in tlie province in the last fiscal
year up to the end of March?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I thought I answered
the hon. member. The growth is at the rate
of about 10 per cent.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many nurseries?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are dealing with
400-some odd. We are growing at the rate
of about 40 to 50 nurseries per year. Mind
you, I am hopeful that this coming year, be-
cause of the provisions we have been making
—raising it from 50 to 80 per cent— that this
will be a stimulus, and that has been a
stimulus as evidenced by Windsor, Waterloo,
Metro Toronto and other places.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I believe there was a
programme, Mr. Chairman, of eight or ten
day nurseries to be built, three of which were
built. I believe it was in the 1965 estimates.
I would like to know exactly how many
we acquired in the last year. How many new
subsidized day care centres did we acquire?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will take that ques-
tion as notice, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, the number of day care centres, sub-
sidized day care centres, that are in the area
of Scarborough?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I pointed out to
the hon. member, we do not have statistics
as to subsidized and non-subsidized day nur-
series; all municipal nurseries are subsidized.
The municipalities, in turn, can enter into
agreements with private day nurseries for
the purchase of services and we will subsidize
these in relationship to mothers in need.
Those statistics, because the programme is
so new, are not available at the present time,
but will be available in the future.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Okay, Mr. Chairman, aU
right. Could I ask then, please, how many day
nurseries we have in Scarborough? Of any
kind?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The day nurseries are
not broken down into municipahties in the
Metropolitan area because it is a Metro
responsibility, so we deal with it at a Metro
level. One of the finest moves we ever made
in welfare in the province of Ontario was
to make it Metro-wide.
I am advised that in Scarborough there
are no municipal operated nurseries; all are
private.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask how
many nurseries there are in the area of
Etobicoke?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would also be
one cf the Metro ones and I understand that
there is another one in the offing.
Mr. Trotter: Does the answer not embarrass
the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the answer does
not embarrass me.
In the county of York, which includes all
the statistics we keep, there are, public all-
day nurseries, 15; pubfic half -day nurseries,
five; private all-day nurseries, 54; private
half -day nurseries, 101. That is the county
of York and that is the statistics we have
been keeping on a county basis.
Mr. M. Renwick: May I ask what the
future plans of this department are? Are
there any pilot projects going to emerge in
other hospitals, such as the one in River-
dale? Is there any thought in the future of
day nurseries automatically being designed
and incorporated into Ontario housing units?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
answered the hon. member earlier with
respect to the Riverdale hospital one, but so
far as I know there is no other hospital
contemplating that programme, which I
believe is a very successful prograinme.
I told the House earlier this session that
the interdepartmental committee on day care
has been re-established and we took these
advances during the year 1967. They will
be in position then, in the course of 1968,
to evaluate the progress we have made and
see what further, if anything — I always
MAY 27. 1968
3405
assume there is always something to be
done— should be done.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask if the Min-
ister would elaborate a little bit on that
interdepartmental committee? That very
significant improvement—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee is being reconstituted. It was
formerly under The Dspartment of Labour,
but now it is going to be carried by The
Department of Social and Family Services.
The chairman will be the director of our
day nurseries branch— and I thank the hon.
member for Parkdale for his kind words.
There will be representatives from The
Departments of Education, Health, Labour
and Trade and Development, both from the
economic council level and the housing cor-
poration level.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
I may say, that is the brightest spot I have
seen this afternoon. Could I ask, Mr. Chair-
man—tliere was a joint effort, and this is
why I follow up on what we were just
speaking about by The Department of Edu-
cation and The Department of Social and
Family Ser\4ices at Moosonee. Is there
thought, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister, of
any future joint efforts between The De-
partment of Education and The Dspartment
of Social and Family Services with regards
to day nurseries; the learning time, when
children in all likelihood, should be under
The Department of Education rather than
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, and the after-four centres. Is there any
consideration being given to the pilot project
that was carried out so well at the Duke of
York school last year, for the aftercare centre
for the children of working parents and for
a hot lunch, which I understand the board
of education is now doing some research to
evaluate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
as you will note, there is representation on
the interdepartmental committee of The De-
partment of Education. One of the basic
reasons for setting up this interdepartmental
committee is, perhaps, the dealing with the
universality of this kind of a service that
should be provided because it has universal
aspects.
Under the federal-provincial Canada assis-
tance plan agreement, we are limited to the
subsidy of needy parents. The Department of
Education already provides services, or
through the municipality can provide services.
for children from three years and eight months
which is in reality, a very young child. They
are doing that in certain municipalities and
one of the main items will be to see how this
will be worked out.
In respect to the after-four care, of course,
the care can be provided to a group during
the whole period of the operation of the day
nursery and we will share in the cost— up to
the age of ten years, I believe it is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, might I
just ask of the Minister the correct term for
these? Is "city day nurseries" the correct term
for those which fall under your department?
The one such as in Davisville public school,
is that a city day nursery? If so, how many
do we have and how many children are they
accommodating?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Those are municipally
operated. They are called "municipally oper-
ated day nurseries" as compared with private
day nurseries. The Metro public nurseries-
there are nine nurseries with 450 children.
Davisville is one of the nine.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, are any of those more recently acquired
than others? I mean, in the last year have
we acquired additional kinds of this kind of
day care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know whether
there have been any added in the past two
years. I know that Metro Toronto is con-
templating, right now, adding three or four.
I think there are several of them— two of
them at least are in West Toronto. The hon.
member for Parkdale would be interested,
and there is one in Etobicoke. Clenn Road
was opened last fall and there will be one
opening in June and three in September.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
the Minister gave this figure earlier, but if
he did, I wonder if he would refresh my
memory: The number of children who are
able to be cared for in the province at this
time under the day care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are 21,000 chil-
dren being looked after in day nurseries in
the province.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister if he is, at the present time, plan-
ning on incorporating family day care, mak-
ing it ehgible for a provincial subsidy as day
nursery care is, setting up supervision licens-
ing accountability— and the need is not just
in Toronto.
3406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
whole aspect will be reviewed by the inter-
departmental committee.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Just a small question.
What is the child-stafF ratio under the
municipal day nurseries at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One stafF per eight-to-
ten children according to the age of the
children.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, if I rephrased my question— and I am
not asking specifically for subsidized nurseries
—can the Minister table in the House the
numl^er of day nurseries, regardless of
whether they are even full-day or half-day,
but simply the numlx^r that there are in
each county?
Hon. Mr, Yaremko: Yes. I have undertaken
to table that.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2007?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Now, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The Minister said he would
table it. I think that is indicative that he
does not have it-
Mrs. M. Renwick: I am sorry—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do have it, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has it?
Mrs. M. Renwick: What I would like to
see in this record is the same thing that Mr.
Cecile provided in his estimates so that we
can see the rate of growth.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has turned
the information over to the Clerk. It has
been tabled and the member may inspect it
at any time she wishes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2007 carried?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just one
question. I notice a small grant here to
the nursery education association of Ontario
which, at one time, provided crash courses
for day nursery staff. Is that still in opera-
tion, I would like to ask the Minister, and
if so, was there any request for more funds
than $1,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
item .5. The work of the department has
been very closely associated with the asso-
ciation in the training of these teachers and
I think that we have had 249 pre-school
teacher certificates issued. A good deal of
this work has been and will continue to be
done through the colleges of applied arts and
technology that have developed courses. The
association did ask for a substantial increase
in the grant from $1,000 to $20,000. This
came in after the estimates had been estab-
lished and this is one of the matters we will
be considering during the coming year— the
relationship of the grant to the association in
the light of the programme that is being
developed in the colleges.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Why was it turned
down, Mr. Chairman? I would like to know.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was not turned
down, but a letter went out to the president
on April 19.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask if a grant
was requested, Mr. Chairman, by the Duke
of York school in order to carry on the valu-
able after-four care that they have been
providing for 20 to 25 children in the past
year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: I have one question to ask,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to get the Mini-
ster's opinion on this problem. It would help
the day care centre situation to some extent
and it is this: If a number of parents could
have their children eat lunch at tlie schools-
say it is a public school and down in the
primary grades— it would be a very great help
to many parents. A lot of public schools either
do not allow children to have lunch at school,
or discourage it, and I was wondering if there
was anything the Minister could do through
his connections, and I am sure with the
goodwill of the Minister of Education, to en-
couarge schools to provide some type of super-
vision for children of families who want them
to have their lunch at school.
Again, sir, you can see the problem. The
parents may drop the children off in th^
morning, and the children may take care of
themselves until about five o'clock. But in the
noon hour, where does the child get his
lunch? I know that people may have the
facilities—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Are you referring to
primary educational facilities?
"MAY 27. 1968
3407
Mr. Trotter: Sure, public schools. For ex-
ample, I know that the schools in many cases
discourage this. If you send a note— suppose
>'ou are a candidate in an election, as I am,
and all the family is busy on election day, and
you send a note that your child has to take
a sandwich and have his lunch at school, it is
discouraged. But in many areas that I know of
in Toronto, they discourage it very much. Ye'.
it would be a help to the working parent.
The problem for the school is supervision by
the teacher. Now with your department it
would help solve some of the pressure on day-
care centres if they would say to The Depart-
ment of Education: "Provide the teacher on
some type of schedule or we will supply lay-
supervision." A middle-aged lady could go in
during the hour-and-a-half lunchtime just to
see to it that there is some supervision of the
children.
It seems to me that this could be a prac-
tical solution in some cases. The reason why I
suggest it is that a number of people wh
have found themselves in this situation hav(^
wondered why it could not be done. I wonder
if the Minister has any opinion?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that suggestion
has a great deal of merit, on the surface, and
I can only make the assumption that the com
mittee will make a good review of the mat-
ter. In fact, I will see to it that they do.
Mr. Trotter: The main thing is tliat you
do not make any assimiptions. You are the
Minister, I suggest that you zero in on it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I assume that there are
merits. I have heard only the one side of the
story, and on the hearing of the one side,
there is a great deal of merit. Now, whether
there are any valid reasons otherwise, is a
matter which the committee will study. My-
self, I think that it sounds like a good idea.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on thi-
main topic, may I inform the Minister tliat
the day^care committee of the social plannin^-
council in my own community made that a^
a specific recommendation, and it is that
Windsor public and separate school boards
consider developing supervised luncheon faci-
lities for school-aged children of working
mothers. So you can see that it is a fairly
universal problem and it is a thing that you'-
department has to look at very seriously.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: From a survey of day
care in East Toronto, dated April 1967,
members of the East Toronto day care com-
mittee recommended that three more nursery
and day care centres are needed on the basis
of the social planning council report. This is
in 1966— the city welfare committee. From
the report— the survey of day care in East
Toronto, April 1967, members of the East
Toronto day care committee— came this in-
formation:
Of 23,000 children enrolled in 29 schools
-23,323, actually, in the east end of Toronto
in April, 1966—5,000 came from homes where
both parents went out to work, and 1,500
one-parent families were also in that group of
which a large proportion go to work. From
the same sample of 12 junior schools in the
east end of the city of Toronto, it is estimated
that 800 children out of 17,000 in public
schools, plus 900 in separate schools, were
taking their lunches to their schools, having
no planned supervision. I think maybe, Mr.
Chairman, that that kind of information is
worthy of the consideration of the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Was that elementary
schools, or high schools?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Junior schools. Just a
minute and I will read you, Mr. Chairman,
their description of junior schools.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Very well. I will get
the infonnation later.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Junior schools, I believe,
Mr. Chairman, stop at grade 6, but I would
like to find out for sure.
Vote 2007 agreed to.
On vote 2008:
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, I made a few remarks with regard
to homes for the aged when I opened the
debate for our side. I made reference to the
fact that it is a shame that the government,
and the municipal administrators and nur-
sery homeowners could not get together. If
I recall correctly, I made some suggestion
that part of the problem lay in the fact that
grants should be scaled or varied according
to costs in the particular area where the
home is located.
I am in receipt of a letter from a Hugh
McLean, the co-chairman of the negotiating
committee on rates for the associated nursing
homes incorporated, Ontario, and—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This does not come
under this vote. This came up under vote
2003, municipal welfare administration.
3408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Braithwaite: Are we not talking about
homes for the aged?
Mr. Chairman: Homes for the aged branch,
yes.
Mr. Braithwaite: I am talking about homes
for the aged.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a different item,
you are talking about nursing homes,
Mr. Braithwaite: Homes for the aged, are
we not talking about the same thing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the associated
nursing homes-
Mr. Braithwaite: Young or old, this does
not matter. Let us not be technical. I am only
trying to ask the Minister whether or not he
has given any thought to some suggestions
that I made. Whether or not his department
has any plans for getting these two groups
togedier, so that these people will not be
moved when they do not want to be. I do
not see how the Minister could say it should
come under 20C3; it is a very important ques-
tion. I say, let us not get technical at this
point. It is homes for the aged— I am talking
about aged people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is an important ques-
tion, as are all items under disxussion within
this department, and they have been dis-
cussed, they have been talked about in the
opening remarks, and they were touched
upon in vote 2003, general welfare administra-
tion.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I am ask-
ing about old people. Even if they are in
nursing homes, they are still in homes for
the aged. I am asking the Minister if he has
any views on this. I would like to know, just
for the record, so that we may find out what
the real problem is— I think that the Minister
should give some sort of statement on this.
If he docs not want to, that is his prerogative.
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that we are dealing with vote 2008,
whicli is homes for the aged, and I think that
it clearly means in this vote, the cstablislied
homes for the aged. They are under Tjie
Rest Hf)mcs Act and the homes for the aged.
General remarks on nursing homes, I would
not think, would be proper here. If you can
relate them to the homes for the aged-
Mr. Braithwaite: Well, I beg to difler with
Mr. Chairman, and with the Minister. I do
think that this is an appropriate place for
this to come up. I can see nothing wrong
with the Minister making statements. If he
has a policy, this is the time to say so.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, if my friend, the member for Etobi-
coke, wanted to discuss the matter, whether
it was homes for the aged, or nursing homes,
could it come under the office of aging, be-
cause the hon. member for Etobicoke is right
on recommendation 34, sir, of the recom-
mendations of the select committee on aging,
which was done under the auspices of this
department, so surely he can discuss the situa-
tion. It is recommendation 34, under the next
vote.
Mr. Chrii-man: The question that the mem-
ber is trying to relate is a problem of aging
persons in nursing homes. In that context,
perhaps he is not too far off the vote.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I hope
that the hon. Minister can take my question
and comments as notice. Perhaps when we
get to vote 2009, he would like to make a
statement at that time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
proper vote was 2003, and it was commentied
upon at that time. Now, surely, Mr. Chairman,
this is not my ruling, it must be your ruling,
that we deal with the votes as they qome
along. We have now progressed to homes for
the aged with the various items that come
under that jurisdiction.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister is trying to hide behind a techni-
cality.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, we have a
problem here and I think the hon. Minister
ought to face up to it. It is his responsibility.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, talking to the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Parkdale—
the associated nursing homes cater to all
age groups. They are nursing homes provid-
ing that special type of personal care that
can be provided only in nursing homes and
need not particularly have any direct rela-
tionship to the aged. They look after aged
people, but by the same token they look
after younger people and therefore are not
within the terms of this vote at all.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, speaking to
the point of order, as you yourself pointed
out very properly, the hon. member is trying
to associate the problems of the aged in asso-
MAY 27, 1968
3409
elation with the nursing homes and the other
provisions that are there for them and I
think, sir, that the ruHng you were about
to make indicated that he would be in order
in one of these votes to raise the subject
in a general way, and it was a very accep-
table one.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out that the
Chairman has not yet made a ruling. He is
trying to determine just whether or not—
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, can I just
underscore what I have said? This problem
between nursing homes and homes for the
aged has come up time and time again in the
committee on aging insofar as it dealt with
the problems on aging. Whether we discussed
it under homes for the aged branch or under
office on aging, it certainly is connected. In
dealing with the problems of aging this item is
extremely important, which the member for
Etobicoke mentioned, and it is only part of
it. I, for one, would be happy to say office
on: aging, but it is most certainly on this
subject. In fact, it is one of the main items.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, within
this department we do not have groupings as
to age. For example, we were talking about
young people— we discussed the various items
under vote 2004, the family services branch;
2006, the child welfare branch, which deals
with children; 2007, that deals with day
ninrseries branch— they are not lumped under
a vote called "children." We in this House
have developed the order.
The nursing home situation comes under
vote— so far as this department is concerned—
under vote 2003, the municipal welfare
administration and comments were made at
that time. We have gone past that vote
and we are now getting into the homes for
the aged branch.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if there
are senior citizens living in homes and if there
are problems then it is, to my way of think-
ing, quite pertinent that they come up either
under homes for the aged or office of aging—
in spite of what the hon. Minister might say.
I cannot see why he is trying to hide behind
a technicality.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
not trying to hide, I am trying to get some
order, to aisSist you and this House in having
an orderly procession of the estimates. I may
point out to the hon. member that senior
citizens' housing now comes under The De-
partment of Trade and Development and
that is where you wiU discuss senior citizens*
housing.
Mr. Braithwaite: I did not say housing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Senior citizens' hous-
ing will come under Trade and Development.
Mr. Chairman: I think perhaps the mem-
ber has in mind the problem relating to
elderly persons who presently are in nursing
homes, or the possibility of those people
becoming eligible for, or included in, the
overall programme of homes for the aged.
However, I do not think that in vote 2008
we could introduce any such suggestion; per-
haps under vote 2009. As the Minister has
pointed out, we have covered under vote
2003 and other votes nursing services. I
think under 2008 we should restrict the
debate to the homes for the. aged branch in
the proper— / . '„r . 'Z, . -
Mr. Braithwaite: Does that mean we can
raise this matter under vote 2009?
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman will listen
to the comments under 2009 to properly
determine whether they should come under
the office on aging,
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, my com-
ments are going to be the same as they have
already been. I will not take the trouble to
repeat them. I do not see why the Chairman
cannot make a ruling.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman is not going
to make a ruling at this time, except that it
cannot be discussed under vote 2008, but
possibly under 2009.
The member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwdck: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to ask how many homes for the aged
have been established? Has each municipality
established at least one?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: During the fiscal year
of 1967-1968 there were seven new homes
and six additions made to existing homes,
with an additional 1,180 beds. There are
68 municipal homes in existence and I think
that every county and district has a home;
at least one.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, accord-
ing to the Act, item 2, except as otherwise
provided in subsection 2, in section 5, "every
municipahty not in a territorial district shall
establish and maintain a home for the aged."
Is there one, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask, in every municipality?
3410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, of
course there is provision made for joint
homes, whereby the municipahties get to-
gether and operate a joint home. I under-
stand tliat every county with the exception
of one has a home and that is in the process
of planning one.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am ask-
ing about municipahties. Is that the same as
the county? I understand that they can
have joint homes according to No. 5 and
according to subsection 2, "but in Heu of
separate homes the councils may, witli the
approval of writing the Minister, have a joint
home." I would like to know, are we pro-
tected in every municipality in tlie province
with either a home for the aged or a joint
home in every municipality?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Every municipality in
the province either operates or is a participant
in a joint home, with the exception of Lennox
and Addington, where there is one in the
process of planning. There is one district
that has no district home.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I have received some correspondence
that leaves me a little concerned about tlie
calibre of supervision in at least one of the
nursing homes and it could quite possibly
apply to many others.
The Minister will recall, I am sure, that
I inquired as to some accidents that had
occurred in the Wentworth Lodge in Dundas,
Ontario, just outside Hamilton, in regard to
a lady who had twice fallen within the last
six months and twice broken her hip. This
lady was over 90 years of age.
I received a fully comprehensive report
from the Minister and I sent a copy of it to
the family of this elderly lady and they have
some comments to make that I feel perhaps
ought to be put on the record at this time.
The lady apparently fell out of bed in
December and again in April, both times
breaking the same hip. The report indicates
that the family were annoyed because the
home was trying to keep her in her room and
they indicated that she was a very determined
old lady— which she no doubt was— and she
wanted to take part in the crafts and the
various activities that go on within the hos-
pital or the home.
In answer to this particular part of the
report, the family indicated they at no time
suggested that she should not take part. What
they did suggest was that in December she
had had illnesses which required bed care— 1
am reading from the report— for short periods
of time, and the family were summoned to
tlie lodge at those times and told of the
extreme frailty of her heart.
The head nurse also warned the family to
be prepared for a sudden passing, and from
this time on she had several falls due to tliis
extreme weakness. Many times she was
assisted by other residents in the home, who
told of her attempts to get to the dining room
and the sewing room.
At that point her son spoke to the superin-
tendent of the home and requested extra care
for his mother, since she appeared too frail
to decide for herself. She had many bruises
on her body, she had a cut on her arm and,
on Christmas day, she was, what could be
interpreted, I suppose, as incoherent. She
was not able to understand what was going
on around about her, and she could not be
taken out. They visited her at the lodge and
had to ask a nurse to dress a bad cut on her
arm that had become infected.
On top of this, they informed me that on
a number of occasions— it says "many", and
I do not know how many "many" might be
—but on many occasions her two daughters-
in-law had changed her and taken home her
badly-soiled clothing.
I think this condition ought to be looked
into. I can be sure of the validity of it, 1
have no reason to doubt that what they have
said is true. I do not know how often this
might have occurred. If it has occurred more
than once, then it is deplorable.
They have asked tiiat the mother be sup-
ported at all times because obviously, at age
92, she is unable to take care of herself.
And yet, upon entering the home they found
her slumped over a chair and they had to
help her to get back into bed. Now, they
are not asking for retribution of any kind,
they are not asking that the home be chas-
tised. They are asking for an investigation in
order that the other people who are going to
live there— and perhaps other people in other
homes— do not have to be subjected to this
kind of treatment.
It is not the fault of the nurses, I am sure.
It is probably just the fault of trying to do
too much with too few people. The inability
to perform the function is apt to be because
there are not enough people looking after
the number of patients in the home.
MAY 27. 1968
3411
The other complaint they have, of course,
is that the first injury happened in the
middle of the night and they were not in-
formed until the middle of the following
afternoon. This is not a very good relation-
ship to have. They certainly should have
been informed previous to that, I am sure
members would agree.
The other part that concerns me is this—
and I would ask that this be looked at. At
the time she was admitted to the hospital—
not the home, but taken from the home to
the hospital after the accident— the hospital
informed the relatives that she was badly de-
hydrated. I would be very interested in know-
ing how this condition came about. It may
be a common condition among the elderly. I
do not know, I am not a doctor, but I would
very much doubt if someone was receiving
proper care they would be in this condition.
I do not want to leave the feeling that I
am criticizing the nurses. I think they prob
ably do the best tliey can, but I do feel that
we should make sure tliat each and every
home in Ontario is adequately staffed in order
that they can properly look after the people
in their care. And I would ask the Minister
if he would undertake to do this and to
attempt to inform me— if not today at least
some time in the future— of the kind of staff-
ing arrangements in the homes for the aged
and whether, in relation to other facilities
available throughout the province, the staffing
arrangement at this particular home is ade-
quate. ^ - '
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will do that, Mr.
Chairman. As a matter of fact, I am familiar
with the case because of the member's repre-
sentations. If he were to send me a copy of
the statement of the family vis-d-vis the reply
that I obtained for him, why, we will be in
a better position perhaps to assess both sides
and see what further investigation is war-
ranted.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have a
resolution here that deals with item 4, and
that is The Rest Homes Act. This resolution
was passed by the council of my own com-
munity just as recently as April 29 and J
would like to bring it to the attention of the
Minister in case he has not received a copy o<
it. The resolution reads:
Where the province of Ontario con-
tributes 50 per cent of the capital cost of
rest homes constructed by a municipality:
and whereas the senior governments con-
tribute approximately two-thirds of the
capital cost of hospital construction; and
whereas rest homes relieve the shortage of
hospital beds; and whereas rest homes
provide proper facilities specifically oriented
to those whose condition falls in the grey
area—
This is the area we were discussing earlier,
Mr. Chairman—
—between hospital care and other existing
forms of institutional care, therefore be it
resolved that the provincial Legislature be
requested to arrange for an increase in the
capital grants to municipahties for rest
home construction from 50 per cent to an
amount equivalent to the grants paid by
senior governments for hospital construc-
tion.
Now, this resolution, Mr. Chairman, is only
one month old. Seeing the tremendous advan-
tage it could be in relieving another branch
of the government's service of financial costs,
it certainly deserves not only serious con-
sideration but implementation if possible.
Would the Minister have any comments on
this? , .,.:;..:: ,.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
first of all with respect to the operating costs,
with respect to the answer there is just not
the money available at the present time, How^-
ever, I will bring to the hon. member's atten-
tion that we do pay 70 per cent. My own
feeling is that as soon as we get the additional
dollars, that should be raised to 80 per cent
of the operating costs to put them on the
same footing as private homes, the private
organizations.
Mr. B. Newman: It would not be on a
similar footing to hospital construction?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, it would not be on
a hospital construction basis. Under the capi-
tal grants, presently it is 50 per cent, but we
have not yet been able to work out with the
federal government a complete sharing agree-
ment in respect to capital costs. We intend to
negotiate this in the coming year and that
may lead to some further assistance in this
regard.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, as long as the Min-
ister is aware of the resolution from the city,
and I know he will receive copies of it—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not received it.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is
being forwarded to the Ontario municipal
iissociation, the Ontario mayors and reeves
association, the Ontario association of homes
3412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the aged, all local members of Parlia-
ment, all major Ontario municipalities for
endorsation— so I would assume the Minister
is going to get more than one copy of it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now that the member
mentions it, I am aware of the resolution in
its overall context, yes.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chair-
man, I am very interested in this rest-homes
programme and I was very interested in what
the member for Windsor-Walkerville just fin-
ished stating.
How many of these rest homes have been
established in the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are all in the
planning stages, Mr. Chaimian. There are
six of them in the planning stages, for a total
of 490 beds. Actually, the legislation is fairly
recent and they are going right ahead with
the plans.
Mr. J. P. Spence: (Kent): Mr. Chairman,
may I ask the Minister, in regard to the home
for the aged across the province in different
counties. Does The Department of Social and
Family Services have inspectors who inspect
these homes; how many; and how often do
they inspect them?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have, I think, in total
11— we have an establishment of 11 super-
visors, are I think they are called. There are
11 inspectors, I am advised, and tliey inspect
at least once a year and oftener, if anything
arises, which indicates a further inspection
or tliat more inspections are necessary.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe
the Mini.ster in his opening remarks said that
the home for the aged in this province were the
jewel of this department. I do not often
agree with the Minister on may subjects but
it is true that, by and large, the province of
Ontario, since World War II, has done a
fairly excellent job compared with most
jurisdictions, not just in Canada but through-
out North America. This province has done a
fairly good job.
There is one thing that has bothered me
when I have had the opportunity to visit
these homes and it is this: I always ask what
is the waiting hst. You know, in the old days
people did not want to go into a home for
the aged, they were called the houses for
refuge and there was a social stigma about
going there but today, once people see how
well these homes are nm and how they are
getting away from being institutions, they are
anxious to go. In fact, when we were dis-
cussing nursing homes and homes for special
care under the estimates of The Department
of Health, I had suggested that the govern-
ment may have to move indirectly on some of
these homes and the Minister of Health was
afraid they would become just institutions.
But it has been shown by the way the
homes for the aged have been operated that
they have good buildings and they have good
administrators in charge, and that they really
are a home away from home. Nothing can
replace one's own home but certainly, the
homes for the aged have been and are, under
the circumstances, a big help to many people,
and it is true that in some circumstances there
are some people who have been so poor that
those who are now in the homes for the aged
have never had it so good. This may be a
minority of cases, but this is the truth.
But I used to ask two questions when I
visited these homes and I have never had a
proper answer, and I do not think there is
one available. First of all, what is the waiting
Hst? Sometimes they would have a particular
number that the administrator could tell me.
But neither the administrators nor the depart-
ment nor the county, nor the municipality
under whose control these homes are run,
really know how many people require the
services of a home for the aged. And this is
what concerns me, Mr. Chairman, as I know
of many people particularly in the large
cities who live in rooms, who are sort of lost
in the huge cities; they are living up in third-
storey flats; they cannot find facilities in
which to live, whether they be senior citizens'
apartments or homes for the aged, because
there just is not enough room.
The second question that these homes fail
to answer— and it really has to do with the
first part— is: What is going to be the demand
for the future? No analysis of this has been
done in recent times or at any time, unless it
has been started at a very recent date and I
do not know about it. I think this is vitally
important. First, what is the waiting list now
and what is going to be the demand for the
future?
For a number of years, I think, the situation
of our elderly people has been really a tragic
thing; they have no place to go. In part, it has
been solved. If you are in a home for the aged
you are lucky but I do not think the govern-
ment has really begun to cope with the
demand that is really there. Not, Mr. Chair-
man, that I am urging that everyone who is
getting on in years be rushed to a home for
MAY 27, 1968
3413
the aged because one thing that I think
government should do, and in part are doing,
is to encourage people to stay on their own.
When we get to the oflBce on aging, I may dis-
cuss that very briefly because I think that
may be perhaps more properly discussed
under the ofiice on aging.
But it is very hard, Mr. Chairman, some-
times to distinguish between what should be
discussed under the homes for the aged and
I' under the ofiBce on aging because both prob-
l lems are very similar and the solutions are of
I the same type. But I did also mention it to
the Minister the other day, in a question. I
asked him what sort of a course they have for
those people who were responsible for the
administration of the homes for the aged.
Now, I know that on the books we have a
course that is referred to and the Minister
told me he was going to look into it. But I tell
you that next year on the order paper, Mr.
Chairman, I am going to ask what type of
course we have for administrators. Maybe they
have got the course, as the Minister indicates,
but I will want to know how many people
this coming year actually take tlie course.
As a result of my asking the Minister about
the course for administrators for homes for
the aged I received a letter from one indi-
vidual informing me that there actually is a
course for administrators at McMaster Univer-
sity. At the time I asked that question, I did
not know there was such a course nor evi-
dently did the Minister know there was a
course, because I believe the legislation as
drawn up under The Homes for the Aged and
Rest Homes Act when it refers to a course, it
means, a course run by the government.
I may be wrong on that but that was my
assumption and if my assumption was cor-
rect, I do not think they have much of a
course here. But in this you need improve-
ment because when you have people in
charge of homes for the aged who are properly
trained, they can do such things, for example,
as they do at the Jewish homes for the aged
here in Toronto; they have out-patient activi-
ties, where people who are not staying
permanently in a home for the aged, can
come and take part in many of the activities
- that go on in the homes for the aged. This
not only keeps an interest in the elderly
people who live outside a home, it keeps up
the interest of those who are the full-time
residents. But it also lets people know, who
may some day have to go to a home for the
aged, that instead of going to a house of
refuge, in most cases today, they are going to
an institution that is well run and is a very
pleasant place in which to live when one
cannot live in one's own home.
So I do feel that more can be done in this
field. It is those that are not taken care of
whom I am concerned about and I think that
the department has to do a great deal more
in surveying the situation of what our needs
are going to be in the future; and I would,
in sitting down, Mr. Chairman, just like to
ask the Minister this question: Is there any
expectation in the near future that the gov-
ernment may carry out recommendation
10 of the committee of aging? That is where
we recommended not only that there be a
course for training administrators, but that
a model home for the aged be established in
Toronto where the administrators would be
trained and it would really be not only a
home for the aged but a teaching home as
well. Is there any possibility of that coming
to pass in the near future?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all, Mr. Chair-
man, there is a course which is given within
the department. After they have served their
six months and before the appointment is
made, they must come down to Toronto to
take the course, take an examination. When
they pass it, the appointment follows. Now,
I have become aware, interestingly enough,
of the McMaster course, myself recently, and
I am going to see how it fits into the overall
picture— but that is not the course that has
to be passed.
With respect to the model home, without
even being aware of the recommendations of
the committee, I had begun to speak in
terms of the model home. Quite a number
of institutions already regard what they are
operating as model homes, or suggest that
they be taken into consideration. The idea
and its implementation to the fullest will be
getting a complete review in the very near
future.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma-
Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to comment for a
minute, in connection with the old-age prob-
lems as regards both capital and maintenance
costs. I would like to remind the Minister
of a committee and delegation that was down
here recently with respect to the recently-
completed Centennial manor in Little Cur-
rent, on the Manitoulin Island. It is a beautiful
structure and, in fact has amounted to
almost a landmark in that whole area now.
3414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I almost feel on occasions though, because
of the iwsition that it has put those munici-
pahties in, 1 almost feel like apologizing for
liiy original effort in promoting this facility—
except of course, that it has had complete
acceptance. It is practically filkxl and it is
just a matter of tlie municipalities* complete
inability to carrv ti.e cost of this particular
set of facilities.
Maybe 1 could point out what I am trying
to say with respect to the comparison of the
budget costs of senior citizens' homes and
nearby municipalities, roughly amounting to
something like 1 per cent of the total taxable
revenue in municipalities. However, on Mani-
toulin this year's budget amounts to 15 per
cent. Now 1 just simply have to try to per-
suade tlie Minister that something has to be
done in this regard. It has come to my atten-
tion o\er the weeken<l that one municipality
with a mill rate of something in the area of
$103 million last year, will have a mill rate
of $206 btK-auH' of this one item alone.
Xow I know that the Minister remembers
that the arguments of tv/o or three weeks ago
were put to him very forcefully. In fact, I
noticed that in this paper I received this
morning— a local pajXT- the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services expressed great
concern and surprise over the revelations of
the delegation and stated that he would
recjucs-t the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. McKeough), to conduct an inquiry into
the financial position of the Manitoulin. It
is hoped that such a study will result in a
revision of a cost-sharing formula for the
Centennial manor. Now, I wonder if such
action has been taken and— whether it has or
whether it has not— if the Minister can com-
ment with respect to the possibility of such
action btn'ng taken in this area?
Hon. Mr. Yarcmko: Mr. Cliairman, 1 am
very sv inpathetic to the unique, but very
difficult position that the people witli respect
to Centennial manor find themselves. Follow-
ing that meeting I wrote to the Minister of
Nfuiiicipal Affairs outlining the problems in
a general way. As a matter of fact, I was
pleased to receive a reply from him last
week, I believe it was, in which he indicated
that he will be undertaking this study. I, in
turn, have replied to him thanking him. I
add that it is going to right ahead. It is a
situation which is somewhat unique, but
really its tuiiciiicncvss deserves a real good
look at.
Mr. Farquhar: One more question here for
the \finister. Does the Minister intend to,
or has he already been in touch with the
Manitoulin municipal association? They are
the people who are spearheading and who
are most vitally concerned with this matter,
especially at this time of striking mill rates.
I realize that the Minister did suggest that
nothing could take place this year— nothing
could happen that would affect the mill rates
this year, or tlie budget this year possibly.
But I woidd feel that it is very important—
especially with respect to the volume of mail
I am getting from that area— that he be in
touch with the committee in this respect.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will be following
up— both the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and myself. And as the hon. member con-
cerned is aware, we did take some unusual
steps last year. Whether it will be enough
for all, remains to be seen.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2008. The member
for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick. Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to follow up the comments of the
member for Parkdale. I would like to ask
the Minister: What are we doing for the
numbers of people who are desirous of this
type of accommodation and are not able to
find a place for themselves? Have you got
any idea of how many there are of these
people who are really, I suppose on the wait-
ing lists for homes for the aged and rest
homes.
Have we any future programme to assist
them while they are still in their own homes?
As the member said, it would be nice if
they could stay there. Has any thought ever
been given to the meals-on-wheels pro-
gramme so that aged people might at least
have balanced nutrition in an easy way, if
they are not in a home for the aged where
meals are provided for them?
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: At present, Mr, Chair-
man, the number of beds are as follows: pub-
lic homes and private homes total just under
20,000 beds and we are in the process of
adding just under 5,000, so that we will have,
we hope, when these additions have been
made, 25,000 beds available.
Mr. Trotter: These are homes for the
aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These are homes for
the aged. The problem of providing residen-
tial care for our senior people is an overall
picture. We try to keep them in the home—
if possible within the community— by the pro-
\ision of adequate maintenance allowances,
MAY 27, 1968
3415
hy the provision of housing accommodation
tlirough the overall housing programme, plus
the senior citizens' housing, which is now
under the jurisdiction of The Department of
Trade and Development. This is becoming
an ever increasingly popular thing, especially
with respect to married couples, but even
with single people who want the particular
iype of accommodation being provided.
With respect to meals-on-wheels, this
riiight come under the next vote, but I can
answer it now. It is part of our overall pic-
tfire in the future that, when developments
are made for the care of the elderly, there
be complexes— a united home for the aged
and senior citizens' housing within the com-
munity so that there may be shared facilities,
amongst which would be meals-on-wheels
or the equivalent thereof.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I stand
before you to boast a bit. The county home in
Welland, which the hon. Minister is
acquainted with since he conies from that
area— the Welland poorhouse as we referred
to it many years ago— was no credit to any
municipality, especially the county of
Welland.
They decided to subdivide tlieir home farm,
as the Minister would no doubt remember. I
was on the committee that sold off the lots at
that time and we made $155,000 net on that
particular farm. The government paid dollar
for dollar with it, so we had $310,000 over to
add the first addition to the poor house at
Welland, as we would refer to it at that time.
Since that time, we hired a new man by
the name of Doug Rapplegy, who is adminis-
trator of that unit. They have added another
big section to it, and I would say it is a model
home in the province of Ontario.
The home in Welland is, in my opinion,
lx?tter than anything that I have ever seen
with that type of accommodation. They have
a beauty parlour for the elderly women. They
have a barber shop for the men. They have
a little coffee shop where they can buy a cup
of coffee and some cigarettes if they want
them. And they have many programmes for
the people there. I think that is good.
But to wait for the government to provide
quotas of that type for the citizens of this
province, and provide them quickly, I think
we will find that there will always be a back-
log of work that should be brought up to
date, because there are many people who are
waiting to get into institutions of that type.
I think if I were in the fortunate or unfor-
tunate position to he committed to one of
these homes, I would like much better, Mr.
Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to live
in the area where I have lived for some 40
or 50 years like many older people have. It
would be nice for this government to con-
sider and consider well, the possibility of
buying some of the older estates in cities and
towns, and having the people who have to
go into such quarters, live within a few blocks
of where they have been accustomed to liv-
ing for many years. And I know that there
is some part of your programme working
along that line.
There are private homes in small towns
such as the village where I live— Chippawa—
who again through private enterprise are
doing a good job. But I believe there are
many, many fine old brick homes that can be
quickly converted into the type of units that
I am thinking about, where an individual
when he comes to the time in life where he
is retired and has to have that type of service,
that type of treatment, then he could have it
in the community in which he has lived—
whether it be Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara
Falls, or any place else.
I wonder if the Minister's programme is
ambitious enough with the amount of money
that you have here to consider that type of
construction, because I think there is seme of
that kind of work being done. I know too,
that some of the private homes do not meet
the requirements of the government, Ix^cause
the rooms are not big enough, or they have
insuflScient fireplaces. In many cases a pri-
vate individual does not have enough money
to put these additions on. They find them-
selves in the position where they are a home
providing certain quarters that are not good
enough for the people in this day.
I would wonder if the Minister would
consider taking over homes of that type and
running them by the government, the same as
county homes are run. I think one coimty
administrator who is doing a good job, could
be the administrator of many small units. If
that— I know we are pursuing that in Welland
county— if that were followed up, if they
would continue to work along these lines, I
think we could get many homes for people
very, very quickly.
I know not whether your department has
looked into this matter. I would like your
comments on that.
3416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the past, the prob-
lem has been converting this type of accom-
modation to the standards required by tlie
department, together with the availabihty of
the kind of services that make a home for
the aged more than just a place for shelter
and care. So far, these conversions have
proved uneconomic, but it is something that
we will review continuously.
Mr. Bukator: Then if the old home that I
speak of could not be readily converted, Mr.
Chairman, would it be possible— I will have
to give you an illustration. When the Bell
Telephone Company in the States builds a
Bell telephone office in a residential area, it
looks identical to the homes of that area-
yet it is a Bell telephone outlet. Maybe the
government could consider building that type
of home for the aged in the cities and towns
where the people who are accustomed to
living there could have this accommodation
and not be too far from home.
They would live a few more years, I think,
because they are closer to the subject. Is
there a possibility that your folks— I see you
are l:>eing briefed a little bit— is there a pos-
sibility that your people have looked at that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They could be coming
under our rest home programme. I think the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville or the
Windsor area has an outstanding example of
the accommodation for senior citizens that
just looks like good row housing. Excellent.
Mr. Bukator: Well, then if that worked in
Windsor, I hate to pursue this, but—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Senior citizens* housing,
that is— not a home for the aged. The home
for the aged is sort of a motel type of accom-
modation. Very large.
Mr. Bukator: I was going to say it was a
very, very fine line between tlie two groups,
is it not? A very fine line.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The whole intention is
to provide accommodation within the com-
munity that the people are accustomed to.
Sometimes circumstances will not permit it.
Mr. Bukator: This answer was the one that
I was looking for. If you intend to do that
and keep them within the community where
they are accustomed to living, this answers
my question. If you are pursuing that and
do it quickly, then I am quite content.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2008?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I want to raise one matter. I do so at
tlie risk of being parochial. However, I have
a constituent who is presently in the Ontario
Hospital in Goderich. The daughter, the only
member of the family, informs me that she
went to the assistant clerk in the county seek-
ing information in regard to having an apph-
cation taken for admission to the home for
the aged.
It was her impression, after that meeting,
that insofar as the costs were concerned, the
gentleman in question could not have any
assets to speak of. As I indicated, there is
only one surviving child in the family. The
father had willed the house and the property
—25 acres I believe— to that daughter, and it
was indicated to her that that would have to
be sold and be appHed towards his keep in
the home for the aged in Clinton.
Now I wonder what the guidelines are
here? In other words, what liquid assets does
one have to have in order to qualify? In
otlier words, if you have over $1,000, is that
money applied towards your keep in one of
these institutions? Is there a limit? There
must be some sort of guidelines in this con-
nection. I would be interested in hearing
about them.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are not limits
set down by legislation or regulations. This is
a matter for the local municipalities to decide.
Mr. Gaunt: What you are saying then-
Mr. Chairman, if I may through you, to the
Minister— what you are saying is that the
regulations, if I may put it that way, are left
to the individual counties. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The answer is "yes."
Mr. Trotter: I have a question, and then I
would like to add just a few remarks. What
is the rate of grant for construction costs paid
to a municipality when they put up a home
for the aged. Is it 50 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty per cent, yes.
Mr. Trotter: Well now, we on this commit-
tee on aging, urged under recommendation
28a that it be raised to 75 per cent. This
would be a municipality, or for a charitable
institution for this reason. We knew because
of the costs of construction that it was becom-
ing increasingly difficult for private charities
to raise funds. And because of the same rising
of costs in almost every walk of life, it is very
difficult for the municipality to pull down the
tax rating.
MAY 27, 1968
3417
It is just not that easy to get their hands
on the necessary 50 per cent to put up a
home for the aged. And although, Mr. Chair-
man, there are no detailed statistics as to what
the need really is now for homes for the
aged, for what it is going to be in the future,
we know it is going to increase because people
live longer than ever before— at least more
people live longer than ever before. This
demand is going to increase. And it was the
unanimous decision of the committee at that
time, regardless of party, that the grants for
capital construction be increased to 75 per
cent in order to encourage the building of
homes for the aged. Can the Minister give
the committee of supply any indication that
there is any hope of these grants being
increased, as the committee on aging asked?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I indicated, Mr.
Chairman, it is the question of the moneys
that are available. There will be no additional
moneys available in this year's estimates for
that type of provision, but we are in the pro-
cess of negotiation, I hope, with the federal
government for more participation in capital
expenditure. They share in the operating
expenditures, but not to the same degree, to
a very minor degree in capital costs, and we
are hopeful that something satisfactory comes
out of this negotiation that we may sometime
in the future be able to participate more.
Mr. Trotter: I have one more question— it
is a small matter— Mr. Chairman, on this vote,
and yet sometimes in the quality of living, to
an older person it might be very important. I
grant you these homes are well run, for the
most part, that I have seen, and each one is
a home away from home. But I think we
can be a bit puritanical in some of our views.
I do not know who is responsible for laying
down the ground rules, whether it is local
administration, for if it is, I was wondering
if the province, in discussing this problem
with various administrators, could keep this in
mind.
I have talked to many an old fellow who
had gone into the home for the aged because
his wife had died. For the most part he would
be happy, but I often suspected when he was
talking to me he had a tear in his eyes when
he said, "It is impossible to get a cold beer."
And I know in institutions they may hear me
say this just should not be allowed. Some of
the more liberally minded ones manage to do
it through the doctor. They get a prescription
for the hard liquor. That is possible, but they
use the old medical excuse. But I was wonder-
ing when we think of the number of older
men— probably it has been their custom all
their lives before dinner to have a cold
beer. I am not asking him to go and hve it
up all the time, but these faciUties are not
available, and I hope that none would be so
puritanical as to say, "Well, these old fellows
are just living on their old-age pension. They
cannot aflFord it. They should not be spending
their money on such an item." But to many
of these men, the vast majority of them are
working men, and that was one of the few
pleasures they had in life, their evening cold
beer. One or two of these men mentioned this
to me, so I made a point on difFerent occasions
of asking them. Of course, some could not
care less, but a lot of them did, and said of
course, "That carmot be done around here."
There may be one or two local administra-
tions that wink at the problem and have a
way of getting around it. But I think that we
could be more liberal in our views— and using
the word "liberal" in a non-political sense, to
encourage if we could, or make it possible to
have facilities and a common room where the
men smoke, to get the occasional beer.
Because this has been, in our past, a bit of
a puritanical outlook. I think that we have
grown up enough to say that this maybe is
a bit of a luxury that some of these old men
are entitled to.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the Minister with regards to citizens in
our homes for the aged. A good many of
them are receiving the pension. Of course,
they deduct, those patients that are in these
homes, maybe $71 for their keep in the home
and leave $4 for pocket money. Now, does
this department make that decision? How
much money is taken away for their keep in
these homes for the aged? Of course some of
the homes have hospitals and they leave only
$1. Is it The Department of Social and
Family Services which makes these decisions?
How much money will be deducted from
these pensioners in these homes for the aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, actually
tlie situation is that it is the pensioner who is
paying what he can towards the upkeep. It is
not a question of deducting or taking away.
He pays towards his upkeep and the $71 is
just a small portion of the upkeep within a
home. But he is permitted to keep $15
under the regulations, to provide for these
items.
3418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the Minister, is that decision made by your
department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The $15, yes, that is
under our regulations.
Mr. Spence. If a patient in one of these
homes receives a $75 pension, then he has
the right to keep back $15? He keeps $15?
Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. He has it to keep.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarbor-
ough Centre.
Mrs. M, Renwick: Mr. Chainnan, I would
just hke to add a word to the comments of
the member for Parkdale, at the risk of
making him look a little partisan in the
double standard in his views. But I would
like to point out also that many of the older
women whom I have spoken to, before they
go into rest homes and homes for the aged,
have expressed the view that they do in fact
travel possibly prior to the dinner hour for a
bottle of stout or a bottle of ale at their
local pub; I have run into this several times.
After all, the word we used here is "home,"
and surely anything we can do in these
homes which would make it seem more like
home is worthy of consideration. I think it
is worthy of consideration that the elderly
persons could purchase a bottle of beer or a
bottle of stout, whichever they prefer, prior
to their meal.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there is
no restriction or regulation. Perhaps the
gentleman who has his $15 can buy a few
cold beers with that. There is no restriction
on what the home would serve.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, no.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr, Chairman, I am
just saying that there is no restriction, and
provision is being made. In some cases I have
read that a glass of sherry is just as good
as a sleeping pill any day of the week.
Mr. Braithwaite: If I might interject at
this time, perhaps this might be an apt time
for the saying that "Guinness is good for you"
to come in—
Mr. Chairman: The mem])er for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I brought
this case to the attention of the Minister
quite some time ago, and I would like to
repeat the case, hoping that the department
might change regulations to enable individu-
als to be placed in homes for the aged in
the vicinity in which they live. I happen
to have a case of a lady who had moved
from the county into the city of Windsor
to live with residents some six or seven years
ago. Because she had not been in the area
long enough— and this lady, by the way, was
82 years of age— she could not be placed in
Huron lodge in the city, but was required
to be sent to the home in Leamington. She
has no friends, no relatives in the Leaming-
ton area.
You have taken an 82-year-old woman,
taken her away from her friends in the city
of Windsor, and you have come along and
rehoused her in a community so that abso-
lutely no one can come to visit her. All her
friends are aged. They would be within
travelling distance of her by visiting her at
Huron lodge. The Minister's department
should have been able to do something to
have kept her in Huron lodge in the city of
Windsor, rather than have sent her out into
the county. If it requires a change in the
regulations then a change should be imple-
mented in the regulations. What he has done
to this elderly lady, this 82-year-old lady,
was heartless. It was cruel, it was uncalled
for.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First, Mr. Chairman,
we did not do any of those things. And I
bring to the attention of the House that this
is a local matter. I will refresh the member's
memory that the introduction of amend-
ments to The Homes for tlie Aged Act re-
moved any statement relating to residence;
that is no longer within our statutory regu-
lations. With respect to tliat particular
woman, that lady you referred to, I under-
stand that the city was going to look after
her as soon as a bed was available.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
hope what you say is so because the people
that have approached me— the religious orders
that have approached me— certainly presented
an extremely good case for having her kept
in the city of Windsor rather than having her
sent to the county home. It certainly was not
fair, and whether I am blaming you need-
lessly or not, someone deserves some blame
for the way this 82-year-old lady has been
treated.
Vote 2008 agreed to.
MAY 27. 1968
3419
On vote 2009:
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to repeat all the comments I made at
I the start of vote 2008 but I am asking the
{ Minister if he would at this time like to
make some statement with reference to nurs-
ing homes and our senior citizens— our aged
people. I think that this might be an appro-
priate place since we are talking about the
office on aging; we are talking about nego-
tiations in Metro in particular and we are
talking about his staff— people being moved.
As I said, I am not going to go into detail.
However, I thought perhaps the Minister
might, at this time, want to make some com-
ments. I know that he wants everybody to
know all the details that are involved. When
you have headlines such as you had in the
Toronto Daily Star of Thursday, May 18,
where is says "Metro Nursing Homes Hit
Bully Welfare" and this sort of thing— I
think it is time for the Minister to make
some sort of statement as to what his depart-
^ ment is going to do to clarify the whole
i matter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I bring
to your attention again that this matter that
the hon. member raises in contravention of
the rules should have been brought up under
vote 2003 but just to conclude the matter,
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health is also
interested in the homes for the aged. He is
going to undertake a review of the rates by
a group from the government's point of view,
and then this department will have the bene-
fit of the review of rates, as made by a survey
to be initiated by the Minister of Health.
At that time we will be in a position to still
further review the propositions which have
been placed.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if I might
just follow then, through you, Mr. Chairman.
Is the Minister then prepared to give this
House an undertaking that those presently
in nursing homes will not have to suffer the
apprehension of being moved, even though
the moves have been stopped temporarily?
Will he undertake that there will be no fur-
ther moves until this—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member was out of order when he asked me
the first question. I did him the courtesy of
replying to him. That matter is at the local
level, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest to
you that any further discussion on this matter
is out of order.
Mr. Braithwaite: If I may disagree, Mr.
Chairman, you made no ruling that I was out
of order. The Minister suggested the same,
but you did not so rule. This is the office of
the aging and I see no reason why the Min-
ister should try to hide behind a fagade and
say that I am out of order.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! The member
has made those statements before, but it
seems to me that references should not be
made, as I said before, to nursing home acti-
vities. If the member wants to bring in
any suggestions as to those elderly people who
are in nursing homes, or any plans or arrange-
ments in connection with them, which have
been studied by the office on aging or which
would be a desirable programme, I think it
could be brought in. But as the Minister
has said, there has been complete debate on
nursing homes as such.
The member, I think, must realize that it
came under vote 2003, but if he wants to
bring in any area of dealing with the elderly
people and what might be done for them, I
think this would be in order.
Mr. Braithwaite: Then following your com-
ments, Mr. Chairman, what I had in mind
by asking for the Minister's undertaking was
specifically that. I wanted him to remove
any apprehension these senior citizens might
have about being moved— I am not saying
from where, but we see in the paper where
moving has been halted temporarily. I think
it behooves the Minister at this time to say,
"all right, I am going to give an order to
Metropolitan Toronto not to make any more
moves until our survey is over."
I can see nothing wrong with asking that,
at this time. Mr. Chairman, it is not out of
order. A survey is being made by the Min-
ister of Health. It involves the office of aging
and I cannot see why the Minister cannot
make that undertaking now.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister intend
to make any further comments in connection
with this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have already ex-
plained, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, there is no
question that the member for Etobicoke is in
on this vote and deserves a better answer.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I might men-
tion that when the committee on aging was
set up, in their interim report they recom-
mended there be an office on aging. Of
course, this is again strictly dealing with aging
3420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and if it has anything to do with nursing
homes— true, it relates to aging, because this
is a very major problem in the province.
Even deahng v^^ith the report of the Min-
ister of Health, Mr. Chairman, under item 5,
under the office of aging, there is the inter-
departmental advisory committee on aging.
I wish that we had some knowledge from the
Minister, Mr, Chairman, as to what has taken
place between The Department of Health
and The Department of Social and Family
Services in regard to this. For example, the
question I have on this— again, if there is any
argument about it you could decide whether
I am out of order as well— is this. The com-
mittee of aging made a recommendation-
34, it is a short recommendation and I will
read it, and it had to do stricdy with aging:
—that the province take immediate steps
to increase its share of the costs to muni-
cipalities for—
I am sorry, I will begin at the beginning:
—that municipalities and non-profit or-
ganizations be encouraged to avail them-
selves of government support to develop a
complex of service including both hospital
based and community based home care
programmes, visiting nurses' and visiting
homemakers' services—
and then it goes on.
The problem is this, Mr. Chairman— and I
would like to get an answer from the Min-
ister—that many people are sometimes in
nursing homes, many elderly people, or in
mental hospitals, that could be in homes for
the aged. I have met many people in both
and I often wonder why the person should
stay in a mental hospital and not in a home
for the aged. The reason usually is that there
has \^en no background developed, or they
are in a home for the aged and are just lucky
there happened to be space available.
I would ask the Minister— and this would
include having to do with the elderly citizens
in our nursing homes— what has been done by
the government in the last 12 months in en-
couraging non-profit organizations and muni-
cipalities in establishing hospital based and
community based complexes. Has anything
been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, that activity comes properly under The
Department of Health and they have taken
steps in that regard. Mr. Chairman, we are
now dealing with the office of aging.
I refer to the hon. member through you,
Mr. Chairman— there is a report of the select
conmiittee on youth which covers at least
ten departments, I think. Now does that mean
that every time you talk about a young per-
son you can talk on any subject? No, you talk
within the scope of the particular vote at the
time. In this relationship, the problems of the
elderly sick, that type of thing, comes under
the department of the Minister of Health,
although the geriatric committee comes under
our jurisdiction, through the office of aging,
because they make the studies, in this par-
ticular instance the one in the Western hos-
pital, through the geriatric centre.
Mr. Trotter: Could you tell me if the inter-
departmental advisory committee on aging,
and that would include, in part, your depart-
ment, has it come up with any policies dealing
with this matter of estabhshing a complex,
both hospital based and community based?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee has come up with their first recom-
mendation. I am pleased that I had the
opportunity of passing that recommendation
to the Minister of Labour and that it has
already been implemented. They considered
it to be perhaps the first and foremost— the
one on the age discrimination advertising—
that was their first and only recommendation
so far. That has been implemented and we
are waiting for their studies on it.
Mr. Trotter: How often does that inter-
departmental committee meet; who is on the
committee; and who is its chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no set rule on
the number of times that they meet. They can
meet from time to time. Dr. Priddle is chair-
man, and I take this opportunity of placing
on the record the outstanding contribution he
is making to the geriatric field, not only on
behalf of the citizens of the Metropolitan area,
but on behalf of the citizens of an—
Mr. Trotter: He is a good man, I will not
argue that—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is tops.
Mr. Trotter: I will not argue that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Then we have from
The Department of Agriculture and Food,
Miss H. McKercher, the director of the home
economics branch. From Trade and Devolop-
ment, Mr. H. Suters, vice chairman, and
managing director of the Ontario housing cor-
poration. Education and University Affairs,
Dr. E. Dutton, special advisor to the com-
munity programme division. Health, Dr. J.
Allison, director, chronic care and medical
MAY 27, 1968
3421
rehabilitation. Labour, Mr. Daniel Hill, direc-
tor of the Ontario human rights commission.
And, from our own department, the Deputy
Minister, who has been substituted by the
acting deputy; from Municipal Affairs, Mr.
G. Hewsen of the organization and adminis-
tration branch. The office of the Prime Minis-
ter, through Mr. R. A. Farrell, the executive
officer. The Treasury, Mrs. H. Salisbury— she
is with the economic planning branch of the
finance and economics department.
This is an unusual committee in that it also
has members at large. Mrs. J. J. McHale, Jr.,
who is a board member of the Ontario hous-
ing corporation and former chairman of the
section on aging, Ontario welfare council.
Rev. Sister St. Michael, she is also a Ph.D.
of the departments of philosophy and psy-
chology, Brescia College, London, Ontario—
I believe she was very recently honoured in
respect of her work in this regard. Mr. R.
J. Lamoureux, who is a retired official of the
united steelworkers of America and the united
senior citizens of Ontario, incorporated, and of
course. Dr. W. W. Priddle. So we have more
than a well balanced interdepartmental com-
mittee in this aspect to review the recom-
mendations, to give them their thoughts and
place them before us.
Mr. Trotter: There is no question that the
personnel you have on the committee is
excellent. I do not know how many times they
have met, but they are having a strenuous
time; the only recommendation that has come
up is the age discrimination.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Certainly not, Mr.
Chairman, that would be unfair to the com-
mittee. They have had four meetings. I
know because I met with them. Their agenda
covered a very broad range of matters and
then they happend to formalize this particu-
lar recommendation, in order to have it pro-
ceeded with and we accepted it.
Mr. Trotter: I would assume that they
would come up with a lot more ideas than
that. Maybe it is the only one you have seen
fit to bring before this House in the form of
legislation, because—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, let me
make it clear that they have met, they have
discussed this particular matter and they
made a formal recommendation. It was passed
on by me to the Minister of Labour under
whose jurisdiction this particular matter came.
It has been implemented and no doubt there
will be other formalized recommendations
coming forward.
Mr. Trotter: I cannot understand why yon
move so slowly. When your committee on
aging, a select committee of this Legislature
made 48 recommendations we had for advisors
some of those very same people whom you
mentioned, so I have had an opportunity to
hear them and I know that they are highly
informed. But what seems so wasteful of their
time, of my time, and of the government's
money is that we have committees that sit
around in discussion. We bring in recommen-
dations like this 48th recommendation I have
here and it just seems like a colossal waste
of time and money.
Now, something has been done but a lot of
it has been window dressing, and a lot of it,
I think, is embarrassing in some respect. They
use good names, dedicated people and
extremely learned people and certainly their
abilities or advice cannot be put into prac-
tice. You know, we are so timid in this prov-
ince that we had recommendation 42, having
to do with senior citizens in this committee,
and the hon. member for Durham, the chair-
man of our committee, last year brought in a
resolution wanting this House to adopt recom-
mendation 42— that we set aside each year,
commencing with the third week of June of
each year, a senior citizens week, in order
that we could give publicity to, and advertise,
the problems of senior citizens. But, of course,
that was talked out and nothing ever comes of
it. It is a simple thing, a publicity gimmick,
if you wish to call it that, to help the cause
of senior citizens, but we cannot even squeeze
that out of the government.
And when I see the extent of this problem
and see, for example, under this vote on
aging, $17,000 for surveys, expensive surveys,
conferences, investigations, I realize that we
really are not making the effort that we
could make. Of course, if governments vote
the money, what in the world can we expect
our trained people to do? This is, I think, an
urgent matter because we really do not know
in this province the need of our people who
are either in the homes for the aged, or
whether those who are in the homes for the
aged could get along better if they were on
their own, if they had a httle bit of help with
meals-on-wheels and the other helps that
can be provided.
We do not know, we have no idea and yet
it is true you are literally investing millions
of dollars on homes for the aged and my
guess is this is not nearly enough. But this is
the department, this is the estimate that is
supposed to find these things out. Dr. Priddle
got all kinds of credit for the work that was
3422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
carried out at Western hospital on the geri-
atrics study. The average person does not
know it is going on, and I rather question
that The Department of Health even liked
what he was doing.
They may do now, but they certainly had a
rough time tr\'ing to pioneer it, and I hope
that under your interdepartmental study there
is far more co-operation than there has been
in the past, because if the past is any evidence
of what is going on now, it is pretty grim.
This is why I am asking what is being done,
and I am quite certain that these people on
the committee that you mentioned could do
more. But just to gi\'e you an example, you
mentioned two people, Mrs. J. J. McHale and
Mr. H. Suters. Both of them in their field are
quite capable. Undoubtedly, Mrs. McHale
has done a tremendous amount of work for
senior citizens. Yet with all the dedication
she has, when that particular group from
the Ontario housing corporation was before
the committee on aging, they could gi^•e us
no indication whatsoever of what the require-
ments for housing of our senior citizens.
I do not think they know yet. Maybe they
have not been given tlie opportunity, they
may not be given the personnel. I am sure
that one of the reasons why the Ontario
housing corporation was having difficulty in
dealing with the senior citizens' problems was
simply over .salaries, because the civil service
commission would not allow them to employ
certain people. But those very people were
before this committee and I feel that parti-
cularb', Mrs. McHale was most anxious to
help the senior citizens on housing. And yet
when they cannot gi\e you the an.swers you
jnst wonder what government is really doing.
So these committees become buried in small
print in the estimates despite the fact that we
spent 2.5 years traipsing across this province
and this country bringing up recommenda-
tions, the vast majority of which are worth-
while, the vast majority of which are not
really expensive and the vast majority of
which are preventive. They seek to rehabili-
tate people; they .seek to keep them going;
in the long run they save the taxpayer a lot of
money. And yet you bring forth almost nil
on this estimate of what is needed or what
is done. 1 would say to this Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that he has a marxellous advan-
tage. He can say, "I am new at this game,
there has been a lot of neglect, it is not my
fault, but I want to do something. I can do
this, I can do that," but he sat like a bump on
a log and simply used the names of a lot of
good people and put them to work or gave
them the opportunity. I do not doubt for a
minute that tliey could do a tremendous
amount and I must register through you, Mr.
Chairman, to this Minister and this entire
House that I am pretty disgusted with the
work that the Minister has not permitted to
go on.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2009? The member
for Scarborough Centre:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister when the report for
the select committee on aging will be pub-
lished.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It has been published
for some time. What is the date of it, I ask
the hon. member for Parkdale, the date of the
select committee?
Mr. Trotter: This one is dated February,
1967. What the member for Scarborough
Centre is referring to, is this: It says the
complete text of our select committee's re-
port was not available for inclusion with
these final recommendations which we wish
to present to the House early in the session.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): This
was the pre-election bait.
Mr. Trotter: And it is under the name of
Alex Carruthers, MPP, chairman, February
1967, while the rest of it never did come
out. That is it, and I do not know if we ran
out of money, if there was an election or
what happened, but at least the recommenda-
tions are there. I would like to have seen the
rest of the report but at least the recom-
mendations are there. Maybe you can ans-
wer the question when the rest of it is going
to be printed.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2009.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, might I
ask then, if the Minister is going to answer
and if not, could it be tabled in the House
some time in the near future, when this
report will be published?
Mr. Chairman: I do not think this comes
under the—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, the mat-
ter of publication of the full committee's
report does not really come under my juris-
diction at this time. When the House was
dissolved that finished that committee.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister about seven points
MAY 27, 1968
3423
of recommendations from that committee.
What has been done about the recommen-
dations? It was recommended that pro-
grammes for the elderly be co-ordinated
through the office on aging established in
1966, Has this been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we are
now providing subsidies for programmes and
I believe that statement in this regard has
been made. It is in the process of being
dealt with.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask if we will be co-ordinating all
programmes for the elderly under the office
on aging?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee, Mr. Chairman, will be dealing
with the full co-ordination of all the pro-
grammes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the On-
tario institute on aging proposed to do re-
search and planning in the field of services
for the elderly. Has there been anything set
up or any provision made yet for this
research?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Sorry, I did not hear
that last part, there is no Ontario institute.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, repeating
for the Minister— the Ontario institute on
aging proposed to do research on planning in
the field of services to the elderly. Has
any arrangement been made or any provision
been made yet to set this up for research
purposes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Insofar as I am aware,
there is no Ontario institute on aging as yet.
Mr. Trotter: Nothing happens.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Another recommenda-
tion, Mr. Chairman, from the select commit-
tee on aging was that the province survey
manpower needs in the field and institute
accelerated training programmes, since there
is a great shortage of trained personnel to
serve the aged. Has anything been done to
accelerate the training programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, that is part
of our overall programme of stimulating the
classification of social worker and all those
other personnel necessary to serve, not only
this particular field, but all of the field within
the social services. Remember that they are
active in a programme that provides the kind
of services the member for Niagara Falls was
referring to; this is made possible through the
provision of the services adjutants.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman: another
recommendation was increased grants to the
Ontario welfare council in regional county
and local jurisdictions to permit the establish-
ment of community councils on aging and
permit better planning and co-ordination.
Since there was no significant increase under
the municipal welfare administration branch in
the 68-69 estimates, I would like to ask if
there is any intention that this particular
recommendation be carried out in the future.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That matter will be
getting complete review during the coming
year.
Mr. Trotter: How often does it have to be
reviewed?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It will receive consid-
eration,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Another recommendation
from the select committee on aging that was
tabled on the Legislature February 23, 1967
—all of these recommendations were tabled
at that time— was a need for an income study.
Both the Senate committee on aging and
Ontario committee recommended a technical
body to discuss income needs and keep as-
sistance grants up to date and adequate. Has
anything been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man. Under our Family Benefits Act, all of
those allowances were increased considerably
and that is an action that has been taken.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to know if a network of geriatric centres
has been, or will be, established sometime in
the near future?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not quite clear as
to the way the hon. member placed the ques-
tion. There is no network of geriatric centres
planned.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are there
any geriatric centres in our province as
recommended by this committee?
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: There is one at tlie
Toronto Western hospital and I understand
that others are interested.
Mr. Trotter: That was established some
time ago.
3424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Trotter: But notliing since then. That
was estabhshed when this report was written.
This report recommended that more be
estabhshed but none have been estabhshed
since this report came out and there is only
one. That was that pilot project, correct?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Lastly, Mr. Chairman,
another recommendation was that the grants
under The Elderly Persons Centres Act be
increased both operating and capital. The
increase was $79,500. Does the Minister
consider that this is a sufficient increase to
deal with the problem?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we think that this
will meet our immediate requirements. Of
course, this is a continuing programme and
one that I expect to see increase annually
as more and more municipalities take an
interest.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2009 carried?
Mr. B. Newman: I want to ask the Minister
if he considered the programme of meals-on-
wheels a worthwhile programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I followed with interest,
tlie discussions on that and as I indicated
earlier, I think our direction in the future
will be to the development of complexes-
homes for the aged and senior citizens' hous-
mg, with central facilities to be made avail-
able to all of those.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, that is all right after
you develop that complex. But in the mean-
time, what do we do? I think this meals-on-
wheels programme is one that merits serious
consideration and assistance from your de-
partment. I think that here is a programme
in which you can take advantage of the large
number of high school girls and college girls
who find difficulty in obtaining summer em-
ployment. You could use it as a pilot project
in communities throughout the length and
breadth of Ontario. You could expand the
programme and be of that much greater
assistance to the aged.
I know the one in my own community has
proven so successful that they are continuing
the programme. However, they only take
care of 25 hot dinners once a week, so you
can see the tremendous room for expansion
on this. Twenty-five in one week; multiply
that by seven days and you would have
seven times the personnel involved. Multiply
that by the number of different institutions or
individuals that require this type of assistance.
You have an opportunity here to take advan-
tage of these large numbers of young people in
our communities who would like to get them-
selves active, and become interested in social
betterment of the aged. Here is an oppor-
tunity by which you can come along and
make them productive.
It being 6:00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 95
ONTARIO
legislature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 27, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
frice per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 27, 1968
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremlco, continued 3427
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 3456
3427
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
{Continued)
Vote 2009 agreed to.
On vote 2010:
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if any
grants have been paid under The Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1966, to work-
shops, and if any have been turned down?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Sir, in 1966, 1967 and 1968
the branch will have provided an estimated
expenditure of $535,000 for operating grants
and $80,000 for capital grants. It is estimated
in this coming year that the cost of the oper-
ating grants will be $840,000 and the cost of
capital grants will be $131,000. There are no
grants which are payable under the legisla-
tion which have been turned down. There
are situations where some workshops have
wanted additional sums of money. That of
course is a matter for further decision.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many counsellors
are available for counselling guidance under
the Act, solely for this purpose?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There was a comple-
ment of 95 last year, and a complement of 97
this year. There are 11 rehabilitation coun-
sellors, and then there are 45 in other cate-
gories which are related to the counselling
field.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One hundred and fifty-
three counsellors in all.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. Who are the
members of the board of review, and has the
director had to suspend or cancel service
provided, and for what reason? Which serv-
ice and for what reasons?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The board of review is
the same board of review under The Family
Monday, May 27, 1968
Benefits Act, and we had a discussion on that,
Mr. Chairman. You will recall that the ap-
pointments have not yet been made.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Has the director had to
suspend or cancel service, Mr. Chairman, and
which service, and for what reason?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are suspensions
made where those receiving training skip the
school or fail in their training. Apart from
these, there are no classifications of suspen-
sion.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, under
the regulations, item 1 (b), approved work-
shops, is listed as schedule 2. I had trouble
locating schedule 2. I wonder, are they too
many for the Minister to enumerate or would
he tell me where I missed schedule 2, to
decide what is an approved workshop?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Schedule 2, which I
have before me, commences immediately
after schedule 1, and there are 81 insitutions
listed.
Vote 2010 agreed to.
On vote 2011:
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, this is the only place in the
estimates of the government when it is fully
in order, I suppose, to discuss matters per-
taining to the Indians of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that the leader
of the Opposition is correct. I have spoken
to the leader of the House and the Chairman.
I think that this is the one place where per-
haps the strict rules of the committee for
procedures might be set aside, and this will
be the time to discuss the matter of Indians,
regardless of in what particular department
any aspect may directly fall. Any additional
time that we take up this evening will of
course be made up later on where the dis-
cussion of the relevant departments is con-
cerned.
Hon. H. L. Rawntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Does the hon. leader
of the Opposition agree that this is an appro-
priate place for the major debate?
3428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, this is the point in the esti-
mate where we are called upon to vote $L5
million for the support of the efforts of the
province of Ontario in assisting in tlie con-
ditions of the Indian population of the prov-
ince. You know that the constituency that I
represent has the most populous Indian re-
serve in Canada, that of the Six Nations band.
But I want particularly to draw your atten-
tion, sir, to some of the problems in two other
areas of the province which have very signi-
ficant Indian populations, which I believe
are not being adequately served, either by this
government or by the government of Canada.
I would say first that—
Mr. J. H. White (London Soutli): It is a
federal responsibihtyl
Mr. Nixon: There are a good many mem-
bers present who remember our visit, in 1965
I believe, to northwestern Ontario, when we
had an opportimity to visit the Indians in the
Patricia district and Kenora district.
Unfortunately the member for Kenora (Mr.
Bernier) is not present, because I wanted to
specifically refer to some of the problems in
his area. We all know that the two repre-
sentatives of the bands in the Patricia area
and the Kenora area are present in the House
from time to time, in the person of two of
our young page boys whom we have come
to know in the last two or three weeks— I do
not see them here this evening, but I think
many of us have had a chance to chat with
them informally since they have arrived here
in Toronto.
I think that we can remember particularly
the situation of contentment and some de-
gree of prosperity that the Indian bands
exhibited up in the Trout Lake area, halfway
between Kenora and Hudson Bay, where a
large group of us as members of the Legis-
lature landed on the lake and were treated
to the Indian hospitality. I well remember
the ladies of the band cleaning the fish that
had been caught that afternoon for the mem-
bers by the Indians in the local community,
and they served the most marvelous dinner.
There was good feeling and enthusiasm fol-
lowing dinner. In the long twilight of the
farther north regions of the province we took
part in sort of an extemporaneous field meet
in which the Indians showed that they could
outrace us in everything, I suppose, but
elections.
But there was certainly an attitude there
of great friendliness. I felt that the provisions
that had been made for those Indians in that
part of the northern part of the province were
such that their medical requirements were
being met. They had built there a large
freezer so they could take advantage of the
fishing and they had the proper facilities to
market this catch in a maimer that was to
their advantage.
It really was not until you got down to
the southern part of northwestern Ontario,
around Kenora, that we saw some of the real
problems involving the Indian population. It
was in that area where a change in the
economy, and an economy that is growing
quite rapidly, had left the Indians behind
and had really brought about some of the
serious difficulties that have been growing
rapidly in that part of northern Ontario.
As tlie economy changed, as the forest
products were depleted, as the advantages of
having traplines and fishing rights receded
with the growth of some of the industry there,
the Indians found that they were not in a posi-
tion—because of racial prejudice to some
extent and through poor educational facili-
ties probably to a greater extent— to take
advantage of some of these advances that were
taking place in northwestern Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I know you are aware of
the serious difficulties associated with unem-
ployment. The problems of an urbanizing
community close to where the Indian reserves
had been established in years gone by, and
the fact that large numbers of these Indian
people would drift into the towns without
anything to occupy their attention, without
adequate employment, and with a liquor
problem that was larger in that part of the
community than in the general commimity,
are apparent. Those of us who have visited
Kenora on that occasion and since have been
struck by the numbers of Indian people that
we can meet on the streets and talk to, ask
about their problems— about which they seem
to be completely disheartened— about their
cultural backgrounds which have stood them
in such good stead for many years, and their
opportunity for taking part in the new com-
munity that is developing with the ex-pansion
of the economy of the north.
The government has tried to give some
assistance in this regard. Representatives of
the alcoholism and drug addiction research
foundation are in the process of making
special studies there, trying to give assistance
to the Indian community that has experienced
so much difficulty in this regard. This, of
course, is just a symptom of the much deeper
MAY 27, 1968
3429
difiBculty, associated in my view, with a more
progressive approach that this government
has not been able to take— even though they
have apparently signed an agreement with the
government of Canada, which is giving them
a much larger share of responsibihty than they
have had in years gone by.
We are aware of the problem there. Many
of us have met these Indian people on the
streets of Kenora and some of us in our
tours of the north have gone out into the
reserves to meet the chiefs, to discuss with
them the problems they have in leading their
people into a better way of life— one in which
they have the advantages of modem educa-
tional opportunities, and more than that, an
opportunity to develop in their own reserves
with the support of the taxing community
in the broader sense, the support of their own
initiatives which I believe is the answer that
we must look for.
The second group of Indians I would like
to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is
one that is described, I think, in a very excel-
lent piece of reporting in the St. Catharines
Standard of October 26, 1967. This is a
rather extensive article that some of you may
have had an opportunity to look at earlier. It
describes the conditions on an Indian reserve
that probably many more of us have visited
whether we realize it or not, because it
straddles Highway 17 where it passes through
the constituency of my colleague, the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Far-
quhar). I refer to the Serpent River Indian
reserve.
In this area, there is a group of about 200
people living in conditions which are much
more closely associated with the developing
areas of Ontario than the groups that I have
mentioned to you already, Mr. Chairman.
These people are not living in any remote
area of the province. One of the main high-
ways—the Trans-Canada Highway— bisects the
reserve, and yet we find that they are living in
some special diflBculties beginning first with
the roads that serve the reserve itself. They
are dirt roads, impassable in many seasons of
the year, and even in the summer they are
just dusty, dry, rutted roads which make
low-gear transportation the only possible way
of getting into the distant parts of the reserve
and visiting the 200 residents.
The buildings are all of frame construction
and while many of them are described as
adequate by the two reporters for the St.
Catharines Standard— v/hom I should name
as this point: Mr. Eric Colwell and Mr. John
Pearson, who undertook to make some
research in this regard— many others are
simply unfit for habitation by even the broad-
est sense of fitness and the most expansive
judgment that could be possibly applied.
These two gentlemen had a considerable tour
through this particular reserve with the chief,
whose name is Meawasige— I follow the
example set by my hon. friend from Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha), who gives Hansard some assist-
ance with some of these more diflBcult names.
This gentleman is the chief of the Indian
band and is endeavouring to get the assistance
that is needed to support his own initiatives
in developing this reserve and giving the
people an opportunity to come into some of
the advantages of modern hving.
Some of the matters associated with this
have to do with the fact that in this reserve of
200 people— right on the Trans-Canada High-
way, close to Elliot Lake, not too far from
Sudbury— there are only five homes equipped
with running water. Because the buildings
are mostly all frame and most are heated by
ordinary stoves there is a very serious fire
hazard, since there is no water piped into the
area except in the five individual cases that
I have previously referred to. The nearest
fire protection is 20 miles away at Blind
River and that is provided by The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests. When they have
a call to come to the community they provide
what assistance they can, but under normal
circumstances they arrive with too little and
much too late.
As far as recreation for the citizens of
this particular reserve is concerned there is
only a dilapidated hall which was formerly
a bunkhouse and was moved by a team of
horses by the Indians themselves from a site
where it had been left by a paving company.
This is the only community facihty that is
available, not only for the meetings of the
band council but for the other activities on
the Indian reserve.
It is interesting that the lack of fimds is
something that is often stressed, because
there is a general impression among the
population of Ontario and elsewhere that the
Indians are on the receiving end of an almost
unlimited source of public funds in the form
of federal handouts. But as the Minister no
doubt knows, Mr. Chairman, the Indians re-
ceive the ordinary income, particularly the
elderly Indians, of $105 a month, and many
of those of working age do not have avail-
able even those funds. The band funds—
which normally are available to supplement
these cases— amount, we are told in this
3430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
article, to something like $7 a year each for
the members of this particular band.
The Minister knows tliat some of the bands
are much more fortmiate than others. We
are aware of the fact that those in the
Samia area have a pool of funds available
from the sale of lands that have appreciated
in value over the years, and are in a condi-
tion where tliey can finance many of their
own projects. In my own reserve in Brant
county, the most inconsiderable band funds
that were based on tlie sale of real estate
more than a century ago were largely wasted
by the decision taken by tlie government of
Canada of tlie day, with no recourse for re-
turn when the advice, and, as a matter of
fact, tlie directives for the investment of
those funds, led tlie Indians to lose them
entirely over the years.
There is a serious difficulty here, if they
were to be repaid with anything like interest
from the time tlie funds were lost in that
particular case. It might double the national
debt in order to meet the recjuirements that
the Six Nations Indians feel that they legiti-
mately have on the government of Canada to
meet their continuing obligations.
There is no doubt that the problem of the
elderly people on the reserve is a very seri-
ous one. It was raised previously in the
estimates of The Department of Social and
Family Services in the provision of facilities
for the older people, and we know that there
was an amendment to The Homes for the
Aged Act this year that would provide the
responsibility for the government of Ontario
to have the right to make funds available
for some of these homes for elderly citizens
on Indian reserves.
Tliis is a continuing problem, because up
until now, as the Minister well knows, the
elderly citizens, if they had access to a home
for the aged at all, normally had to leave
the reserve to go to a home in a nearby
white community and found themselves in
circumstances very strange to them. Nor-
mally they were very anxious to return home
a few days after they had arrived at the
home for an elderly person in a nearby
community.
It is obvious that these facilities will have
to be provided on the reserve itself, and in
order to provide for some sort of dignity and
happiness for the elderly citizens we are
going to have to share in this, I presume
with the government of Canada and without
the involvement of band funds at all. I be-
lieve it can be worked out so that the govern-
ment of Canada would pay the share that
normally is tlie responsibility of the muni-
cipality in the communities that have these
programmes at this time.
But there is one specific case here that I
would like to bring to your attention— of an
Indian 75 years old, a former lumberman,
now retired and who has for the past 20
years lived in a crumbling one-room tarpaper
shack on the Serpent River reserve. He ap-
parently showed the two visiting reporters
through his home, which they felt was quite
inadequate. The ceiling was made of rotted
timbers stuffed with paper and rags for crude
insulation, and in his own words he said
even in his best efforts the roof still leaked
a bit. Inside the unfurnished and bare walls
of his solitary dwelling, there was a wood
stove— and the elderly Indian had to chop
and store fuel— a chair, a table, an ancient
iron bed, which were the only creature com-
forts available. Almost incongruously, a cut-
out picture of Queen Elizabeth II smiled
down on the place where this Indian lived in
some considerable danger. Red-hot pipes of
his stove poked through the hazard of the
papers and rags in the ceiling, and these
reporters were much struck by the inade-
(luacies of the facilities, particularly for
elderly Indians.
As a pensioner, he is nearing 80 years of
age— he is older than 75 anyway— he receives
$105 per month, and this with his treaty
money is his only income. To dispel any
thought that treaty Indians receive largesse
in abundance, the Indian, who spoke with
his band members only in Ojibway, advised
that the band funds amounted in his case to
the sum of $7 annually. So it appears that
there are many problems associated with the
Serpent River band, which is another specific
case of a community that has been bypassed
by tliis government and to a great extent the
government of Canada.
I did want to mention to the Minister and
the members of the House, Mr. Chairman,
that tliere is a third group of Indians— the
ones with whom I am most familiar, whose
problems are quite different from those either
in the far northwest, or in more developed
areas of the north— and I refer to the Six
Nations band in the county of Brant.
Their problem is considerably different in
that they do not choose to accept for them-
selves, the responsibility of a municipality in
the sense that we understand it, because they
believe that this carries with it the release of
the government of Canada from the commit-
ment that that government entered into over
the years when they were backing the Indians
MAY 27, 1968
3431
oflF their hereditary lands on to the reserve
properties. The Indians feel, with much
justification, that the responsibihty under-
taken by the government of Canada years ago
for the provision of health services, welfare
services and education and the sort of support
that would keep the Indian community in
some sort of touch with the modern commun-
ity outside the reserve is still there and they
are not prepared to let any government rehn-
quish that responsibility.
This, more than any other reason, in my
view, is why the Indian reserves, even those
fairly prosperous ones, are not anxious to
have themselves estabhshed as municipalities
in the sense that we in this House under-
stand it. They are prepared to set themselves
up with an elected council, which has already
been done on several southern Ontario
reserves and a few in the north. I can tell you,
Mr. Chairman, that the quahty of the delibera-
tions of these council meetings, the democracy
of their elections and the involvement of the
Indian people themselves, is of first-order
quahty, and that they are quite prepared to
deal with their own problems.
It is their initiatives that we must support. I
believe that we in this House, and the Minis-
ter of Social and Family Services, who has
the responsibihty as chairman of the Cabinet
committee, are prepared to support them in
these initiatives as long as they are properly
identified.
The day when we in this House, or the
members of the Parhament of Canada, would
decide what was best for the Indian com-
munity must be long gone, and there should
be no Legislature or Parhament which is
prepared, without the full co-operation and
leadership of the Indian community, to decide
what should be done for them.
In my opening remarks— and the member
for London South, of course, made a lot of
this— I was quick to say that no level of gov-
ernment is without guilt in this, the govern-
ment of Canada included.
Mr. White: I want to make it clear that
this is a federal responsibility.
Mr. Nixon: But in this particular case, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to quote two or
three items-
Mr. White: Speak to your friends in
Ottawa.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The mem-
ber for London South is off again. There he
goes. Tell us about Big Chief Stanfield.
Mr. Nixon: I would hke to quote two or
three items from a report that was com-
missioned by the government of Canada, and
it is sometimes referred to as the Hawthorne/
Tremblay report. I think the Minister may be
familiar with it. It is now pubhshed in two
volumes. There are two or three quotes from
it that I think have some application here,
and the first one is the following:
There are strong moral and ethical
grounds for asserting the provincial gov-
ernments should contribute far larger
amounts of money and trained personnel
for coping with the problems of depressed
Indian conmiunities. Provincial governments
have the jurisdiction over resources, the
allocation of jobs, and the types of develop-
ment that take place in using these
resources.
The provincial governments should
assume prior responsibility for the social
and economic costs that are a direct by-
product of development, such as depletion
or spoilage of resources on which Indians
depend for their livelihood, technological
changes that render various types of
employment obsolescent, new resource
development projects, and the influxes of
population that cause social disorganiza-
tion.
And then there is a gap, and the Minister can
fill in if he chooses:
Hitherto, provincial administrations tend-
ed to sanction various types of revenue
associated with this, while dumping the
problems they generate in the laps of other
authorities.
That is the end of the quote from the report.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, the provincial
govenmients were justified in doing this, since
The Indian Act gives full responsibility for
Indians and their lands to the senior level of
government. But we now know that under
the urgings of reports such as the Hawthome-
Tremblay report, the government of Canada
has seen fit to enter into far-reaching agree-
ments with provincial governments, and we
have signed such an agreement here. And
this is the only one, the Minister tells us,
that has been accomplished. But I would say
this, that simply because we had entered
into this agreement in Ontario, there has been
little or no evidence of a more progressive
attitude towards meeting the problems that
I have attempted to describe to the House
this evening.
We know that we have under construction
at Moosonee, a centre for education that is
3432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
going to be directed chiefly towards the In-
dians. Yet we are told that the Indians them-
selves had little or no involvement with the
planning and development of that centre,
that Indians on the staflF are very few. Actu-
ally the facilities for the teaching staff there
are far and above the general level of the
community, so tliat the teachers are once
again going to be parachuted into the com-
munity—that is a phrase that has some parti-
cular meaning these days. They are going to
be parachuted into the community with all
of the condescension usually associated with
that sort of an undertaking. Unless the Indians
are intimately involved in the co-operative
development of these training procedures I
fear that once again we are spending funds-
public funds, federal and provincial— in an
effort which is not going to meet the general
acceptance of the community that is most
concerned.
I have visited the centre for continuing
education at Elhot Lake, in which a good
many Indians are involved in an upgrading
of their abilities, so that they can take part
in the industry and economy of the north.
I have talked to quite a few of them in their
classes, and there has been the expression of
some disappointment at tlie involvement of
both levels of government.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that these
education centres are going to be interesting
to observe. Certainly the one in Moosonee is
going to involve a large amount of capital in
its use. But one thing that has always bothered
me is that when we estabilsh these training
centres, there is a tendency to withdraw the
younger Indians in particular from their normal
family environment and bring them by boat
and aircraft for many miles, accustoming them
to a different way of life and expectations that
are associated more with life in a large urban
centre, without the follow-through that will
permit them to make a decision if they choose
to leave the reserve, the Indian community,
and make a life for themselves in the larger
centres of the north, or even to come down to
Toronto or Hamilton as so many of them do.
Unless we are prepared to follow through
on these forms of education and see that
these Indians have the spirit, the background,
the education and the general understanding
of the new sort of life that they are facing,
we are doing them no service. We give them
a bit of a leg up to coming down to Toronto
and joining the many hundreds of Indians
who have come here expecting to fit into a
community and get a job and to perhaps inte-
grate with the larger metropoHtan commu-
nity, only to find themselves, sometimes
because of their own personality diflBculties,
cast out entirely and living in what is becom-
ing a larger and larger ghetto of Indians in
Toronto.
I know that many of you have had an
opportunity to talk with many of the Indians
in Toronto and other major centres, and you
find that they are very unhappy indeed. This
government's efforts to establish social centres
so that Indians can be with people of similar
backgrounds in an effort to build up the kind
of confidence that will assist them in making
the transition are very laudable. Yet we know
that it is grossly inadequate and that there is
no intermediate step, whereby these Indians
who do choose to leave the reserve and their
hereditary situation, can have the training
and assistance that will permit them to fit
into the other parts of society, and in the
broader sense.
There is no doubt in my mind that where
the reserves are well established, and intend
to remain that way, it is our responsibihty to
see that the educational facilities are on the
reserve for the people. I beheve that we are
misguided if we believe that these young
Indian children should be uprooted from this
sort of situation, so that the intermediate step
is some kind of a white school where they
are going to be forced to adapt to the white
man's ways. My experience is that while a
few of them do accomplish this adaptation
and transformation, many of them continue to
withdraw inside themselves. While they may
be excellent athletes and students, they do
not appreciate this uprooting at an early age.
I believe that it is the biggest part of our
problem to see that these facihties are put on
the reserves for them and that the transfer-
ence from the reserve, if that is what the
Indians wish to undertake as individuals,
entails a special sort of programme that
would give them this sort of assistance.
Mr. Chairman, there are many items associ-
ated with this in the broader sense. The
House leader has indicated that he wants the
bulk of views of the members of the House on
Indian affairs expressed at this time, and be-
cause of this I would say that it is incumbent
on this Minister, who has the job of co-ordinat-
ing the Cabinet approach to Indian affairs in
the province, to see to it that the federal par-
ticipation is going to be extended to the de-
velopment of roads in the reserves, and the
building of bridges. I raised this matter in
connection with my own Indian reserve just
a few days ago with the Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Gomme). The Minister, at that
MAY 27, 1968
3433
time, said that the province is prepared to
shoulder its share of the cost as long as the
Indians finance their share, either as a munici-
pality or with the assistance of the govern-
ment of Canada.
I believe that if the responsibility for sup-
porting Indian initiative is going to be trans-
ferred more and more on to the provincial
government, it is this Minister's responsibility
to go out of his way to provide these Indian
bands and the Indian leaders with a clear
knowledge of the alternatives open to them.
It is a good thing when this government
says, "We are prepared to pay our share; the
government of Canada or the band funds
can pay their share."
I think that this Minister has to undertake
to go out to those reserves, or have someone
on his staflF who is prepared to do this, and
sit down with the band councils and work
out the alternatives. You should get in touch
with the government of Canada, write the
bands and say: "Here is a proposal that they
may support, and if not, we are prepared to
undertake these negotiations on your behalf."
This is the kind of assistance that will bear
fruit.
I know many of the Indians personally,
and I have a high regard for their ability as
councillors and as individuals. But they have
a tendency to be shy and retiring when they
get into a position where they are meeting
the representatives of other levels of govern-
ment. Any assistance that we can give them
in this regard is, I believe, much appreci-
ated—as long as we are not trying to impose
our views of what the Indians should do, on
these people themselves. I believe that they
have a clear view of what they want to do
in their own situation, and as I have tried to
point out, this situation varies from one Indian
community to another.
I am glad to see that in vote 2011, we are
appropriating $1 million for community de-
velopment projects, and this is something
that can bear real fruit, as long as we are
prepared to support Indian initiative, and if
we are prepared to provide the staff of trained
people who are aware of the ramifications of
The Indian Act of Canada and the diflSculties
that have been associated with it over the
years, and are prepared to work with federal
people and not simply criticize them. They
have undertaken a broad responsibility for
many years, and I believe that their attitudes
are very similar to those expressed in this
House. They want to do a good job, and I
believe that they are prepared to enter into
the kind of co-operation that is necessary in
this regard.
But too often, the programmes of this gov-
ernment have been custodial, in the presen-
tation of subsistence programmes and relief
measures. We see the responsibility for health
care, education, transportation, community
development, and economic development
gradually moving to the government of On-
tario with the financial support of the federal
government, and a whole new vista of heavy
responsibility opening up headed by the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services. There is
none other in the Cabinet to take the respon-
sibility but he, the way that it has been or-
ganized in Ontario.
He is the Minister for Indian affairs, if you
wish to call him that, and his responsibilities
are growing rapidly. I hope that he can
describe to us tonight an implementation of
a federal-provincial agreement that is going
to be meaningful, and which will come to
grips with the problem that has created suf-
fering in the province of Ontario, surrounded
by plenty and a growing economy. The
Indians have been bypassed by every level
of government and they continue to be by-
passed by this government. This is a project
that the Minister of Social and Family Ser-
vices can take on as something that could be
his most important responsibility as a mem-
ber of the Cabinet, of his political career.
We on this side, Mr. Chairman, are prepared
to support him to the hilt as long as he is
progressive, and is prepared to go out into
the field and give the assistance that is needed
in this important matter.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Minister would
prefer to wait until all members have spoken?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would be prefer-
able, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Before I recognize the
member for Thunder Bay, I am sure that the
committee would permit me a few moments
to introduce the special guests that we have
in the east gallery. We have with us tonight
the ladies from the Liberal ladies association
of Wellington South, and I am sure that we
welcome these special guests.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Great-look-
ing bunch of women, even though they are
Liberals.
Mr. Chairman: I was going to say that, but
I must remain impartial.
Mr. Stokes: Well I said it for you, Mr.
Chairman.
3434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am rising to speak to vote 2011, the
Indian development branch, where we see
the expenditure of $1,428,000 out of a total
budget of $228 milHon. It is our view that
tlie amount that has been appropriated is
totally inadequate. One of tlie most tragic
consequences of federal-provincial buck-
passing is the negelect of our Canadian
Indians.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain):
And Eskimos!
Mr. Stokes: Because Indian affairs is a fed-
eral responsibility, tlie government of Ontario
has completely washed its hands of the
problem. It turns its back on the thousands
of Indians living in the province and has
chosen to ignore the plight of these people
in the estimates of each department. It ex-
plains its no-action by pointing to Ottawa
and, saying "Let them do it." We are aware
that Indian affairs is a federal responsibility
but we do question the wisdom of allow-
ing this to blind the Minister of Social and
Family Services to tlie need for an extension
of services under the Indian development
branch.
In trying to get some information on the
Indian development branch I phoned the
offices and asked if they had any publications
that might enlighten me as to what was
going on within the branch. I was told that
tliey did not have any information available
and anything that is pertinent to the depart-
ment would come up during the estimates.
I found out later in an offhand way that
they do produce, under the Indian develop-
ment branch of The Ontario Department of
Social and Family Services, a publication
called Widjittvin, a social, educational and
economic publication. This is all I could see
in the way of print from The Department of
Social and Family Services with regard to
this particular branch. Out of estimates of
$227,990,000 for total expenditure for his
department, the Minister has set aside $1,-
428,000 for a branch charged— and here are
the Minister's own words— "with the responsi-
bility of finding and implementing the means
whereby Indian people may achieve the
maximum social, economic and cultural de-
velopment of their communities."
Placed beside these high-sounding goals,
this figure is not just unrealistic, not just
misleading, it is an insult. It is not just an
insult, it is an indication of tlie degree of
awareness of the Indian problem on the part
of the Minister— a complete denial of the
gravity of the situation. We are told that the
Indian development branch of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services acts as
a liaison between the federal government
and the Indian people of Ontario. This in
itself is a good idea, but the government of
Ontario must expand this service in order to
meet a growing need, must explain why there
is no legislation covering this branch and
therefore no clear definition of purpose or
responsibility.
The Conservative government has lost an
important opportunity to lead the way in
this difficult area to show the federal gov-
ernment that it is willing to accept some of
the responsibilities attached to having people
live within its boundaries. The Indians in
Ontario allow the provincial government to
capitalize on their presence and culture in
the development of certain branches of other
departments of government. Is it not then
reasonable to expect the government to pro-
vide more services for these Indians?
I do not want just to deal with a bimch
of vague generalities and make a lot of ac-
cusations against this particular Minister and
this particular branch of his department. But
having some 22 Indian reservations and
Indian settlements in the riding of Thunder
Bay that I happen to represent, I have a
pretty well documented case of neglect of
our Indian people in almost every sphere of
their daily living. With regard to making
adequate levels of employment available to
them, equality of educational opportunity,
proper housing, proper medical care and wel-
fare where it is needed, and in the absence
of positive action to help the Indians in all
of these aspects of their daily Hves, I think
it is incumbent upon this government and
in particular tliis department to step in and
fill the void that has been left by the federal
department of Indian affairs.
To be more specific I would like to draw
your attention to a letter that I received
from one of the Indian leaders in Armstrong.
Among many other things this letter said,
and I quote from it:
The next thing I want to write about
is a tragedy that struck one of the mem-
bers of our association. Last Tuesday the
home of Dennis Shapwaaygesic was com-
pletely destroyed by fire and his 11-month-
old daughter Denise was fatally burned.
Dennis was out of town on a survey job,
the first employment he had had for some
time. He quit his job near Iron Bridge on
learning of the tragedy. They lost every-
thing they owned; the other young chil-
dren even lost their shoes. Some local
MAY 27, 1968
3435
friends have tried to supply some of the
necessities. However, as was evident to
you on your visit here, the people on the
back streets of this town have little to
spare. Any source of assistance that you
could direct to us, would be appreciated.
I immediately contacted the Minister's de-
partment and I was put in touch with a Mr.
Beaudreau, I think it was, in Port Arthur
and he said that he would look into it im-
mediately. He suggested at the same time
that I contact the department of Indian
aflFairs in Ottawa, which I did. In due course,
I got a reply from Mr. Borczak, the acting
Deputy Minister. He said:
Further to our letter of February 26, I
now have a report from our representative
who called on you. He reports that you
have located temporary housing and that
the department of Indian ajffairs has pro-
vided you with financial assistance to help
with expenses following the tragic loss of
your daughter. I understand that every
consideration is being given. I am taking
the liberty of sending a copy of this letter
to Mr. Stokes to inform him of the present
circumstances.
As an addendum he says:
As this family are treaty Indians, and
residents of the unorganized territories, the
responsibility for assistance and rehabilita-
tion remains with Indian affairs. We have
been assured that everything possible is
being done for Mr. and Mrs. Shapawaay-
gesic.
They have been issued emergency assist-
ance and obtained temporary housing, and
when I asked what the nature of the tem-
porary, or emergency assistance was, they
said that they were alerting the Red Cross
in the Lakehead and they would attempt
to provide emergency assistance through
that body, but the responsibility lay with
the department of Indian affairs.
This, as I see it, is the problem as regards
assistance to our Indian people. There does
not seem to be any effective Haison betwen
the different agencies at the provincial and
federal levels. There does not seem to be any
co-ordination at all. It seems to me that you
cannot go to a provincial agency without
being directed to a federal agency for assist-
ance or vice versa. I do not know how we are
going to ever resolve the Indian problem if
we are going to be passing the buck from one
department to another or from one level of
government to another.
Just to show you, here is another letter I
received from GuU Bay. This person is blind
and if you were to see the letter, you would
understand and realize that she is blind.
Among other things she says:
I am totally blind now they have took
one of my eyes out. I tried to get an
increase in my pension but they said I was
not eligible to get it. But I am absolutely
helpless now. My husband has to lead me
around and look after me. He is quite old
himself. I got to pay for my wood and
washing, and the Hudson's Bay prices is
very high in this neck of the woods and I
don't have no money left when I pay up my
bills at the end of the month. I am 64 years
old.
I brought this to the attention of the depart-
ment of Indian affairs. This letter from Mrs.
Mary Michelle was written on November 8.
On January 17, I got this letter from the
hon. L. S. Marchand, special assistant to Mr.
Laing:
I am informed that there are monthly
visits to this reserve by members of the
Port Arthur agency staff. A welfare com-
mittee appointed by the band council
administers assistance on the reserve. So
far as I have been able to ascertain, Mrs.
Mary Anne Michelle has not brought her
circumstances to the attention of either the
welfare committee or the Indian agency
staff. However, Mr. L. A. Morrison, super-
intendent. Port Arthur Indian agency, will
investigate Mrs. Michelle's circumstances
and ensure that the necessary assistance is
provided. She may be eligible for the bUnd
person's allowance. On behalf of the Minis-
ter, I wish to thank you for bringing this
matter to my attention.
Here it is, two months after I received a
letter from this lady, who had made several
applications to different government agencies
and brought it to the attention of anybody
that would listen to her, the federal agency
says it knows nothing of her circumstances or
the situation that she finds herself in at all.
Here again is just another indication of— I
do not think it is a callous neglect. I do not
think that they really know what is going on,
or take the trouble to find out what is going
on— what the conditions are in the reserves
and on the reserves. And a good many of our
treaty Indians who do not happen to find
themselves living in the confines of a reserve,
they move off of the reserve because there is
nothing there at which they can be gainfully
employed.
3436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Most of the reserves are located in areas
where the trapping has died out, and the
hunting and fishing is no longer up to par
that will allow them to maintain themselves.
There is no mining industry close to them.
There are no Department of Lands and
Forests projects going on. There is no work
in tlie forest products industry, so naturally,
tliey have to move down and they become
located on the fringes of small northern com-
munities where they are indeed our rural
poor. The economy of these municipalities
that they move to in many cases, is an un-
organized territory where the people in the
community just have not got the industrial
base to integrate these people and they be-
come a burden, not only on the community,
but they become a burden to levels of
government.
They start to live in shack towns and if I
may quote for a minute from the "Human
Relations Bulletin," published by the Ontario
human rights commission, it says:
Over 200,000 Canadian Indians, descen-
dants of our original inhabitants now live
outside the mainstream of their native
country. They are deprived of the social
justice, human dignity and the equality of
opportunity which other twentieth century
Canadians claim as their heritage.
Now it says here:
Among the shocking statistics cited by a
Miss Jeanine Loche, are the following:
Indian infant mortality is tragically higher
than the national total; out of every 1,000
live births, 74.7 against 27.2 for the whole
of Canada will not survive. More than half
of all Indian families occupy substandard
homes or shacks of three rooms or less
without electricity. Where close to 90 per
cent of white homes have sewage, indoor
toilet and baths, a minority of Indians—
about one in nine— enjoys such ordinary aids
to health and self-esteem. In Moosonee,
only one in four Indian children reach
grade 8, the end of local education. The
majority drop out at grade 6 and it is not
unusual for the Moosonee Indian at 16 to
advance no further than grade 3.
Now if we are going to do anything in a
positive and meaningful way to assist our
Indian people within the province, I think
that we could take a good long look of what
has been accomph'shcd at Quetico centre. I
had the privilege of being present when it
was opened; I believe my friend from Rainy
River (Mr. P. T. Reid) was there on that
occasion and it is a wonderful facility where
I think both levels of government have ex-
pended some $800,000 on a cultural, arts and
adult retraining centre.
I can remember one of the first chores I
had shortly after I was elected, when I re-
ceived a letter from the director of that
centre, Mr. Cliff Macintosh, was to assist in
getting some kind of co-operation and co-
ordination and some kind of dialogue set up
between the provincial Department of Educa-
tion and the federal Department of Manpower
and Immigration.
After the federal Department of Manpower
and Immigration scrapped programme 5, they
in effect threw the baby out with the bath
water, where they said tbat you must have a
grade 8 level of education in order to enroll
in the adult retraining facilities throughout
the province and throughout the whole of
Canada, and of course, this was the problem
that Quetico centre faced. But after having
made a special trip over to Ottawa and dis-
cussing it with the Deputy Minister of Man-
power and Immigration, we were able to
explain the situation to him and show him
that the Indian people, whom this particular
programme was designed to help, would never
be in a position to avail themselves of these
adult retraining courses-
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): On a point
of order, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
clear up the record for the House and for
my friend from Thunder Bay. I believe he
stated, or at least the impression he has given
this House, is that he alone was responsible
for the events that happened in that Quetico
centre so that it was allowed to accept these
Indian trainees. I would like to point out to
my hon. friend that John Reid, MP for
Kenora-Rainy River was also very active in
this and although he did not get the pubhcity,
he certainly had talks with tlie Minister and
all those concerned and was very involved in
this particular matter.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
Minister?
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I am not really
concerned about getting any of the credit for
this. The fact is I could show the hon. mem-
ber correspondence that I brought substantiat-
ing what I have said, and it was not my
intention to relate—
Mr. T. P. Reid: I am disagreeing with—
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He should have
done it without the pressure.
MAY 27, 1968
3437
Mr. Stokes: It was not my intention to
relate specifically what my part was in it. I
can prove what my part was, and I am quite
proud of it, but it was not my intention to
take credit. All I am trying to do, is to
impress upon the Minister that the facility
that is operating now in Quetico is the kind
of thing that can get the Indian population
back into the mainstream of society.
I received a letter from the director of
Quetico centre a short while ago, and in it
he enclosed a copy of a letter that he had
received from one of the trainees who was
rmemployable until he had taken a retraining
course in the operation of heavy equipment.
It would have brought tears to your eyes to
read it, when he expressed the gratitude that
he had for the centre and the facilities that
had been made available to him and made
him employable. I doubt very much if this
particular chap, or anybody who enrolled in
that course, will ever be on welfare again.
It is money very, very well spent, and I just
want to point out to the Minister that this is
the kind of plan, the kind of programme, that
is going to bring our Indian people into the
mainstream of economic and social life in
Canada.
Another area that I want to explore is the
youth friendship centres. There is one set
up in Port Arthur where the director finds it
necessary to spend money out of his own
pocket to do the kind of work that he is
expected and called upon to do by the native
population in the north who come to his
centre for assistance. The money that is
available for him to spend to make this serv-
ice available to the youth of the Lakehead is
completely inadequate.
I think that the grant that was given by
the provincial government for this youth
centre at the Lakehead was something in the
neighbourhood of $4,000. It was completely
inadequate. I am sure that the Minister
knows the good work that Mr. Xavier Michon,
who is the director of that friendship centre,
does. He has been speaking with various
levels of government, both here in Toronto
and in Ottawa, and to various Ministers within
this government, and I think that the kind of
work that he is doing up there is very worth-
while. I happen to have a copy of the annual
rejport for that centre and I can assure you
that if you are aware of the kind of service
that he is performing for the Indian people in
that area, you would have no difficulty justify-
ing to your colleagues quite a substantial
increase in a grant that is being awarded.
I remember quite vividly some three or
four months ago he was down here pleading
with the Ontario housing corporation for the
establishment of what they call half-way
centres, to help overcome the shortage of
housing, and because, as the hon. leader of
the Opposition has stated, they do have a
problem in integrating completely into the
mainstream of our social and cultural habits.
A good many of the Indians in my riding
have never seen an automobile. They do not
know what a television set looks like. And it
is essential, I think, that we allow them to
integrate at their own pace and at their own
speed. I think it is absolutely wrong to say,
"Well you can no longer survive on a reserva-
tion setting and you must, of necessity, be
completely integrated with the white society."
Now if we had some of these sort of half-
way centres where they could come down
and live in decent housing with decent plumb-
ing and decent living facilities, I think that,
in a very, very short time, they would be able
and willing and ready to become completely
integrated. But when you bring them out of
a very primitive setting that they are exposed
to on the reserve, and all at once say, "you
are going to progress and be in the main-
stream of Canadian economic society and our
industrial activity," the overnight change is
much too great for them, and they usually end
up back on the reserve again, worse off than
theye were before. So that if we had one of
these half-way places, where they could
slowly leam our way of hving and become
more accustomed to what is going on in the
more urbanized centres, I think that a half-
way house has a great deal of merit.
Now—
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
You are getting carried awayl
Mr. Stokes: I did not ask a question.
Mr. MacDonald: What kind of an inter-
jection is that?
Mr. Stokes: I think he just woke up.
The final point that I would like to make,
Mr. Chairman, is I had occasion just a short
while ago to assist the students of Bathurst
Heights secondary school in the city, here in
Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Singer: North York, Downsview.
Mr. Stokes: Very good! And they must be
a very fine bunch of people indeed.
They did take it upon themselves to sort
of adopt the people on an Indian reservation.
3438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They asked me for the name of a reservation
that was in particular need and in dire cir-
cumstances, and wondered if they could help.
So through this gentleman that I spoke of
earlier, Mr. Xavier Michon, who is the spokes-
man for a good many of tlie Indians in north-
western Ontario, we were able to impress
upon this group of students from Bathurst
Heights that it would be a very worthwhile
project if they would make—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Everybody is in Downsview
riding.
Mr. Stokes: —if they would make good used
clothing available to these Indian people at
Osnaburg House, which is about half-way
l:)etween the Lakehead and Hudson Bay. I
happened to visit them last fall and I noticed
that they were in dire financial circumstances.
These young people went out and gathered
a ton of clothing. I was able to get Mr.
Harvey Smith, from a transportation com-
pany, to move all this clothing free of charge
up to this Indian reservation, and you have
no idea the kind of good will that a gesture
like this will create between the white com-
inimity and the Indian people in the north.
And I think it would be a very worthwhile
exercise if the Minister and his department
would in some fashion try to have a student
exchange, say between a secondary school in
Metropolitan Toronto, with some of the chil-
dren of a like age, say away up in Osnaburg
House, or a good many of these reservations
in the far north, to give them an opportunity
to conmiunicate.
I can very well remember the hon. mem-
ber for Kenora (Mr. Bemier), when he
brought down the two young page boys and
they were just completely aghast at the size
of the buildings, the number of motor cars,
the very fact that it was possible to see a
television programme, something that was
unheard of on some reserves. And you can
well imagine the kind of stories that these
two young lads are going to be able to tell
when they go home to their people on the
reserves. And I think that an exchange such
as this, would have a very useful effect on
the people on the reserve who have no idea,
no conception whatsoever, of what life is
like in the outside world. The world that they
are never exposed to. And the only answer is
that we bring representatives from those
reserves down to view first hand what life is
like, and go back and tell their people. They
will become more inquisitive; tliey will yearn
for the kind of thing that we have; and I
think tliat the Minister could do nothing
better than to edux^ate these people into the
kind of tiling that is available to them, and
give them an opportunity to become inte-
grated into the kind of society that they are
very deserving of. And I think that we have
an obligation to make them a part of it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this can
and should be one of the most important
debates that we will have in this Legislature
during this session. But quite frankly, I think
it is bogging down.
The proposition of all of us in the Opposi-
tion delivering lengthy speeches and the Min-
ister, with greatest difficulty, continuing listen-
ing to these speeches and then at the end
answering all that we have said— and parti-
cularly the points that may be buried in the
course of our general remarks— is simply not
going to come to grips with the problem that
we must sort out, in my view, this year.
I tliink we have reached the crossroads in
terms of our relationship with the Indians. If
we do not face up to the problems and do
something about a situation which is a
national scandal, tlien we are going to have
trouble. Indeed, that we have not had trouble
up until now is both a credit and a debit to
a group in our society who have been
neglected for far too long.
I am not going to repeat, and I do not
know to what extent I am going to get into
difficulties, Mr. Chairman, with the kind of
pattern that the Minister suggested, I am not
going to repeat a lengthy speech. First,
because I agree with what the leader of the
Opposition and my colleague from Thunder
Bay have said. Second, I have aheady made
a lengthy speech in general terms on Indian
policy. What I want to do is perhaps elabor-
ate briefly on the remarks that they have
made; to set a background to specific ques-
tions which I want to put to the Minister;
to explore what is government policy at the
moment and what is contemplated to be
government policy in a completely new and
different approach to coping with Indian
affairs.
The first point of which I think we should
be very much aware, Mr. Chairman, is this:
If the Minister or anybody else for one
moment tries to lull the public into the belief
that we are making progress let us disabuse
ourselves of that idea. There is a very worth-
while document produced by E. R. McEwan,
the executive secretary of the Indian-Eskimo
association, whicli is perhaps the most authori-
tative and effective body in terms of liaison
MAY 27, 1968
3439
between tlie white community and the Indian
and Eskimo commmiity in Canada, a pubhca-
tion that came out no more than three or four
months ago on "community development
services for Canadian Indian and Metis com-
munities." Just to nail down this point that
I am making, by way of a premise for looking
at this subject, I quote Mr. McEwan from
page 27:
It should be clearly noted that at this
point in time the lot of the native people
is getting relatively worse, not better.
Let not the Minister get up with his bland
outpouring to the effect that, "We are doing
better than we have ever done before; we
are doing well enough to cope with the
situation." The fact of the matter is we have
a situation which is a national scandal and
it is getting worse. Let us start from that
premise.
The next point that I want to deal with,
in general terms before I get to some specific
questions to the Minister, is that we have been
kidding ourselves for the last two or three
years that we were really coming to grips
with this problem because we came up with
what we thouglit was a new approach, a new
apparatus, a new machinery, for enlisting the
co-operation of the Indians— namely the com-
munity development programme, and we have
been putting community development oflBcers
into these various Indian communities.
What produced this document by the
Indian-Eskimo association is the fact that
the community development programme, in
the view of those who were involved— when
they are given an opportunity to speak pri-
vately and not in the presence of their masters
at Queen's Park, or in the Indian affairs
department at Ottawa— in their view the pro-
gramme has bogged down completely.
Mr. T. P. Raid: Why?
Mr. MacDonald: For a variety of reasons.
Let me give you two. The first one— and I
am going to use this source for quotation
rather frequently although he is not here
tonight— is the hon. member for Kenora who
delivered a very good speech in this House
on Indian affairs during the Throne debate.
I have reason to believe that it is a reflection
of the views of those who are working in a
number of these community organizations in
co-operation with the Indians. I am not sug-
gesting that they are not his views, in fact I
am going to take it for granted that they are
his views, and I want to put on record two
views, one his, and one another citizen from
the Kenora area with regard to the community
development programme.
"Why is it bogging down?" my friend from
Rainy River asked. On page 996 of Hansard
in the Throne debate, the hon. member for
Kenora—
Mr. T. P. Raid: Page 995.
Mr. MacDonald: I am about to quote from
page 996; the hon. member is just a little too
precise in the fine points that he wants to
make in a debate and sometimes misses the
main point. On page 996 the hon. member
for Kenora said this, and he was referring to
the reaction of one of his Indians whom he
called Nitchi. He said:
To give you a typical example, in the course of the
same week Nitchi may have separate visits from the
federal community development oflScer, the provincial
community development oflScer, the representatives of
the company of young Canadians, and the federal
economic development oflScer—
This is your friend FRED, may I say to
the leader of the Opposition.
—the four of them exclusively interested in com-
munity development with different approaches and
aspects of community development. In between,
Nitchi may have to meet another half dozen or so of
community oflBcials, either federal or provincial.
Mr. Speaker, Nitchi is a man of responsibility on
his reserve and once in a while he hears vaguely that
the white people in Ottawa voted more millions of
dollars to help him and the other Indians. Nitchi
looks around his shack, lacking what the white people
call the barest necessities of life. He is unable to
obtain employment which would give him pride and
confidence in being able to find himself, and conscious
only of the multitude of forms he has signed, and
the promises made by the various government agen-
cies, he wonders what it is all about. Is it not another
trick on the part of the white man on the pretext of
creating more jobs for the white people?
Then the hon. member goes on to say that
Nitchi is having a problem with drink— and
after all of this confusion who can blame
him? To rescue himself from the confusion
of a situation he goes and has another drink.
There is one answer, and it is from one of
your own backbenchers, who is familiar with
the Indian situation. It is a confusion beyond
description— of provincial government, federal
government, two or three agencies from each,
so that the Indian does not know where he is
going and what all the white men are at-
tempting to do, and he gets a bit suspicious,
Mr. Chairman, that once again the white man
is voting millions of dollars to build a bureau-
cracy to provide jobs for white men who are
presumably helping the Indian.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
What would you do?
3440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Sit and listen for a mo-
ment and perhaps you may get an inkling.
A second comment that I want to put with
regard to the community development pro-
gramme is a comment that was presented to
the Kenora mayor's committee by Harry
Shankowsky, who happens to be one of the
white committee— I do not know what they
call it exactly— who were working with the
Indians in Kenora ever since that outbreak
of concern and involvement of the Indians
a year or so ago. In his brief to the mayor's
committee Mr. Shankowsky said this:
Community development in most cases
is just a couple of over -used words.
Commimity development oflBcers have no
specific job to do and no authority. If com-
munity development is to be real, then it
must be the development of the commu-
nity. It must involve the Indian people in
very aspect of their life as equal members
of the community in which they live.
A little later in his brief:
The white society, having recognized
some of the needs of the Indians, has made
honest attempts, though very limited, to
meet some of the material needs of these
people. However, we have, somewhere,
lost the essence of the community develop-
ment. We have not involved the Indian
people in the community development pro-
cess. We have done the development and
not they. Our focus on, and pre-occupation
with, the material has somehow bypassed
the human element and we wonder why
our plans and our efforts at rebuilding the
communities are meeting with marginal
success, if not outright failure and hostility
from the very people we want to help.
We must continue to assist the Indian
community to satisfy their material needs
but we must also introduce programmes
which will give the Indian person the
opportunity and the possibility of self
growth, of developing himself as a human
being in the Canadian context. We must
create a situation in which the Indian per-
son feels that he has the power within
himself to plan and to direct his life in his
own way and that he can find personal
success through his own effort.
My friend from Rainy River interjected and
asked "why". I have given two views of
people who are fairly close to the scene— as
to why the community development has bog-
ged down— one, the hon. member for Kenora,
and the other, a member of the white com-
mittee in Kenora. Let me add a third one
briefly. Mr. Chairman, I think we are attempt-
ing the impossible to merge within the old
paternalistic, bureaucratic framework of the
Indian superintendent's operations, a com-
munity development ofiBcer who is seeking a
completely different objective.
The superintendent is attempting to main-
tain tranquility and stability in the old pat-
tern. What he wants is peace and order and
obedience. The community development offi-
cer is a person who goes in and deliberately
provokes unrest, or concern, on the part of
the Indians as to what is the nature of their
problems and what is the possibility of a
solution. If he is doing his job he is going
to create, in the minds of the Indians, ques-
tions, queries, demands and this is precisely
what the Indian superintendent does not
want.
So the Indian superintendent, very quickly,
comes to the conclusion that the community
development officer is a trouble-maker. Mr.
Chairman, if there ever was a case of where
you cannot "pour new wine into old bottles,"
the community development programme
within the framework of the old bureaucratic
paternalism of the Indian affairs branch in
Ottawa, in my view, is attempting the im-
possible. It is not just my view that we have
reached the end of the road, in terms of its
potential; it is the view of the Indian-Eskimo
association; it is the view of the Ontario
union of Indians, which is the advisory group
of this government. So against that back-
ground, in terms of elaboration on what the
hon. leader of the Opposition has said and
what my friend from Thunder Bay has said,
I want now to put a number of specific
questions to the Minister.
The first question that I want to put to
the Minister is that if we are going to bring
order out of this infinite chaos of two or
three levels of government, with sometimes
two or three agencies from each level of
government being involved, we have got to
co-ordinate our approach so that we are all
focusing whatever resources we have— and
indeed, adding to those resources, to solve
the problems. This government recognized
this as a problem two or three years ago—
or was it four or five years ago — in setting
up the interdepartmental committee which is
chaired by the hon. Minister whose estimates
are now before the House. This was an at-
tempt to bring some co-ordination into the
various departments who are dealing with
Indian affairs.
I was interested, Mr. Chairman, during the
Throne debate when the leader of the Op-
MAY 27, 1968
3441
position interjected in the course of the Prime
Minister's (Mr. Robarts') remarks and made
some rather critical comments with regard
to the interdepartmental Cabinet committee
on Indian afiFairs, asking what it was doing—
and the Prime Minister refused to get drawn
off into the details because he said then was
not the time to do it. Later we would have
an opportunity, and it is now. But he clearly
indicated that this committee has not been
able to achieve its objectives. Let me put
it to you in his words:
We think that we have done a very great deal
in this area and perhaps it will be necessary to
point out where the diflSculties have arisen and
why we have been blocked in doing what we set
out to do and what we want to do.
"Why we have been blocked in doing what
we set out to and what we want to do"—
the Prime Minister's words, in reference to
this committee. And later, he said:
I will agree with the leader of the Opposition
that not nearly as much has been accomplished
as we would have wished.
My first question to the Minister is: What is
wrong with the interdepartmental committee?
Why was it blocked? Who blocked it? What
did you set out to do? Where did you fail in
achieving your objectives?
I think that if we are going to have any
meaningful debate at all on getting a better
and more effective policy we have got to
start with this— and I warn you, Mr. Chair-
man, I have a number of other questions that
will follow it when I get some idea of what
the Minister's answer is to the bogging down
of the interdepartmental committee.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
answer now or is he going to stick to his—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that really the leader of the NDP has taken
one position with respect to how the debate
should go. I still think that there is a good
deal to be said for having everybody express
their opinion and to give me the opportunity
of summing up.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no!
Mr. Nixon: There would be no objection to
asking questions following that, would there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not at all. I think that
the leader of the Opposition has made a very
full statement and I may say to him that,
almost without exception, everything that he
said is very sound and very wise and I will
make a comment upon it. I will also comment
on what the member for Thunder Bay has said
and I am quite willing to comment on what
the hon. leader has said, both previously and
at the present time. I am not going to wind
up the debate, necessarily. I will just try to
remember all the points and I have been
making notes.
Mr. MacDonald: I trust you will make
notes. My first question is: What has hap-
pened "to block the achievement of the
objectives of the interdepartmental committee"
—and those are the words of the Prime Minis-
ter, not mine.
Let me proceed, if the Minister wants to
adopt this pattern. Let me proceed with the
second and I think a very basic and key point.
The leader of the Opposition, in the course of
his remarks, said that the basic responsibility
for Indian affairs rests with the federal gov-
ernment in The Indian Affairs Act. Mr. Chair-
man, let me pause and deal with this.
This is a myth we have lived with for too
long. Once again do not accept my word for
it. But in the Hawthorne-Tremblay study—
which is a very, detailed and voluminous
study, only one volume of which is yet
available, on the question of Indian affairs;
it was prescribed or authorized by the federal
government— they make a point dealt with
by Mr. McEwen on page 31 of his pamphlet
which I referred to earlier, and I am quoting:
The general acceptance of the thesis that
the federal government are solely respon-
sible for Indian affairs has been challenged
cogently in the Hawthorne-Tremblay study.
It is too bad the hon. member for London
South is not here because he says it is a
federal responsibihty. Here is the myth being
exploded. It is not an exclusive federal respon-
sibility. The authors argue that "the absence
of provincial activity is more a matter of
policy than a question of the constitution."
These, Mr. Chairman, are experts— an expert
committee appointed by the federal govern-
ment who have finally tiirown into the waste-
paper basket, the proposition that the respon-
sibility for Indian affairs is exclusively a
federal responsibility. It is not. In their own
words, the authors argue that "the absence of
provincial activity is more a matter of policy
than the question of constitution."
So my second question to the Minister is:
Since it is a matter of pohcy, why has this
government, as a matter of poUcy, refused to
accept its obhgations with regard to coping
with Indian problems? It is not just a federal
responsibility, it is your responsibility.
Let me move to the third area, which is an
important one. In the old context of behev-
ing that it was a federal responsibihty, and
3442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that some of it would have to be shared by
the province, w^e started to enter into agree-
ments some two years ago— if I recall cor-
rectly—in 1966. The Hawthorne committee
had some rather caustic comments with
regard to this process. Their comments are
focussed on the proposition that this is a
piecemeal approach agreement that deals with
this aspect of the problem and that aspect of
the problem but never comes to grips with the
totality of the problem. The piecemeal
approach is going so slowly that it will be an
eternity before this government has come to
grips with the problem. Let me quote, as
commented on again by Mr. McEwen on page
31 of his pamphlet:
While it is true that the present policy
calls for the transfer of a significant number
of Indian affairs branch functions to the
government by a system of agreements, the
fact is that there is very little being trans-
ferred at the present pace and method,
and it would take decades to effect a sub-
stantial transfer. The Hawthome-Tremblay
report states: "The increased funds the
provinces will require in assuming the
growing responsibility for providing services
to Indians should be provided as quickly
as agreement can be reached within the
general federal-provincial fiscal arrange-
ment rather than by an infinity of specific
agreements dealing with particular func-
tions."
In other words, the Hawthome-Tremblay
report is suggesting that we cut out this busi-
ness of piecemeal agreements which will take
an eternity of achievement, and that within
the general fiscal agreements which the prov-
ince signs with the federal government, come
to an agreement with regard to federal moneys
being made available for the province to
tackle the totality of Indian problems. That
is the third question that I want to put to
the Minister: In this connection, what is
happening?
In case, Mr. Chairman, the Minister should
think that this is not a view that is shared by
others, let me quote the hon. member for
Kenora in this connection, to be found on this
occasion on page 995— we are back now on
the same page as the hon. member for Rainy
River wanted me to be last time. I quote from
page 995, from the hon. member for Kenora's
remarks:
Under the existing agreements, very little authority
has been transferred from the federal to the provin-
cial government. The transition is difficult. But one
may question if there is enough effort being made at
the provincial level to speed up the process.
I wish the hon. member for London South
were here, since he had a few general com-
ments to make-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: —because he in effect was
saying that it was the federal government.
It is not the federal government's responsi-
bility. It is the provincial government's respon-
sibility and it is by "policy decision" that they
are not accepting it. Secondly, one of your
own members famihar with the scene said:
"But one may question if there is enough
effort being made at the provincial level to
speed up the process."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It still does not con-
tradict the hon. member's argument.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not going to argue
with the hon. gentleman. He is just missing
the point. It is a contradiction, therefore I
am not going to pursue it any fiuther.
Let me move to a third point. Against the
background of what is happening to the inter-
departmental committee, which is the over-
all co-ordinating body, I come to another
question. I put it, once again, in the context
of the suggestion that was made by the hon.
member for Kenora, when he was speaking-
expressing I think the views of persons in
the Indian-Eskimo association elsewhere, to
be found this time again on page 996, of
Hansard when he said:
As a suggestion, since the provincial government
has instituted the Indian development branch, why
not use this vehicle, more extensively, and centralize
the maze of all government services through one
agency.
There is an opportunity for empire build-
ing. I put it to the Minister. He may have to
fight with others who have got a share of the
empire at the moment, but for the Minister
who has on occasion a propensity for empire
building, there is an open invitation. Use this
branch of your department to co-ordinate all
of the approach.
I want to come back to that in another
context in a minute, but let me put another
comment of the hon. member for Kenora on
record, to be found on page 998 of Hansard.
How can a start be made to correct some of these
shortcomings? I would say, transfer the obligations of
looking after the Indian people from the federal to
the provincial governments.
Is the enormity of that statement come
home, Mr. Chairman— "to transfer the obliga-
tion of looking after the Indian people from
the federal government to the provincial gov-
ernments"—a total transfer. Every aspect of
MAY 27, 1968
3443
responsibility for the Indians. Completely get
rid of that myth that the federal government
has exclusive responsibility for Indians. Let
me complete his quotations:
There have been some transfers already, Mr.
Speaker, in the field of education and welfare, but a
complete transfer of all obligations and of course
federal moneys should be made to the province.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. Not only
do I agree vi^ith it, but tliis is the basic pro-
posal of the Indian-Eskimo association sup-
ported by the Ontario union of Indians. Apart
from treaty and land matters, vv^hich could be
left with the federal department of Indian
afiFairs, there should be a complete transfer
of obligations of the federal government for
Indians to the provincial government. We
should take it all over.
What is the basic rationale for that pro-
posal? The basic rationale, Mr. Chairman,
is that most of the things needed to cope
with the problems of the Indians are to be
found at the provincial level today. Education,
for example, is provincial, and the Hawthorne-
Tremblay report says it is time that we got
Indian education out of the control of the
churches; all of the churches; completely.
Bring the Indian into the general educational
programme. Bring the Indian community into
the welfare programme of the province.
When we come to face up to the economic
aspect of Indian community development let
us face the fact that virtually everything that
is needed for our economic development is
now a provincial responsibility, whether it be
Lands and Forests, whether it be fishing
rights, whether it be timber. All of it is now
a provincial responsibility, and therefore the
proposal of the Indian-Eskimo association,
increasingly supported by the Indians— if they
can have some assurances in areas which in
light of past experience they are apprehensive.
It is supported by one of your own backben-
chers, who comes from a community with a
lot of Indians— to completely decentralize all
responsibilities for Indians from the federal
government to the provincial government,
with the exception of lands and treaties-
Mr. Nixon: Are you aware that the Indians
have some misgivings?
Mr. MacDonald: They have some misgiv-
ings. I said that a moment ago, and I think
they are right in the statement that there
should be steps taken to assure the Indians
on this area of misgivings which are part
and parcel of their whole relationship to the
white people over the last 100 years.
My final area of questions that I want to
put to the Minister: When I raised this whole
new proposal, which I said was in effect a
new day and a new approach, completely
cutting ourselves off from the past with its
ineffective approach which has failed for 150
years— when I raised it during the Throne
debate, the Minister in his inimitable fashion
said: "I have a copy of the document on my
lap, right here!" Well, that was two months
or ten weeks ago. As a final question to the
Minister, I want to ask: What is the govern-
ment's thinking with regard to this whole
proposal. Particularly, what is the govern-
ment's thinking with regard to the various
agencies that are suggested in the Indian-
Eskimo association proposal. Their proposal
is that you should have at the federal govern-
ment level, a native Canadian development
institute, which will be representative of the
white community, of the federal government
of Indians, which will be like the planning
body for ARDA. It will map out the pro-
grammes with regard to meeting Indian prob-
lems. The actual fulfilment of those pro-
grammes will be through the establishment
of corporations on a regional level— not unlike
the one for which the department has put out
the annual report, the Widjiitiwin corporation,
in the area near Macintosh. Now the interest-
ing thing, Mr. Chairman, is I may draw your
attention to the subtitie, it is a social educa-
tional and economic corporation-
Mr. T. P. Reid: Is that by Tchirkey?
Mr. Stokes: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, it is not
just an economic development. It is a full
development of the community. In a way
that puzzled me, the government has appar-
ently been involved in this kind of develop-
ment. When my friend for Kenora was speak-
ing on the Indian problem, some time ago,
he pointed out that up in his area, they have
what is knowTi as the Amik association. It is
an association that was chartered by the
federal government in 1964. It is an associa-
tion, which, in his words, was organized to
help and guide Indians into the world of the
white man, and "into the activities of the free
enterprise system". I was rather intrigued
by that description, Mr. Chairman, because
the whole corporation is a co-op, non-profit,
shared-capital approach. This is to lead them
"into the free enterprise system," but I sup-
pose one can forgive that as a Tory bias in
the presentation of it. The fact of the matter
is that it is a completely co-operative
approach. I suppose the co-operatives are a
3444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
part of a free enterprise system today— so
maybe I am quibbling. However, Amik is a
federally chartered organization, and it acts
as a sort of an overseer— an intermediary to
assist the Indians in developing these corpora-
tions. There has developed in northwestern
Ontario, two or three corporations, the Wid-
jiitiwin corporation, the Pawitik corporation
and the Sabaskong corporation.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Sabaskong Corporation!
Mr. MacDonald: Not only in French
classes, but in Indian classes, I find myself
being corrected by the hon. member for
Rainy River.
These, Mr. Chairman, are described by the
hon. member for Kenora as subsidiaries of
Amik. Now, I think that it is time that the
Minister were to explain just what is going
on. Is this the government's implementation
of the kind of thing that the Indian-Eskimo
association has proposed? Because the govern-
ment is involved in a very real way. I draw
attention to the notation of the hon. member
for Kenora on page 997 of Hansard, when
he said that in the case of the Indian corpora-
tions, Pawitik and Sabaskong, and their
parent body, the Amik association, the pro-
vincial government has seen fit to provide a
grant to cover the expenses of the Amik as-
sociation business manager. So, you are
deeply involved.
Since the Indian-Eskimo association has
proposed that at the federal level, we should
have what they describe as a native Canadian
development institute to plan this kind of
development for the whole country. But they
just plan it. The implementation of it will
take place under the provincial jurisdiction.
My question, tied in with the earlier question
to the Minister, is what is the coordinating
body at the provincial level. Are you going to
follow the pattern of the Indian-Eskimo asso-
ciation proposal of having a province wide
corporation to sort of act as the holding
agency, like Amik, on a province wide basis
for these local and regional corporations that
develop across the province? Or is your
Indian development branch going to be the
coordinating agency? The important thing,
Mr. Chairman, is that all the monies that are
now available from any one of the various
provincial government departments, and all
of the monies that are now available from
the federal government department, plus
more moneys that will have to be poured in,
should be co-ordinated through this one
agency, so that you do not have comp>eting
officials, trying to come up with programmes
that have inadequate finances and which are
not co-ordinated. They should all be put
through this one development corporation,
which as tlie Widjiitiwin corporation indi-
cates, is a social, educational and economic
corporation, which deals with the total Indian
life in that particular community.
My question to the Minister is, what is
happening in Ontario? Are you agreeable to
the complete decentralization of responsi-
bility from Ottawa? Are you willing to nego-
tiate with Ottawa as the Hawthorne-Trem-
bley committee said, not on a piece-meal
basis with agreements, but through dominion-
provincial fiscal agreement of total decentral-
ization, with a total availability of federal
moneys along with provincial monies to be
channeled into these development corpora-
tions on a regional basis? Have you given
any thought to it, and what is the govern-
ment's proposal for the future? Because my
final comment, before I sit down and listen
to some of the Minister's comments, is that
we have reached the stage where the past
approach to coping with Indian problems has
been proven completely bankrupt.
The Indians are getting relatively worse
off. Their distrust of the white man has been
recorded by those who have studied the
rights of the Indian before the law— that they
regard the white man in the Indian afiFairs
branch as their enemy, not their friend. You
simply cannot continue to pour new wine
into the old bottle. We have got to have a
completely new approach which, in theory,
is the kind of approach that we had in the
community programme but this programme
was not effective because it was a new and
democratic and modem system that we were
trying to implement within the bureaucratic
paternalism of the department of Indian
affairs. That simply could not succeed. It has
failed. It has bogged down. What is the de-
partment thinking with regard to the new
day, the new approach for the Indian?
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, I wish to ask just two or three
questions, and make one or two suggestions.
I will expect to ask these questions without
making any speeches, or even reading any-
body else's speeches.
My questions flow from remarks by the
leader of the opposition, and have to do
mostly with the legislation recently introduced
with respect to authority to establish senior
citizens' homes on Indian reserves. Now on
three or four occasions I have sat in meetings
with members of the national Indian health
MAY 27, 1968
3445
services, people from various branches of
this government and Indian chiefs who have
examined for things hke, for instance, the
report of the select committee on aging,
which proposed this very type of legislation
quite some time ago. Nothing has as yet
happened on that.
Discussions have developed that related to
the actual type of buildings which would be
supplied for these purposes, rather than the
type of building which is presently being
supplied for ordinary, regular senior citizens'
homes. The reserve people who seem to know
what they want, the Indians, say that they
would prefer a long, low motel unit type of
building. They have tried to suggest and
get a start made by this department, a pilot
project which would establish a few of these
units and which could be added to later,
which would prove the need and test the
market for the Indians who were in need
and were prepared to participate and use
these services, and so on. We have listened
to complaints that proved to us that the type
of communal living that resulted from their
participations in the regular senior citizens
system just simply would not work. They are
not happy there, and they do not stay tiiere.
I would just like to ask the Minister what
atcions have already been taken? And if no
more has taken place than I think has taken
place, what plans are proposed to use this
legislation; where, and information along
that line? I would also like to mention one
other specific.
Now, it did not take The Department of
Agriculture and Food very long to decide
that there was something specific that they
could do on Indian reserves. A community
pasture, your announcement last week for an
Indian reserve, points up the kind of thing
that can be done. I am going to make the
suggestion to this Minister. Mention was
made of the Elliot Lake centre for continuing
education, and the project, the trial efiFort
that was made there to introduce Indians into
that area. Now, this has not been completely
successful, and lots of pot shots have been
taken at it because the whole 20 families did
not stay there, but several very interesting
things were proven.
These families were moved into various
parts of the town. The wage earner was
taken into the centre and given a course
which went as long as they were prepared to
accept the course and continue to learn. The
children went to school in the regular system
in the town. The people in the community
made the mothers welcome. As I say, some
of them went back to their own towns. But
do you know what happened when they did
go back? The children who went back want
to know when they are going back to Elliot
Lake— so it did work. It was a pilot project
that was successful to a point and more of
the same thing can be done. The facilities
are perfect, there. The teachers are there,
the training courses are set up for them, the
houses are available and there should be more
done because in terms of an overall success,
that is exactly what it was; and I wonder if
the Minister is prepared to comment on that
also?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to speak on the Indian development
branch, and I will be very brief, Mr. Chair-
man. We have heard a number of what I
would say are excellent speeches here tonight
on the Indian situation in Ontario. I would
like, before I make my few remarks to men-
tion to the Minister through you, Mr. Chair-
man, one aspect of his department that I
think is somewhat picayune, and should be
cleared up; and this is the practise, I under-
stand, that when Indians receive their treaty
money while they are also receiving welfare,
they apparently are docked— for want of a
better word— 43 cents on their treaty money,
because you can only earn so much money.
This is a small point, perhaps we can
clear that up later. As I said, Mr. Chairman,
we have heard many excellent speeches to-
night on the Indian situation. I have in front
of me two files that go back a number of
years on the Indian situation in Ontario and
I do not intend, tonight, to use the articles
and the statements in these files to flagellate
this government any further for their treat-
ment of the Indians in the past years.
Certainly, I think this department has been
wanting in their treatment of the Indians of
Ontario, but I feel that this department alone
is not responsible. I think the members of
this chamber, the people of Ontario, and
Canadians generally have a responsibility in
this matter that they have not lived up to in
the past. This is a situation that has existed
for over 100 years and I think it is time that
something was done about it and I would
suggest that this is a problem that should not
be allowed to fall into petty partisan politics.
This is a problem that concerns all the people
of Ontario, and that should be on the con-
sciences of all the people of Ontario.
3446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I intended to say a great many things that
have already been said here tonight, Mr.
Chairman, but one thing that bothers me is
that in most of the hterature that I have read,
indeed, in a great many of the speeches that
I have heard here tonight, the fact tliat the
Indian himself, his culture and his philo-
sophy have, to a great extent, been ignored.
An Indian is not a white man. His philosophy,
his culture, his sociological background, are
different. I would quote from an article I
have in front of me.
The average white Canadian is caught
up in a whirlwind of materialism. You are
judged not by what you are but by what
you have. Indian society has its roots in a
communal way of life with instincts of
sharing, not acquiring. Materiahsm, the
gathering of more and better goods for
their own sakes rather than usefulness, is a
foreign concept for the Indian.
I would like to take a few minutes, Mr.
Chairman, to dwell on this idea tonight. The
Indian lives in a different world than the
white man and as I said tonight there seems
to me to be a strain, a thread, running
through a great many of the suggestions made
and, indeed, in some of the government's
pohcies, that we are going to make the Indian
into a white man, and we are going to do this
mainly by economic development, by instill-
ing into the Indians the desire for accumula-
tion, for material goods, that he earn his own
living, that he pay his own way, that he, in
effect, adopt the Protestant ethic of hard work
and the good life flowing from that.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these have
been the thoughts that have been running
through a great deal of the discussion con-
cerning the Indians and it bothers me and it
frightens me. I rose to speak on this particular
issue with some trepidation because I dis-
like at best of times tampering with other
people's lives, and it bothers me especially
that I should rise and make suggestions for
changing the whole way of life of another
people so that they may come to accept my
philosophy of life, and what I think is good for
them. This is a frightening concept, Mr.
Chairman, and I say to this House that I think
that we should all bear in mind just what we
are dealing with when we talk about Indians.
Let us not lose sight of the main problem,
the Indian himself and what he is. What he
is, not what we would make of him. So I
-would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this
thought be paramount in our minds and in the
minds of those speakers who will follow me
that we remember what the Indian is and
what he wants to be, not what we shall make
of him.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the
early part of the session I went with the hon.
member for Port Arthur and Xavier Michon,
whom the member for Thunder Bay referred
to earher, to see about housing for the
Indians in the Thunder Bay area. We were
advised on that trip by the Ontario housing
corporation that there were two surveys being
done for housing for the Indians. I am won-
dering if the Minister has any information on
those two surveys.
Mr. Chairman: I would advise the member
that the Minister will answer all questions
after there are no more speakers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The other small ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman is under item 5, friendship
centres. I am wondering how many there are
and where they are. And under item 4, just
exactly what has been provided under item 4?
Also a small comment, Mr. Chairman, on
Xavier Michon's visit to Toronto in search of
housing for his fellow people in the Port
Arthur area. He specifically outlined, and I
think the Minister might like to know this,
that the transition from the reserve into the
cities is sometimes a disastrous one for the
Indians. In his own experience and his own
view, he prefers housing of a halfway nature
—not completely in the city, nor left too far
out, but a part-way housing development
where the Indian could make a transition into
the trials and the fascinations of the new city
hfe.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise to sup-
port the earlier remarks of the leader of our
party, the leader of the Opposition, and then
latterly the remarks of the hon. member, my
colleague from Rainy River. I have lived in
northwestern Ontario for nine years now and
have taken a very specific interest in Indian
people in various ways and I feel very confi-
dent in saying now that our Indian people
have lost their pride. I think it is the saddest
thing in the world to see a man who is
ashamed of his own nationality and ashamed
of what he is, and that is the truth of the
matter. Too many of them can no longer hold
their heads up high.
I can remember very naively six years ago
having seen the Winnebego Indians from
Wisconsin come to the Lakehead and put on
MAY 27, 1968
3447
a pow-wow dance in the Prince Arthur hotel.
They were extremely proud Indians, terribly
proud of what they were, and the way they
dressed, the way they danced, the way they
held their heads, the way they mixed with the
non-Indian people and walked around,
extremely proud to be exactly what they were.
Being an editor at the time on radio I went
back on the air and asked, "What is wrong
with the Ojibway? Why do they not have the
same pride in what they are? Why do they
not start up the pow-wows again, just so as to
regenerate, put the fires of pride under their
people again?" Because on the other side I
had watched most Indian people up there—
so many Indian people, I should put it that
way— parading through the courts usually on
drunken charges or assaults, or something
like that. There seemed to be such a great
contrast, and the longer I stayed at the Lake-
head the longer I came to reaHze that the
Canadian Indian probably has the greatest
inferiority complex of any other nationahty in
this country.
I think that any programme that helps the
Indian to regain his pride is one that should
be supported by this department. I cannot
agree entirely with the leader of the New
Democratic Party in the remarks he made
earlier, which seem in a general way to pan
and condemn the community development
programme that has been conducted by this
department. As liaison member between the
Fort William city council and the Ojibway-
the Fort William Indian mission band council
—two years ago, I had the opportunity to
attend many of their community development
meetings. I was very pleasantly surprised to
find tliat the Indian on that particular reserve
had suddenly become organized. Perhaps the
white man had given the leadership but it
was the Indian leaders who were leading.
I do not think there is anything wrong with
that system; what is perhaps wrong is the
people who are conducting this system. If
you have the right people in the right place
in such a system as the one that is operated
under this community development pro-
gramme, I think it will work. The Fort Wil-
liam mission was fortunate to have a little
man with an awful lot of energy as director
in Father Maurice, and he made it click
there, and believe you me, when this pro-
gramme clicks it does an awful lot of good.
Six years ago, shortly after I saw the
Winnebego's dance, I called up Chief Frank
Pelletier of the Indian reserve and asked him
if I could come out and talk to the people at
a meeting. I went out and in no uncertain
words I told them that I was kind of ashamed
that I had not seen any Indian people in-
volved in any real activities in the com-
munity in the city of Fort William and the
surrounding area. They seemed to be left
out of everything; not so much left out as
they did not seem to want to include them-
selves in it. I was rather forceful at the time
and they sat there with blank expressions on
their faces and when we walked out of the
meeting I said to Chief Pelletier, "Well, I
guess I have really done it, eh? I suppose
this has pretty well turned the Indians against
me for being so frank." He said, "I do not
know." Well, I said, "When will I know their
reaction?" He said, "Well, possibly in about
four months from now."
So that was the situation then. But last
year when I went back to the same mission
and attended, not a meeting of the band
council this time, but a meeting of the com-
munity development association within this
reserve, it was completely different; every-
thing was organized into committees. There
was a committee for the community centre, a
committee to control the water supply or the
watersheds where the water for the city of
Fort William is derived, a committee to
handle the tourist lookout attraction site on
Mount McKay, another committee to handle
recreation; everything was set up into com-
mittees and it was all Indian people running
those coimnittees. Everything was completely
organized.
I remember going back to the Fort William
city council and saying, "Now, gentlemen, you
are no longer dealing with the same kind of
people at the Indian mission reserve. It is
very obvious to me that we had better pave
that road through the reserve because it is
indicated in the water contract, in the treaty
with the Indian people, that if we do not
keep up this road through the Indian reserve
they can block us from taking water from
Loch Lomond" and I said, "They are getting
organized now, they are re-reading that agree-
ment and I think we are going to have
trouble with them before long if we do not
do something about it."
Sure enough, currently tlie Indian people
have banded together, they have engaged an
attorney, and where the city of Fort William
was paying $1,500 a year for the use of that
water, the Indian people are now asking for
$30,000 a year.
So the Indians, who four or five years pre-
viously were just satisfied to be sort of
pushed around, comme-ci, comme-ga, these
people who did not get involved in anything.
3448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or get organized, are suddenly organized.
They are demanding their rights; they have
some pride, and it is not a case of white
bureaucracy, it is a case of using tlie better
aspects of white bureaucracy and applying
them in a very practical way to an Indian
community. And I think this department
should investigate what has been accomplished
at the Fort William Indian reserve. Possibly
more important than anything else is that
the people seem to have more joy of life,
more pride.
If I could leave that for a moment, I would
go back to the Port Arthur Indian youth
friendship centre, which was referred to by
two hon. members of the New Democratic
Party. Here again you have the same situa-
tion only this time under the leadership of
Xavier Michon. Under his leadership Indian
youth this time has been organized into com-
mittees to help themselves. This is very
closely related to welfare, I say to the hon.
Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, because
I remember when Xavier first contemplated
this centre as director of the news department
of the local television station up there.
We had many long chats, and he told me
at that time how he used to drive along sort
of the slum area of Port Arthur between 10
p.m. and 1 o'clock in the morning, looking for
these young Indians, because he had grown
up in Port Arthur and he had seen how young
Indians had been— for want of a better word-
contaminated, by older Indians— "rubbydubs",
you know, people who are pretty well over
the hill.
Naturally the young Indians coming in from
the reserves to study in the Lakehead, not
knowing where else to go, would find their
way down and find Indian people on Pearl
Street and Cumberland Street and areas like
that. So Michon would go along in his car
and he would spot one and he would jump
out of the car and would go and get him and
bring him back to the car and take several of
them back to their foster home or their
boarding house, wherever they were living,
one after another.
But he said, "Ron, I am sick and tired of
patrolling the streets at night for these
youngsters. I want to give them an alterna-
tive, I want to give them a place where they
can band together and where we can give
them some pride and get them to develop
their talents and give them real social life
while they are away from their families." And
that is how the youth friendship centre came
about. He was fortunate in convincing not
only me but many other leading people in
the community in the city of Port Arthur
to help him out.
I noticed today that the federal govern-
ment has just approved another $5,000 an-
nual grant to the youth centre. The federal
member for Port Arthur, in making the an-
nouncement, said he felt sure that the pro-
vincial grant would again be forthcoming
this year. And I would like to say that this
is the kind of thing the department can do
very well, to support someone like Xavier
Michon who I always refer to as the miss-
ing link. That is what he is. He can speak
to white people and he can speak to the
Indians. He is accepted both ways and he is
very effective in his position. But I would
hope that the department would consider
increasing its grant from last year, matching
the federal government dollar for dollar if
necessary.
Then there is this housing programme that
Xavier has in mind. He has seen whole In-
dian families leave the reserve and come into
the city of Port Arthur and not know where
to go so they just automatically wind their
way down the beaten path— right down into
the slum area and find whatever shack or
whatever little hole in the wall that they
could climb into and join their fellow Indians
on the welfare lists of the city of Port
Arthur.
Now Xavier has been close to the situation.
He says: Wait a minute, let us stomp them
before they get to the slums. Let us build
a little housing development. Let us get an
area just on the outskirts of the city, have
them come there first, have a talk with them,
find out what they need and what they want
and then try to place them in the city, in a
proper place. Not in a slum area alongside of
other people who will contaminate them,
who will just make them wards of society-
humiliated people, degraded people. Let us
have a half-way house, I think that is the
expression that Xavier used when I last
spoke to him. And the last word I had from
the Ontario housing corporation was that
they were already trying two experiments
along these lines, on Manitoulin Island and
Moosonee, and they just did not have room
for any more such experiments.
I think Fort William and Port Arthur are
the clearing house of the northwest. The In-
dians who come down out of the northwest,
come into the Lakehead, naturally. We are
talking about some 200,000 square miles up
in that area, and I think we should not delay
in acting on Xavier Michon's suggestion, be-
cause he is very close to the problem. A lot
MAY 27, 1968
3449
of us speak from books and we quote from
speeches and things when we are talking
about the Indians, but Xavier does not; when
he goes out to the reserve he lives with the
people. Whatever bed is good enough for
them is good enough for Mich. He feels for
them. And I think his suggestion of a half-
way house at the Lakehead should be given
far more consideration and I would certainly
hope that it would be acted upon.
By all means, whatever we can do as non-
Indian people, and as a department of gov-
ernment that has the power of spending
money in this direction — to rebuild the
Indians' pride— then I think that that is exactly
what we should do. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other mem-
bers wishing to speak on the Indian de-
velopment branch before the Minister replies?
The member for Parkdale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Just a few
words, Mr. Chairman.
This vote comes to a total of $4,000,428,
and of course none of us begrudge any of
those dollars on this vote. But when you go
back into the records of what this depart-
ment has asked the House to vote and com-
pare what has been spent, we well realize
that we are giving the Indians anything but
a total service.
For example, for the year ending March
31, 1967, this House voted $741,000 and
despite the fact there was a Treasury board
order for $5,200, we left unexpended $634,-
000. Now we voted $741,000 and when we
add on the Treasury board order, the govern-
ment really had available to it, $746,000.
But we left unexpended, unused, $634,000.
Now why this tremendous amount of money
is left unused is hard to understand.
For example, for that year ending March
31, 1967, we voted for community and wel-
fare projects for the Indians $480,000. We
actually spent a httle over $5,500. Now I
wonder, when the Minister says, I am going
to spend $1,428,000, I wonder if he really
has any programme or what the intentions
are. Because this is one obvious case where
the government has made a show of what it
is going to do before this House, through the
committee of supply, and no doubt, when it
makes its announcements it is good for a press
announcement. We are going to Increase
what we do for the Indians and yet, when
we come back, you have nearly close to 80
to 85 per cent of the moneys voted just not
spent— that is, if I am to believe the public
accounts. There may be something wrong
there, but certainly on the face of it, we
simply have not been using even the little
money that has been made available for the
Indians under this vote.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, just
how desperately the Indians need the help
of the white community. I think there are
approximately 215,000 Indians in all of
Canada. I do not know how many of that
215,000 are actually in the province of On-
tario. A goodly proportion are in this prov-
ince and 40 per cent are unemployed and
receiving welfare. Could you imagine what
a revolutionary state our society would be in
if the white community was 40 per cent
unemployed?
The health situation among the Indians is
that eight times the number of pre-schoolers
die in the Indian community compared to
white people. Yet, contrary as it may seem,
the Indian population in Canada is one of
the fastest growing populations in the world.
In 15 years it has increased 55 per cent. This
is one of the great contradictions in our
society— the fact that health-wise, their chil-
dren are eight times worse oflF that we as
white people, and yet they are growing at a
rapid rate, 55 per cent in 15 years.
But you must realize the problem that we
are going to face is this: We are duty bound
to do everything we can for them health-
wise, and although we have not done as
much as we could and are obligated to do
more, if on humanitarian grounds we are
to live up to what we should, it means that
the Indian population is going to continue
to grow.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, anytime I
have had the opportunity to be in Indian
communities I do not know where in the
world they are going to find work under
present standards. I know there are great
arguments as to whether they are going to
become part of the white conmiunity or they
are going to remain oflF by themselves. My
own personal view is that they cannot pos-
sibly exist if they are going to live oflF by
themselves. There just is not that much hunt-
ing and fishing to do in all of Canada, and
the competition from the society that is push-
ing northward all the time is just too much
for the Indian as he is today. We are simply
going to have to revise, very greatly, the
policies that we have had in tiie past.
The Earl of Elgin, over 114 years ago,
said that we were not doing enough for the
Indians and that the Indian had among its
3450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
peoples, so many able people that could con-
tribute and help themselves. You know this
is what the United Nations has been preach-
ing; that we have to help people to help
themselves, and the Earl of Elgin was telling
us that 114 years ago. We are still dragging
our feet on the Indian question— because
there is no doubt about it, there is an in-
creased dependence on welfare.
They have a very high incidence of con-
flict with the law. I see the Indians in my
own riding. You may say, "Well how come
you have got Indians in the city of Toronto,
in Parkdale?" There are a number of Indians
in tlie city of Toronto and I hardly ever
meet an Indian unless he is in trouble. They
come into our large urban societies and it
seems such a large proportion come into con-
flict with the law.
I think that if any of us knows anything
about human nature, no race is born par-
ticularly bad or bom particularly good and
we are going to have to ask ourselves why
sTich a large proportion of the inmates of
the Mercer institution are Indians. Is it the
fault of the Indians or is it the fault of our-
selves? I tell you quite frankly, sir, I believe
it is the fault of ourselves.
In all of Canada, there are only 88 Indians
who are receiving a university education.
How are the Indians going to be able to help
themselves if we are so unable to give them
the leadership from their own people?
You know we, as Canadians, often think
we are helping people in South America
develop themselves. We are making contri-
butions to India. We are making contribu-
tions to Mexico, and yet the United Nations
looks upon a section of our country as very
backward and they regard our treatment of
the Indians and the condition of the Indians
in the same way as we sometimes look at
certain sections of Iran or Mexico. It is a
strange paradox in the Canadian society that
we have let this come to pass.
I would urge the Minister, in summing up,
that you have got to do the same for the
Indians what we try to do for ourselves, but
even more so and that is, the cultivation and
the restoration and the conservation of
human resources. It is a sad sight, whenever
you go into any Indian community, or the
ones I have seen. I have seen a number in
Manitoba, and I have seen a number, of
course, with the members of this House on
our trip to the north and the story is very
much the same. It is a very tragic situation
and we are going to have to do three things
for them— the three things that the United
Nations recommend whenever we go into
any backward community.
You are going to have to involve the
people, and so I again ask the members to
read what the leader of the Opposition said
and what the leader of the NDP said. They
emphasized that you have simply got to in-
volve the people and change the basic concept
of how we have administered Indian affairs.
And you have to give them access to
resources. They simply do not have the access
to resources to a sufiicient amount in a mod-
ern society. To have them fishing is not good
enough, and to have them hunting is not good
enough. You have simply got to give them
the opportunity for far more education than
we have in the past. It is inconceivable to
be able to say, "Well, they are backward and
only 88 of them, in all of Canada, can go to
university." Any knowledge of humanity will
defy that argument. So we have been sadly
lacking in making the resources of our edu-
cational system available to the Indians.
Thirdly, this argument comes up almost
every time in our own modem government
and certainly in the development of backward
areas, and that is, that you have to have
regional government. You are going to have
to treat these areas in certain regions and
this, we have not done. The leader of the
Opposition has said, and the hon. member
for York South has said, there is absolute
chaos among the Indians. Even the Indian
bands hardly have any legal status. It is
questionable today, at this time in our history,
whether the Indian band has any legal status.
When you have chaos in government how
can you develop your resources, be they
human or otherwise?
So I urge the Minister to do away with this
miserable token effort tliat has marked this
government. The Hawthome-Tremblay report
said, "It is not all the federal responsibility."
That report put more of the responsibility on
the provincial govemment but let us not use
that as a political football.
Federally and provincially. Conservative or
Liberal, we have all been at fault over the
years in the treatment of the Indians, and the
time has come to tum our backs on the past.
We may learn from our mistakes but the
time is to look to the future and I say to the
Minister-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: You sound like Simonett. Surely
you can do better than that.
MAY 27, 1968
3451
Mr. Trotter: I say to this Minister-
Mr. White: This has been a federal respon-
sibility-
Mr. Trotter: Well, there is the member for
London South.
Mr. White: —for more than 100 years.
Mr. Trotter: You know the hon. Minister
of Energy and Management Resources (Mr.
Sinwnett) said that Indians like to live in
wigwams-
Mr. Nixon: You have got to be Iddding.
Mr, Trotter: -and maybe a lot of us have
said this was typical Tory philosophy, like
that of the member for London South. But I
think it is time—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How could anybody
hate tlie Tories that much?
Mr. Trotter: But I think it is time to look
to the future and I am asking the Minister,
through you, Mr. Chairman, to no longer just
say vote the sums of money like we did two
years ago-$741,000-and ending up spending
only about 15 per cent of it. Tliis is not good
enough, so let us go to work and redress the
wrongs of the past and show our Indian
fellow countrymen that we have a sincere
desire to treat them as a fellow human being.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a point of order.
We have had a lengthy and a very good
debate, some of which indicated that the
responsibility for policy rests with this gov-
ernment and not constitutionally with the
federal government. I object to the hon.
member for London South going out and
drinking coflFee and ignoring the debate and
coming in here and repeating the same sort
of political, cheap statement—
An hon. member: All right!
Mr. MacDonald: After being-
Mr. White: On the point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I was not out drinking coffee. I
was out dictating 75 letters, many of them to
poor citizens in my riding and I want to say
that the-
Mr. Stokes: You admit you were out.
Mr. White: I want to say that the Indian
situation in this country is a national dis-
grace-
Mr. Nixon: That is no point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl
Mr. White: —and that the primary respon-
sibility lies with the Indian branch in Ottawa-
Mr. MacDonald: If you had been here, you
would find the exclusive responsibility does
not rest with the federal government.
Mr. White: That the Indian branch in
Ottawa has frustrated every eflFort made from
Queen's Park to remedy the situation, and if
these people-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. White: If these people are sincere they
will attempt to get their federal colleagues to
correct that disgrace.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. White: And you know it.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, may
I say a word or two before the Minister
makes-
Mr. Chairman: On the point of order?
Mr. Spence: No.
Mr. Chairman: In connection with this
vote?
Mr. Spence: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Spence: I will not rehash what has
been said, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, and
through you to the Minister, that I have the
honour to represent, through my riding, an
Indian reservation known as the Moravian
Indian reservation.
There has been a great deal said about the
Indians in many aspects of their livelihood,
but I want to say that the Indian reservation
lacks-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Spence: The Indian reservation lacks
drainage, there is no drainage on these Indian
reservations and the Indian reservation is
covered-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: Go out and have another cup
of coffee or dictate another 75 letters.
3452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spence: The Indian reservation is
covered with scrub timber. If there was a
programme to clean up and drain the land
on these Indian reservations this land would
rent out and supplement the income of the
Indian in our part of the province. I know
in other parts of the province as well it would
supplement their income, which would be a
lot better than giving them welfare; and this
would last not only for one year, this would
last for many years. The land on some of
these reservations is very rich land. A Httle
programme in cleaning up, clearing the brush
and giving drainage would do a tremendous
lot for the Indians in many parts of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
I will not rehash anything that has been
said. There has been a great deal said, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
wisdom that lay behind your decision to per-
mit all members of the Legislature to express
their views and then for me to follow can be
summed up by my telling you, and through
you the House, that I am in complete agree-
ment with a good deal of what has been said.
Mr. MacDonald: Much of it was critical of
your department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When it comes to the
interpretation of responsibility and the full
significance of the assumption of responsi-
bility, I was pleased that he saw fit to read
into the record, much of what the hon. mem-
ber for Kenora has said in the past.
I have no doubt that the hon. member had
the opportunity of being present tonight but
he is away on constituency business, he in-
formed me. He was going to make some
remarks and I am pleased with what the hon.
member for York South did see fit to read
into the record, because with much of what
he said, in fact with almost the total, I am
in complete agreement.
Mr. MacDonald: What are you doing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
whole thing can be summed up in four words
—new attitudes and new approaches. Not so
much as just the fact that these are new,
but the adoption and putting into effect of
approaches— of attitudes and approaches—
which may have been kicking around for a
while-
Mr. MacDonald: What are you doing about Mr. Trotter: Very long!
it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And it need not be re-
peated by me in this regard. With one or
two exceptions and some clarification much
of what Hansard will record, this could have
been said by me had it not been said by
others.
The leader of the Opposition follows a
unique family tradition. I always remember
one of the outstanding contributions his late
father made was with regard to the problems
related to Indians. He had an intimate and
a very personal knowledge of it, combined
with a warm affection for his particular band.
Mr. Nixon: And he did not pay $50 to
become a chief.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say to the leader
of the NDP, with much of what he has said,
I, too, am in complete agreement. I would
point out one or two places where I will
clarify and perhaps set down in the record
something that may bring him and the mem-
ber for London South perhaps along the
same point of view-
Interjections by hon, members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Kicking around for a
while and have finally jelled.
I was very interested when the leader of
the Opposition made reference to attitudes
and the psychological and physiological
approach to the Indian problem. The member
for Rainy River touched upon this aspect of
the attitude as to what separates and what
can bring together the Indian and the non-
Indian and the Indian with his ways and the
non-Indian with his ways. That is the termi-
nology that I have begun to use, not as to
putting the Indian and the white man in
opposite camps, but for the purpose of
clarification of the two groups— the Indian
and the non-Indian.
New attitudes— now these are not com-
pletely new attitudes because certain people,
sir, have been expressing these for a goodly
number of years. But right in the year 1968,
following upon 1967, there is a much greater
acceptance that attitudes of the past, gener-
ally, held by the public and people in respon-
sibility, have not worked.
There must be new attitudes, and I need
not expound those, but primarily, there is a
recognition of the fact that the Indian is a
MAY 27, 1968
3453
man who has a unique culture and back-
ground, and that he, with the assistance of
the non-Indian, must find his way to the type
of hfe which he wished for himself and his
children.
The Indian— and I am using generalities-
has come to recognize those things that others
have pointed out— that there is no longer suffi-
cient hunting or fishing or those things whidi
were historically available to him, and that
because he is living in the 20th century he
must bring himself into the 20th century's
stream.
Then of course, there is a change of atti-
tude among his fellow citizens, that this con-
cept—this idea of the kind of person the
Indian is— is completely wrong. If the Indian
is any diflFerent from the non-Indian, it is
because he has not been given a chance.
There is no passive person on the face of
the globe that, given an opportunity, will not
find his way to sharing a fuller life, and this
I think is the basic need in this attitude.
I might say that I come with a completely
fresh sheet, because the first time I ever came
into contact with the Indians was as a boy
scout on the banks of the Grand River where
it was pointed out to me that on the other
side, in the Caledonia area, there were a band
of Indians. My concept of the Indian was a
completely romantic one. A man of unusual
ability, of unusual skill, and it was only com-
paratively recently that I recognized or saw
the attitude of many of our citizens— that this
picture of the Indian was not what was held.
They had a completely diflFerent image, and
one of the things that we must achieve, I
think as a basic principle, is that the public
at large must change in their approach to
the Indian. He is a romantic figure in our
history and he has a rightful place in the
development of oin: history, and he should be
one of our most respected citizens. I am
hopeful that one of the things that will be
done, imrelated to development specifically-
through our department, and through The
Department of Education in particular— is
that throughout the schools of Ontario our
youth will have as complete an understanding
of our Indian population they should have of
all of the citizens of this province in their
entire make up of so many cultures. It is the
new attitude, the new approaches, and here
again in the hght of something tiiat is just
brand new, a new building or hatching of an
egg. This may not be the complete answer
perhaps, but it is new in that there is a com-
plete adoption of a new attitude. This is
where I want to dwell on this emergence
within the government of Ontario, and the
chief factor is the vehicles we are using.
I touched very briefly upon the Cabinet
committee, and its counterpart in the civil
service, the interdepartmental committee. T^ie
interdepartmental committee is becoming an
accepted vehicle throughout the government
in total for carrying out responsibilities where
there are overlapping jurisdictions. It has been
my conviction that no other departmental
committee is as important in making eflFective
our work as this one is in order to come to
grips with the problem.
I am dehghted to say that at the meeting
of the subcommittee of Cabinet, and I think
that I can say this without any breach of my
oath of secrecy, that never have I attended
a Cabinet committee meeting in which there
was such out-and-out complete endorsation
of the necessity for interdepartmental co-op-
eration and enthusiasm. I point to my imme-
diate colleagues here, the Minister of
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), and the
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), both of
whom have responsibilities with regard to
the Indian, and both of whom have an inti-
mate knowledge of Indians, because they
have contact with them. The hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Bnmelle), who tradi-
tionally has had this over a period of years,
had a great interest, and I am dehghted to
say that he is going to build upon his
predecessor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I also should mention
the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart), in addi-
tion. Economics and Development, and the
Ontario housing corporation. There are really
two representatives in there— Municipal AflFairs
and Labour— in addition to those that I
mentioned, with the chairmanship of myself,
and my counterpart in the interdepartmental
committee. I am delighted to say that the
representation on the interdepartmental com-
mittee is made up of that level within the
public service just below the deputy minis-
terial level. They are the people who are
actually charged with the execution of
matters within the department.
Putting Deputy Ministers on too many
committees has its drawbacks because they
become overloaded. We have designed this
so that we could get as close to the Deputy
Minister as possible, plus those who will exe-
cute the work. This is the secret of this inter-
departmental committee. The leader of the
3454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NDP group touched upon departmental jeal-
ousies. You know the type of thing. I may
say that I have accepted as a fact that every
Minister involved in this committee has, with-
out reserve, indicated his full participation
and that of his department under the leader-
ship of The Department of Social and Fami-
ly Services and the chairman. This is not to
say that they will not continue with their own
work.
For an example, let me take the Minister
of Agriculture and Food, who has a great
deal to do with ARDA. ARDA is a programme
available to all of our citizens, and the Min-
ister has made the announcement in the past
where there are specific ARDA programmes
to be made in respect of Indians. It is through
this committee that we hope to charmel all of
the resources and know-how of the various
departments to come to grips with either
specific situations, like an ARDA situation, or
to bring to bear all of the departments where
there is a community development project.
The efficacy of the approach is this. The
province has the resources, the know-how,
the experience, and we have an organization
which—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have the know-how
and the resources. Mr. Chairman, we set up
our own organization, the Cabinet subcom-
mittee and the interdepartmental committee,
to be channeled through the newly established
Indian development branch, to be channeled
at the grass-roots level, to the Indian devel-
opment officer, and this is one place where
I disagree with the hon. member for York
South. I believe that the Indian development
officer has a great contribution to make
because he is at the end of this **know-how",
and resource.
We have set up, with this vehicle within
the provincial sector another very basic prin-
ciple of the involvement of the Indian himself,
and this is—
Mr. MacDonald: Can we deal with this
issue now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let me finish, let me
complete the picture.
Mr. MacDonald: Before you move on, can
we deal with it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for York South will please do
me the courtesy and fairness of permitting me
at least one tenth of the time that has been
taken up by all the members of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order. You can conduct the House
in the way you want, but the Minister took
two hours of speeches, and 15 different ques-
tions, and he is now beginning to comment
on each of those questions. After he has com-
mented on the 15, we are going to have to
come back. At 10 o'clock tomorrow night, we
are going to be back, going over the questions
which he is moving through seriatim.
If the House leader wants to deal with it
in this inefficient way, this is fine, but I am
giving fair warning that the Minister is not
going to "snow" us into silence before he
meets important issues in this orgy of enthusi-
asm about his committee.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
no point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You made your speech
and I have adopted most of it already for my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman: Order please.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the—
Mr. Chairman: Order please. I think when
the debate started, after we had about two
speakers, I believe it was agreed that the
Minister would answer the questions after all
speakers had said what they intended to.
There were eight, nine, or ten different speak-
ers and it has taken some considerable time.
I realize it is going to be difficult for the
Minister to answer them all but I do not think
he intends to just cut off debate, I think he is
going to entertain questions afterwards. This
is what he intimated in the first place.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Your summation is
correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: So I think if the members
will please afford him the courtesy of speak-
ing—he hstened to nine or ten people very
faithfully.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have Indian
involvement and this again involves a very
basic principle that the Indian, individually
and as a group, must be involved. We are
fortunate that we have the continuation within
the department of the Indian advisory com-
mittee, with whom I have met and with whom
I have spoken very frankly. As I have spoken
here. I have indicated to them much of what
MAY 27. 1968
3455
has been said here tonight I have said to them
I have adopted this approach myself as the
responsible Minister in this regard.
If there has not been consultation in any
one area, I do not know how it came about,
because the very basic principle that this
department is dedicated to is Indian develop-
ment. Even in the Moosonee project that one
of the hon. members touched upon, the board
of Governors of that centre does have a
representative in the Moosonee Indian com-
munity, and has a local advisory committee
composed of residents both Indian and non-
Indian. That is a basic thing that I have said
and stressed to the department and to the
head of the Indian development branch, that
there will be a continuous consultation with
the Indian advisory committee, with the
Indian in the community, so that we may
know that what we are doing is acceptable.
It must be acceptable or we will never have
any success, because, as the member for
Rainy River says, to impose, to thrust upon, is
something that has been tried over a long
period of time, and has been found wanting.
The only problem that this presents is that
consultation back and forth does create delay.
I have reached an understanding with our
Indian advisory committee that these channels
of communication must be made as expedi-
tious as possible in order to make sure that
this worthy principle does not become an
obstacle.
That is the vehicle within the government
of the province of Ontario. We reached this
point because far from what has been said,
this government has indicated its willingness
and its adoption of a new approach. We were
the only province to sign the welfare services
agreement-
Mr. Nixon: What was the date of that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was signed on May
19, 1966.
Mr. Nixon: May?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May. We were the
only province to do that. We signed the
Indian development agreement; we were the
only province to do this.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Liberal provinces
never did? The CCF in Saskatchewan never
did?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: None of the provinces
did. We went into the two agreements on a
certain understanding, and that is what the
money first began to be provided for in this
department because we had an understanding
of what was going to take place.
I am not going to get involved at this stage
of the game in castigations or criticisms of
the federal government, because one of the
things that will be done immediately that
there is a new government in Ottawa is that
negotiations, which we were teeing up prior
to June 25, will then come into being, because
it is vmderstood that there is going to be a
new Indian Act. We are hopeful, and indica-
tions have been this, that prior to the putting
into eflFect of the new Indian Act we will be
consulted to the fullest, as will the Indians, I
trust, be consulted to the fullest.
We talk about responsibility, which the
hon. member for York South touched upon
and the hon. member for London South
touched upon. Responsibility can mean re-
sponsibility of someone who is charged with
doing something. Presently I am charged
with putting into effect the government's
policy with relation to Indian matters, but the
Treasurer of the province shares that respon-
sibility with me as do the Treasury board be-
cause they must provide me with the funds,
as they have. This is where the big mis-
understanding has taken place between the
provincial and the federal level. Who is
going to provide the dollars?
This is the crux, and if you read the report
that the hon. member names— the Hawthorne
report— where they talk about responsibility
and the shifting of functions and so on,
always in the background is the one key
factor and this is the provision of moneys to
discharge the federal responsibihty. As I say,
to me it is so clear that it is the federal gov-
ernment which traditionally has had this
responsibility. This has been accepted right
across the nation, and the other provinces
subscribe to it almost completely because they
have not participated in the agreements. They
say, "That is your responsibility." We have
adopted this stand that we have the know-
how, the resources; you provide us with the
funds and we will do the job. Without taking
a hard and fast position on that, we have gone
fiu-ther- we have provided $1 million in this
department branch to look after these things
where before we had assumed that the money
for those things would be coming from
Ottawa under an Indian development agree-
ment.
I say to the hon. member for York South,
whether it is under the total umbrella, or
whether it is under specific agreements, I, as
a Minister, need tlie dollars to carry out the
job.
3456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Are there any federal moneys in
this programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Very small.
Mr. Nixon: Like what?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The federal govern-
ment has interpreted the agreement vis-d-vis
the expenditure of the dollar, that they will
share with us in the cost of our Indian de-
velopment ofiBcers in the field, and some of
the services that they do. In the budget,
when you are talking about Indian develop-
ment, that is a very minor portion.
When you are going to develop a com-
munity you need that kind of sharing, you
need sharing in the capital costs through the
provision of those physical things that are
necessary in order that a commimity be
developed. This is the major issue which has
to be ironed out between this government
and the Ottawa government. I say to the
hon. member for York South, who asked the
question as to the block: That is where the
block is.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, having
in mind the cut and thrust, I move that the
committee of supply rise and report certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resmned, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has adopted
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow we will continue with the estimates
of this department.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 96
ONTARIO
i^egisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Questions to Mr. Simonett re the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario,
Mr. Nixon 3459
Questions to Mr. Davis re the information systems committee, Mr. Nixon 3459
Questions to Mr. Gomme re Highway 401, Mr. Nixon 3460
Question to Mr. Brimelle re the departmental takeover of private forest lands,
Mr. Stokes 3460
Questions to Mr. Haskett re the driver examination centre at Samia, Mr. BuUbrook 3460
Questions to Mr. Robarts re the minutes of the Niagara parks commission, Mr. Shulman 3461
Question to Mr. Robarts re The Business Corporations Act and The Securities Act,
Mr. Shulman 3462
Question to Mr. Robarts re a charge of brutality at Guelph reformatory, Mr. Shulman 3462
Questions to Mr. Davis re George Brown college of applied arts and technology,
Mr. T. Raid 3463
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3464
Question to Mr. Rowntree re the purchase and sale of rubber footwear, Mr. Martel 3464
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, concluded 3464
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman 3491
Recess, 6 o'clock 3500
Appendix 3501
3459
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday. May 28, 1968
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Once again today in our
galleries we have students from a number of
schools, with others to join us later in the
afternoon. At the present time, in the east
gallery we have students from Holy Cross
school in Georgetown, and from Errol Road
public school in Samia; and in the west
gallery, from McKillop public school in Wal-
ton. Later this afternoon, we will be joined
by pupils from Dublin public school hosting
students from Riverview public school in
Ottawa, and by students from St. Philip's
school in Petrolia.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment. It was made available to his office, I
believe, yesterday.
Is the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario a shareholder of Canadian enterprise
development corporation?
If so, is the Minister av/are that CED is
described, in their own brochure, as a, and I
quote, "risk capital investor" and, therefore,
how can he justify the involvement of public
funds through Hydro?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is "no". The Hydro Electric Power
Commission of Ontario is not a shareholder
of Canadian enterprise development corpora-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain that the
investment v/hich has given rise to this ques-
tion relates to the pension fund administered
by the Ontario Hydro commission. The de-
cision to have the pension fund invest in this
corporation was documented in a memoran-
dum to the commission dated October 30,
1962, and approved by the commission
October 31, 1962, and basically followed the
principle of diversifying portions of the
pension fund into potential good earning
situations.
It was not anticipated that the earnings
from this corporation as a venture capital
investment company would be immediate, but
over the longer term, substantially higher re-
turns would be forthcoming, compared with
the blue-chip-type investments.
The original shareholders, together with the
pension fund of the Ontario Hydro, were
major Canadian institutions in both life insur-
ance and i)ension funds. The pension fund
holds 1,250 shares at a cost of $250,000. The
value at December 31, 1967 was $290,000.
I table herewith, a list of shareholders of
the Canadian enterprise development corpora-
tion, together with a statement of the cor-
poration's objectives and a list of the officers.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a
supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that in the brochure,
under the heading "Institutional Shareholders
of CED", along with the list that no doubt
the Minister is tabling, there is included the
Hydro Electric Power Commission of On-
tario, not just its pension fund?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, in the list
I have, it is the Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario pension fund.
Mr. Nixon: Would it be possible for us to
exchange these lists so that we could have a
look at it? Right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the Minister of Education.
What is the purpose of the meeting of the
Minister's information systems committee to
be held at the Constellation hotel, Toronto,
tomorrow through Friday?
Will the statistics on pupils, teachers, school
plants, transportation and finance be made
available to members of the Legislature in
time to be considered in the debate on the
estimates of The Department of Education?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education
and University AflFairs): Mr. Speaker, in
answer to the first question: The Minister's
3460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information systems committee is perhaps a
term not completely understood by all mem-
bers opposite. This committee really emanated
from the former Minister's committee of the
CEA. It has now been transferred as a portion
of the responsibility of the Minister's council,
and really, it is a committee representative of
all The Departments of Education in the
country, not just relating to the province of
Ontario.
They have been conducting studies and
having meetings, Mr. Speaker— the last, I
guess, two and a half to three months ago—
to try to develop some common approach with
respect to definition of the use of computers
and computer technology for the statistical
information that could be available from one
provincial jurisdiction to another. In other
words, all the provinces are endeavouring to
get together to agree on common definitions,
and as I recall it, the DBS people are also
involved so that their, shall we say, definitions
will be the same.
This meeting tomorrow through Friday,
relates to work this committee has been carry-
ing on in this on-going study, Mr. Speaker. I
would be quite delighted to get a copy of
their interim report from the meeting of the
total Ministers' committees, I believe it was,
in September in Regina. This will bring him
up to date on what has gone on. But it is,
as I say, a gathering to discuss further the
desirability and the practicability of bringing
in line definitions as they relate between pro-
vincial jurisdictions and DBS.
Mr. Nixon: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if
tlie Minister would permit, whether the pur-
pose is to compare the statistics from each
of the jurisdictions—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The purpose is not one of
comparison at all; it is a question of deter-
mining definitions for the information that is
put into computers for the compiling of statis-
tics. It is really an agreement on how we
approach it, not to compare, shall we say,
the number of pupils in grade 8 in Ontario
with the number of pupils in grade 8 in
some other jurisdiction, or the costs or any-
thing else. It is a question of coming at
some common means of definition so that we
can get comprehensive statistics on a national
basis.
Mr. Nixon: Having to do with the second
question, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will
permit, the statistics that might have been
forthcoming from this meeting would have
been normally included in the aimual report
of the Minister, is that not so?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they are not
necessarily the same statistics at all. The
Minister's report will contain those figures
relevant to the province of Ontario. It wall
not include— nor do I envisage the Minister's
report in this province including statistics
from another provincial jurisdiction. I think
over a period of years this would be compiled
into a single document representative of all
the provinces.
Mr. Nixon: I have questions, Mr. Speaker,
for the Minister of Highways.
1. What is the contract completion date for
the section of Highway 401 between Yonge
Street and Bayview Avenue?
2. What penalties for late completion can
be imposed by the contract?
3. Is there any reason why these penalties
will not be imposed if the contract is not
completed on time?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1. The contract called for the work to be
completed by November 15, 1967;
2. The liquidated damage clauses in this
contract indicate that $500 per day can be
imposed;
3. Yes, subject to the effect of the con-
struction strikes of last year.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask of the Minister,
Mr. Speaker, if he will permit, is there a
clause in the contract that exempts the con-
tractor if there is a strike of sufficient impor-
tance, or is this just by agreement?
Mr. Speaker: There is no answer. The
member for Thunder Bay has the floor.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Lands and Forests.
Will the Minister implement the provisions
of Bill 115 regarding the takeover by his
department of private forest lands? If not,
why not?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): In answer to the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, the legislation of Bill 115 will
be implemented.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Samia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): I have five
questions, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of
Transport.
1. Would the Minister confirm that the
location of the driver examination centre at
Samia has been established to be on a parcel
MAY 28, 1968
3461
of land immediately adjacent to a building
presently housing the Ontario Provincial
Pohce and a brewers' retail store, and owned
by a common owner?
2. Is the Minister aware that an application
has been or is being made to the liquor
hcence board of Ontario to convert the said
building to a licensed hotel premises?
3. Does the location of the driver examina-
tion centre next to a licensed premises cause
any concern to the Minister?
4. Would the Minister advise which, if
any, city of Sarnia officials or city of Sarnia
police officials were consulted with respect
to the location of the said driver examina-
tion centre?
5. Would the Minister specify the names
of those officials who recommended the
proposed location?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's
five questions are, respectively:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. The establishment of a driver examina-
tion centre next to an existing liquor licensed
premise would,
4. An official of my department discussed
the location with Samia's director of plan-
ning to assure that it would comply with the
city's bylaws and urban renewal plan and
conform to the city's traffic study findings.
5. After advertising in the Sarnia paper
for a suitable site, officials of The Department
of Public Works and my department selected
the present location.
Mr. BuUbrook: Would the Minister enter-
tain a supplementary question?
Is he aware that it is the consensus of
opinion in the city of Sarnia that The De-
partment of Public Works and your depart-
ment picked the worst possible site available?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The answer, sir, ob-
I viously is "no".
Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question, Mr.
Speaker, for the Minister of Highways.
Would the Minister advise what provin-
cial financial participation there is with re-
spect to the proposed bridge to be built
between the mainland and Walpole Island?
Second, would the Minister advise why
specifications in connection with the tender
of the contract for the erection of such
bridge was not received by the Sarnia con-
struction association depository until one
week prior to the opening of tenders, while
such specifications were received by other
communities from two to three weeks in
advance?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, this ques-
tion will take a little research and I will
take it as notice.
Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question for the
hon. Attorney General.
Could the Minister advise the reasons for
the removal of the Sarnia detachment of the
Ontario Provincial Police from Sarnia to
Petrolia, particularly with a view to the
following: (a) The volume of present traffic
in the Sarnia area and especially the location
of proposed Highway 402; (b) The popida-
tion concentration of the area; (c) The his-
tory of Ontario Provincial Police activity in
the Sarnia area?
Could the Minister advise as to whether
Ontario Provincial Police officials were con-
sulted in connection with the removal of
the detachment to Petrolia and what their
advice v^^as in connection with such removal?
Would the Minister specify the officer or
officers who recommended such removal?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I have considerable knowledge
of this matter, but in view of the specific in-
quiries which are contained in the question I
have asked the Ontario Provincial Police to
give me a complete report. I will be able
to answer very shortly.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have three questions for the Prime Minister.
First, when will I be allowed to examine
the minutes of the Niagara parks commission
as promised by the chairman of the Niagara
parks commission in committee?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minis-ter): I am
told by the chairman of the commission that
he extended an invitation to the standing
committee on government commissions to
visit the Niagara parks system and that he
would at that time make the minutes avail-
able to members of that committee. If the
hon. member is a member of that com-
mittee, I assume that he will journey to
Niagara when the time comes and will have
an opportunity then of examining the min-
utes. I am also informed that the committee
has not yet set a date for the visit, but this
is a matter to be arranged by the chairman
of the committee with the chairman of the
commission.
3462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That was
not what happened—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I leave
the functioning of the committee to the com-
mittee chairman. Certainly it is in able
hands there. In any event, that is the ar-
rangement as I understand it, as I am
informed. I am not a member of that com-
mittee and I was not there, but when the
committee visits the Niagara parks, then the
minutes of the commission will be made
available to the members.
Mr. Nixon: Is there any chance there
will not be time for that?
Mr. Shulman: Will the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
An hon. member: Do not get too close to
the Falls when you are there.
Mr. Speaker: The member has inquired
if the Prime Minister will accept a supple-
mentary question.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Prime Minister
not feel that perhaps it might be easier
for the minutes to travel to the committee
rather than for the committee to travel to
the minutes?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I make
no comment, I simply say that I am informed
that this is the arrangement that was made
and I assume it was made with the consent
of the members of the committee. Perhaps it
might go back to the committee if there
is some further arrangement.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): The Prime
Minister was wrongly informed.
Mr Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the Prime Minister has been wrongly
informed. I was there and I say with author-
ity, with positive authority, that the Prime
Minister has been wrongly informed.
Mr. Shulman: And I will agree with that.
However, I am sure the Prime Minister will
look into it.
I have a second question for the Prime
Minister. Will the Prime Minister make
changes in The Business Corporations Act
and/or The Ontario Securities Act to prevent
advantage being taken by associates or rela-
tives of insiders regardless of whether they
are domiciled with the insiders?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I beheve
this question was examined quite carefully
prior to the drafting of The Corporations Act
and The Corporations Information Act which
were introduced in this House on May 17.
Those bills were put on the order paper in
order that representation might be made if
changes are considered to be required and
necessary.
If representations are made to this effect,
and if the modifications as suggested are
deemed to be necessary, then that will be
dealt with when the bill as revised comes
back into this House.
As far as The Securities Act is concerned,
I am not aware that any such changes are
immediately contemplated. Once again, we
rewrote The Securities Act relatively recently
and it is under constant review in order that
we may make modifications if they appear
to be necessary. No doubt these questions
are being considered there, and if the mem-
ber would like to make representation to the
Minister, I am certain that he would be
quite prepared to give full consideration to
any recommendations.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Finally, will the Prime Minister set up an
all-party committee to investigate the charge
of brutality at Guelph reformatory, as de-
tailed in today's Toronto Daily Star?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, I have
no intention of setting up an all-party com-
mittee to look into this matter. I believe the
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man) dealt with tliis a week or so ago, and
answered the member's question in the
House. In view of the reports in the news-
paper, I will ask him to review the situa-
tion, just to be certain that such things that
are set out in that article did not, in fact,
happen.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Is the Prime Minister aware that the
answer as given by the Minister of Reform
Institutions in the House last week was an
absolute contradiction to the story as set out
in today's paper?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are
certain credibility gaps in certain things that
appear in the newspapers, and I do not think
that on the basis of a newspaper story we
can set up an all-party committee of this
House, in effect, to check on the report that
the Minister, advised by his officials, made.
I will ask him to not disregard this particu-
lar article in today's paper, but to be sure
MAY 28, 1968
3463
that the report he gave to this House was,
in fact, correct.
We have no desire, nor would we ever
countenance this type of behaviour, but cer-
tainly because six inmates make certain alle-
gations, I do not see that this is cause for a
complete investigation into the administra-
tion of this particular institution, when the
matter has already been looked at. I think
we need to look at it again, to make sure
that we are satisfied that these reports are
not correct.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Education. It is about the George Brown
college of applied arts and technology. It is
in eight parts.
First, how many science and mathematics
teachers are employed at the George Brown
college of applied arts and technology? How
many of these teachers hold a certificate for
teaching from The Department of Educa-
tion? How many, if any, non-certified teachers
are university graduates? Of the remaining
teachers, how many have grade 13?
Second, what are the standards and regu-
lations of The Department of Education
concerning the qualifications necessary for per-
sons to be eligible to teach science and
mathematics, at the college of applied arts
and technology? Have these regulations been
adhered to at the George Brown college of
g applied arts and technology?
Third, is it true that a person can be ap-
pointed a teaching master at George Brown
college only if he has at the minimum, an
honour degree or an ordinary degree plus
trade qualifications? If the answer is yes, are
there any masters at George Brown college
who do not have these minimum qualifica-
tions?
Fourth, are there any chairmen who do not
have university degrees? Specifically, does the
chairman of the department of architectural
technology have a university degree? If not,
why not?
I Fifth, what are the academic and/or pro-
fessional qualifications of the assistant
chairman of the department of architectural
technology?
Sixth, did a person apply for the position of
chairman, or assistant chairman, of the de-
partment of architectural technology who had
a university degree in science?
Seventh, does the registrar have a univer-
sity degree? If not, why not?
Eighth, whereas the principal of George
Brown college has a university degree and
his technical institute teaching certificate, in
what technical field is his certificate?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this question
to a degree follows the question asked by the
hon. member, I believe last Friday. At that
time I indicated to him that I was not in a
position to answer the fourth part of his
question, and I am really just a little con-
cerned as to whether or not a question of this
nature should not be directed elsewhere. I
am sure the principal of the institution would
be more than prepared to give the answer or
to sit down and chat with the hon. member
about it.
I am wondering if the hon. member were,
for instance, to ask me to list all the faculty
and their qualifications, say at York Univer-
sity for the sake of argument, is it appro-
priate for the Minister of University Affairs
to undertake to do the necessary research and
answer the hon. member?
Mind you, were I asked this question at
York, I would immediately go to the hon.
member for Scarborough East, because he
would be in a position to get all this infor-
mation for me very readily.
I really am concerned as to whether or not
these institutions are separate and apart, and
while the department obviously has an
interest, whether the question would per-
haps be better directed to the principal of
the institution. I am sure he would be more
than prepared to get this information for the
hon. member.
I say this as a matter of procedure or prin-
ciple, in that I did undertake to get the
information on the fourth part of the question
on Friday, the portion as to the chairmen of
the various departments.
As I indicated, Mr. Lloyd was the principal
and he has a vocational type B certificate and
is a BA and M.Ed. Vice principals are Mr.
Sykes, who has a vocational type A certificate,
BA and M.Ed; and Mr. McLennan, vocational
type A certificate and master standing in a
trade. The chairman of the applied arts section
Miss J. Cornish Bowden, M.Ed degree plus
teaching certificate from Tufts University.
The chairman of the engineering and tech-
nology branch is Mr. H. R. Pritchard, voca-
tional type B certificate and BA.
In addition there are four chairmen in the
field of trades and related subjects. These
are Mr. C. W. Adamson, Mr. B. A. Beetles,
3464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. A. Stirling, Mr. D. M. Livingstone and
these personnel have journeymen's or masters'
certificates in a trade, plus a minimum of
seven years' industrial experience, plus grade
12 standing, plus a vocational teacher's
certificate from the Ontario college of educa-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I really do not have the
other research done in time for any answer
this afternoon. I wonder if the hon. member
might consider contacting Mr. Lloyd, and I
am sure that he would readily provide this
information for him.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I might have
a chance just to comment on this, I would
just say briefly that the colleges of applied
arts and technology are quite different from
university affairs. I will just leave it at that.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I do have I believe
sufficient reason for asking the Minister of
Education this question. I do not intend to
bombard him with this type of detailed ques-
tion on every college of applied arts and
technology. I feel that I would like to have
these answers from the Minister himself in
this particular case.
Mr. Speaker: Would the members agree to
revert to the order of presenting reports, so
that the Provincial Secretary could table a
report?
Motion agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the 1967 annual report of the work-
men's compensation board, Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the answers to questions 6, 11,
12, 19, 33, 51, 52, 55, and 56, standing on
the order paper. (See appendix, page 3501.)
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there
is an outstanding question directed to me by
the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr.
Martel) having to do with the piurchase and
sale of rubber footwear.
I would just like to repeat the question as
it is:
Is it true that producers of rubber foot-
wear, such as those located in Granby, will
ship their goods to Toronto, Winnipeg,
Edmonton, Vancouver and so on, prepaid,
while the same goods are shipped to
northern Ontario collect—?
And so on.
Now Mr. Speaker, may I say this: If the
situation exists as described by the hon.
member, in all probability it is a matter of
private contract between the suppliers and
retailers involved. I suggest that the smaller
market in northern Ontario could be a factor
affecting a laid down price, especially if
compared with the volume in the large urban
centres mentioned.
As I have stated in this House previously
I do not think that any province can success-
fully implement a unilateral system of price
control. The potential complexities of the
situation are magnified clearly in the ques-
tion, which deals with goods which originate
in another province and where the contract of
purchase and sale, involves parties resident
in different jurisdictions of Canada.
Now regardless of where the jurisdiction
may be in a constitutional sense, and by juris-
diction I mean jurisdiction with respect to
price control; regardless of where the juris-
diction may be in a constitutional sense, if a
change in approach to the whole question of
price control is to come, I believe that it will
have to be evolved at the national level in
co-operation with all of the provinces.
I agree with the opinion of Judge Mary
Batten, chairman of the Royal commission
study on consumer problems and inflation in
the prairie provinces, who said that price
increases were beyond the capacity of prov-
inces to control.
I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that this principle
will be a major topic for discussion at the
forthcoming Dominion-provincial conference
on consumer protection.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; the
House in committee of supply; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Concluded)
On vote 2011:
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, at the time
of the adojurrmient last night I had outlined
to the House the development of the inter-
departmental committee and had gone to the
federal scene and indicated to the House
the major problem that has arisen. I had
touched on the aspect of responsibility, a
word that had been used by the hon. member
MAY 28, 1968
3465
for York South (Mr. MacDonald), in that he
quoted the Hawthorne study, which I ask you
to note, Mr. Chairman, was done on a
national basis with a national approach.
Now my reading of The British North
America Act in section 91, leads me to believe
conclusively that the responsibility from a con-
stitutional point of view is at the federal
level, because section 91 says:
It is hereby declared the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of
Canada extends to all matters coming
within the classes of subjects next herein-
after enumerated, that is to say—
And I point out that item 24 is "Indians and
lands reserved for Indians," and that is in
the same listing as such things as "currency
and coinage," "naturalization, and aliens." So
that it is clear to me, at least, and this is
a matter which I will be discussing in more
detail with the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart), where the constitutional responsi-
bility lies.
Constitutional responsibility, of necessity,
requires financial responsibility. This is where
the member for London South (Mr. White)
took his position and, I think, this is some-
thing we must always be aware of. I bring this
to tlie attention of the leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Nixon) and those who spoke in
support of him: The financial responsibility
goes hand in hand with the constitutional
responsibility, and that hes in Ottawa.
With respect to the transfer of obligations
or the transfer of functions. Let us turn to
the point of view of the Indian. You will
recall, Mr. Chairman, that last night I was
talking about a change in attitude and the
necessity of involvement of the Indian at all
points in this. I believe, and I think it is
accepted, that there is a large body of opinion
amongst the Indian population that they do
not wish the provinces to assume the responsi-
bility in this field. They are very jealous of
their treaty rights and their rights to land
and they have a feeling that through The
British North America Act, as begun and as
traditionally maintained, protection at the
national level for all of them as national
citizens should continue to reside in Ottawa.
This does not mean that an increasing num-
ber of them are not prepared to accept the
resources, the know-how and the facilities
which are available at the provincial level;
they are wilhng to do that.
This is such a sensitive area that I recall
that one of the most explosive situations that
ever arose in this House was a number of
years ago when the then Provincial Secretary
tried to extend to the Indians the matter
of marriage licences. I remember that the
father of the leader of the Opposition-I think
it was he-participated in the presentation
of the petition to Her Majesty the Queen on
behalf of the Indians stating that they did not
want anything of this kind to happen, so that
tliis responsibihty did not become a provin-
cial legislative matter whereby the provinces
had full legislative authority to say, this you
must do. That one incident is enough to
make anybody who wants to transfer responsi-
bihty stop and think.
The leader of the NDP talked about the
province's refusal to accept. The province of
Ontario does not refuse to accept a major role
—and I stress, a major role— in Indian mat-
ters. I do not have to speak words; actions
already talk, because: We proclaimed The
Welfare Services Act, we entered into the
welfare services agreement, we entered into
the Indian development agreement and, more
so, we have put into the estimates this year
again a very substantial sum of money— $1
million— and the member for Parkdale may not
think that $1 million is very much but $1
million is a lot of money— and three or four
years ago there was no such item.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
on a point of order, if I can interject, I never
tried to poke fun at $1 million. I do not
think you are doing enough but I think $1
million is a lot of money, so do not inject that
tone.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I accept that. Then
tliat was a misunderstanding on my part,
Mr, Chairman.
This $1 miUion— I stress, this $1 million-
is apart from what major sums of money
are in other departments. For example, The
Department of Education, I would think,
will have spent $4 or $5 million which will
be in respect of services to Indians. The
Department of Lands and Forests will-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Let us stick on that for a moment because
the budgetary item is only for the inspection
of Indian schools. I do not beheve that
includes the Moosonee schools—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Moosonee project,
for example, is going to cost some 2.5 mil-
lion and I think about 75 per cent of that is
going to come from The Department of Edu-
cation. We are going to be putting in from
our budget about $125,000 a year for two
years. This is coming out of The Department
of Education estimates.
;466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if
the Minister would permit me to ask him at
tliis point where the sum that tlie province
recovers from tlie government of Canada is
listed in these estimates as a balancing item,
because there must be a large smn of money
that is paid through tliis Minister's depart-
ment in respect to welfare.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mr. Nixon: They pay tlie welfare direct,
do they?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I say, the welfare
services are covered under The Welfare Serv-
ices Act and at this point I do not intend to
go into that.
Mr. Nixon: They must pay surely 100
per cent of those costs?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, not 100 per cent.
We have assumed-
Mr. Nixon: Over 90 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, over 90 per cent.
It is a very complicated formula but really,
basically, this complicated formula can be
reduced to this regard, that we have ac-
cepted in respect of the Indian population
the same obligation tliat we have accepted
in respect of the remainder of the province.
Mr. Nixon: Except for raising the money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no, we pay. We
pay the same proportion. It so happens that
because of the circumstances of the Indian,
in the welfare services the federal govern-
ment is picking up a major portion of the
percentage in dollars; but when we, as a
result of our Indian development, have
placed the Indian population on tlie same
footing from an economic point of view as
the remainder of the population, the province
will have assumed more and more proportion-
ately. As the Indian economic circumstances
become better, our provincial obligation will
become larger.
Their share now works out to about 94-
point-something per cent— just under 95 per
cent in respect to the Indian, and of course
the family benefits which we have is shared
on a 50-50 basis.
Mr. Nixon: Is it 95 per cent federal funds?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the social services,
yes. The province has taken the position tlxat
it has a major role to play. The hon. member
used the expression that this was an oppor-
tunity for empire building. It is not the
intent of this department to embark upon em-
pire building. No, that is not the function
that we play. The resources, the empires,
in their respective positions will continue in
the various departments — Economics and
Development, housing. Education, Lands and
Forests, Labou-, whatever otlier departments
ha\e a role. We have a unique role to play;
we are in effect carrying the ball.
One of the major efforts will be that as
the Indians assume more and more responsi-
bility and there is more involvement, sir,
tliere will be a channel through which they
can learn how to go to the departments
directly to make use of all the services
that are available. The Indian development
officer will operate as a catalyst, as a
pipeline, as a follow-upper, as a chaser, as
a supervisor, to make sure that these things
take place. If, in a given community, there
is more than one department, two or three,
involved in a community development, it
will be the responsibility of the Indian
development officer to make sure that every
relevant department is at work and clicking
with the others in this over-all development.
This is from the pro\'incial point of view.
As I have learned more and more about
the Indian affairs department in Ottawa I
have come to the conclusion that they must,
over the years, have tried to develop within
the Indian affairs dei>artment a sort of total
government of their own, a total service
agency of their own. Of course any sucli
development is impossible to attain with any
degree of success. It takes hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars to set up provincial depart-
ments in order that they may be able to
service people, and so for one department
at the federal level to try to duplicate this
is ipso facto, I think, an impossibility and I
think this is where one of the great diffi-
culties in the past has been.
In a way I am outlining for the House
the general outline of the position we will be
taking and this is still general, there is
nothing very hard and fast about, vis-d-vis
our discussions at the federal level after this
next election and before the coming into
being of the new Indian Act. I am going to
suggest that at tlie federal level they also
adopt our internal arrangement, that they
set up an interdepartmental committee
chaired perhaps by the Minister of Northern
Affairs and Indians, certainly involving to a
great degree the Minister of Health and
Welfare, the Minister of Agriculture, the new
housing ministry, and Labour, so that the
MAY 28, 1968
3467
departments there, with respect to tlieir ad-
ministrative machinery, can act as a unit.
At the present time we have one agreement
with The Department of Health and Wel-
fare at the federal level and another one
with the Indian affairs, with Indian develop-
ment.
The number of agreements really does not
matter as long as they work, but I would
suggest at the federal level a subcommittee
of Cabinet working with a subcommittee of
Cabinet at the provincial level and an inter-
departmental committee at the federal level
working with an interdepartmental committee
at the provincial level, and the federal group-
ing to have their own advisory committee,
which I think they have— if they have not,
perhaps they should have and we would have
our own advisory committee. The ultimate
would be, that once the general Indian de-
velopment picture— the umbrella— had been
developed, then we could, without assuming
the constitutional responsibility, without as-
suming the financial responsibility, be the
agency through which the federal govern-
ment can bring to bear in the discharge of its
responsibilities, services to the Indians. This
is done all the time. Our own department
uses other agencies to do our work. For
example, the children's aid society is one of
the really outstanding examples of an agency
which is supplied with money, and charged
under legislation, to do this.
I envisage no constitutional problem, no
difficulty in an agreement being worked out
with financial arrangements to bring these
provincial services to the benefit of the
Indians. But I say this to the House, that
once that agreement is formed, it has got to
be an agreement which is good to begin with
and which is one that will last. I am think-
ing of the agreement that the Minister of
Education— I believe it was, Mr. Chairman-
made in the vocational rehabilitation retrain-
ing programme where a massive programme
% was developed. Then suddenly, after a few
years, literally the rug was pulled out from
under the Minister of Education and from
under the province through that ministry.
Now this, is something that could— I do
not think could ever be permissible in this
regard. My friend, the leader of the Opposi-
tion, mentioned a friend of the member for
Kenora, Mr. Nitchi and I feel very sym-
pathetic to Mr. Nitchi. He must be very
bewildered indeed and I think that his con-
fusion is compounded when agent after agent
and arm of government after arm of govern-
ment comes to him and he does not know
with whom he is dealing or without. I am
very sympathetic-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
is your proposed set-up going to avoid that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My proposed set-up is
that the federal government deal through the
interdepartmental committee of this govern-
ment, then efforts be channelled through the
Indian development branch to our Indian
development officer so that there will be one
man on the scene. The first point of contact
of Mr. Nitchi and his friends initially should
be with the Indian development officer who
will not carry the ball for them really, but
he will say, now in this situation you would
deal with The Department of Lands and
Forests. If it is an ARDA problem you can
deal with the Minister of Agriculture, if it
is some other— for example, the Minister of
Labour; he will assist them in establishing
these contacts.
It is not our intention to set up an Indian
affairs branch— to move an Indian affairs
branch from Ottawa to Toronto— that is not
our purpose. There is no empire to be built
within our department.
So this is where I am hopeful that Mr.
Nitchi will, at least, have one person to deal
with and he will have one person to give
some credit to, realizing that the money and
the financial responsibility does come from
Ottawa still. But there will be able to be
pinpointing of responsibility for action. Not
financial responsibility, not constitutional res-
ponsibility but if these hundreds of millions
of dollars are being spent, at least, there will
be one point at which somebody can put a
finger. Really, the Indian development oflBcers,
within our branch, are not going to be in an
enviable position for a few years, because
they are going to have quite a responsibility,
if this is carried out.
I am amazed that the company of young
Canadians should be involved, that where
there is a responsibility charged to the depart-
ments that they should be involved in there.
Mr. MacDonald: Federal and provincial,
you are not doing the job.
An hon. member: What do they do?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, we moved in.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a good question
but all three are not doing the job now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But the one point on
which I cannot adopt the position of the
3468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
leader of the NDP is in relationship to the
thesis of the Indian-Eskimo association and
their corporate structure.
I have had a very full discussion with them,
and the members of the committee met with
them and there was a very full discussion
with them.
The context of setting up a provincial cor-
poration is again, transferring an Indian affairs
branch out of Ottawa into Ontario, because
you would— let me just finish-
Mr. MacDonald: Can we now deal with
the details of this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am going to cover
most of the points made, and then I am quite
prepared to have a discussion.
Mr. MacDonald: You want us to wait until
after you completed them all?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now, to my way of
thinking, if you set up a corporation— a pro-
vincial corporation— then you must set up,
what literally must be an empire, because
you have to duplicate the services of housing,
the services of The Departments of Educa-
tion, and of Health. All of the departments
would be duplicated by setting up structures
v/ithin this corporation, and I said to the
Indian-Eskimo association, that I believe that
this general thesis that I have outlined is a
new approach. It has never been tried. It
has not been tried because certain aspects of
it are very new and certain aspects of it have
not begun.
Some of the problems have been: Duplica-
tion of services; too many people involved; no
pinpointing of the responsibility for action;
responsibility for funds. And this scheme, this
proposal, the overall picture as I have drawn
it, does enable these to be dealt with.
That it not to say that within the general
framework there is not a major role to be
played by such agencies as the Widjiitiwin
corporation or the Amik association and I
have before me— unfortunately only one copy
—of a report directed to me which I received
last week. It is by an outstanding gentleman,
for whom I have a great deal of regard and
respect— Father Ferron, a great friend of the
member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). In this
report he outlined to me the work of the
Amik association-
Mr. MacDonald: Can we have copies of
that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, I would be quite
prepared-
Mr. MacDonald: At a later date.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. He outlines what
has been accomplished. There are some
commendatory words, but it is a general out-
line of what they have done, point by point.
Now these are vehicles in which the Indian
himself can begin to get involved on his own.
They need a lot of guidance; we provide this
and the funds so that they might get the
business guidance. Now Father Ferron told
me, in the Amik association, and in this
memorandum— one of the items is where one
of their branches bought buses and they got
a transport licence from the Minister of
Transport and then they bid in competition
with other operators for the privilege of
carriage for hire. Father Ferron said that
they sat as a group and sweated out their
tender.
Here was a group, who had never in the
course of their lives, been engaged in any-
thing of a competitive nature of this kind, in
a business transaction of this kind. They
sweated it out, they proposed a tender and
it was, to my mind, successful and they are
doing well. Whether they are making a
profit or not I do not know. But they are
doing well.
One of the things we must be prepared
for is that these are not always going to be
success stories. This is a place where the
Indian is going to try and he is going to
fail, and he is going to try and he is
going to succeed. In the initial stages, I do
not think it would be fair to judge by our
standards. A government agency always has
to be right, but at that level, we are going to
have to permit them to be wrong, and as
time goes by we are going to have to permit
them more and more leeway for assuming
responsibility on their own.
One of the things that is missing and will
be required, is that the educational processes
which will go into effect should produce
young men from the Indian communities who
have that dual background which will enable
them to at the same time understand and be
a part of the Indian culture and understand
and be a part of the non-Indian culture.
Because as the Widjiitiwin report points out,
you get into a whole philosophical approach
—the business of community property and the
striving for material rewards. As the member
for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) said, there is
a completely different approach. It is when
these young men who will have an under-
MAY 28, 1968
3469
standing of this develop, that we will have
what is still lacking— and where we are try-
ing to fill the gap to the best of our abihty—
men in the field who will be able to assist
in this development. Until that takes place,
we are going to have to do with our develop-
ment oflBcers to the best of our abihty.
Now, these general remarks relate, I think,
basically to the remarks of the hon. leader
of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP.
Before I sit down, I would just like to touch
on some of the items that other members
mentioned and then we can continue.
The member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes)
spoke about friendship centres. Our grants
are based roughly on about 40 per cent of
the budget. It so happens that the fed-
eral government sometimes makes matching
grants. In regard to general welfare assist-
ance the bands get about 80 per cent between
the two governments in grants and they
raise about 20 per cent from the communities
themselves.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre
(Mrs. M. Renwick) asked how many there
were, and there are presently seven. There
were two to begin with and then there were
three more and three more, and two this
year, so that as each year goes by there are
more and more friendship centres being
added.
The member for Scarborough Centre also
asked about the housing surveys. The Moos-
onee survey has been completed with 15 low
rental units for this year and 20 for next year
recommended. At the Manitoulin Island
reserve the study is still in process.
The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr.
Farquhar) touched on a very difficult prob-
lem in that when we try to deal with the
cost-sharing formula under general welfare
assistance— the 80 per cent-20 per cent— when
we try to apply this formula to the Indian
bands in terms of municipalities this is where
the difficulty arises. Some of them do have
funds, as the hon. leader of the Opposition
stated, some of them have no funds, they
just cannot make up their 20 per cent.
So that the difficulty is compounded. The
poor Indian community that needs the serv-
ices the most is in the least position to take
advantage of the 80 per cent. As I say it is
pretty difficult. If a man has to pay a dollar
for a meal, to give him 80 cents, if he has
not the additional 20 cents, it is not very
good from his point of view.
This is one of the problems we are con-
fronted with. As to the homes for the aged
generally, I am delighted to say that five
bands have already expressed an interest.
Walpole Island, St. Regis, Kettle Point, Six
Nations and the Serpent River bands have
all indicated an interest, which we hope will
end up in action.
With respect to the comment the hon.
member made about the type of construction;
I am going to check into that, I see no
reason why there should be any difficulty
because that type of construction is accep-
table, I think, unless there is something
unique in it. But I would hke to discuss that
in detail to see what problems lie there.
In respect of the comments of the mem-
ber for Rainy River about the deduction in
respect of treaty money income, that is also
a matter that I intend to go into to see if
perhaps there should be some level at which
we will make exemptions.
Now that, I believe, covers most of the
statements.
I say this to the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition; he touched on a very personal matter.
I do consider this as an opportunity and a
challenge. It is true that these problems have
been around for a long time. They have
come to a head, I would say in the last three
or four years. There has been an awareness
in the community, there has been a gradual
assumption of responsibility, in its total con-
cept, by people in public life and leaders in
community life.
Mr. Trotter: The Earl of Elgin was com-
plaining about this 114 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, when the Cana-
dian government had complete and absolute
responsibility for the whole thing.
As I say, at this point I am not going to
get into recriminations, we are going to be
sitting down and negotiating with the people
in Ottawa. As to blame and criticism— there
will be ample opportunity in the future if
this does not work out the way we hope
and expect it to do. But this does present an
opportunity at the provincial level, under the
scheme as I have outlined it, for us to play
a major role— I underline it, a major role—
in making sure our Indian citizens are Cana-
dians of Indian origin and have exactly the
same opportunity for a full life that is avail-
able to all our citizens.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have one or
two questions associated with what the hon.
Minister has been discussing.
3470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We now have in Ontario an agreement with
the federal government covering welfare mat-
ters and community development matters.
There is no doubt that in the future you are
going to be negotiating more agreements. It
does not seem possible that you are going
to achieve one agreement which will transfer
the responsibility from the federal govern-
ment to the provincial government.
I am not at all sure that while that would
be a very neat solution, whether it would be
in the best interests of all concerned.
As the Minister well recalls, I am sure,
his predecessor had some difficulty in nego-
tiating the very first agreement, and when it
was announced, somewhat prematurely, the
Indians responded in such a way that the
agreement did not come into effect for a full
year because of the inept way it was handled
by the representative of this government.
The Minister may want to comment on
that, but I do have some continuing interest
in the difficulties the Minister seems to be
experiencing in negotiating with the govern-
ment of Canada. This was referred to by the
Premier earlier in tlie session.
I would certainly agree that under the Ian'
as we presently understand it in Canada, tij"
government of Canada, whether it is consti-
tutionally required or not, has accepted 100
per cent of the responsibility for health,
welfare and any other programmes for Indians
on Indian lands. But we in the province have
had the same responsibility for those Indians
who have not been on Indian lands and ar(>
not registered as members of bands from
tlie earhest time. So we have always had a*
least that part of the responsibility, which has
been a very significant one.
If there is going to be an agreement tliat
specifically transfers responsibilities that arc
now 100 per cent federal, so that they will be
somehow retained federally but administered
provincially, then I would agree with the
Minister's argument that the other level of
government should provide tlie funds that
cover the responsibilities that are being trans
f erred.
The Minister is referring to the fcderji'
share of our Indian welfare costs as bcin^'^
somewhere around 94 per cent of total coss
This is the sort of agreement that must sureb/
cover the transference of other administrativ
responsibilities. For exampl", it appears that
the responsibility for health is not entirely
covered in the welfare agreement, that there
has been a lot of controversy with the govern-
ment at Ottawa deciding to change their
response to the health care requirements of
the Indians. This has been quite a serious
issue in the last few months and I know it is
still an issue with many Indian bands.
I would ask the Minister if in his capacity
as chairman of the Cabinet committee he is
negotiating for the transfer of this responsi-
bility from tlie government of Canada to tlie
government of Ontario, let us say through
OMSIP, where we could administer that by
providing them with OMSIP cards in those
areas where they can be serviced with the
regular medical services and hospitalization
as well?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the medical services, this is one
of those matters that comes directly under
the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health
and he has been concerning himself very
much with this, and I assume in contact with
his counterpart in Ottawa.
I would think that one of the words we
should forget in the context of Indian matters
is "responsibility", because the word is so
general. It lends itself to so many interpreta-
tions, it is an umbrella word. It all depends
upon who is saying or using the word just
what it means. I do not talk in terms of
transfer of respr)nsibi]itv from the federal
level to the provincial. Transfer of functions:
Yes, then the picture is clear. The responsi-
bility lies with Ottawa and it will be clear
to the Indian that the responsibility is with
Ottawa. But the functions and execution of
the matter will be at the provincial level and
I think tliat this is the major point now. It is
true that welfare services represent about
95 per cent federal, but as they improve their
position, this will become less and less tlieir
share and more and more our share.
In the Indian development, vwth regard to
this $1 million we have in the budget, our
experience last year was that of the total
expenditures. 8 per cent came from the
federal level. This is the great disappointment.
Now I wiU be fair to this degree, that this
interpretation has come over a period of
time. At the provincial level we had one inter-
pretation, and we were viewing the agree-
ment on the basis of that interpretation. But
in dealing with individual proposals for con-
sideration, tliis was when we discovered that
their point of view was that they would not
share in that cost and they would not share
in this cost. In the overall picture, at the end
of tlie year tliey shared in only (S nor cent
of the money. Eight per cent in the com-
munity development, that is under the agree-
ment with our department; and this is where
the-
MAY 28, 1968
3471
Mr. Nixon: But they had their own pro-
gramme going on.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well yes, the old
programme. I would imagine they were
spending moneys in that regard.
But this is supposed to be the new
approach, the new deal if I may use the
term. I would imagine that one of their
differences is that they have one province,
Ontario, in which we are prepared to move in
this direction, and nine provinces which have
not yet indicated their regard. So that even
if they agreed with our thesis, they still have
the oth'^r provinc s to deal with. I am hopeful
that this proposition, or general proposal,
is acceptable to Ottawa, vis-d-vis Ontario,
and that this would then be appealing to the
other provinces, and they will come into the
picture. One of the main points is the financial
responsibilities. We will have the headaches.
\vc will have the problems, there is no doubt
about it. We are going to have a lot of
headache and heartache, and trials and tribu-
lations, but we are quite prepared to accept
it because that is the general function of a
government agency tliat is giving social
service.
In fairness to the Ottawa people, we have
not yet had the opportunity at the Prime
Ministerial and Ministerial level, of discussing
this and really threshing this out, renegotiat-
ing this, because whatever may have been
spolen at the time of the signing of the
agreement, tlie dexelopment has been such
that there has come a time for a second look,
a renegotiation, and it comes at an oppor-
tune time because the federal government
has in mind, the new Indian Act-
Mr. Nixon: The Minister questioned my
use of the word "responsibihty", and speak-
ing for the Indians, as I understand their
attitude in these things, they do feel that
the government of Canada is responsible for
ccr'^ain areas of their welfare, including their
health and their education. Economic oppor-
tunity is something that is a new area, but
they consider that the senior level of govern-
ment is responsible as well. The Minister well
knows— and the leader of the NDP raised this
last night— that there are deep misgivings in
the minds of Indians tliat they do not want to
let the senior level of government transfer
this unless they have iron-clad acceptance
of responsibility by someone outside the
band for a continuation of these ancient
agreements.
It is true, and it has been said on the floor
of the House, and quoted from so many
sources, that the Indians mistnist the repre-
sentatives of the Indian affairs branch of the
federal government, and have learned to
do this I suppose over many years. This is
a blanket statement that does not hold true
in all cases, and I know that the Minister
would agree. But just the transference to
anodier group of outsiders is not going
to change the general attitude. There has to
l)c a change of attitude on the part of the
outsiders, but it cannot be the replacement of
the acceptance of the responsibility based
on these old agreements, with something that
may look much more modem in saying,
"Well, now, we are going to bring you people
up to the acceptance of responsibility as we
understand it."
This is sometliing that they do not belie\e
that they have to do. This is true certainly
in the provision of medical benefits, and this
is one of the problems that I have to deal
with as my constituents come to me with a
fear that they are not going to l>e cared for
as adequately as they have been or .should
be.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
go back over a number of points that I
raised. TTie Minister has commented on them,
and to some degree, he has answered ques-
tions that were in my mind, but I would like
to explore them, because quite frankly, I am
not completely satisfied yet. In my view this
is the time when we really should do the
exploration. As I understand the explanation,
we are now approaching, following June 25,
what is going to be an historic conference in
terms of reassessing the responsibility of the
two senior levels of government with regard
to Indian affairs, for what may be the imme-
diate future. To get a very clear picture and
perhaps a clear examination of tlie basic
underlying principles, now is the time to do
it.
Let me start with the first point that I
raised last night in connection with the inter-
departmental committee. I quoted the Prime
Minister as saying that:
It will be necessary to point out where the diffi-
culty has arisen and why we have been blocked in
doing what we set out to do and what we wanted
to do. I will agree with the leader of the Opposition
that not nearly as much has been accomplished as
we would wish.
Those are two quotations from the Prime
Minister with regard to the interdepartmental
committee. The Minister has seemed to have
suggested that the substance of the Prime
Minister's comments was in reference to the
3472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province's inability to get the federal govern-
ment to match a takeover of responsibilities
with financial means— matching them with
money— so that the province could fulfil
the work. Is that the whole substance of the
Prime Minister's remarks with regard to the
difficulties of the interdepartmental com-
mittee?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is basically the
difficulty, but then there is the problem that
Mr. Nitchi faces, the two agencies still in
the same field, the two officers, and this is
the dual aspect of it.
What is the date of that statement? Any-
way, subsequent to that statement, that is
when we renegotiated and these further dis-
cussions entered the scene, in a positive way.
Mr, MacDonald: If the Minister was hold-
ing useful negotiations in the midst of the
parhamentary crisis in Ottawa at that time,
then I congratulate him. I am a little bit
doubtful of what was emerging from Ottawa
at that time, other than greater and greater
chaos. However, we can let that matter rest.
On this interdepartmental committee I have
some general comments to make. May I say
that I am open to persuasion, but as yet I
am not persuaded that an interdepartmental
committee is really an effective instrument
for co-ordinating the disparate approach of
many departments. I will go back, if I may,
to the observations that were made in con-
nection with interdepartmental committees
by Professor Krueger in his famous report
of some two or three years ago. His state-
ment was that it is simply asking for the
impossible in terms of an effective organiza-
tional approach, to say that you bring to-
gether a group of Ministers, each one of
whom is already very busy in his own depart-
ment, and expect that one of those Ministers,
who happens to be made chairman of the
committee, is going to be able to reconcile
all of the inclinations to empire building, all
of the tendencies of one department to feel
that another department is muscling in on its
territory.
If you are going to get an effective inter-
departmental committee, Professor Krueger
said that it could be done only if the Cabinet
committee was headed by a full-time person
who in effect has the equivalent status of a
Deputy Minister, sir, responsible directly
to the Prime Minister— so that everybody in
that interdepartmental committee knows that
the centre of power and authority is coming
from the Prime Minister and that there are
going to be no rivalries, no lack of co-ordina-
tion in their approach. If the full-time person
who has the equivalent of Deputy Minister
status is, in effect, going to be acting in the
name of the Prime Minister, therefore he is
going to be in a position to resolve any con-
flicts and differences that may arise.
The Minister has one of the most
magnificently developed capacities to pour
out an orgy of words in glowing comment on
what is happening, so that one feels almost
a little ungenerous in thinking that there is
anything wrong at all. He has such a well-
developed capacity, that for the moment he
had me overwhelmed, but when I thought
once again on what Professor Krueger said, he
had not completely persuaded me. I am not
persuaded that this Minister, with all of the
departments that are involved, has solved all
of those basic administrative problems.
I do not know how much further I can go
than this— to express my doubts, to say to
the Minister that he is no genius, he is not
God; the man who is closest to being God is
the Prime Minister himself, and you are not
he. Therefore I am not persuaded that you
have beaten the basic problems in an inter-
departmental committee. All I can say is that
I will watch closely for continued evidences
of the weakness in the structure that Professor
Krueger pinpointed in his dispassionate
analysis of this whole kind of organizational
setup.
Now let me go on to a second aspect.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
never read that article by Professor Krueger.
I would like to have it.
Mr. MacDonald: Professor Krueger? It is
in the famous Krueger report on the conflict
in The Departments of Tourism and Trade
and Development— about three or four years
ago. His comments were made in specific
reference to the sad experience of the con-
servation committee which was set up back
in the 1950's and really just drifted off into
oblivion. No effective consequences flowed
from its efforts at all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I did not ask for an
essay, I just asked where it was because I
have not had the opportunity of reading that.
Mr. MacDonald: Well I will tell you what
I will do just to show that my desire to
co-operate with the Minister is almost un-
bounded. I will give him the pages in that
report so, that with no waste of time, he can
get to the crux of the issue. I know the
report is readily available in my office.
MAY 28, 1968
3473
The second point that I wanted to raise is
with regard to the Minister's reassertion that
the constitutional responsibihty for Indians
under The BNA Act is a federal one. I am
not going to argue the point at great length.
All I am saying is that the Minister is back
in the old rut. Let me give you another
quote, different from the one I gave yester-
day. Mr. McEwen in his brochure quotes in
reference to the Hawthome-Tremblay com-
mittee and said this on page 33:
The provinces have traditionally shown
little or no interest in their registered
Indian citizens and are still reluctant to
assume their share of responsibility. It
has been too easy to escape responsibility
on the grounds that Indians are wards of
the federal government. The position of
the provinces has been based on legal or
constitutional considerations that have been
challenged in the Hawthome-Tremblay
study referred to above.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
made it perfectly clear that the constitutional
responsibility can stay where it is. That it is
not the major issue. The major issue is how
does the federal government discharge the
constitutional responsibility? We are now
taking the position that we will play our
role.
Mr. MacDonald: I will concede that the
Minister has said that you are willing to play
your role, and I want to go forward to
examine exactly the proportion of the role
that you are willing to play. All I am say-
ing is that the Minister, in effect, is dismiss-
ing out of hand the conclusion of the
Hawthome-Tremblay study which challenges
the contention that the constitutional right is
exclusively a federal right. And to the extent
that you, the Minister, or the hon. member
for London South, or others may try to de-
flect criticism of your achievements by saying
that basically this is a federal responsibility,
all I want to say is that the ground has been
undercut, sir, from that argument by the
Hawthome-Tremblay study. The Hawthome-
Tremblay study, I think the Minister will
have to agree, is an authoritative study that
has just been completed.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): You are beat-
ing a dead horse.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): That is not a
dead horse. You just do not know the govern-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: When this young man, if
I may be patronizing for a moment, has been
around here for a little longer he will realize
you have to beat dead horses for a long, long
time to contend with this Tory government.
Indeed he will beat lively issues until they
are nothing but dead horses and still not
have achieved his purposes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is un-
willing to accept the basic thesis of the
Hawthome-Tremblay report and the lEA
with regard to the inadvisability of proceed-
ing upon a piecemeal agreement approach.
The Hawthome-Tremblay committee is pretty
devastating. I have already put it on the
record. I am not going to take the time,
again, of saying that there will have to be an
infinity of agreements which will drag on for
ever— you have only two in the last two or
three years— and that the best way to do it
is to have something more of a totality of
approach, admittedly matched with the neces-
sary moneys to proceed with its implementa-
tion.
I was interested in the interjection of the
leader of the Opposition and the Minister's
willingness to seize upon it. Namely, that on
one previous occasion when we attempted to
shift some of this responsibility from the
federal government, it produced some con-
siderable reaction among the Indians because
they are fearful. They have been double-
crossed by the white man so consistently for
over 100 years that the leader of the Opposi-
tion is correct that they should get iron-clad
assurances that when the responsibility leaves
Ottawa somebody else has really picked it up;
and it is not going to get lost somewhere in
transit from Ottawa to Queen's Park, or to
any other provincial capital. This I would
agree has got to be done and this is where
the negotiations, that the Minister is going
to move into, are going to be vitally import-
ant. But again the Hawthome-Tremblay
study is very emphatic and conclusive in its
assertion that the quicker we get away from
this piecemeal agreement approach, the
sooner we are going to be able to come up
with an answer to the problems of the
Indians.
That brings me to what is really the most
worrisome aspect of the Minister's com-
ments on what has been said by those other
organizations; and what I have been attempt-
ing to give voice to in this House. He paints
a picture, in effect, of parallel organizations.
He hopes that Ottawa is going to parallel what
he has achieved, almost with perfection here
in Ontario—
3474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. We are considerably short
of that point.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Minister is
willing to concede more than he normally
does, but what he is suggesting is that Ottawa
should have an interdepartmental committee
with a Cabinet subcommittee, and an advis-
ory committee. He suggests that Ottawa
should do everything we have done here.
We have got the sort of model that should Ix?
followed. When you have done that you are
going to have two parallel organizations.
Now, resolving the possible conflict in having
two parallel organizations is not as simple as
the Minister says. There is only going to be
one community development officer and he
will be the provincial officer. He is not really
going to have any power.
Indeed, the Minister says he is going to
have a pretty tough time for the first few
years. All he is going to be is an "expediter".
If the Indian community requires assistance
he will say to the Indian community— "that
is what you want, there is where you can
get it— go to Lands and Forests, go to Mines,
go to Education, go to The Department of
Trade and Development, or alternatively go
up to Ottawa— go to the department of Indian
affairs".
Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but the Min-
ister has not persuaded me that one man,
acting for the provincial government, is going
to direct effectively, the Indians who are
seeking necessary assistance to any one of
ten different provincial departments and at
least one, and perhaps two or three, depart-
ments in Ottawa; so that in some miraculous
way, there is going to be a more effective
bringing together of resources to meet the
needs of the Indians. There is really no
substance of change. It is true you may have
removed competing development officers, and
the company of young Canadians, and an
almost infinite number of other departmental
officials, but there is nothing that suggested
a substance of change.
There is another worrisome aspect in the
whole approach, and that is the underlying
argument of the Indian-Eskimo association
presentation, and the underlying argument of
every successful community project in any
place in the world you want to go to—
whether it be Mexico or the Caribbean or
the far east, or anywhere the United Nations
has sought to develop. If you have a great
number of departments in the picture, you
are not going to get an effective focusing of
the resources to meet the totality of the
communities' needs.
When, for example, they faced that kind
of a problem in the United States back in
the depression, and they had a half a dozen
government departments at Washington who
were attempting to help in the Tennesee
Valley; they got nowhere until they estab-
lished the Tennesee Valley authority which
was completely responsible, and had com-
plete jurisdiction. The money came from
any one of the departments you want to talk
about, but it came into the TVA, and the
TVA had the authority to decide how the
money was going to be spent.
So you did not have what the Indian-
Eskimo association points out, is an Indian
community coming up with a certain project
that happens to be in relation to Lands and
Forests. But you go to Lands and Forests,
and unfortunately their appropriation for this
year is expended, so you have to wait for
another year.
You get over that problem, which has
bedevilled community development by having
one organization which is totally responsible
for the development, into which all the re-
sources are poured. That body, which is a
truly representative body, then applies those
resources to effectively meet the community
needs.
That is what they did in TVA. That is
what they are doing now in the ARDA
development in the eastern parts of the
province of Quebec. There is now an effort
to bring together a dozen or so federal and
provincial departments.
The Minister asks us to accept that an
approach that has been tried and found want-
ing, that has failed abysmally, not only in
relation to the Indians in Canada, but in
relation to community development whether
it be in the United States or Mexico or
the Caribbean, is somehow going to work
this time. He is continuing on the old ap-
proach.
Mr. Chairman, I just do not believe it will
work. I am as certain as I am standing hert,
that the Minister is ignoring the lessons that
have emerged from the experience of the past.
Two or three years from now we are going to
come back and find that you simply have
not been able to achieve it, because you are
not coming to grips with the basic lessons
that have been learned in widespread, world-
vidde experience on community development
in helping to pull an area up by its boot-
straps—helping the people themselves to pull
it up by its bootstraps.
MAY 28, 1968
3475
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask the hon.
member a question?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If you are wedded to
this proposition, where would the province
fit into the picture? The people could set up
their own provincial corporation and we
would not have to be in the picture at all.
Mr. MacDonald: A very good question,
but let me bring two other related and cur-
rent facts into the picture. I was interested
to read the hon. member for Kenora's exposi-
tion as to what the situation is with Amik
and with the various subsidiary corporations
of Widjiitiwin— and the name escapes me.
Well my Indian friend over there might be
able to help me.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Sabaskong!
Mr. MacDonald: Sabaskong, thank you.
There was another one, the name escapes me
for the moment.
The interesting thing about these, Mr.
Chairman, is that— here is Amik, a federalh'
chartered organization into which this govern-
ment is putting money by paying the salary
of the business manager of the association.
This is tlie body which is, in eflFect, sitting
down with the Indian community, workinj^
out their needs and setting up corporations
like the Widjiitiwin corporation as a .sub-
sidiary, into which money is being poured.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman,
that when money is poured in it is not being
poured from a half a dozen difiFerent depart-
ments, if I understand it correctly, because
the Widjiitiwin corporation is a combined
social, educational and economic corporation.
The annual report goes through economic
matters, it goes through welfare matters and
it ends up wi\h an extensive discussion of
educational matters. In other words it is deal-
ing with the situation in total.
Now the Minister says: "Where does the
province fit into the picture?" Quite frankly,
this is what I would like to find out.
In the Indian-Eskimo association proposal
—they suggest you should have at the federal
level a native Canadian development institute
that does the overall planning, and that the
implementation of any plans that may be
agreed upon should be financed with the
money that comes from the federal govern-
ment, which will be added to money that
comes from the provincial government so
that the work may be carried out on a com-
munity basis.
My question is, what sort of a regional
basis? Is it going to be the spawning of
Widjiitiwin corporations?
I concede, with everybody, that we haxc
got to let the Indians take the lead.
We are not imposing something upon
them. This is something they want, somethinir
they worked out; so we do not have these
emerge suddenly overnight. They have got to
grow, grow out of the Indian community. But
any time it grows out of an Indian community,
it is going to be a community corporation.
But in relation to Amik, which exists now
and is federally incorporated, or in the new
lEA setup, what is going to be the relation-
ship between these local corporations and
the native Canadian development institute
at Ottawa.
I do not know what the pattern is.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, just on
a point, I think the hon. member's associate
from Riverdale, pointed to tlie fact that it is
federally chartered. The source of the charter
has no significance to me. It could very easily
have been a provincially incorporated body
that became the vehicle. The federal aspect
of the charter, to me, has no significance.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine. I think the Minister
as a lawyer is making a very valid, lega]
point. I was not pretending to suggest that
because it was federally chartered that really
makes any diflFerence.
The Minister asked how the province fits
into this picture. Well as I understand th(>
possible application of the Indian-Eskimo
association proposal, if you had the institute
at the federal level, which is mapping out
the overall programmes like the overall pro-
gramme body for ARDA, the implementation
would still be at the provincial level: Through
what? Through local corporations like Wid-
jiitiwin? Through Amik or some comparable
sponsoring body at the provincial level?
Which of course brings me to the next
question put to this House by the hon.
member for Kenora: Is the Indian develop-
ment branch the appropriate body for spawn-
ing corporations wherever a development
has reached a point where the Indians want
to have a development corporation?
I see no problem in fitting the province
into the pictiue, because the Minister of
course is dead right; if you are going to
have a development in a community that is
basically an economic development and re-
lated to the culture of the Indians, and so
on, all of the resources for that development,
3476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with the possible exception of the necessary-
money, are now under provincial control,
which should be the catalyst to get it into
being. Resources, fishing, land and mining,
and everything else, aU of this comes under
provincial control.
I am not going to pursue it any further. I
hope I have raised, in the course of my
remarks, some questions with regard to
what I think are the inadequacies of the
Minister's concept of what is going to happen.
I can see immediately that he is maybe
thinking out loud. I am thinking out loud.
The lEA is thinking out loud. Maybe in the
conferences that are held after June 25 we
will get some reconciliation of the views.
All I am pleading for is that in getting a
reconciliation, let us not fail to learn from
the lessons of the past. In my view the Min-
ister is flying in the face of some of the
lessons in the past— by such as a piecemeal
approach of many, many departments— when
TVA and all these other conununity develop-
ment programmes have suggested you must
have a co-ordination in one body, which is
an autonomous body and has full control
of the total programme that is going to be
implemented within that community, as in-
deed the Widjiitiwin corporation apparently
has.
You have a small example of it here in
Ontario, right before our eyes, for which the
department is claiming some credit, and I
would assume some legitimate credit.
Let me make one reference in passing to
the Minister's expression of appreciation to
me for bringing the hon. member for Kenora
into the picture.
I have not been in the game of pohtics for
a few years for nothing. If I bring the hon.
member for Kenora into the picture it is with
a bit of mahce aforethought. The Minister
said: "I agree with everything that the hon.
member for Kenora said." Well you see,
this is the Minister's way of blunting the
pointed criticism. He agrees with everybody,
with their contradictions and rather sharp
criticisms; but he agrees with them all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do
not want Hansard to record that I agreed
with everybody or everything. I do not want
that quoted to me a year hence. I was talk-
ing of the total picture and in a very general
way.
Mr. MacDonald: That is what I was afraid
of, it was the "totality and very general way"
and printed criticism gets lost-
Mr. T. P. Reid: A sponge!
Mr. MacDonald: It is all rolled up in a ball
of wax, or maybe a sponge is a better
analogy.
However, just let me take two minutes,
Mr. Chairman, to put something back onto
the record from the hon. member for Kenora.
If the Minister agrees with these observa-
tions, then good. He is admitting that there
are some basic flaws in the whole government
approach.
On page 994, he said:
The concensus in northwestern Ontario is that too
often policies and programmes are based on ideas
originating in the administrative centres of Ottawa
and Toronto and lack the resident's insight into the
problem. The difficulties encountered in the failure
rate of such policies and programmes would attest
to the validity of these views—
Now this is the basic criticism of the whole
operation of the department of Indian aflFairs
and, indeed, a criticism that is now being
repeated pretty directly towards this govern-
ment too because of Nitchi's problem in
coping with such an infinity of officers from
both these levels of government.
Also, the conunent of the hon. member for
Kenora when he said that:
Under the existing agreement, very little authority
is being transferred from the federal to the provin-
cial goverment. The transition is di£Bcult but one
may question if there is enough effort being made
at the provincial level to speed up the process.
The hon. member for Kenora is on our side.
When he sits there, he is in an appropriate
place, on tliis side of the House, in criticism
of the government.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, he is on the Min-
ister's side too.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, he cannot be on
both sides and I am just quoting from him
to show you that on this, he is on our
side, so do not try to slough that oflF.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to go to
one specific case if I may. I am sorry that
the Minister of Highways has gone because
there is a rather graphic illustration of what,
to my mind, is the psychological miscalcula-
tions of the white man and this government
in speaking for the white man in some of his
efforts to rebuild better relationships with the
Indians. I am coming to the problem of the
Batchawana band of Indians on the outskirts
of Sault Ste. Marie.
As the Minister, I am sure, must be famihar,
The Department of Highways has been
attempting to get from this band, a strip of
land for a bypass for one of the main high-
MAY 28, 1968
3477
ways past Sault Ste. Marie. And the incredible
proposition, Mr. Chairman, is this. The
Indians are demanding $45,000 for 30.86
acres of land. The department is offering
$31,000 and has dug in its heels. Why and
when they dug in their heels is a mystery.
But, on this occasion they have dug in their
heels even at the expense of building another
bypass, which the normally very friendly
Sault Daily Stor— friendly towards this govern-
ment—is critical of, and calls, "a second-best
bypass."
In short, here is a government which is
responsible in the eyes of the Indians for
stealing their heritage a hundred years ago.
The Indians feel that what they had when
they occupied this continent before the white
man came was, in effect, stolen from them;
that they were given some little bit of a song
and a treaty right representing a few dollars;
and they have been hived off into their
ghettos and have been bypassed by the main-
stream of Canadian development.
Here was an opportunity to correct some
of the bad feeling and to restore some of that
heritage. And what does it amount to, Mr.
Chairman? It amounts to $14,000, the differ-
ence between $45,000 that the band is ask-
ing and $31,000 that the department has
offered to give and yet, this government will
dig in its heels and even build a second-rate
bypass which everybody agrees is going to
have to be duplicated a few years from now.
The Minister— when I asked him yesterday
before we got into this, said that when we
got to the Indian development branch,
because he is chairman of the interdepart-
mental committee, he would answer questions
on behalf of all the Ministers involved. I
invite him to comment on that, on behalf of
the Minister of Highways. How do you
justify it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
was talking about future estimates. I was not
talking about past estimates. My recollection
is that the hon. member did discuss this in
the House, with the Minister of Highways.
Mr. MacDonald: No. No. I did not. I did
not discuss it and, as a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, just to show you that I am very
much up to date, I think this letter was
written by the hon. Minister of Highways on
May 3, to the Batchawana band chief, John
Corbiere. So we are really dealing within
the issue three weeks after the final adamant
decision of the department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It seems to me that
I have heard about that situation.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, we raised it a year
and a half ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed. Negotiations have
been going on for two or three years but my
point is, that the Minister is the chairman of
an interdepartmental committee, one member
of which is now chiseling an Indian band on
a $14,000 difference; even to the point of
cutting off his own nose to spite his face,
because he is going to have to build a second-
rate bypass— and everybody in Sault Ste.
Marie thinks it is a second-rate bypass. I
suspect even the hon Minister from that area
may think it.
Now, for a matter of $14,000, what is the
point? I have seen this government, for
example, enter into deals with people who
built liquor store outlets and got 20 or 10
rental agreements with the government, so
that at the end of five years they had the
whole building paid for and they walked off
with a big chunk of the public treasury. Why
are you so sticky on the $14,000 to an Indian
band, that might be some token return to
them of the heritage which the white man
stole from him over the centuries?
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Just to humiliate them. That is why.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Minister said
yesterday he was going to speak on behalf
of all his interdepartmental committee mem-
bers. I notice that he is silent and perhaps
this is an appropriate time for him to be
silent because I think it is indefensible.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Chairman, may I speak to this matter? I
know a good deal more about it, I think, than
the hon. member for York South.
This matter was in the estimates, I believe,
of The Department of Highways last year;
the matter of the bypass by The Department
of Highways around the city of Sault Ste.
Marie. It was suggested that The Department
of Highways should acquire a portion of land
through the Indian reserve, of the Batcha-
wana band, of the Garden River reserve lying
to the east of Sault Ste. Marie, some 31 acres
of land to extend the bypass further to the
east. The report of the engineers of the city
of Sault Ste. Marie did not recommend that
bypass.
The bypass which was recommended was
the bypass which commenced further to the
west, closer to the limit of the city of Sault
Ste. Marie and proceeded along, what is
known, as the extension of the second line
road or Highway 550. However, sir, since
3478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the city council were anxious to have the
bypass extended further east, which was not
the recommendation of their consulting
engineers, The Department of Highways
agreed to consider that proposition and did
so, at great length.
There were many attempts, Mr. Chairman,
extending over a long period of time even
to last year, to find out if tlie land could be
acquired from the Indian band. The Depart-
ment of Highways had the land evaluated.
The evaluation, I believe I am conect in say-
ing, was somewhere in tlie neighbourhood of
$15,000 or $16,000. The offer which was
made to the Indian band was $31,000.
No response could be obtained from tlie
Indian band, although they turned down by
vote tlie $31,000. I then made it my business
toward the end of 1966 to endeavour to
bring the Indian band, the chief and his
council, in contact directly with T)he Depart-
ment of Highways, and with the mayor and
council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie and
with what used to be known as the de-
partment of Indian affairs. That meeting
was arranged for January 21 or 25, 1967.
A meeting was held in the council building
on the reserve with Chief Corbiere there. I
speak from memory but I have a very clear
and distinct memory of these proceedings.
I was there, the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Gonmie) was there with some of his officials,
representatives were there from the federal
department having to do with Indian affairs,
the mayor of the city of Sault Ste. Marie
was there, the hon. member for Wentworth
was tliere, and a discussion took place.
It was at that point it appeared that the
Indian band had received little advice or
assistance from anyone— I must confess that.
And they had received little advice or assist-
ance, I think, from the department which has
cliarge of their affairs. But my correspondence
in setting up that meeting brought them
into the picture and urged their participation
and they were there.
It was then suggested, sir, that there should
be an evaluation made of these lands, an
assessment on behalf of the Indian band.
And I think the federal department then
undertook that, if that could be done, they
would pay the cost of that evaluation. It was
January 25, 1967, that this meeting was held.
We waited some three months. When I
say "we" I mean The Department of High-
ways, tlie city of Sault Ste. Marie and all
those of us who were interested. I wrote at
that time— I did not know this discussion was
coming up when I walked into the House, my
file is in my office and it is a thick file of
correspondence— I wrote, and made it my
business to write, and say: "Is there any
information, can you tell us what your evalua-
tion is? The department is anxious to get
on with the building of the bypass. It has
now been delayed for months because we
have not been able to get any answer; we
can not get any idea what you do want for
the land. Can we get some word?"
I was told, eventually, in correspondence
which I could produce, by the suj>erintendent
of the Indian afFairs branch, that an evalua-
tion had been received, that it was not satis-
factoiy to the Indian band— and he did not
reveal it— and that a further evaluation was
being sought. Some further months went by;
April went by. May went by, June went by;
and we still received no figure, we could still
get no ans-vver.
Eventually we understood that a Mr.
McCallum, of the firm of Brewin, Weldon,
McCallum, I believe it is— was the counsel
representing that Indian band.
I have had correspondence with Mr.
McCallum; telephone interviews, interviews
in my office; and he came up and met and
talked, I know, with the Minister of High-
ways. But, Mr. Chairman, he did not reveal
any price or any evaluation; we could go
nowhere on any figure which might be
acceptable. All we knew was that $31,000
offered by The Department of Highways was
not going to be accepted; apparently would
not be considered.
Some time, I believe in November of last
year, 1967, Mr. McCaUum made the sug-
gestion that if the department would take
into consideration the figure of $45,000 he
would be prepared to present it for considera-
tion to the Indian band. I am quite satisfied
that the Minister of Highways will confirm
what I say, that it was indicated to Mr.
McCallum that such a figure was not accept-
able liecause the evaluation which The De-
partment of Highways had, was half or
thereabouts of the figure which was being
offered, and that it could hardly be justified,
just to satisfy any person whose property was
being taken, to pay three times the evaluation.
We then obtained, I think it was perhaps
considered to be confidential, the figure which
had been given by the Indians' own evalu-
ator, as $24,500. I saw some of the figures
on that evaluation and the method by which
it was arrived at. I think it was a very gen-
erous evaluation.
MAY 28, 1968
3479
I say that quite frankly; it was an extremely
generous evaluation. The farm lands on tlie
west side of the reserve— cleared, cultivated,
fenced, improved— had been acquired by
option by The Department of Highways at
$500 and $800 an acre. The price which was
being oflFered for the 31 acres was double
the $500 and $200 better than the $800; and
the Indian reserve land, I say this simply as
a fact, the Indian reserve land is sandy scrub.
I think anyone looking at it would agree at
once it would be useless as agricultural land.
Now it may have had some other features
which made its value greater, but certainly
the Indian band's own evaluator, a certified
evaluator, valued their land at $24,500. As
the Minister of Highways pointed out, he is
dealing with bands other than this one and
could hardly justify almost doubling their
own evaluation and a tripling, almost, the
evaluation the department had obtained. So
he declined the suggested figure of $45,000
where the Indians' own evalaution, which to
this day they have not revealed, was $24,500.
Mr. MacDonald: If tliey did not reveal it,
how did the Minister get it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: To this day they have
not revealed their evaluation.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Then how
does the Minister know it is $24,500?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I would say
quite frankly that Mr. McCallum at one point
in his discussion indicated that figure and
somewhere the newspaper in Sault Ste. Marie
published it. But nobody-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They did not reveal it
and they have not revealed it to this day.
Mr. McCallum was very much disturbed that
the newspaper had it. But nobody has denied
it and I am satisfied, as I stand here, that
that is the evaluation. If anyone can find it
is difi^erent, I would be glad to know it.
Mr. Singer: That is a peculiar way of try-
ing to justify value.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well the hon. member
can confirm it, I know that is the evaluation:
$24,500.
Mr. J. Renwick: That is why the Indian
does not trust—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It was never revealed
by the Indian band.
Mr. Singer: Well then it was revealed in a
breach of confidence.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know who re-
vealed it.
Mr. Singer: Somebody took advantage of
the confidential nature of the evaluation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Certamly! The Indian
band will not reveal their evaluation, although
we went to a meeting and said: "Will you
get an evaluation?"; and they said, "yes".
It was arranged that it be paid for. They got
it and they keep completely silent on it to
this date; to this day they have not told us.
Now how do you do business in this situ-
ation?
Mr. Singer: Do your departments reveal
evaluations?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, we reveal our
evaluations.
Mr. Singer: I would like to show you a
number of files where this has been refused.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I simply recite the facts
of this case. An evaluation was arranged to
be paid for on January 25, 1967; and we
stand here, almost one year and a half later,
and we cannot get the evaluation which was
obtained. Now how do you do business that
way, I ask?
Mr. MacDonald: Are you finished?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I am not finished.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Deal with
confidence!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So in November of
1967, the Minister of Highways indicated
that he would not consider $45,000. The city
of Sault Ste. Marie was pressing that this
bypass be built. It was already delayed two
years and it was badly needed.
So he announced that he would go forward
with the bypass as designed by tlie city's
engineers. There was then considerable dis-
cussion further. Why, he was asked, will you
not put in an additional $14,000 and pick up
these lands? The Indian band finally, in Janu-
ary of tills year I think, had a meeting of the
council and approved the figure of $45,000
originally suggested in November by Mr.
McCallum. By that time work was proceed-
ing to get the bypass as designed by the
engineers and I think, as I say to you, the
land adjoining that reserve was being optioned
and was securable at $500 an acre and $800
3480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an acre. How do you justify paying $1,500
an acre for 31 acres?
Mr. J. Renwick: Because it was not as good
as farm-
Mr. MacDonald: Well I could give you—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is rather irrelevant
to this discussion. I think if you are going
to consider the facts of this matter, here is
land that is less valuable than land which is
available at $500 an acre and you are saying
that the government should go out and spend
$1,500 an acre.
That is the point. Is that what the govern-
ment should do in every case? I would love
to hear the hon. member say yes!
Mr. J. Renwick: In every case, no.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I should think not,
I think not in any case.
Mr. J. Renwick: Every individual case
should be dealt with on its merit.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And what is the merit:
Because it is an Indian band?
Mr. J. Renwick: Right!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think you should
approach the welfare of Indians on a different
basis than that.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Did you
expropriate the land?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You cannot expropriate
Indian land, you have to deal with that at
arm's length.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, you can expropriate—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It takes the federal gov-
ernment approval.
Mr. J. Renwick: It takes the federal govern-
ment in council to agree with it, but you
can expropriate it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Nobody has suggested
we should treat the Indians in that way, and
if we had expropriated surely on the basis of
evaluations, their evaluation of $24,500 and
the department offer of $31,000, well above
the department's own evaluation, surely they
would not have got $45,000?
Mr. Singer: You cannot have it both ways.
If the report was not revealed how can you
keep on saying that it was $24,500?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I simply say, as a fact,
that it was $24,500.
Mr. Singer: Which figure you have no
business using!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am using it in this
House where I have a right to use it.
Mr. Singer: It is the same thing, you are
speaking on behalf—
Mr. J. Renwick: You have no such right.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well look, let us have
the facts. Do you not want the facts?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Those are the facts, and
you will not find anything wrong with those
facts.
Mr. Singer: We want more of them.
Mr. MacDonald: We will get all the facts
when you are finished.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well maybe there are
more, that I do not know about. But what
I am telling you are the facts; and the ones
that I have stated are correct, those I can
certify. The bypass is underway and nobody
is chisehng on the Indians.
Mr. MacDonald: But you are giving only
part of the picture.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No they are not. A
good, generous offer has been made and has
been outstanding for more than a year. But
as yet there has been no action, unless you
want to pay whatever figure is suggested
without regard to value or evaluation, and
without regard to even the facts of evaluation
being revealed.
You cannot get to grips at all. I would like
Mr. McCallum to recount his experience if
he were free to do so.
Mr. J. Renwick: He is counsel for the tribe,
he cannot do that—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I say I wish he
could recount it. I know that he cannot, I
wish he could.
Mr. J. Renwick: Of course you are sug-
gesting that because he cannot, he would
support your views!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well I think he would.
Mr. J. Renwick: You have no right to do
that in this House.
MAY 28, 1968
3481
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have every right.
Mr. J. Renwick: You are suggesting in this
House, the member for Sault Ste. Marie—
and the Attorney General-is suggesting in
this House, in a backhanded way, that the
counsel for the Indian band would support
his view. I know that the counsel is not free
to ever support his view.
Mr. MacDonald: Shame! Shamel
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not suggesting my
view. I am suggesting that if Mr. McCallum
would recount his experiences he would back
up, entirely, the facts I have recounted in
the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order. We have listened to this busi-
ness about the facts long enough. Now let us
get a few more of the facts.
The Attorney General is to be commended
for his Cabinet solidarity, but nothing more,
nothing more at all; because, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Make the point of order.
Mr. Nixon: That is a speech, not a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: Is this a point of order?
Mr. MacDonald: Well yes, it is a point of
order, because I would like to get another
basic fact into the picture. Whose side are
the Liberals on anyway?
Mr. Nixon: I am interested in the facts.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, let us get the facts.
The first offer, Mr. Chairman, the first offer
that this government made—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, go ahead and finish
if you are not finished.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not think the hon.
member had a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I do have a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Okay, let us have it.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister says that he
has got all the facts. Will the Minister deal
with the fact that the first offer made to the
Indians by this government was $100 an acre
-only $3,000 for the whole of the land? Now
will you defend that kind of chiseling?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You are out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not out of order.
That is a very relevant point in the overall
picture.
Now let us deal with that and defend the
position!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I admit quite frankly
that there were some early negotiations.
Mr. MacDonald: There were negotiations?
A chiseling offer on the part of the govern-
ment to get the land at $100 an acre!
Mr. Chairman: Order! Let us continue with
the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I know that there
were some early negotiations.
Mr. MacDonald: If the Indians had been
suckers enough to take it, the government
would have got that land for $3,000. Now
he says that their offer was $31,000.
This is the kind of thing that the govern-
ment offers. It offers $3,000, then $31,000!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There were some nego-
tiations earher. The only thing that I know
of that, and again I only state what I know,
is that their solicitor stated in a letter from
himself to the band that the government
would offer $500 an acre, which was the
figure for which they were acquiring the
farm land surrounding the reserve.
So I do not call that chiseling. You put.
your label on it if you like. But if that is the
point of order, that is easily disposed of.
All I say, Mr. Chairman, is—
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You said
that they got $500 for the farm land, and all
you wanted to give the Indians was $100—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not say that there
was an offer of $100.
Mr. MacDonald: There was though.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know that!
Mr. MacDonald: There was!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well you can make that
point,
Mr. MacDonald: I do— on behalf of the
chief, who said so.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The letter of which I
have a recollection-
Mr. Chairman: Order. Let us keep it to one
point.
3482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: —was from the Indians'
own solicitor who wrote them and told them
the reason they could get $500, I think it
was $500 he mentioned.
And 1 think he advised them to take it.
Their own solicitor advised them to take it,
because, quite frankly, when the farm land
was negotiated and picked up at $500— auc-
tioned at $500—1 cannot say he was chiseling
or not treating his chents with proper con-
sideration. That was their own solicitor.
Mr. MacDonald: They dismissed him!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, they dismissed
liim; they were not happy with that offer.
Mr. MacDonald: They did not trust him.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, he is a pretty
trustworthy man.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Indians did not
trust him.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No,
of the troubles.
know, that is one
Mr. MacDonald: How can you blame them?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well I dare say that
the white man, the non-Indian as my col-
league says, certainly has not treated the
Indians fairly over tlie centiuries, but I can-
not take all the responsibility for that on my
own shoidders. I do say that in this case the
offer made by the department was reasonable,
I think, and generous; and it is generous to
this moment.
But the work must go forward. The by-
pass cannot stand forever, waiting for people
who will not talk or negotiate or reveal what
is a fair and reasonable price for land.
Perhaps I may say this, Mr. Chairman— I
think the Minister of Highways has indicated
this, certainly he has indicated it to the
council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie— they
were anxious, as I was anxious, to locate the
bypass further to the east and go through the
Indian land. I was most anxious that this
result should be achieved. It seemed im-
possible to achieve it in any reasonable time
and the traffic situation compelled The De-
partment of Highways to get on with the
job.
The Minister of Highways has said this and
I am sure he will confirm this statement. He
said, in my presence, to the council of the
city of Sault Ste. Marie when we had our
last discussion: "Let us get on with this
shorter bypass as recommended by your
engineers, and if and when the traffic count
and the traffic conditions indicate that we
should go further to the east we will make
another attempt; and we, the department of
this government, will be there to pay our
share and try to achieve that bypass."
But the simple facts of this situation are
that we could not get to grips unless we
met the arbitrary figure of $45,000, which
had no justification whatever in value unless,
as the hon. member for York South wants
to put it, it was just because it was an
Indian band you should pay whatever they
ask.
I do not think that is a situation which
you can justify in reason and common sense.
Much as I would have liked— and I am the
one who will perhaps have to bear the brunt
of the failure to get the bypass where I feel
it would be most properly situated, that is
to the east of Sault Ste. Marie— much as I
would like to have achieved that result, I
cannot be critical of the final decision of
my colleague; not because I want to justify
Cabinet solidarity, but because I think it
was reasonable, fair and the only decision in
the circumstances.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to thresh this bit of straw much
longer. When a Minister of the Crown can
get up and quote hearsay figures from the
paper and not give the House the basic fact
that the first offer by this government, to its
eternal shame, was a chiseling $100 an acre,
and now it has gone up to $1,000 an acre,
then at that point says that it cannot go to
$1,500 an acre- on what basis does it operate?
If you were trying to steal the land at $100
before you got out and did your estimates—
before you got the estimate which the Minis-
ter said at some point was $500 per acre-
it is a perfect example of how this govern-
ment operates in trying to buy land and in
expropriation, a perfect example of it.
But the point I want to make, Mr. Chair-
man, is we have heard from the Minister of
Social and Family Services all this rather
ghoulish sentiment with regard to Indians. It
dripped for the past 24 hours— this story of
building better relationships with the Indians,
and this is the kind of thing that the govern-
ment is doing.
You think you are going to get better
relationships with the Indians? Well look, just
let me put on the record the views of an
organization that normally is not on my side;
it is normally 105 per cent on the govern-
ment's side and that is the editorial writers of
MAY 28, 1968
3483
the Sault Daily Star. We will let their view
speak as a consensus for the Soo community.
They are referring to the letter of May 3,
from Mr. Gomme, in which The Department
of Highways finally ended the whole effort at
negotiation:
And so it was that the Highways Minister
closed the lid on any hope of the Second
Line bypass going through the Rankin
reserve. And so it was the provincial gov-
ernment decided that second best was good
enough for the Sault— and let there be no
arguments about it. And let there be no
mistake. The extension of the Second Line
to link Highway 17 east and Highway 17
north through the Black Dirt Road as a
bypass is without doubt the second best
route for the bypass. As far as this city is
concerned, the route through the Rankin
reserve would be a more superior route.
I am concluding with a paragraph at tiie end
of the editorial:
Despite appeals by the city for the prov-
ince to develop the Rankin route, because
it was the best possible route, and for the
province to pay the Indians the $45,000 for
their land, because it was not too far out of
line and would help the Indians-
Some little payment back on the heritage that
was stolen from them.
—would help the Indians and foster better
city-Indian relations, the government
insisted the city do it their way and their
way was the Black Dirt Road.
If the Minister wants to defend that kind of
thing let him go ahead and defend it and I
just hope that he gets into a pack of trouble
over it. Indeed I will do my best to make
certain that the pack of trouble gets bigger.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will welcome those
eflForts to make trouble, I am used to them,
but let me say that just quoting an editorial
comment does not make it proof, it does not
make it valid.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps it is as valid
as your argument on behalf of the govern-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We all would have
liked— I would have liked— tlie bypass well to
the east.
Mr. MacDonald: Speak up on behalf of the
Indians then!
Mrs. M. Renwick: Fourteen hundred dollars
for the "Bypass Ball".
Hon. Mr. Wishart: When you say it is not
out of line, bear in mind that $45,000 is
nearly 100 per cent out of line, when you talk
about $24,500.
Mr. Singer: You cannot talk about $24,500.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I can talk about it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And when you talk
about it not being out of Hne, it is 50 per cent
out of line when you compare it with $31,000.
Mr. J. Renwick: Compared with the depart-
ment's original offer, that does not make it
the only one.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So just quoting an
editorial from the Sault Daily Star does not
make the editorial vahd.
Mr. MacDonald: The offer started out at
$100 and is now up to $1,000 an acre.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member would
like to go back to the first offer, which he
says was $100; I do not know that, and I do
not know where he gets it.
Mr. MacDonald: The chief says so.
Mr. Singer: Where do you get your $24,500
figure?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That was the e valuator's
figure.
Mr. Singer: How do you know? You say it
was not revealed to you.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Do you want me to get
it for you?
Mr. Singer: Did you have access to that
report which was a confidential document?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No I did not. I have
never seen it, but I know my figures are
correct.
Mr. Singer: How?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You know perfectly well.
I will venture to say the hon. member for
York South knows it is correct.
Mr. MacDonald: I know nothing of tlie
kind.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You do not? I will ven-
ture to say the hon. member for Hamilton
East (Mr. Gisbom) knows it is correct, if he
were in the House. You doubt me; I would
like to have him say so.
Interjections by hon. members.
3484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick: The leader of the NDP
does not know the figure, neither does the
member for Hamilton East. If the Attorney
General wants them to stand up and say so
tliey will do so.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please!
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to
put it simply to the government and I want
to put—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Your wife is heckling you.
Mr. J. Renwick: Heckles from front and
back.
I would like to put a very simple proposi-
tion to the Attorney General and to his
colleagues, and to the Minister of Social and
Family Services and to the Minister of High-
ways. If their figure of $31,000 is a correct
figure, in their view, of what should be paid,
then I would ask them to proceed to expro-
priate that property, which is subject finally
to the determination of the price by the
government in Ottawa.
If you will take the procedures that are
set forth and go through all the procedures
which are required and get the approval of
the federal government which bears the final
responsibility in this instance, then I think we
can say you have offered them a fair price.
But you cannot now back down from the
position that you took with that band origi-
nally of starting at $100, and now try to
suggest it is their fault that they have not
accepted the $1,000 an acre which you have
now arrived at and that their figure of
$45,000 or $1,500 an acre is out of line. The
government should do that— which is what
they do in other parts of Ontario; they do
not hesitate to expropriate for public pur-
poses—they should expropriate in accordance
with the procedures that are laid down and
let the federal Cabinet ultimately decide
whether this government is paying a fair
price for that property.
Vote 2011 agreed to.
On vote 2012:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman. I would
like to ask a few questions of the Minister of
Social and Family Services regarding the
assistance that is given to those who have
a right to aid under the legal aid plan. I
would like to ask first of all, how many cases
have been approved from this department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I give all the
figures, Mr. Chairman? The legal aid plan
received— for the period to April 29, 1968—
48,966 cases. There were 2,988 that were
refused by the plan, that is by the legal aid
plan itself, and there were 45,978 referred to
the assessment branch for assessment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
hke to ask the Minister if there is new staff
in his department to handle the evaluation of
these requests.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are presently
42. We are setting this up as a new legal
aid branch, and there were 42 being trans-
ferred from the family benefits and the field
services branch. There will be a total approved
complement provided for in the coming year
of 79.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are any of the people at
the present time new staff, Mr. Chairman,
and is this their sole job, not transferred
from some other field service branch? New
staff to take on the checking of these almost
50,000 applicants? And is this their sole job?
No additional staff? Sure as anything tliey
have not got any new staff.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The idea of setting up
the branch is that ultimately the personnel
was assigned to this branch. This will be
their sole work, but we are now in a tran-
sient stage, of course, removing from the old
setup into the new procedure.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask just a very simple question. Is there
any additional staff for the 50,000 odd cases
that have been handled, and is there any
additional staff in the Minister's department
to check these applicants' files to see if they
are eligible? It seems to me, to look after
50,000 new inquiries in the department, there
surely must have been some additional staff.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The 42 positions were
all new.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Very well. And is their
sole job looking after legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Right. May I ask, Mr.
Chairman, what the floor and the ceiling are
for a single man or woman without any de-
pendants in order to qualify for this
assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no floor.
MAY 28. 1968
3485
Mrs. M. Renwick: This is the ceiling and
floor in cold hard cash—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no ceiling or
floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is the contributing
money received back in this department then,
Mr. Chairman— the contributing money from
the people who have had partial assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The law society receives
the money.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The law society. Is it
based on a graduated scale, Mr. Chairman,
could I ask?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is based on the
ability of the person to make a contribution
towards the legal services.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are the
contributions on a graduated scale or a
lump sxun?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This varies on amount
in relationship to the individual needs.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are some of the pay-
ments, Mr. Chairman, graduated or are they
all in a lump sum?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Some are in graduated
payments and some in a lump sum.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Both. Would the Minis-
ter know, Mr. Chairman, how much money
has come back into the law society from
this type of operation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have that
figure, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Do you not have a
a figure, nor how much it still owing?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Minister, does he know how this is collected?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
ber mind repeating that question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would just like to ask,
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister knows how
this money— when the people have received
partial assistance, and they in turn now owe
money back for the legal aid they have been
given— is collected from the people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is left up to the
law society to make their arrangements.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The law society?
I would like to ask the eligibility aspect of
legal aid. Are the requirements, Mr. Chair-
man, similar to the financial requirements,
similar to those under other Acts?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are more gener-
ous under the legal aid.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask
about item 10, section 3. And I quote:
In respect of any life insurance policy
on the life of the applicant, that the ap-
plicant has available for contribution—
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that refers back
to the debt that he now owes for having re-
ceived legal aid.
—the amount of cash surrender value of
the policy less the sum of $100.
Is this enforced, Mr. Chairman, might I ask?
Do we actually leave these people where
they have now no life insurance, except for
the sum of $100?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The cash surrender
value of an insurance policy in the case of
some policies might be tens of thousands of
dollars, I believe. I know that I had a policy
in which I took a cash surrender value one
time, and it amounted to quite a considerable
sum of money.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And you are not apply-
ing for legal aid, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It may be $5,000 or
$1,000, and that is considered as an asset, less
the sum of $100. That does not mean that
the people are left without insurance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I think, no. Mr. Chair-
man, I wonder if the Minister would explain
that again, then, because my interpretation is
obviously quite different. I would like to have
it assured that we are not in fact leaving
them with just the sum of $100 in life
insurance.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): No, no.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They can borrow
against the policy. There is a cash surrender
value worth say $1,000, and they can borrow
against that.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to read again exactly the way this section
is, because it says that the applicant has,
"available for contribution, the amount of
the cash surrender value of the policy, less
the sum of $100"— contribution to his debt
from having received legal aid assistance. Not
a way to borrow against it.
3486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, for
the record, item 10 (3):
In respct of any life insurance policy
on the life of the applicant, that the ap-
plicant has available for contribution, the
amount of the cash surrender value of tlie
policy, less the sum of $100.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That does not mean he
has to take the cash surrender value.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can borrow the
money from the policy.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He can borrow against
the insurance policy which still remains in
effect.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then in item 4, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask in respect to
real estate, and I partially quote:
—except to the extent that in the opinion
of the welfare officer, the value exceeds
the needs of the applicant and the depend-
ents of the applicant.
I am wondering how you base the rate, or
how you judge this decision, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The local director
makes that decision, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would
the Minister be able to tell us on what cri-
teria this is based?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would assume that
if a man had a 14-room home and there
were three people, the director would take
into consideration how much space in the
community three people should occupy, by
and large, and what the remainder of the
accommodation was.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The last question, Mr.
Chairman. Are any of your interviewers, the
interviewers of Social and Family Services,
right in the director of legal aid's office in
the Toronto area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am afraid I did not
catch that question myself, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are any
of the interviewers who decide the eligibility
of an applicant right in the office of the direc-
tor of legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am advised that there
arc about ten persons.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, 1 would
like to direct a question to the Minister con-
cerning legal aid outside the jurisdiction of
the province of Ontario. I am aware of a
case in northw(^stern Ontario where people
who are not able to provide legal aid of
their own or pay for it by themselves, wanted
to bring a court case against some people in
Manitoba. The decision of the director of
legal aid in that area said that they could not
do so outside the province of Ontario.
In nortliwestern Ontario in particular, and
certainly in some of the southern areas of
Ontario and possibly eastern Ontario at the
Quebec border also, we run into a number of
problems where court cases of one kind or
another have to be brought up in other juris-
dictions. I imderstand at this time legal aid
does not co\er this area.
Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the
member that this question would be more
appropriately addressed to tlie Attorney
General.
Mr. T. P. Reid: 1 am sorry, I was under the
impression that this would be under this
vote.
Mr. Chcfrman: No, this is just the welfare
assessment.
Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask the question
while I am on my feet then: Is it possible for
legal aid welfare to be taken under considera-
tion outside the jurisdiction of the province
of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As was pointed out by
the Chairman, that rightly should be directed
to the Attorney General; we are just dealing
with the assessments.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
nmn, I would like to refer the Minister to a
case that came to this department for assess-
ment, that of Paul Polman, who applied for
legal aid and of course the Minister's depart-
ment had to assess his ability to pay his own
fee. There are other aspects to the Paul Pol-
man case, but this particular aspect here
relates only to the Minister's department con-
cerning the assessment of his income. And I
was surprised to find that the report that I
saw of th(^ assessment by the Minister's
department stated that Paul Polman was
wealthy enough to pay the full $300 lawyer's
fees.
In looking through how this was assessed
—I ju:>t draw this to the Minister's attention
—it just strikes me that he must surely now
review the criterion by which he makes these
assessments. For examijle, Paul Polman did
have a small amount of money in the bank
I
MAY 28, 1968
3487
and one of the points I am concerned with
is that he was penaHzed for this in the
sense that this detracted, in the department's
eyes, from their payment of his legal bill.
It is a very simple point; because he had
money in the bank, he was said to be in a
better position to pay his legal bills than
someone who does not. The point is this,
Mr. Chairman, that if Paul Polman had
lavished that money on girls or cars or if
he had been acting as a teen-ager in dispos-
ing of his money in this way, then he may
have had a portion of his legal bills met by
legal aid.
The problem, Mr. Chairman, is simply that
this type of assessment by The Department of
Social and Family Services discourages people
from saving, discourages people from trying
to make the most they can of their meagre
income. And the general point, which we
raised under another heading, is that you
must be very concerned with incentives and
how your department affects incentives to
people. I suggest in this small example again,
that you actually discourage people from
saving. In this particular case, if he had
spent his money, I think he probably would
have had part of his bills paid for him through
legal aid. I suggest this is the wrong prin-
ciple; the department must do research in
this area to see what the incentive effects
are.
Another point on this particular case is that
he had a motorcycle and you know from
your report that he used this motorcycle for
transportation to work. The market value of
the motorcycle was $200. If he had not had
that motorcycle, presumably your assessment
would have been more favourable towards
him in terms of paying part, if not all, of his
legal bill through legal aid.
Because you include this type of necessary
asset— necessary in the sense he needs this
motorcycle to get to work as an alternative
of taking public transportation— you are actu-
ally putting a disincentive on people who
sa\'e to buy this type of transportation as
opposed to taking public transportation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
draw to the Minister's attention that I was
just staggered when I came across this type
of assessment by his department, I was just
staggered by the fact that you assessed this
fellow as being able to pay a $300 lawyer's
fee entirely. When I look at his disposable
income, I see you take it over an 18-month
period, instead of what I would think would
be a more reasonable 12-month period, and
you come to a disposable income over a 12-
month period of $94 a month. And somehow,
according to your criterion, you say; well,
that is a lot of money for this fellow, single,
although saving up to get married— this, he
said, was one of tlie reasons he had the
money in the bank. I am just astounded, Mr.
Chairman, that this department's assessment
schedules say that a fellow who has a dis-
posable income of under $100 a month—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What was his total
income?
Mr. T. Reid: Total income? The depart-
ment uses the disposable income figure to
arrive at its evaluation. I simply say this, Mr.
Chairman, that in my opinion to say that a
person with a disposal income of less than
$100 a month is in a position, particularly in
a metropolitan area like Toronto—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Excuse me, Mr. Chair-
man, does the hon. member understand that
disposable income means the income which
is available to him after his ordinary neces-
sary living expenses?
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, I have all the figures
here, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is virtually a surplus
amount.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, it is not a surplus
amount; it is disposable income after you
knock oflF living expenses, right? Using form
2, section 1, sir, you list income of appli-
cant and dependent annually or monthly—
in this case $277 a month. You put in living
expenses, which you net out at $182.66. That
gives you your disposable income figure.
For the Minister to suggest that this is
somehow surplus over an amount necessary
to live is sheer nonsense, Mr. Chairman. The
only thing he has taken out of there is living
expenses. How about clotliing? How about all
the other things that are necessary to exist? I
was shocked, Mr. Chairman, to see the Minis-
ter stand up now and say disposable income
is some sort of surplus. Nonsense, Mr. Chair-
man, I suggest the Minister change his think-
ing on that.
And to suggest that someone who has less
than $100 a month disposable income, in
your own terms which nets out only living
expenses, to suggest that person has enougli
money under the present legal aid system in
this province is not right.
Vote 2012 agreed to.
3488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On vote 2013:
Mr. M. Caunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
I am wondering under this vote if the Minis-
ter's department does any research into glue-
sniiBng. This has been a problem which is
recurring more frequently of late. I noticed in
the press where a number of young people
have indulged in this activity and I know
that it does have very serious effects on their
health and actions and so on. I believe it
affects the liver and the nervous system and
it does affect some people in school; it has a
very profound effect on the learning process.
In short, it is a problem which is becoming
more difficult; it is on the increase, and I
wonder if the Minister's department is engag-
ing in any research in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would properly
come under a combination of the Minister of
Health and the Attorney General.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minis-
ter if he has considered, in this department,
instituting studies relating to having certain
classifications of jobs set aside for people who
suffer certain disabilities or types of dis-
abilities. In other words, say park attendants
in some instances.
An individual does not have to be in 100
per cent physical shape and could be gainfully
employed in that type of field. There are other
types of employment that the physically
handicapped and disabled could perform and
in that way, we would be able to remove them
from the rolls of receiving governmental
assistance and making them once more gain-
fully employed.
Have you studied any occupations?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this
is a new and developing branch. We have not
had that opportunity but I will say that I
think there is a good deal of merit in that
type of proposition. I can imagine all the
difficulties surrounding these people.
We do have a project which is compar-
able and that will be called our over 50 units.
This is to try to get certain jobs available to
certain individuals along that line and it is
part of our overall rehabilitation programme.
But there must be a greater acceptance on
the part of the public, management and the
unions in this overall scheme. It certainly is
something, I think, worth looking into.
Mr. B. Newman: As I come to the build-
ings in the mornings, on the subway, Mr.
Chairman, I see that there is an occupation
there that possibly could go to an individual
who suffers from some type of handicap;
maybe the TTC actually do this on their own.
Take the elderly and give them the job of
selHng tokens and so forth. I think there are
fields of employment that could be set aside
solely for those with physical handicaps.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask, Mr.
Chairman, of the Minister under item 4,
about the demonstration projects. I wonder
if the Minister would be kind enough to out-
hne what demonstration programmes we
have provided by government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This past year, there
were six projects on behalf of the govern-
ment. The neighbourhood services unit was
sponsored by Metropolitan Toronto on a pin:-
chase of service basis from the social plan-
ning council of Metropolitan Toronto. The
Burlington social centre was the one that we
had a bit of discussion on the other day; the
credit counselling service of Metropolitan
Toronto which we pay for— they are spon-
sored by The Department of the Attorney
General, but we pay for them; and the very
recent Hamilton unemployed youth project
sponsored by the Hamilton YMCA, just started
in October of '67 and will continue for two
years.
A very interesting new project, the data
processing and systems analysis for child
placement is the project being carried by the
Metropolitan Toronto children's aid society.
If I may just read a sentence or two.
The purpose is to demonstrate the ad-
vantages of using electronic data process-
ing machines to match the foster home
placement needs of children with the place-
ment resources available and to predict
future needs so as to achieve more effective
placement results.
That will continue until the end of this cal-
endar year. Then a model community service
for the retarded, a project in the Hamilton-
Niagara region being carried out by the
national and Ontario associations for the
mentally retarded, was started in July and
will last for five years.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask. There was not, anywhere in that
list, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman,
a mention of any sort of pilot project to
understand the problems— of the need for—
after-four centres in our communities, such as
MAY 28, 1968
3489
the pilot project of Duke of York school which,
Mr. Chairman, was turned down for assistance
by Mr. Anderson, the welfare commissioner.
I wonder if the Minister would care to com-
ment as to whether he would consider spon-
soring a pilot project, or in fact allowing this
one to continue over another year and we
might get better research from it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that with re-
spect to the after-four clubs, Mr. Chairman,
this is the only difficulty that I am aware of
and really it might be called an administrative
difficulty. There has to be a new, and I think
I more adequate, presentation made of the pro-
ject. It has not been turned down on the
merits.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I believe,
under the Minister of Education—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This project, I pointed
out, is a city of Ottawa project, the after-four
I club.
Mrs. M. Renwick: You have one after-four
listed then, have you, Mr. Chairman, in that
group? I am sorry I missed it. You are
speaking now about a project that is in effect;
may I ask, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No after-four project
has been actually approved. There was one
put forward on behalf of persons in the city
of Ottawa but, I understand, it was not
turned down on the merits; it was dealt with
on the basis that there would be a re-sub-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask then, Mr.
Chairman, on what basis Metro welfare com-
missioner John Anderson would have declined
following up on the needs of assistance for
the Duke of York public school's projected
after-four centre?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I say that I have
been speaking on behalf of the province. I
will let Mr. Anderson speak for himself.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I may be
very wrong, but Mr. Anderson, as welfare
commissioner, does he not have any sort of
connection with the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is employed by
Metropolitan Toronto.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask then, in the
light of the two-year pilot project in Burling-
ton on the need for information centres in
our province, is the Minister contemplating,
or do you have at this time, any plans for a
pilot project, a demonstration project such as
the Burlington project, for an information
centre?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the report and
recommendations are under study.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Quinte.
Mr. R. T. Potter (Quinte): Mr. Chairman,
for many, many hours now we have been
hearing about the inadequacies and inefficien-
cies of this department and I just wonder if
the research and planning branch is giving
any consideration to perhaps recommending
we take a new look and develop a new ap-
proach to this whole problem of assistance.
We have, in our province, and we always
will have, those who require total and ade-
quate assistance on a permanent basis, and
then we have those who require assistance
only of a temporary nature. I think perhaps
this group, instead of being offered a hand-
out as everyone is suggesting that we must
do, should be given the opportunity of pro-
viding their own needs.
In a society such as ours, where we have
not enough jobs and where many are not
prepared to accept the type of work that is
offered to them, I believe that new forms of
creative activity must be developed in order
to provide botli for self-fulfillment and the
assumption of social responsibility on the
part of the individual.
This objective requires not only a compre-
hensive programme of rehabilitation, educa-
tion and training but also an extensive and
highly developed public works programme.
Recently we have been hearing a great
deal concerning the guaranteed minimum
wage. In fact, I believe Mr. Stanfield, who
will undoubtedly be the next Prime Minister
of Canada, expressed interest along this line.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Potter: One of the fundamental prin-
ciples of our income tax system has been the
exemption of a part of our income from taxa-
tion, and at the inception of this system, the
exemption ensured that taxes would not be
paid on that part of one's income that was
required to provide for a reasonable level of
subsistence. But since the second world war,
the tremendous costs of the war, and inflation
of course, have led government to forget the
intent and the aim of this type of taxation.
I believe that the immediate aim of our
Minister and of our government should be to
encourage the federal government to revise
349!)
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the income tax laws, briiig them up to date,
and to raise the basic exemption to a level
that will guarantee an untaxed income, ade-
quate for minimal subsistence. Then those
whose income does not reach this level should
be subsidized to bring them up to the desired
level so that they can assure their own basic
economic support. While all this is going
forward, we should assure, and we must
assure, all the residents of Ontario of an ade-
(juate standard of living. There is no question
about it, our policy falls short of this goal
because of the inadequate maintenance levels
that are offered, and because there are often
restrictive and punitive eligibility require-
ments.
I would ask the Minister if any considera-
tion is being given by this branch of his
department, to a revision of the whole system
of assistance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would just like to draw
to the; attention of the Minister, a brief on
the use of lay assistance for lunchtime super-
vision of pupils in Ontario public schools
prepared by tlie Toronto home and school
council ad hoc committee 1967-68. At a
general meeting the Toronto home and school
council on January 26, 1967, presented a
motion to press the necessary bodies for lay
assistance for lunchtime supervision. Now,
Mr. Chairman, this leads right into; if the
children are eating lunch at school because
they have not parental supervision, then the
question comes to mind, what is happening to
these children after school?
It was brought up in the House in earlier
discussion by another member that lay assis-
tants could be employed quite easily. It has
been discovered they have been used quite
successfully in California and England, and
in some school districts this is a service that
tlie family pays for at the rate of $2 per pupil
per year, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that
mothers and working mothers would be glad
to pay this amount of money in order to have
some lay supervision in the school at the
lunchtime period.
In Ontario, the brief states, that there are
49,670 students who stay for lunch because
their mothers are working. There are an
additional 231,799 who stay for lunch because
they are brought by bus or taxi, and 28
schools have 500 pupils plus remaining for
lunch. I think that this does really show
some merit for a pilot project of some sub-
stance in the Metropolitan area as to the use
of lay assistants during die lunch hour period
and the after-four period of school. I would
ask the Minister that he give it serious con-
sideration. The provincial legislation would
have to be changed in order to allow lay
assistants to give super^'isory duties in the
schools, but I think that this, and leading into
after-four, care, is something we have to
come to deal with, and put an end to our
latch-key children in our societ>'.
Vote 2013 agreed to.
On vote 2014:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, that is
tlie one where we asked about the numbers of
people on staff, is it not? The Minister re-
ferred my very first question on these debates
to vote 2014. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?
The staflF complement— personnel. Would you
like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, you are right.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. Under vote
2001, item 1, when I asked the complement
and the basic qualification of the staff in
item 1, the Minister referred me to vote 2014.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What item was the
hon. member on?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, item I,
salaries, under vote 2001-$256,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is an approved
complement of 34 and there are 28 on staff.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was asking, Mr. Chair-
man, for the basic qualifications.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The staff complement
of the main office, 26 persons. The staff com-
plement as of April 30, 1968, is 26 persons.
This includes the Minister's staff, the Deputy
Minister's staff and the staff of the executive
director of the programmes branch. I do not
have the individual qualifications.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is sufficient, Mr.
Chairman. Under vote 2002, item 1, I was
questioning as to the complement and if some
of these people are field workers of their
basic requirements.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The approved com-
plement, 301 and the employees on staff are
273 and there are no field workers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: No field workers in tliat
particular item on salaries? Then the last
one, Mr. Chairman, was under vote 2004,
imder the family services branch. Item 1.
Salaries.
MAY 28, 1968
3491
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are no staff
assigned to that branch, as of this moment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under salaries, Mr.
Chairman, $391,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is for the coming
year.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many counsellors,
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask, will
be included; or else a breakdown of basic
qualifications of what staff that will cover?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thirty-eight out of the
54 will be classified as social workers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are social workers able
to give counsel?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Vote 2014 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions):
Recently I tabled in this House the annual
report of The Department of Reform Institu-
tions for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1967. Copies of this report were placed on
the desks of all hon. members and I would
hope that most of them have had an oppor-
timity to read the report and examine the
charts and statistics contained therein. Because
this was a very comprehensive report, I in-
tend, in this my fifth presentation of the
estimates of this department, to review briefly,
and very briefly, only some of the major
developments of the past year and plans for
progressive programmes now underway or
ovpc^cted to begin in the near future.
Undoubtedly, the most important develop-
ment in the past year, in terms of increased
responsibilities for the department, was this
government's assumption of all costs of tlie
administration of justice in the province. This
move placed all responsibility for the main-
tenance and administration of 35 county and
two city jails upon the shoulders of the officials
of my department. In addition, it brought an
influx of approximately 900 new employees.
There are now or will be shortly, under the
jurisdiction of this department, a total of 82
institutions which are spread across the
412,000 square miles of this province.
I am most pleased that the government saw
fit to relieve the local property taxpayers of
the cost of these jails. I am also very pleased
that )ny department has assumed responsi-
bility for these facilities because of the advan-
t:>g\s that this taleover presents for the
development of an integrated correctional
system throughout the province.
One advantage of the takeover will be
the extension of the department's rehabilita-
tion programme to the local jail level. Among
the other advantages are the following: We
will now be able to move forward in a
planned and systematic programme of pro-
viding regional detention centres without the
restriction of adherence to county boundaries;
uniform standards will be established in all
jails in such areas as food, medical and
othcT services; highly qualified technical and
clinc.il stall will now plan programmes with-
in the jails. In addition, all staffs in jails will
l)e trained by the department to meet its
standards for correctional personnel.
Unfortunately, some of the municipalities
in which these appalling structures are located
have been content to retain them, with only
minor patchwork repairs, for well over one
hundred years. Despite this situation, the
introduction of uniform standards will bring
about many improvements in the operations
of the jail system. Obviously, however,
attempts to provide programmes with a maxi-
mum potential for rehabilitation will be
greatly restricted until such time as these
ancient structures are replaced with modem
facilities.
We intend to replace these relics of the
past as cjuickly as possible with modern
regional detention centres.
Mr. Singer: Will London be first on the
list?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I think, Mr. Chair-
man, we ha\e already announced which is
first on the list. Quinte regional detention
centre.
Mr. Singer: Where does London come?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This, of course, cannot
be done in one day, or one week, or one year.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, we know that, witli this
government.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I do not know of any government that can
place them all in one year.
3492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This would require too large an immediate
expenditure and so it must be done on a long-
term basis. We have set a goal of building
one regional detention centre a year until
the programme is completed. We beheve that
this programme— which in some areas will
provide for the replacement of up to four
old jails with one new unit— is practical and
in keeping with the taxpayers' ability to
absorb capital expenditures.
I have often criticized these old jails as
being dark dingy mausoleums whose physi-
cal structures mititate against rehabilitation
programmes. They also provide no proper
facilities for interviews between prisoners
and their families, friends, lawyers, social
workers, psychiatrists, and other interested
parties.
For some months now we have had a task
force in the field visiting each of the jails—
and I should add the official task force.
This task force has the responsibility for
determining short-term maintenance require-
ments, setting up new and imiform proce-
dures and standards of service, and establish-
ing priorities for replacement. In addition,
officials of my department are now re-examin-
ing the regional detention centre concept in
the hght of the implications of such develop-
ments as the establishment of regional detoxi-
cation centres.
One of the major advantages of assuming
full responsibility for implementation of the
regional detention centre programme, not
mentioned earlier, is the flexibility which this
provides for integrating the jail system into
the total correctional programme at a sub-
stantial saving to the taxpayers of the province.
One example is the saving which will
occur in establishing the proposed regional
detention centre in the Kawartha area. It is
the department's intention to convert a por-
tion of the maximum security facilities at the
Millbrook reformatory for use as a regional
detention centre. Since maximiun security
cells are the most expensive facilities in such
centres, this will greatly reduce the overall
cost of tliis unit. There will, of course, I
should add, be no mingling of the inmates
of the reformatory witli prisoners in the
regional detention centre.
The existing minimum security facilities
at Durham camp adjacent to the reformatory
will be enlarged and improved to accommo-
date prisoners not considered to be security
risks.
This utilization of existing facilities will
avoid an expenditure of several million dol-
lars through costly duplication of maximum
security facilities in this region alone.
In keeping with our attempt to streamline
the Ontario correctional system, we have also
streamlined the legislation under which pro-
vincial reform institutions operate. The De-
partment of Correctional Services Act, which
I introduced yesterday, replaces 18 existing
Acts related to the correctional and rehabilita-
tion field.
This new Act is the culmination of four
years of work in attempting to standardize
the provincial system with the federal system
in such matters as statutory remission and
temporary leaves of absence. The implemen-
tation of the live in - work out programme and
other rehabilitative plans visualized in this
Act indicate ovir commitment to the adoption
and setting up of progressive rehabilitation
programmes based on modem, forward-
looking correctional philosophy.
In this connection, it is our intention to
greatly enlarge clinical facilities for the treat-
ment of alcoholics, drug addicts and sexual
deviates. To this end, the Mimico reformatory
buildings will be completely renovated to
provide for expanding treatment units for
these three groups of offenders. The location
of these clinics will assist in the recruitment
of qualified staff on a full-time and part-time
basis from the universities, hospitals and
other treatment facilities in the Metropolitan
Toronto area.
Over the years the department has at-
tempted to continually improve its in-service
programme for correctional personnel. In
this connection, a staff training school has
been operated at Guelph to which employees
throughout the system have been sent for
instruction and training. The influx of many
new employees from the local jails will place
additional strain on existing facilities. To al-
leviate this situation, the department will
construct adjacent to the clinical facilities in
Mimico, a new staff training college. The
location of this college will assure a ready
pool of lecturers from among the senior ad-
ministrators at tlie main office in Toronto,
and from universities, hospitals, and other
treatment units.
A new forestry camp will be opened
shortly in Grey county, four miles east of
Durham. This camp will be named the Oliver
forestry camp in honour of Farquhar Oliver,
MPP, who represented Grey South riding in
this Legislature for 41 years. I hope to have
the honour, Mr. Chairman, of inviting Mr.
Oliver to officially open this camp which will
MAY 28, 1968
3493
accommodate 40 short-term ofEenders from
the Guelph reformatory.
This camp is part of our on-going pro-
gramme to reduce the populations in our
larger institutions so that we can concentrate
our efforts on small groups of inmates.
Hon. members will be pleased to learn that
construction is well underway on the Vanier
institution for women, and there is every ex-
pectation that it will be occupied this year.
The Vanier institution, which will provide
a cottage setting for adult female offenders,
will, of course, replace Mercer reformatory.
We have continually sought, over the
years, to improve our facilities and our pro-
grammes and to attract staff of a high calibre.
Prior to 1965, we had great difficulty in at-
tracting and retaining highly qualified
teachers for the academic and vocational
programmes in our institutions. However, a
dramatic improvement in this situation oc-
curred when we began, in 1965, to hire
teachers on a contract basis. Since that time,
we have competed on the open market for
teachers; and, as is the practice of progressive
school boards throughout the province, we
have provided an annual bonus of $500 for
our teachers because of the special aptitudes
and training required in our schools.
I am very pleased to report that we now
have acquired an excellent team of teachers
and that this year the number of vacancies
at hiring time was lower than in the average
school in the outside community, and that a
high number of applications were received
from teachers seeking these positions.
In addition, all academic and vocational
programmes in our institutions must meet
the same Department of Education standards
that all other schools in the province meet,
and are examined regularly by Department
of Education inspectors.
I am certain that it will be gratifying to
all hon. members that the high calibre of
teachers which we have been able to attract
and retain has resulted in high standards
being achieved in our academic and voca-
tional programmes, particularly in training
schools. The variety and quality of these
programmes greatly facilitates a smoother
transition back into community school pro-
grammes.
Earlier this year, in reply to a question in
this Legislature, I expressed my pleasure and
that of my staff with the programme which is
operating at White Oaks village for boys
under twelve admitted to the school after
an adjudication in juvenile and family court.
This programme, which has been in operation
since January, 1965, was developed on the
premise that the immediate need of these
children is to feel secure, to be able to make
and preserve trusting relationships with
adults and each other.
Control is established in an aura of mutual
respect and warm worker-child relationships.
The programme employs a cottage setting
where boys live in groups of eight to ten
and each is cared for by a team of five
workers.
I am very pleased to report that longitu-
dinal research indicates that this programme
is very successful in assisting youngsters to
adjust in their relationships to their homes
schools and communities. This study is con-
tinuing.
We place, in our department, great stress
on our programmes for juveniles because we
realize the importance of attempting to reach
and help youngsters before they establish a
pattern of anti-social behaviour which may
continue into adulthood in the absence of
positive intervention. Thus we provide a wide
variety of programmes in our training schools
to try to meet the individual needs of each
youngster admitted to our care.
To further increase our effectiveness in
determining each child's needs, it is the de-
partment's intention to construct a reception
and assessment centre for juveniles on a site
in the Oakville area. All youngsters will be
placed in this facility immediately following
adjudication in the juvenile and family court.
This unit will accommodate 120 boys and
girls and will serve all training schools in
the province, including the three private
training schools operated by Roman Cathohc
religious orders.
This unit will operate in close co-operation
with the regional assessment centres for emo-
tionally disturbed children that are being
established throughout the province by The
Department of Health.
Our reception and assessment centre will
be fully staffed with social workers and psy-
chologists, with psychiatric consultation avail-
able. This centre will replace reception and
assessment facilities now provided at Pine
Ridge school for boys, and Grand View
school for girls.
Mr. Chairman, I have highlighted only a
few of the recent developments, plans and
projects of my department. What I have at-
tempted to indicate to this House is the
general direction in which we are moving.
3494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the progress we have been making, and our
intentions for the future.
We reahze that we have a long way to
go; that we must continually strive to im-
prove our approaches and techniques, our
facilities and our programmes.
We feel we are making progress, but we
are by no means smug or complacent. Having
achieved a measure of success, we have no
intention of merely treading water. We shall
continue in our serach for a better means of
assisting those in our care so that they may
return to the community to live meaningful
and productive lives.
In conclusion, Mr. Chainiian, I would like
to thank all of the after-care agencies and
community services clubs and other groups
who have assisted the department and lent
support to its programmes. I would also
express special thanks to the members of my
advisory boards and planning committees who
give so freely of their time and abilities.
Earlier I mentioned the increased responsi-
bilities that have fallen upon the department
this year because of the assumption of the
administration of jails and their operation.
This has placed a great strain on all the
stajBF of my department by greatly increasing
their work loads and they have responded,
sir, magnificently to the new challenges which
have arisen.
To all staff members I pay a well deserved
tribute for their untiring efforts in maintain-
ing and continually striving to improve our
programmes for the people admitted to tlic
department's care.
Sir, I commend to the hon. members, the
estimates of my department, and ask approval
for the funds to carry on our work.
Mr. R. Ruston: (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, we appreciate the efforts of the hon.
Minister and his staff in dealing with the
problems he is faced with in our modern
society.
The new Act announced in the Legislature
yesterday to change the name of The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions, to The Depart-
ment of Correctional Services is in line with
my remarks I am about to give at this time.
I believe that the title of the department
whose estimates we are now considering has
a special significance, because it includes tlie
word "correction". That surely must set the
tone for the whole approach to these matters,
just as the word "penal", in former days,
emphasized the punitive aspects. Prison was
then a penalty to be paid for a wrongdoing
and there was httle, if any, thought given to
die idea of rehabilitation.
Today we are concerned with bringing a
man back into society, after his lapse, and
enabling him once more to play a useful role,
whenever this can be done witJiout danger to
the fabric of society itself. Of course there are
the repeaters, and for them, rehabilitation,
while possible, becomes increasingly more
chfficult as society becomes ever more suspi-
cious and fearful of their motivation and their
stability. But even in these cases, we must
never give up hope, for if we once admit the
philosophy of "abandon hope all ye who enter
here", then we are really saying that society
as a whole should abandon hope.
We are all appalled by the amount of
crime on our streets, and most thoughtful
people are coming around to the behef that
there must be something very v^Tong in our
total social climate, sir, to permit violence
to rear its ugly head at the slightest provoca-
tion—be it in a mild form on a university
campus, or in the extreme form of a murder
on the streets in broad daylight, with people
passively looking on while the crime is being
committed, and then not even being willing to
come forward as witnesses.
One of the factors that seem to be speeding
up the decay of intelligence is the modern
emphasis on the senses and their gratification.
It is not without significance that the great
scholars of the past were ascetics— they were
monks, they were celibate, or at the very least
they subscribed to what is now derived as the
so-called "puritan ethic". The puritan ethic
used to be very strong in Ontario, and some
of us are inclined to think that Canada would
be better off today if we had been less willing
to abandon its strictures in favour of every
temptation which came along.
But, for better or worse, we have opened
the door. We have what we are now pleased
to call a "pluralistic society", which is a
kind of situation in which you do not have to
profess any kind of belief or faith, where it
is all right to make a quick dollar, even if
that dollar is made by selling two dozen tubes
of airplane glue at one time to a ten -year old,
or cigarettes, singly, or contraceptives to teen-
agers, or girlie magazines and Hollywood
scandal sheets to any child with free funds
who walks into the store.
We have a society in which the movies
and television profess values and hold up as
ideals, attitudes which are far from whole-
some, yet we are asked, in the name of
individual freedom, to allow the exhibition
of any film or play and the sale of any book.
MAY 28, 1968
3495
without censorship or restriction. In this kind
of climate, we cannot be surprised if people's
attitudes are changed in the direction of
what they see, what they hear, what they
experience all around them— and frequently
for the worse.
Some of the consequences of the new sexual
freedom are already upon us. We are told
that venereal disease is out of control in the
United States, and that there are at least
35,000 cases in Ontario, although only a tenth
of them report for treatment. Presumably,
the other nine-tenths are going around infect-
ing others in their happy-go-lucky way. Then
there is the untold misery of the abortion
factories, the sleazy underground operations,
the callous attitude toward procreation and
life itself which must arise from the belief
that people can do just what they like in the
matter of morality.
But, Mr. Chairman, the sexual revolution
pales into insignificance when considered in
relation to the revolution of violence. I am
concerned with promiscuity mainly because
it begets permissiveness in other areas. But
by far the greatest change in public opinion
has occurred in its tacit acceptance of the
growing percentage rate of crime in relation
to population as something quite inevitable,
something that the individual can do nothing
about. And alongside this, we have the
situation that nobody wants to be involved.
These are danger signals indeed, Mr. Chair-
man, and they relate directly to the philo-
sophy of this department as expressed in its
statement of purpose.
That outstanding social worker, Paul Good-
man, in his now-famous book Growing Up
Absurd tells many stories of the disillusion-
ment of teen-agers fresh from school. They
go to work and, in their various places of
employment, they are confronted with sharp
practice. What is a young boy to do? He
cannot fight obviously accepted values alone.
He takes his guidance from his elders, and
soon he, too, is charging for the TV tube he
did not replace, or the grease job that he
skipped when doing a car lubrication job.
There is, about our whole environment today,
tiie atmosphere of a "confidence job". Watch
out or you will be tricked, let the buyer
beware, never give a sucker an even break—
and, of course, the idea of the 'Taig deal", and
the marked-down price on everything. When
I look at a "cents-off" package, I often feel
that the only thing that has really been
marked down is the integrity of the buyer
and the seller alike.
When these practices are so all-permissive,
how can we accomplish the rehabilitation of
the prisoner, except in one sense— that of
fitting him for the real world, a world which
is itself so riddled with poor ethical practices
that the prisoner who tries to go straight must
be as perplexed by the moral indifi^erence as
any of the teen-agers cited in Paiil Good-
man's book.
If I have taken some time to come to my
first point it is because it is a subtle one. I
now refer to page 4 of the annual report of
the Minister of Reform Institutions for 1967,
the well-produced book "The Ontario Plan in
Corrections", which was tabled in this Legis-
lature on May 9. Under the heading Prin-
ciples and Methods, we find, in the fourth
paragraph, the blanket statement that "those
in our care broke laws because of a particular
set of attitudes towards society and life in
general. In order to modify these attitudes,
open discussion with staff is a prime necessity
— " and on page 5, an illustration is given
whereby selected custodial staff are used as
leaders in guided group discussions. We are
asking siaff to deal here in value judgments,
and my first question of the Minister is, on
what tenets are these value judgments based?
We are told, on page 5, that "the moral
values of staff associating witli prisoners
should be in the main those generally accept-
able to society at large." I want to suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that in today's permissive
climate, the moral values which most people
are apparently prepared to accept in their
neighbours are not necessarily high enough
values for the staffs of our correctional institu-
tions, who should, I suggest, be displaying
leadership of the highest order. They should
be dedicated men and women as, indeed, most
of them already are.
In order to attract men and women of this
high calibre to service in the often remote
locations and always arduous routines of cor-
rectional institution life, a number of incen-
tives are necessary. Foremost among them is
not money, as some might think, but an
image of respect in the public mind. We
ought to be undertaking a programme of
public education aimed at the general recog-
nition of the qualities of leadership, of
integrity, of uprightness, of vocation and of
dedication; quahties which many of our
correctional staff members possess in full
measure.
I also believe that the professional aspect
of staff training should be enhanced by appro-
prite recognition of qualifications on the part
of the public. Everybody knows a doctor, or
3496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a lawyer, a professor, a research scientist to
be a man of learning and standing. Yet I
venture to suggest that in the field of correc-
tion and rehabilitation there are many men
and women who have devoted as much time
to their calHng and with as much earnestness
as any in the professions I have named. And
it is time that we mete out honour where
honour is due, and not in the form of verbal
thanks, but in the form of continuing qualifi-
cations based on study and service and
ability, so that the profession of corrections
officer becomes improved in the public eye.
Then, and then only, will we begin to
attract to this rewarding career, high calibre
recruits in the numbers needed to make re-
habilitation meaningful. For it is on the
quality of staff that the success of the whole
reform institutions programme hinges.
We are into value judgments once more as
we tackle the need to break down the inmate
sub-culture, as we are asked to do so in the
statement of purpose; because we immedi-
ately have to ask ourselves: "break it down
in favour of what?" We have to be able to
replace that sub-culture with something better,
and that something better has to have about
it something of an "ideal" nature, while still
being recognizable as being a definite part of
today's way of life. Perhaps what I am try-
ing to say is summed up in tlie phrase "aim
high". Too often, I think, we set our sights
too low. We are content with less than the
best.
At the same time, we are in dangerous
waters if we believe that moral values are
"given" values. They have to be deduced
from the conditions of contemporary living.
The limitations that are set in our goals are
the limits of the possible. I am suggesting
that it is in this area— the area slightly above
the norm yet within the range of the prac-
tical and possible, taking into account the
people one is working with, that the hope
for correction and rehabilitation lies.
This must always be in our minds, even
when we talk about the "inmate sub-culture",
because it is well known that human beings
emancipate themselves on the basis of natural
groups. This would perhaps explain the suc-
cess of the group therapy attitude changes
described on page 15 of the report. My con-
cern is that the graduates of this enlightened
therapy should not then be thrust out into a
world where they will once again be over-
whelmed with loneliness, once more to prowl
the streets with weapons in their hands and
a lump in their throats.
For this reason, I am, in the main, con-
cerned about after-care and the idea of the
half-way house. I want to look in detail at
this in a moment. But first, let me under-
line once more that, however fine the 1967
report of the department may appear on first
reading— and it certainly is the most elegant
document to come off the government presses
so far this season— yet it will not stand up to
critical analysis if one asks the simple ques-
tion: how does the statement of purpose
reflect itself in what different contributors to
the report have shown to be their philosophy
of correction?
To go through the report, with this ques-
tion in mind and a pencil in one's hand, is a
revealing exercise. Thus, on page 14, under
treatment services, we are told, in column 2:
"Correctional stafiF have been trained by the
treatment personnel and are thus able to
assume an active role in the inmate therapy
programme, offering group and individual
counselling as their own effective level."
Yet on page 20 we find that a disappoint-
ing 36 persons out of a total correctional staff
of 1,200, attended the Ontario group psy-
chotherapy association workshop, a distress-
ing 136 attended the correctional officers'
staff training course, and that the total enrol-
ment in the certificate course in corrections
at both McMaster and the University of To-
ronto, was only 107. The implications of this
low proportion of correctional staff taking
advantage of key courses are serious if they
are to be coupled with the progressive atti-
tude of the psychological staff of using cor-
rectional staff as the front-line runners in the
rehabilitation process.
Correctional officers have to have a basis,
for example, for knowing the power of sug-
gestion upon the suggestible. They have to
know the effect of the intensification that
results from a restricted environment. On
page 71, we are told that the setting of Hill-
crest school represents to the 48 boys sent
there for reasons of security, "aspects of
external security that are necessary for inter-
nal feelings of security". Yet it is surely true
that suggestions made at Hillcrest would pro-
voke a different response from similar sug-
gestions made in the freer surroundings of
White Oaks village at Hagersville, where
the base of normal community life is more
accessible.
Similarly, in reference to Gait, on page 16,
we are told that the programme seeks to
apply "behaviour therapy— the systematic use
of rewards and sanctions for the purpose of
encouraging acceptable behaviour". Mr.
MAY 28, 1968
3497
Chairman, this is much more than a "carrot-
and-stick" philosophy. In the days of the
httle red schoolhouse, the community was
stable, the standards were known, the goals
were agreed. Today it is not so. There are
so many variables, there are no fixed posi-
tions, and the very norm of society has
changed in the interim while a prisoner is
incarcerated, perhaps as a first offender. This
means that updating of staff must be a con-
tinuous process, and the correctional staffs
must be paid to learn, with new techniques
being an essential part of their continuing
education.
One would hope, for example, that those
members of the team who are not psychia-
trists, but who are involved in giving the
aversion therapy referred to on page 16, at
the Alex G. Brown memorial clinic at Mimico,
are familiar with the moral implications of
this treatment. A good many people are
clearly setting themselves up, if not as gods,
at least as counsellors, and, while this may
be essential if we are to make any progress
at all, it is irresponsible if not accompanied
by mandatory in-service training and educa-
tion for those involved.
That is why perhaps the most frightening
aspect of this report is the sketchy nature of
the section on staff training and development.
Here we have a 110-page report, and only
three pages are devoted to this absolutely
vital aspect of corrections.
Of course, that is not surprising when we
look at vote 1901 on page 116 of the esti-
mates for 1968-69, only to discover that,
out of a total budget of over forty million
dollars, staff training and development occu-
pies such a low place in the order of things
that it is much less than a quarter of a million
dollars. In other words, about only one
dollar in every 170 dollars goes on this most
vital business of trying to tell the staff what
the aims and purposes of correction are and
how to achieve them. No wonder some people
in this department think that the staff training
and development story can be told in only
three pages of text.
Mr. Chairman, this is just not good enough.
It is a gratuitous insult to the members of
this House to expect that we will be satisfied
with a sketchy report like that. On page 18,
two lines tell us that in the five-week basic
staff training course that all correctional
officers must complete during their first year,
before being appointed to regular staff, there
are, and I quote, "sessions designed to modify
attitudes of trainees". That is all we are told
about it. What kind of sessions are these?
Wlio conducts them? According to what
recognized principles? With what goals in
mind? Towards what end?
On the same page, our fears increase as
we realize that the author of this particular
section of the report at least has fallen into
the familiar trap of regarding only his own
people as professionals. Again I quote, from
page 18— "This will permit the extension of
counselling services by using correctional
officers in areas formerly open only to pro-
fessional staff". The clear implication here
is that the correctional officers are non-
professionals.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is this kind
of thinking within the department itself—
and let me assure the Minister that his depart-
ment is not unique in this pecking-order
problem, which is probably far worse in The
Department of Education— it is this kind of
thinking that bedevils the whole approach to
correction and rehabilitation. The danger is
that it sets up two poles of thought— two
sets of goals rather than one— and if that
happens, the whole Statement of Purpose is
set at nought.
Taking this point a little further, there are
833 male correctional officers in grades one
and three, according to the figures on page
21 of the report; 107 in grade 4, 70 in grade
5, a low 35 in grade 6 and only 8 in grade 7.
The figures are rather better for the female
correctional officers— 64 in grades 1 and 3,
4 in grade 4, 10 in 5, two in 6; and here again
one suspects that, because smaller numbers
are involved, upgrading has been possible
more closely in accord with qualifications.
I am quite sure that professional pride is
involved here, too, as it is in the ranks of the
clinical staff. I am sure that professional
pride manifests itself in the ranks of the
training school supervisors also, whose pat-
tern also shows the familiar promotional
tapering-off. But do you not see, Mr. Chair-
man, how very devastating it is for a pro-
gressive statement to be made under the
heading "treatment services" on page 14, by
the late, and respected, Vladimir Hartman, and
for this to appear in the same publication as
the regressive statement about "professional
staff" which appears under staff training
and development, page 18?
I find myself asking: Am I really looking
at one report? Is this really one department,
with a common aim and purpose? Or is it, in
fact, merely an aggregation of people, all of
whom have their own ideas of right and
wrong, and of goals to aim for, and of the
3498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kind of society they are counselling the in-
mates back into? This suspicion is intensified
when I turn to page 24, to discover, in the
paragraph the chaplain and his teaching that,
and I quote, "The chaplain's goal is the
development of a law-abiding person". That
must come as something of a shock to those
of us who regarded that as the domain of
the chaplain's secular colleagues!
Is it too naive to suggest that perhaps the
chaplain's goal might be set on a somewhat
higher spiritual plane, perhaps even on the
plane of the kingdom of heaven? But clearly,
the whole tenor of the chaplain's report is
concerned with social adjustment, the creation
"of understanding and goodwill towards the
offender." We are told that the chaplain, "by
intensive community involvement, fosters
understanding and increases community re-
sponsibility in the field of corrections". What
we are not told is how the commvmity can
assume responsibility for something over which
it has no control— the direction of rehabilita-
tion. In fact, the whole tenor of the report
is extremely vague in this regard.
Yet another goal is held up under recrea-
tion, page 28, where Dale Carnegie speaking
diplomas are on ofiFer as awards. This depart-
ment picks out the words "useful citizens"
from the umbrella Statement of Purpose. In
fact, it is possible to be diametrically opposed
in your aim from the goals of your colleague,
and still find something appropriate in this
all-embracing August 1965 Statement of Pur-
pose, "which was prepared by the department
and announced by the Minister as the policy
on which all programmes would be based and
by which future planning of the department
would be guided." At least, that is what it
says on page 40.
For food services, on page 30, the goal is
"to do a job efficiently" and "to appreciate
the satisfaction of achievement." Confidence,
skill, opening up of better job opportunities
on an inmate's return to the community
occupy this section, but attitudes are not
mentioned. Perhaps this is because, as we
approach the real world of work, the kind of
work that in practice is available upon release
into the community, the dichotomy between
the psychiatrist's hopes and the chaplain's
expectations on the one hand, and the chance
of earning a dollar again on the other,
becomes evident.
Now the ideal evaporates altogether, for we
discover that the terms of reference of the
trades and industries advisory committee are
to assess correctional facilities not with the
aims and purposes of page 4 in mind, but
rather, and I quote, "to ensure that each
inmate is receiving training suitable for
employment purposes". Gone are the high
hopes now. We are down to brass tacks. We
must mould the correctional system to fit the-
available labour market. We must shape the
supply to meet the demand.
Whoever wrote the section on county jails
and the regional detention centre plan did not
fall into this trap. He states that the aim here
is "to offer a positive and useful programme
geared to special needs, in line with an effec-
tive correctional and rehabihtative philos-
ophy". But he does not say what that
philosophy is.
In adult female institutions, one of the
best sections in the report, we are told: "It is
a fundamental error to assume that academic
or vocational training is the answer for all".
That is on page 41. But the trades and indus-
try advisory committee is not concerned with
namb-pamby nonsense of that kind. Its terms
of reference say everybody gets trained, and
that is tliat. Meanwhile the lonely voice of
Miss Aileen Nicholson sounds the warning on
page 41, that "many have emotional problems
that must be solved before they are likely to
benefit from training."
So, Mr. Chairman. I have to ask, how much
public money are we wasting in putting peo-
ple through a training mill, who ought to be
in analysis? Miss Nicholson makes what might
be a key point in saying that programme
should set out objectives which are attainable
within the length of a sentence. Is it always
possible, I wonder, even to embark upon trade
training within this length of time? How much
pressure is coming from the syrup botthng
company to get people back into a Chaplin
"modern times" routine, instead of getting to
the core of their disabilities? Is there any
evidence of this at all? Because, if there is, it
is a doubly short-sighted pohcy, as automa-
tion and cybernation sweep assembly line
jobs away. In this climate, it is probably better
to prepare inmates for the creative use of
enforced leisure, of which they are likely to
have plenty, than to put them into a repeti-
tive minimum-wage situation merely because
that is where society expects such people to
go.
Miss Nicholson's essay says that, vwthin her
sphere of influence, "a system of on-going staff
meetings ensures that the programme is being
carried out consistently, and also that adjust-
ments in the programme are made as a
woman's attitude or situation changes." In
other words, the principle of feedback is at
work here. We learn of a co-operative working
I
MAY 28, 1968
3499
relationships, of the inmate's active involve-
ment in plans for her own rehabilitation, and
of small group living and social interaction.
All of this is excellent and progressive. But we
were back to brass tacks again on page 47,
talking in terms of "productive work" and
"useful skills" in male institutions, after page
45's high hopes about reducing tension and
conflict, re -integration into free society, and
programmes being set up on the basis of each
ofiFender's personahty assessment.
On page 45, it is said that "changes exter-
nal to departmental control, could render
buildings disfunctional in the face of new
demands placed upon them". But nowhere in
the report is the more important and parallel
point made that rehabihtative programmes
themselves may be rendered disfunctional by
the rapid changes that are now abroad. For
example, one has only to be aware of the
existence of the British Wolfenden report,
and the influence it has had on the thinking
of Canada's justice department, to realize that
some who are now incarcerated for certain
offences may re-enter the community to dis-
cover those offences have been legalized in
the interim. How do you counsel an inmate
that the crime for which he or she was sen-
tenced is now socially acceptable and perhaps
as common as a coffee break?
Mr. Chairman, on page 56, we are told
that "The department continues in its attempts
to reach the point where it will be generally
recognized as a model of correctional pro-
cedures and practices." I think I have said
enough to show that the department may be
not one model, but several. The impression
given by the annual report is of many well-
meaning and often highly-qualified people all
convinced that they are the professionals, all
running in different directions, all uncertain of
the departmental goal. And I want to sug-
gest that The Department of Reform Institu-
tions has never defined its aims in terms more
precise than its 1965 Statement of Purpose,
which is vague enough, and platitudinous
enough, to mean all things to all men. For
this state of affairs, the Minister alone must
assume responsibility.
The recent seminar on "The Police and the
Youthful Offender" at McMaster University
has shown how very wide is the gap between
the poles of opinion on how delinquent
youngsters should be dealt with, and I am
quite sure that this strong difference of
opinion extends right through the age groups.
For this reason I have left until the last
the most controversial proposal that I have
to make in this general critique of the depart-
ment. I know that there is nothing in the
current estimates for it, but I feel that there
ought to be something, and that whatever
is budgeted here will be more than saved
under item 4 of vote 2003 of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services. What I
want to see is a tiny fraction of that $38.5
million to be spent as assistance under The
General Welfare Assistance Act, being spent
instead to pay the minimum wage establish-
ment for Ontario to all prisoners who are
gainfully employed in the production of goods
while incarcerated.
I propose that 75 per cent of this sum
should compulsorily go to the dependents of
the prisoners, and the other 25 per cent be
held in trust against the day when the
prisoner enters the community again as well
as paying for his keep. Safeguards would
have to be written into a detailed statute, of
course, but we have competent advice at
our disposal— the advice of devoted men and
women who have given this matter a great
deal of thought. I think that it would be
possible for a reformed prisoner to really
start a new life on the straight and narrow
road, with a little nest-egg to begin with,
and controls over the way in which that
money was used, possibly as part of the
terms of probation.
I certainly do not want to see anyone being
done out of a job by this proposal, but if
I thought that that would happen, I would
not make it. However, I think that there is a
good enough case made out for the establish-
ment of a select committee to look into this
whole issue.
Let us have some hard facts. How much
money was paid out of the general welfare
assistance fund to dependents of prisoners in
Ontario over the past series of years? How
did impersonal payments of this kind take
away from the father-image and the vestiges
of dignity that even a convicted man might
be expected to retain, given a sound psycho-
logical approach to his position? The fact
that a man is weak and fallen does not
entitle us to deprive him of responsibility for-
ever thereafter. In fact, we should be build-
ing back his responsibility, shaping that part
of his character that will make him once
more a man, a person who can play a
meaningful role in society.
How much better if a prisoner can think
to himself: "I made a mistake, but at least
I am still supporting my family, even in
jail." Turn welfare handouts into income, that
is all I am asking. Pay the recognized hourly
minimum wage for the job in Ontario, and
3500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
make the prisoners work. I am convinced it
would not cost more. I suspect there are hid-
den savings here that a select committee
could well explore. And, most certainly,
there are big psychological and rehabilitative
gains to be made through this progressive
change.
The Minister says: "The world is looking
to Ontario in the matter of reform." Very
well, let them have something that will make
them look twice. Let us be a world leader
in our psychological approach. Let us not
make the mistake of emphasizing the word
"institutions" at the cost of the larger con-
cept of "reform."
Thank you.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of supply rise and report
certain resolutions and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make an announce-
ment to the House, which is why I asked the
committee to rise and report. It was on May
2, in response to a point of order raised by
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald), that I said I was going to look into
the Cara Villa affair, as I suppose it might
be termed because of the conflicting state-
ments that have been made and the conflict-
ing opinions that have been put before the
House.
I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart),
if he would refer this matter to the criminal
investigation department of the provincial
police, in order that they might investigate
and establish the truth and falsity of some
of the statements that were made. Their
recommendation has been that charges shotJd
be laid against Mrs. Gurman and information
has been made by the provincial police
against Mrs. Gurman containing nine charges
of common assault and four charges of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm with respect
to patients at the Cara Villa nursing home.
I believe the summons has been served—
it was served last evening on Mrs. Gurman—
and this matter will be dealt with, from here
on, in the courts.
Mr. Speaker: Might I, before the Prime
Minister deals with the House business, remind
the members of the Clerk's meeting again
tomorrow at 12:30 noon in committee room
1, for the purpose of studying the rules and
procedures. They are good meetings, and I
would hope that many of the members could
find time to be present.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside. He has something to say.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I was
suggesting we might adjourn.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
MAY 28, 1968
3501
APPENDIX
11. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— ( a ) Has the oflBce
accommodation division of The Department
of Pubhc Works rented oflBce space for gov-
ernment use at 1 St. Clair Ave. West, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental
agreement come into effect, and how many
government office employees worked in this
office space as of the middle of December,
1967?
Answer by the Minister of Public Works:
(a) Yes— property section. Department of
Public Works.
(b) 69,115 square feet; $5.14 per square
foot per year; December 1, 1967.
Information to be supplied by occupying
department.
11. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation division of The Department
of Public Works rented office space for gov-
ernment use at 1 St. Clair Ave. West, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental agree-
ment come into effect, and how many gov-
ernment office employees worked in this office
space as of the middle of December, 1967.
Answer by the Minister of Health:
(a) Answerable by the department con-
cerned.
(b) (last part) No employees of The De-
partment of Health.
6. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— During the year
ended December 31, 1967: (a) How many
members of the staff of the educational tele-
vision branch visited what European capitals
and for what purpose? (b) How many mem-
bers of the educational television branch have
travelled overseas at government expense, and
state the purpose of these journeys? (c)
During the year ended December 31, 1967,
how many telephone calls were initiated be-
tween Europe and Canada or vice versa by
the staff of the educational television branch
and how many of these were in excess of $25?
Answer by the Minister of Education:
The following is given in reply to question
No. 6 on order paper No. 6:
(a) and (b) Four regular members of the
staff and five contracted members of the staff
travelled overseas at government expense.
The European capitals visited by the regular
members of the staff were London, Dublin
and Paris. The contracted members visited
various locations in England, Germany,
Belgium, France, Holland, Poland and Italy.
Two of the officials of the branch attended
the 3rd EBU international conference on
educational radio and television at the invita-
tion of the Canadian broadcasting corporation
to be part of the Canadian delegation. On
route they conferred with members of the
London institute of education, officials of the
British broadcasting corporation, the inner
London education authority, the associated
television limited, London, and the Glasgow
education authority. Two other officials visited
the British Isles to examine production opera-
tions, procedure and the budgeting cost
control systems, administrative procedures,
potential programme exchange and copyright
requirements, network operations and proce-
dures, as well as relationships established
between the educational community and the
broadcaster and the professional broadcasters.
In addition, two members of the ETV branch
visited the Bahamas at the request of the gov-
ernment of the Bahamas in order to advise
that government on the possible development
of educational television in that jurisdiction.
(c) The members of the educational tele-
vision branch staff initiated ten calls between
Europe and Canada, contracted production
personnel initiated 15 calls. Each of these
calls was in excess of $25. The calls related
primarily to negotiations for the availability
of studio production facilities. A direct result
of these telephone conversations was the final
negotiation of agreements considerably below
the costs initially tabled by the suppliers. In
negotiations with a major production facilities
supplier, a saving of approximately $48,000
was effected.
The telephone calls made by production
personnel were in each instance approved by
the executive producer as being necessary to
arrange production personnel, production
facilities, to conduct research, to obtain pro-
gramme materials or to arrange on-camera
persons. The purpose of the calls was to make
prior arrangements for resources in Europe
before local crews and contracted producers
undertook actual production.
12. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation division of The Department
3502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Public Works rented office space for gov-
ernment use at 15 Overlea Blvd., Thomcliffe
Park, Toronto? (b) If so, how many square
feet of floor space have been rented for gov-
ernment use, what is the monthly rental rate
per square foot, on what date did the rental
agreement come into effect, and how many
government office employees worked in this
office one month after tlie rental agreement
came into effect?
Answer by the Minister of Public Works:
(a) Yes— property section. Department of
Pubhc Works.
(b) 155,324 square feet; $4.83 per square
foot, per year; December 1, 1967.
Information to be supplied by occupying
department.
12. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation of The Department of Public
Works rented office space for government use
at 15 Overlea Blvd., Thomchffe Park, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental agree-
ment come into effect, and how many gov-
ernment office employees worked in this office
one month after the rental agreement came
into effect?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
(a) Answerable by the department con-
cerned.
(b) (last part) No employees of The
Department of Health.
19. Mr. Pilkey— Enquiry of the Ministry-
Having regard to the projected five-year
requirement for construction, salaries and
other related costs to the education system,
what effect will the regional education board
system have on the future mill rates applic-
able to education costs in the city of Oshawa?
Answer by the Minister of Education:
In reply to question No. 19 on order
paper No. 13, it is impossible to say what
effect the regional education board system
will have on the future mill rates in the city
of Oshawa. The new regional education
boards are proposed to provide special edu-
cational services over wider areas and to
equalize educational opportunities. It is
hoped that the centralization of administra-
tion will effect more economies but the addi-
tional services which are required in some
parts of the proposed new divisions will
necessitate additional expenditures.
33. Mr. BroM)ri— Enquiry of the Ministry
— (a) What government departments used the
services of Public Relations Services Limited
during the 1967 calendar year? (b) For what
periods did each individual department con-
tract for those services? (c) What was the
cost to each department employing the ser-
vices of Public Relations Services?
Answer by the Prime Minister:
(a) Department of Transport; Department
of Tourism and Information— main division;
Department of Tourism and Information-
centennial centre of science and technology;
Department of Health.
(b) Department of Transport— month-to-
month purchasing service; Department of
Tourism and Information— main division—
month-to-month purchasing service; Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information— centennial
centre of science and technology— month-to-
month purchasing service; Department of
Health— January to May, 1967, inclusive.
(c) Department of Transport, $19,253,41;
Department of Tourism and Information-
main division, $80,395.82; Department of
Tourism and Information— centennial centre
of science and technology, $25,444.26; De-
partment of Health, $16,218.34.
51. Mr. M artel— Enquiry of the Ministry—
(a) How many gallons of gas were sold in
Ontario in 1964? (b) Would this have netted
the government approximately $230,000,000
for taxes for 1964 if all the money had
reached the Treasury? (c) What, in fact,
did the Treasury receive from gas taxes in
1964? (d) If there is a difference in what
should have been collected and what was
actually collected, why? (e) Where did this
money go?
Answer by the Provincial Treasurer:
(a) As provincial records are kept on a
fiscal year basis, the answer to this question
has been based on the fiscal year from April
1, 1964, to March 31, 1965, which is the
fiscal year closest to the calendar year 1964.
Gross sales for use in Ontario of gasoline and
liquefied petroleum gases, exclusive of avia-
tion fuel, were 1,598,935,172 gallons in the
fiscal year 1964-65. After deducting tax
exempt sales to the federal government, the
sales for which a tax liability was incurred
for the fiscal year were 1,593,901,932 gallons.
(b) See answer to (c).
(c) Revenue from gasoline tax is recorded
on a fiscal year basis, and due to the method
of collection and adjustments at the fiscal
year end, the revenue does not relate, pre-
MAY 28, 1968
3503
cisely, to the taxable sales reported in (a).
For the fiscal year 1964-65, after providing
for remuneration of one-tenth of 1 cent per
gallon (authorized under revised regulations
of Ontario 1960, Reg. 206, section 1), revenue
from gasoline tax was $237,614,835. After a
further provision of $16,426,280 as refunds
(authorized under sections 2 and 5 of the
same regulations), net revenue in that fiscal
year was $221,188,555. This latter sum in-
cludes a net revenue from tax on aviation
fuel of $1,081,027 for that fiscal year.
(d) Where gasoline tax is remitted in full
on the due date by a collector under agree-
ment, relief may be given subsequently to the
collector if licensed retailers, for reason of
bankruptcy or inability to pay, fail to remit
tax to the collector. A difference in what
should have been collected and what is
actually collected will then arise. During the
fiscal year 1964-65 the extent of this dif-
ference, relating mostly to previous years,
amounted to $27,798.
(e) Subject to any direct collections by
The Treasury Department, outstanding
balances deemed, after full consideration, to
be uncollectable are recommended for write-
off under section 22 of The Financial Admin-
istration Act.
52. Mr. Sargent— Enquiry of the Ministry
— (a) What are the names of the firms which
received consultants' contracts from The
Department of Highways last year? ( b ) How
many years has each firm received govern-
ment business? (c) How much money did
each firm receive last year? (d) What is the
basis of payment? (e) Is the basis of pay-
ment consistent with payments in private in-
dustry? (f) If the basis of payment is cost
plus 50 per cent, are there any other con-
tracts let on this basis?
Answer by the Minister of Highways:
1967-1968
(A)
(B)
(C)
Canadian Aero Services ..
Capital Air Services
Damas & Smith
years
2
1
7
14
9
4
10
3
12
10
$ 106,976.98
17,240.00
92 597.24
De Leuw Gather ....
1,543,693.28
271,213.02
102,246.25
668,712.07
29,159,30
370 20
Dillon, M. M
Ewbank, Pillar
Foundation of Canada
Engineering Corp. Ltd.
General Photogrammic
Services
Geocon Ltd
Giffels & Assoc
509,189.98
Colder, H. Q. & Assoc. 8
Graham, R. Bruce 1
Hydrology Consultants .. 1
Johnston, Paul & Assoc. .. 1
Jorgensen, R. & Assoc 3
Kilbome Engineering .... 1
Lockwood Surveys 2
MacLaren, J. F 1
Makeymec & Assoc 1
Marshall, Macklin &
Monaghan 3
McCormick & Rankin .... 12
Parker, C. C 11
Pathfinder Air Services .. 3
Proctor & Redfem 11
Spartan Air Surveys 3
Terea Surveys Limited .. 1
Tomlinson, J. N 2
Totten, Sims, Hubicki &
Assoc 4
Woodstock Engineering
Vance, Needles) 3
Wylie & Ufnal 8
91,520.55
312.65
493.40
300.00
113,968.47
1,782.24
64,018.85
2,960.00
56,060.69
776,737.90
735,975.70
9,972.12
209,454.49
19,664.71
15,574.90
57,102.42
71,533.01
64,995.46
57,364.87
$5,691,190.75
(D) Payment is based on the schedule of
fees for consulting engineering services— 1967,
as recommended by the association of pro-
fessional engineers of Ontario.
(E) Yes.
(F) No.
55. Mr. M artel— Enquiry of the Ministry—
(a) Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs
explain the high mill rate in Lively, Levack
and Onaping? ( b ) Are the mill rates in these
three municipalities comparable to the mill
rates in other mining municipalities of similar
size? (c) How will those rates affect the
mining and shelter grants?
Answer by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs :
(a) The Department as of May 3, insofar
as 1968 expenditures are concerned, had
approved only the budget estimates of two
mining municipalities in the Sudbury area.
These were for the town of Levack and the
improvement district of Onaping.
The 1968 consolidated residential mill rate
for public school supporters for the town of
Levack is 15.13 mills higher than in 1967.
The increase is due principally to increased
expenditures for general government, for pro-
tection to persons and property, and for edu-
cation.
The consolidated residential mill rate for
public school supporters in the three areas of
the improvement district of Onaping is lower
than in 1967.
3504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(b) A comparison of the 1967 equalized mill rates for mining municipalities of a similar
size reveals the following:
Consolidated Mill Rates for Public School Supporters
Lively
Chelms- Hailey-
Levack Onaping ford bury
Gerald- Manitou-
CobaU ton wadge
Residential .... 57.35 37.58 33.81 31.38 32.26 45.41 38.23 35.75
29.39
25.24
Commercial .... 64.60 42.09 37.67 35.29 35.86 51.63 42.95 39.34
32.76
28.15
In the town of Lively it is estimated the
1968 consolidated residential mill rate for
public school supporters will be approxi-
mately 20 mills lower than in 1967.
(c) The mining revenue payments in 1968
are calculated in part using the commercial
rate levied on public school supporters in
1967. The efiFect of this year's mill rates
will not be known until the 1969 mining
revenue payment is calculated.
A higher tax rate will produce a corres-
pondingly higher residential property tax
reduction credit. This is consistent with the
situation in respect to non-mining municipali-
ties.
56. Mr. Nixon— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. How many days did the construction strike
last at the Pickering nuclear generating
station? 2. Was any part of the announced
delay due to design-changes arising from
experience at Douglas Point? 3. What delays
have been experienced in obtaining delivery
of equipment? 4. (a) Were any such delays
due to the failure of contractors or sub-
contractors to meet contractual commitments?
(b) If so, were any penalties imposed, by
whom, and in what amount? 5. Were any
such delays due to incompatibility of equip-
ment produced by different suppliers, for
example, pump components, as a result of
extreme fragmentation of tenders? 6. Were
any such delays caused by failure of any
component to come up to the specification
laid down in any particular? 7. What senior
staff changes have taken place in relation to
the Pickering project in the last 12 months?
Answer by the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management:
1. The following summarizes strikes which
occurred at Pickering generating station:
(a) Ironworkers— unlawful work stoppage
between December 7, 1966 and January 17,
1967.
(b) Legal strike by the plumbers and
pipefitters-May 1, 1967 to January 2, 1968.
(c) Legal strike by ironworkers— May 1,
1967 to November 1, 1967.
(d) Legal strike by carpenters and joiners
-May 1, 1967 to August 22, 1967.
(e) Ten other unions of the allied council,
including boilermakers, bricklayers, plasterers
and masons, electrical workers, labourers,
machinists, operating engineers, painters and
decorators, teamsters, hotel and restaurant
union, all on legal strike from May 1, 1967,
to July 17, 1967.
Major curtailment of work during the en-
tire period from May 1, 1967 to January 2,
1968, required forced layoffs of other trades.
2. No.
3. With one important exception, delays in
equipment deliveries to the project have been
nominal and could have been accommodated
within the original schedule. That exception
is the reactor end shields. At present it can-
not be determined whether end shield
delivery or the construction strikes which have
occurred will prove to be the controlling
factor in the announced deferment of in-
service date. Both are considered to be
equally responsible at the present time.
4. (a) Yes— see answer to question No. 3.
(b) No penalties have been imposed.
5. No.
6. No.
7. The general superintendent at the pro-
ject resigned to accept a position elsewhere
and has been replaced.
No. 97
ONTARIO
Hegis^lature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
I Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3507
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3545
CONTENTS 1
3507
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF REFORM
INSTITUTIONS
( Continued )
Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with the
estimates, I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to extend a welcome to the group of
young people in the gallery, the YPCs from
Peel North.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, the introduction by the Minister
of The Department of Correctional Services
Act, 1968, has enabled me to review and re-
vise and shorten the remarks that I have had
ready for the past few months. I would
appreciate his bringing forward the bill at
this time, as it saves me the necessity of
advocating the many progressive ideas that
the Minister is now apparently willing and
able to adopt as official policy. This is very
thoughtful of the Minister. It may have re-
duced my speech by several hours, and I am
sure that all members are grateful for this
move on the part of tlie Minister.
As the lead-oflF speaker for the New Demo-
cratic Party, in discussing The Department
of Reform Institutions, I wish to state that
my assessment and understanding of this sub-
ject is based on discussions and correspon-
dence with people in this field, and upon my
own experience with, and knowledge of teen-
agers, through some 34 years as a collegiate
teacher in that part of Windsor that is still
known as Walkerville.
First of all, however, Mr. Chairman, I must
commend the Minister for his almost constant
presence in the House, and for the fact that
he almost always listens to what is being said,
and even tries to follow the discussion. In
fact, if it were not for his numerous humorous
interjections, the attendance would be much
lower than it usually is.
I have been told that Canada has the
greatest prison population per capita in the
world, and that 80 per cent of the released
prisoners return to prison. If this is true,
there are many conclusions that might be
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
drawn. One might conclude, erroneously per-
haps, that our police force is the most efficient,
or that our people are the most disorderly, but
the valid conclusion, I suggest to you, Mr.
Chairman, is this: Too many offenders are
being sentenced to imprisonment, and too
little is being done to prepare the released
prisoners for society, or too little is being
done to prepare society for the released
prisoners.
As many hon. members already know,
Windsor has the distinction of having the first
St. Leonard's house in Canada. The success
that has been achieved by this half-way house,
in helping released prisoners return to society
on an accepted and acceptable basis, has led
to plans to establish 20 St. Leonard's houses
across the breadth of Canada. For the bene-
fit of members who may not be familiar with
the resident programme of St. Leonard's
house, I should like to read a brief descrip-
tion from the 1960 annual report:
Our two houses at 491 and 495 Victoria
Avenue, housed 18 men at a time, and
during the year 1967 there were 120 guests
at St. Leonard's house. At the rear of the
property, in a converted garage, we have
space for office administration, and the
basement of 495 was converted, at the end
of the year, for use in our employment arid
out-client programme.
Of the 120 men who passed through St.
Leonaid's house last year, 46 came from
federal penitentiaries, 62 from provincial
reformatories and 12 from county jails and
other institutions. Their average age was
30 years and each had spent an average of
four years in prison on their last four con-
victions, which did not include their total
criminal history.
The criminal categories for tlie men
coming through St. Leonard's house range
from theft to manslaughter, including the
general range of assault, robbery with
violence, armed robbery, false pretense and
breaking and entering. In addition to facing
the problems of changing from criminality
to adjusting outside the prison walls, many
of our men had special personality prob-
lems to resolve. Fifty-nine per cent had
3508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
problems with alcohol, 5 per cent had a
history of narcotic addiction.
St. Leonard's house is designed to work
with men from the most disadvantaged
groups in our j)rison system. Due to the
fact that most of the men coming to St.
Leonard's house do not have a home to go
to after their release, the average length
of stay at St. Leonard's house in 1967 was
47 days.
Now it gives some further information which
I think I shall abridge:
We have two students from the school
of social work at Wayne State University,
The idea is to make the transition of the
men as smooth as possible from complete
dependency in prison to independency by
setting both short-term and long-term
goals in conjunction with the men. This is
accomplished through conferences with the
case workers assigned, group conferences
which occur weekly, and through the ex-
perience of living and sometimes by trial
and error in the real world outside prison
v/alls.
Not all men survive this encounter. By
the end of the year, 13 per cent of our men
were back in trouble with the law, either
charged with new crimes or technical
parole violations. Of the men who remain
outside at the end of 1967 and who have
survived the initial crisis, 69 per cent are
working and doing well at the end of 1967.
That, Mr. Chairman, gives a concise objective
description of the resident programme of St.
Leonard's house.
Before I continue with my main theme,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention a further
programme at St. Leonard's house, one that
has developed perhaps unforeseen but quite
naturally— cx-guests, come back for further
counselling and for job placement assistance.
They come back for recreation and for just
plain fellowship. Casual visitors who have
been in institutions turn up seeking help and
advice. Prisoners who may become guests,
correspond regularly. Parolees who do not
live in, seek guidance, and ordinary citizens
whose friends or relatives are getting into
difficulty with the law come for help and
advice.
All of these come to St. Leonard's house,
creating what the staff calls their out-client
programme. By 1966 such interviews totalled
2,367 during the year. This was in addition
to over 5,000 recorded interviews with the
residents; out-clients average three interviews
each annually. During 1967, a staff member
of St. Leonard's house visited or corresponded
with 273 prisoners who were still actually
serving time. From this it can be seen that
this aspect of the work is extremely impor-
tant, since St. Leonard's house is available on
a seven-days-a-week, 24-hours-a-day basis.
More and more people are seeking the service
outside of normal working hours.
How much is an institution or an organi-
zation such as St. Leonard's house worth to
the province of Ontario? How much is it
worth to the work of the Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Grossman)? Let me give
you a few statistics before you answer, or try
to answer, those questions.
St. Leonard's house has a board of direc-
tors, numbering 25 citizens, an advisory
board of 18 citizens, a woman's board of 17,
and a staff of 12 with three students training
in social work on a part-time basis. If the
Minister were running St. Leonard's house,
what kind of a budget would he establish
for such a residence, including its out-client
facilities?
The Minister has opened a rehabilitation
office in Windsor with a staff of two, open
over a period of eight months, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. and closed probably on Saturday
and almost certainly on Sunday. I wonder
how much this office costs, or has cost for the
eight-month period? It must be remembered
that many of the released prisoners who have
problems are working during the daytime
and cannot go to the rehabilitation office.
Secondly, problems often arise during the
non-working hours when the rehabilitation
office is closed. Thirdly, many ex-prisoners
associate the rehabilitation office with the
government and with the whole prison
system-
Mr. J. H. Wliite (London South): Very
sound Conservative point of view.
Mr. Burr —and they prefer to go to St.
Leonard's house for advice.
Mr. White: You have there a good argu-
ment against socialism.
Mr. Burr: I am very pleased to see the
member for London South present and in
good humour tonight; in good voice too.
Let me give you a very brief look at the
1966 statement of income and expenses. The
income from grants of various kinds was
$29,000; contributions, $20,000-1 am using
round figures— and other income, which in-
cludes the $2 per day payment that the guests
MAY 28, 1968
3509
are expected to make, $6,000, for a total of
$55,000. I wonder how much one would
expect to pay for 12 workers on the staff,
seven of them full-time and five others who
are probably part-time volunteers? St. Leon-
ard's house paid $34,522 for this staff of, let
me repeat, seven full-time and five other
workers. Their total expenditures came to
$55,600, so that they had a deficit of almost
$600.
Mr. White: Best NDP speech I have ever
heard.
Mr. Burr: In the next year, 1967—
An Hon. member: Now wait till you hear
the rest.
Mr. Burr: With the increase in business,
their full-time staff increased to ten. So
their salaries increased to $45,000, and if you
figure out the average salary, it is nothing for
us to be proud of. Their total budget in-
creased to $75,000.
St. Leonard's house needs a grant from
The Department of Reform Institutions of
$15,000 or $20,000, and I claim that St.
Leonard's house deserves such a grant and
heaven knows it has earned such a grant.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I hope
the member for London South heard that.
Mr. Burr: He will support me, I am sure.
The Minister has been given a splendid
opportunity by St. Leonard's house to estab-
lish a model for a chain of, what I call half-
way in, as well as half-way out, homes in
Ontario. I will explain a half-way in later,
I hope. This would go far towards reducing
our institutional population in Ontario and
would eliminate the necessity for building
many of the new institutions now in the plan-
ning stage.
St. Leonard's house is now doing almost
the same kind of work as the John Howard
and Elizabeth Fry societies, but unfortunately
it is not receiving the grants received by these
other two societies for the some kind, or
virtually the same kind, of service. I appeal
to the Minister— wherever he is; oh, there he
is, I am glad to see that the Minister is tak-
ing a different view of matters tonight— I
appeal to the Minister to give St. Leonard's
house a meaningful generous grant instead of
the meagre $10,000 which they are hoping
for. Do not force them to dissipate their
energies in time-consuming fund-raising acti-
vities, frittering away the time and talent of
useful people.
If the Minister would give financial backing
to privately organized groups such as this
one, he would achieve several desirable ob-
jectives including, first, saving young lives
from permanent disaster, secondly involving
the community in this humanitarian work, and
thirdly saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot keep
to the suggested 20 minutes introduction,
because my remarks will deal almost entirely
with the philosophy of corrections rather than
with details of the individual items in the
vote. So even though I take longer now, I
will take very little time later.
Mr. Chairman, to return to my theme,
which could be summed up as "less incarcera-
tion, more probation," it is generally agreed
that young oflFenders are the products of
homes or families or parents that can be des-
cribed by the word inadequate. Occasionally
the inadequacy may take the form of over-in-
dulgence, which is a misunderstanding of the
true meaning of parental love. Usually, how-
ever, a broken home, parental indifference,
apathy, or neglect forms the background of
the young offender.
Many authorities look deeper and place the
blame on the whole fabric and framework of
society. However, whatever the direct or in-
direct cause may be, it is recognized that the
young offender has come into conflict with
his community. He has come into conflict with
the rules and laws that govern society. He
has begun to reject society and society has
begun to reject him, and the youth is in
trouble. Somehow the home, the school, the
church, and the community have failed him,
and he had failed them. And he is on the
brink of disaster. He faces a sentence in court,
and that worst of all possible labels, the word
"criminal."
It is my belief that even at this desperate
point in the young offender's life, it is not
too late to save him. I believe that there are
enough concerned citizens, kind hearted
people, willing to devote much of their time
and talent to the task of reintegrating this
young offender into society— if not into his
own community, then into some other— and to
the task of rehabilitating him, if not within
his own family, then outside of it. And what
better place than in a half-way house with a
residential rehabilitation programme in the
community, and involving the community?
The sole purpose of imprisoning lawbreak-
ers, Mr. Chairman, used to be, in more primi-
tive times, the punishment of the offender.
Later a second reason advanced was that the
imprisonment of one offender would act as a
v510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deterrent to others. Today we justify im-
prisonment on different grounds. We say
that it is necesary in order to protect society
from the anti-social behaviour of the offender.
In recent years, we have seen many worthy
efforts made by such societies as the EHzabeth
Fry and John Howard, to give the released
prisoner a helping hand as he tries to re-enter
society. Yet the odds are four to one that he
will soon be back in prison either because he
still rejects society, and /or because society
still rejects him.
The expression, "He walked out of prison a
free man," is one of the most shallow and un-
true observations ever made by one human
about another. I believe it is fair to say that
all civilized governments now proclaim re-
habilitation of the prisoner and protection
of society as the two objectives in sentencng
offenders to prison. In actual practice, how-
ever, the young offender, when released, is
usually more confirmed in his hostile attitude
towards society than he was when he first
entered the prison. Therefore, society is not
better protected, it is even more vulnerable
because the amateur offender is in many in-
stances now well on his way to becoming a
professional criminal. The gap between him
and society has not been narrowed, it has
been widened.
In most instances, the sentence to prison
has failed in both its objectives— it has not
protected society except, of course during the
time of the prisoner's incarceration, and it has
not rehabilitated the prisoner. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, because the sentencing of young
offenders to prison or an institution, any insti-
tution, is a failure to be used only as a last
resort, let us try somethng else before we push
this fellow over the brink with a millstone
labelled "criminal" around his neck.
This "something else," I suggest, is a half-
way in home to match the half-way out
home. We now have St. Leonard's house
and other half-way houses to which the more
fortunate prisoners on their way out of prison
are helped in their efforts to re-enter society.
Let us promote the organization of half-way
in houses a chance and perhaps a last chance,
offender a chance and perhaps a last chance,
but at least a genuinely good chance, to come
to terms with society before the indelible
brand "criminal" is placed upon him.
In this way, Mr. Chairman, we shall be
helping to save an unfortimate human being,
and to the degree that we are successful, we
shall at the same time be helping to save
and protect society. We shall be achieving
the two objectives which we are trying to
achieve but failing to achieve under our pres-
ent method of sentencing young offenders
holus-bolus to institutions.
The hon. L. T. Pennell, in a recent speech,
said:
It is a contradiction in terms to talk
about training men to accept responsibility
in a free society by confining them in a
place of captivity. In prison, we expect a
prisoner to be completely passive and
obedient while in the community we ex-
pect him to be responsible and self-
sufficient.
To imprison an offender in a Canadian peni-
tentiary costs the taxpayers, as far as I can
ascertain, about $3,500 per year. This is not
the complete cost. In addition, in the case of
a married man, his family may be added to
the welfare rolls and, while we pay out
thousands of dollars to imprison him, we may
pay several more to support his family.
There is also the loss in productivity to
the province and to the nation. We, as tax-
payers, are paying to keep many men in idle-
ness, whereas they might be out in society
on probation, not only earning their own liv-
ing, but even sharing and reducing the com-
mon tax burden.
Mr. Chairman, Canada cannot afford to
have the largest prison population per capita
in the world. It simply is not good business.
We cannot afford to operate crime schools
where our young offenders' amateur inclina-
tions will become professional realities. We
cannot afford to graduate them, to recapture
them, and to send them back to a crime col-
lege for a post-graduate course. We must
keep as many of our offenders, young and
old, out of prison, for no better reason, if
you wish, than to lower our taxes and in-
crease our production.
I will tear out some of the pages that the
Minister has saved me the trouble of in-
flicting upon you. It has been said, Mr. Chair-
man, by the way that it treats its offenders,
now that Canada has the greatest prison
population per capita in the world. And that
80 per cent of released prisoners return to
prison, having failed to adjust to society. If
this is true, there is something terribly wrong
about our penal system.
The work being done by the various half-
way houses in helping offenders enter society
cannot be praised too warmly. But, Mr.
Chairman, their work is done after the
offender has had months or years of prison
life, during which almost all contact with
other human beings have tended only to
widen the gap between him and society.
MAY 28, 1968
3511
How much better it would be if half-way
houses could help these offenders before
they were sentenced to prison. The offender
would not be handicapped by the deteriora-
tion of spirit that must inevitably result from
incarceration. Nor would they be forever
haunted by the spectre of the criminal record
which threatens to materialize out of thin
air at any time, either while the offender is
seeking employment, or after he has obtained
it and is making a successful comeback to
society.
The 1966 report of the Minister of Re-
form Institutions devotes two lines to the
subject of probation, and they appear on
page 94. I believe that the 1967 report says
the same, two lines on page 103, showing
that in Ontario out of some 51,000 sentenced,
2,3.55 were released from jail on probation,
while 10,900 were placed in institutions.
Contrast this wdth the whole of United
States, as described in the task force report
"Corrections," the President's commission of
law enforcement and justice administration,
on page 27, which begins with these words:
"Slightly more than half of the offenders
sentenced to correctional treatment were
placed on probation." Slightly more than half,
and I have the figures here, it is 53 per cent.
I mentioned earlier that the young
offender facing sentence—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): I wonder if you might read that
last sentence again, I did not hear it.
Mr. Burr: Is there difficulty with the mike.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I really should
have stayed where I belonged. I cannot hear
as well down here.
Mr. Burr: I am sorry. One of our members
wants you to come back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I will do that.
Mr. Burr: I thought that you would be
glad to know that they cared.
The words, Mr. Chairman, were: "Slightly
more than half of the offenders sentenced to
correctional treatment in 1965 were placed
on probation," and then a dash "—supervision
in the community subject to the authority of
the court."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is that from?
Mr. Burr: This is from the task force
report, "Corrections." It is the President's—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I read that report; I
do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but,
perhaps— you see, I cannot understand that,
because when a person is put on probation,
it is in place of going into a correctional
institution. That is why I am a little puzzled
at this.
Mr. Burr: The figures, Mr. Chairman— and
I am not—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is not the
figures. It is the fact regarding being in a
correctional institution and allowed out on
probation, I do not understand that.
Mr. Burr: I have the figures, but not the
supporting background. This is what it says.
There are three headings. The first heading is
"location of offender," and under that it
says "probation," and the number is 684,000,
and the percentage is 53.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Who wrote
that?
Mr. Burr: It is in the report for the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Mr. Singer: Who prepared it for you?
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
He prepared it himself, of course.
Boy! We do not have any ghost writers
in the NDP.
Mr. Martel: We heard your ghost writer's
report this afternoon.
Mrs. M. Renwick: He is an articulate
gentleman.
Mr. Singer: Keep talking.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, I have no ghost
writers, I have no researchers. I summoned
this in the library myself.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the member
should be afforded the courtesy of continuing
his opening remarks.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I did not
hear you this afternoon.
May I just draw to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. member for London
South did not make any objection when the
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), spoke for
an hour and a half. He did not make any
objection when the member for Etobicoke
3512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(Mr. Braithwaite), spoke for an hour. But
suddenly, the member for London South is
aware of an agreement which has not been
kept, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. White: On a point of order. I most
certainly have objected to the lengthy
speeches from the member for Sudbury. And
I certainly did object when the member for
High Park was absent all afternoon when the
speeches of the Minister and the Liberal critic
were given, in view of the fact that this
gentleman has set himself up once again as a
self-appointed expert in this field. I am
shocked that he would not be in his place.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside has the floor. Please proceed.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, if I am not out
of order-
Mr. Chairman: You are out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: If I have survived Judge
Parker, I will survive Eric Dowd and the
member for London South.
Mr. Chairman: May I bring to the atten-
tion of the members that, in the committee,
the affairs are conducted by a Chairman, I
think.
An hon. member: The member for Sudbury
is so innocent.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Does he mean
to insinuate that you are going to tolerate
such diabolical nonsense from anyone quite
so insignificant as him?
Mr. Chairman: May I ask the member if
he does?
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
thank all the hon. members for giving me this
brief respite. I was beginning to wonder if
my voice would last, but I feel revived now,
and I thank them all.
If the member for Downsview would like
to read this and interpret it, I would be very
glad to let him have it afterwards. I interpret
it as meaning what it says, that is all. I will
read it a third time.
I just took the quotation from the Presi-
dent's commission on law enforcement and
administration cf justice, page 27. The authors
of this report say— and I am going to give
it a third time, and probably a fourth or a
fifth, if necessary— I quote: "Slightly more
than half of the offenders sentenced to cor-
rectional treatment."
Now I do not suppose that means to
institutions. That is my interpretation. You
may differ.
In 1965, in the United States-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
going to get up to apologize.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it was my fault.
It just occurred to me that in the President's
report they were referring to those areas
where there is probation after sentence. And
probably this is what the hon. member is
referring to.
Mr. Burr: The hon. Minister was in a poor
position for hearing and I accept his apology
with pleasure.
To continue— I mentioned earlier, Mr.
Chairman, that the young offender who is
facing sentence has begun to reject society
and society has begun to reject him. Simi-
larly, the released prisoner or the paroled
prisoner usually finds that he is not ready to
accept society and/or society is not ready
to accept him.
Part of the secret— and this is important-
part of the secret of the success of half-way
houses, such as St. Leonard's, in Windsor, lies
in the fact that increasing numbers of mem-
bers of the community are being involved in
helping the offenders to re-enter society.
If you remember, I read the number of
directors, there were 25, I believe. The
advisory board is 17, and that included,
incidentally— the hon. Minister would be
interested to know— the venerable Archdeacon
M. C. Davies, who is an advisory member of
the Minister's; he is one of the advisory
members of St. Leonard's house.
The secret of success lies in the fact that
increasing numbers of members cf the com-
munity are being involved in helping the
offenders to re-enter society. If members of
all communities could be involved in forming
what I call half-way in houses— I do not
know whether this is my term or someone
else's.
This would be for the young offender who
is destined for some kind of institution and
it would be a half-step in, and we would
hope that he would not take the rest of the
step. By forming half-way in houses, which
would permit judges to suspend or withhold
more sentences and to try more supervised
MAY 28. 1968
3513
probation, it seems certain that even greater
successes would be possible. The probationer
would not have become handicapped by the
damaging effects of serving a term in prison.
In other words, it should be easier, much
easier, to save a youth by putting him on
probation than by sending him through
prison or jail and then trying to save him.
We are handicapping those who are attempt-
ing the rescue. As a matter of fact, a sub-
committee of the board of directors of St.
Leonard's house, Windsor, has been working
on what they call the youthful offenders
project. This committee is planning a home
for up to 20 young men from 16 to 20
years of age and the purpose of this home is
to provide a place other than a penal institu-
tion to which young offenders could be sent.
The name of this home is Northfields youth
treatment centre, and plans for a programme
of treatment are already being carefully
worked out.
The programme committee consists of an
increasing number of professionals and lay-
men from many walks of life in the Windsor
area. It has the blessing of local magistrates
and it is one of the most exciting ventures of
this kind being undertaken in Ontario at the
present time.
How much better it would be, Mr. Chair-
man, if instead of pouring millions of dollars
into more jails and penitentiaries and other
prison institutions, Canada and Ontario would
spend a fraction of this amount in giving
generous grants to private organizations who
are willing to donate their time and their
talents to this most commendable work.
The Minister may say that if such private
groups are formed, the grants will be forth-
coming. I am convinced that there are enough
people who would join such groups. I believe
there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of men
and women in Ontario who, at this moment,
have no thought or any awareness of such
work, who would become interested if they
knew the problem and if they were persuaded
that there is a solution. How can these people
be reached? The answer is by enthusiasts or
zealots, if you like.
We have an enthusiast in Windsor in the
person of the Reverend Neil Libby, the guid-
ing force behind both St. Leonard's house in
Windsor and St. Leonard's society of Canada.
Perhaps the Minister himself is or could
become another enthusiast and perhaps the
Minister knows of other people who could
play this role.
Earher, I commended the Minister on his
good attendance in the House. Perhaps I was
wrong in doing this. Perhaps the Minister
should be travelling up and down Ontario,
selling this idea of youthful offender treatment
centres that private groups would initiate and
operate and The Department of Reform
Institutions would back financially.
If the Minister does not fancy himself as a
crusader, let him find a couple more Father
Libbys and turn them loose with one purpose
—to increase probation and reduce incarcera-
tion. I have not come across the figures for
Ontario, but the following figures for Canada
as a whole should give us pause:
In 1958, when Canada's prison population
was 98 per 100,000, that of Holland was only
16; 98 for Canada, 16 for Holland.
In 1953, Sweden, with population of seven
million had only 91 persons committed for
terms of two years or longer.
I would explain, Mr. Chairman, I got these
figures out of a book. I cheated a httle on
those. Would you let the member for Downs-
view know?
I have said enough about that, and for the
benefit of the member for London South I
explained that because of— oh, he is gone so
I need not explain it. What I have to say
deals with the philosophy of reforms and not
the individual details of the votes; that is why
I am taking my time now and letting others
have it later.
Let us go back one step, in our efforts to
reduce the number of young offenders. There
are many organizations doing good work in
this regard— the children's aid societies, the
family court, the various service clubs and
churches. But there is one place, however,
where potential offenders can be identified
and predicted at an early age. That is in the
school, even in the nursery and kindergarten.
Every school should have one staff member
—and I hope this is getting into The Depart-
ment of Education field. I think it is tied in
inevitably and inextricably with the whole
philosophy that I am discussing.
In every school there should be one staff
member sufficiently trained to recognize, not
to treat, but to recognize these potential
offenders and every school board should have
a sufficient number of psychologists or psy-
chiatrists or both to provide the necessary
treatment and family counselling that would
go with it.
In the school system the whole philosophy
of grading by examination results, and the
effect upon a child of being branded as a
failure in school, should be reviewed to see
to what extent this lays the foundation to
3514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what is usually termed teenage delinquency.
If we are to be successful in reducing the
ninnbers of young offenders, we must go
back one more step and find out what pro-
duces these young misfits of five and six in the
first place.
Very few would deny that tlie cause lies
in an inadequate family environment. So the
question is, what produces or causes inade-
quate parents? And the answer to this, of
course, is a complex one, but one cause is the
fact that some parents have too many chil-
dren for their resources; whether their
resources be financial or emotional, or intel-
lectual, or a combination of those. The aver-
age parents can probably cope with two or
diree children. Below average parents can
probably cope adequately with one or two
children.
In India the current slogan is "a small fam-
ily is a happy family". Perhaps here the
reference is to the financial resources of the
parents. One partial solution, on which I shall
not dwell, is of course the guaranteed family
income or full employment through economic
planning. Even if there were no financial
problems for any Canadian family there would
still be a great need for an approach which is
just now being initiated in some of our
schools.
Let me say briefly that most married
couples approach their task of raising a fam-
ily, or simply creating a satisfying marriage,
without any advice, without any instruction,
without any training or counselling of am'
significance. Certain private organizations are
organizing marriage counselling classes and
these are commendable programmes. How-
ever, the place where all or almost all future
parents can be reached and given meaningful
and valuable ideas is in the schools. In other
words, the prevention of crime could begin
in our educational system.
There is a vicious circle of unwise and
often hurried marriages— then unwanted chil-
dren, then rejected children, then young
offenders, social misfits, and again unfortu-
nate marriages. And the circle repeats itself
almost inevitably.
Now the best hope— perhaps the only hope
—of breaking this vicious circle, lies in edu-
cation for family life. And our educational
system gives training for virtually every type
of trade or profession or occupation. We
have training for physicians, training for
nurses, plumbers, lawyers, almost every voca-
tion, except that of parenthood or marriage.
The one trade, the one vocation, that almost
every pupil is going to follow.
The great majority of pupils who are now
in our schools will get married and most of
them will have families. And most of these
will instinctively model their behaviour on
the behaviour of their own parents. This may
be all very well when the models are good,
but amongst those who have had inadequate
parents and unfortunate family environments,
it is quite likely that the mistakes of one gen-
eration of parents wdll be repeated by their
children, who become the next generation of
parents.
I would just hke to suggest four objectives
in this family life education programme. They
are by no means definitive, but just to follow
this train of thought I would suggest these
four objectives.
1. Knowledge and appreciation of the im-
portance of the family and of the responsi-
bilities of each member to his own family,
and to the family that he may establish in
later years.
2. Development of standards of values as
a basis for making decisions.
3. Appreciation of the importance of whole-
some human relationships. For example,
parent/child, boy /girl, youth/community.
4. Understanding of sex and its importance
in human behaviour, and tlie methods by
which this should be taught. I would suggest
seminars, panels, group discussions in the
class room, debates, essays, films and profes-
sional guest speakers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman— and the
member for London South has not returned
yet, he would be very happy at this point—
I ask the Minister to use his influence in four
ways. First, to have the probation system
extended as rapidly as possible in Ontario by
throwing his full support behind what I have
called the "half-way in" houses.
Second, to have the parole system extended
as rapidly as possible in Ontario by full sup-
port of what I call the "half-way out" homes.
Third, to have, or to encourage, community
involvement in both these projects; and
fourth, to have family hfe included as a sub-
ject of major importance in the curriculum
of our school system.
Mr. Chairman: I believe that we can take
votes 1901 and 1902.
Order!
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, will the Minister reply?
Mr. Chairman: I was just trying to infonn
the committee that I think we should take
MAY 28. 1968
3515
the votes item by item. Is this agreeable to
the members of the committee? All right;
at least the first two votes in any event.
Vote 1901, item 1. The member for High
Park on item 1, salaries.
Mr. Shulman: I hope that I will not wan-
der too far from the field here on salaries,
Mr. Chairman— I hope I am correct here,
though if there is some other vote this should
be discussed on, I would be glad to— I believe
under salaries we should discuss this fine new
bill, which the Minister produced yesterday.
I would hke to make just a brief comment on
that bill.
The Liberal Opposition last week pointed
out to the government that all the fine legisla-
tion that comes from the government is taken
from speeches which they had made some
three years previously, and so I thought that
it would be interesting to see from whose
speech this particular bill came. And we
looked back three years through all the
Liberal speeches and could not find it. Very
confused we finally went back to 1962, be-
cause this particular department takes a little
longer to read the Liberal speeches, and we
found John Wintermeyer, way back on March
20, 1962, proposed this very bill. And-
Mr. Singer: He had some very good ideas.
Mr. Shulman: —it is interesting to see
where the progressive thoughts come from.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
was a 35-page speech which was written by
someone in the school of social work.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The member for
High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I woidd just
like to read one paragraph out of his speech,
because it so nicely sums up the bill which—
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): I was under
the impression that after we had the intro-
ductory messages by all three speakers, that
we would delve into the estimates and pro-
vide information to all members of the House.
I did not think that the purpose of the esti-
mates was to read into the records. I was
under the impression that this was the oppor-
tunity to give information to the members of
the House.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the members to
stick with the estimates that are before us.
At the same time if they have information
that is relevant to the vote, there is no reason
why it cannot be introduced. This is the
main office vote, vote 1901, and I would
expect die member for High Park will stick
to the main oflBce vote.
Mr. Shulman: Stick to the main oflBce vote;
and I understand that it has meant, at least
since I have been around here these few
months, no limitation on what we say as long
as it is relevant to the particular vote.
I would like to quote Mr. Wintermeyer,
just to get this on the record, and just so we
know where tliis bill came from.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: It is quite all right; I have
all night. If you have all night you can wait.
An hon. member: Stop wasting time over
there.
Mr. Shulman: John Wintermeyer at that
time suggested that it was time that Ontario
moved up into the 20th century. He sug-
gested that they look at British Columbia
where there is a fine place which had
adopted many of these suggestions, called
Haney.
If I may quote:
Contact with the family is encouraged.
The staff hold regular informal meetings
with the family until the inmate is paroled
or released. Other visitors to the prisoner
are encouraged, including those offering
services such as alcholics anonymous, the
Salvation Army, trade and advisory com-
mittees, and athletic teams.
And if I may interject, the reason I am put-
ting this on the record is because other ma-
terial, which wiU come out later in the votes,
will indicate that this is perhaps not the
policy in Ontario. I continue:
The trade training programme is im-
proved by volunteer citizens advisory com-
mittees drawn from labour, management
and education. The institutions also are
recognized field work agencies for the
school of social work and the department
of physical education of the University of
British Columbia.
The local high schools night courses in
vocational training have been made avail-
able to inmates. Once a week, the institu-
tions send men outside the institutions to
Vancouver to visit the John Howard soci-
ety, because the Vancouver branch of that
society does not have the money to provide
a field service worker to go to the institu-
tions. Inmates are encouraged to register
with the local office of the national em-
3516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ployment service, but they find employ-
ment during their last two months before
discharge, and it is possible for them to
work during the day and return to the
prison at night.
I am always pleased to find the Minister does
take the progressive thoughts from the Lib-
erals, but because I do not want the Liberals
to get too excited about this, some four pages
further on I would like to read-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): When you
speak we never get excited.
Mr. Singer: I never get excited.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to read one
further paragraph-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: You sound like a Tory.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I am quoting
now the member for York South, who was
commenting on the fine ideas of Mr. Winter-
meyer—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! If we had fewer
interjections we could proceed better. Order!
Mr. Shulman: If I might quote, Mr.
Chairman:
If we come back to this part of the
country, Mr. Chairman, all we need to do
is recall the name of that Agnes McPhail
who inspired the committee that lead to
the Archambault report and led the fight,
Mr. Chairman, in the federal House of
Commons and here in this Legislature, for
a modern penal reform programme.
When I came into this House, Mr. Chairman,
I was proud to be able to continue the tra-
dition of this party and to fight against this
government and its archaic policy while the
Liberal Party sat silent for 10 years.
An hon. member: Let him talk!
Mr. Shulman: They were not only sitting
silently, but I have listened to them support
this government. For example, when this
government prides itself on the excessive use
of the strap, from the former Prime Minister,
Mr. Frost, down, I have listened to members
from the Liberal Party cheer the Prime Min-
ister on.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber is reading into the records something
that really was simply out of order when
it was originally presented in 1962. I am
not particularly objecting to him taking
part in the debate in this way, but I cannot
see the point in raising all this old stuff that
was useless in 1962.
Mr. Chairman, if I might continue on the
point of order, the hon. leader of the NDP
is still sitting as the leader of the third party
here and he can make the same speech again
himself, surely, if he wants to.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is simply
this. They get their ideas from us and then
ten years later the government gets it from
them.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was prepared to
listen to see what connection this had to the
estimates. The hon. member got up on his
feet and said he was discussing the bill I
had introduced yesterday. With all due
respect, sir, I would suggest that when this
bill comes up for second reading, that is the
time to discuss it.
It will probably come up tomorrow or the
day after and we will have to go over this
debate all over again. I see no point in dis- ;
cussing the bill at this time.
Mr. Chairman: Order. As the Minister has
intimated he has been doing, he had been
listening to the member for High Park to I
try to relate his remarks to this estimate and '
particularly to the bill that the member
referred to in the first instance. So far, there ,
has been no reference on the point of order
that has been raised. I think the member is :
simply reading into the records speeches that |
have been made by previous members of '
many years ago, and they have no relevance ;
to this particular vote. I would ask the mem- \
ber to get back to vote 1901 if he would, i
please. ]
i,
Mr. Shulman: I have not completed that
portion of my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I j
would like to come up to date— \
Mr. Singer: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if i
they would tell us about Bill Grummett— j
one-time CCF leader! ■
Mr. Chaii-man: Order! j
Interjections by hon. members. \
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair- J
man, on a point of order, can we talk about 1
the estimates? A lot of money is going to |
pass here. I
MAY 28. 1968
3517
Mr. Chairman: The Chauinan has just ruled
and instructed the member for High Park
and that is that. There is no further point of
order. The member for High Park.
Mr. Sargent: I would humbly suggest you
make sure he does it, sir.
Mr. Chairman: I will do my best.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come up to
the policy of the department of present time,
I am talking now on vote 1901, salaries. I
am referring to a book, "Society Behind Bars,"
by Dr. W. E. Mann, who was a chaplain in
one of the reformatories. I am referring to
page 147 which is not referring to a specific
reformatory, but is referring to policy of the
department, and the staff which they hire.
I would like to read his explanation of the
problems that they have with salary and
with staff and may I say that this was done as
a result of some years' work in the institution.
I quote:
Broadly speaking, the major initial
obstacles reflecting substantial changes in
correctional policy in Ontario lies in the
provincial Cabinet's long standing disin-
terest in the subject. It is also not surpris-
ing that few, if any, of its members are
very conversant with the major fields of
penology, and do not permit significant
changes.
This is, of course, to be expected from
a man whose party is conservative, and a
group in which business and legal inter-
ests are most prominent. Businessmen are
not generally noted for liberal sentiments
or programmes and lawyers are generally
conditioned to accept the conventional and
formalistic approach of the legal apparatus,
including the punitive aspect. Secondly,
The Department of Reform Institutions is
low in the status hierarchy of departments,
partly because it is believed that a policy
of aggressive prison reform is hardly cal-
culated to gain votes at the next election.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Come on, be honest!
Mr. Shulman: Sure. I am delighted to have
just been informed that he is now an NDP
candidate, which shows that progressive
thinkers come together ultimately.
Mr. MacDonald: Another expert in the
field of penal reform.
Mr. Singer: Tell us some more about your
leader Grummett.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: May I say, Mr. Chairman, I
did not have the pleasure of meeting Gnun-
mett and I am not sure what the member
is referring to.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl
Mr. Martel: Will the member for Downs-
view tell us about the great coalition which
took place in Timmins?
Mr. Shulman: If I may continue, Mr.
Chairman:
Sometimes the department is regarded
as a potential powder keg and it is feared
that a political scandal will blow up and
may deter some good men from attempting
such a Cabinet post. It is a difficult post to
fill. At times appointments have been made
for political reasons and not because of a
particularly strong man being available.
I go on to a further paragraph:
It must be added that if a Cabinet Min-
ister honestly desires to update the Ontario
prison system and makes plans to proceed
with some penalogical practices, he will
meet substantial difficulty within his depart-
ment.
First, as in other departments, he is
forced to rely heavily upon his Deputy for
detailed implementation of policy, particu-
larly if he has, as is very common, little
expertise or understanding of the field. In
addition, he has to depend upon the
Deputy for much of his understanding and
appreciation of prison wardens and other
such officials. The Deputies in Ontario have
typically been men who rose from the
lower ranks, they have numerous and inti-
mate relationships-
Mr. Sopha: What is wrong with that? I
rose from the ranks.
Mr. Shulman: I will refrain from answering
that question, Mr. Chairman, out of kindness:
They have numerous and intimate rela-
tionships with persons at the higher levels
of the department, of bureaucracy and for
various reasons tend strongly to a custo-
dial orientation.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
What is the department of bureaucracy?
Mr. Shulman: To continue:
In their public appearances and state-
ments, tliey often appear to favour rehabili-
tation programmes, but such expressions
3518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are, in practice, usually hedged about by
significant qualifications and reservations.
In general, they accept reform proposals
provided they upset the status quo in a
minimal fashion. By these means, they are
open principally to superficial or patch-
work adjustments.
In effect then, the problem is that a
Cabinet Minister not only tends to see the
administration of his department through
the eyes of his Deputy, but is obligated,
however unwillingly, to accept much of
his advice, especially on the nature and
the pace of changes in correctional pohcy.
If he finds it unacceptable and fires the
Deputy, he must simultaneously or shortly
fire many of the other top administrators
and immediately try to find trained persons
to fill their positions.
Clearly, this would be no enviable task
and might well bring unfavourable publicity
to the department and also appear to the
Cabinet as a threat to votes in the next
election.
Mr. Chairman: Is tlie member going to
relate this to salaries?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I will, if you are patient.
Mr. Chairman: Are you at the end of the
book or in the middle?
Mr. Shulman: Just this last:
As long as the present Conservative
administration has power in Ontario, it is
most unlikely that such a course of action
would be followed.
I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that
a large part of the problem lies in the salary
schedule which is paid by this department and
which I will submit to you is too low to
attract men who are going to be competent to
bring in the reforms that are necessary in this
department. And I may sum the whole tiling
up very, very easily, by reading the very
last line in this book:
To ask such men to run a treatment pro-
gramme would be like asking persons of
grade 12 education and some road building
experience to engineer the 12-lane Highway
401 at Toronto.
This is the problem which I wish to raise
under this particular vote, the salary schedule;
and I am referring to salaries of guards, to
assistant superintendents and to superinten-
dents, in fact to every level up to but not
including the Minister, which are too low.
And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
salary schedule should be raised at all levels
with the one exception I pointed out.
Mr. Sopha: What does the member say
about the Ministers now?
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps there could be some
reduction there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I ask the hon.
member, now that he is concerned so much
about how low the salary schedule is, having
taken his research from a book that was
written on the basis of what this man's
experience was eight years ago, what he
thinks the salary schedule should be for, say,
the superintendent of an institution?
Mr. Shulman: Superintendent of a large
institution like Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: I believe it should be a
minimum of $20,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, he is up to
$18,000. I should have said close to $19,000.
The member should have said $50,000, that
would have made it safer.
Mr. Chairman: I would point out this
comes under vote 1904.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, you
have allowed the hon. member to refer to
this book and it consists of a great number of
errors. I do not think it should be allowed.
Mr. Sopha: That is like another book I am
thinking of.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has gone into the
record and quite frankly the excerpts should
not have been allowed to have been read.
They refer to a so-called-
Mr. Sopha: It is called "How to Make a
Million".
Hon. Mr. Grossman:— study this man made
as to the sub-culture in Guelph eight years
ago.
Mr. Sopha: What is "sub-culture"?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: W. F. Mann started
this book about 1960 or 1961, and had a
difficult time getting it published. Finally he
found some obscure publisher to issue a
paperback edition of it, and perhaps the hon.
Minister of University Affairs (Mr. Davis)
could explain it, but as a layman without a
formal education I find it somewhat surpris-
ing. Perhaps this is something that someone
MAY 28, 1968
3519
could discuss under University Affairs and
perhaps my colleague will not appreciate it.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the Minister talk-
ing about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How can a man
become the professor of sociology at a uni-
versity and then order that this book be
required reading, even tliough it was turned
down by everyone because of the inaccuracies
in it, and then turn out a book which is so
patently biased, so politically biased, so par-
tisan, as witness the member's own words;
how anybody should be allowed to teach
young people in a school— I am sorry the
hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. T.
Reid) is not here. I would like to have him
here on this discussion and explain to an
ignorant man like myself just what sort of
training you give to young people when you
teach them with this kind of text. Perhaps
the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pit-
man) can explain it for me.
In the first place, the author of the book
started visiting Guelph reformatory in Febru-
ary of 1960, with the permission of the
Anglican chaplain, to assist with religious
exercises. After a short period of time he
attempted to extend his activities by suggest-
ing he be allowed to conduct a sociological
survey, and more particularly by allowing
Bible classes to develop into beef sessions
against the institution.
Mr. E. A. Winkler: (Grey South): For the
NDP!
Mr. MacDonald: Nothing to do with the
NDP.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was informed, Mr.
Chairman, by the chaplain that he must con-
fine himself to his religious activities and
when he refused to do so he was denied tlie
privilege of administering in the institution
by the senior chaplain. Just to get to some
of these matters which were referred to by
the hon. member, what he did not read-
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no point of
order, let me finish what I have to say.
Mr. Chairman: The member brings up a
point of order. Will the member please state
his point?
Mr. Shulman: The point of order I wish to
raise, Mr. Chairman, is in relation to the re-
marks already made by the Minister; he has
made certain comments alxjut this book, I
think it is only right or in fairness to the man
who wrote it, to point out to you, sir, that the
Reverend F. G. West, director of correctional
chaplaincy, diocese of Toronto, president of
the Canadian correctional chaplains' associa-
tion, vice-president of the Ontario association
of correction and criminology says, and
I quote:
We strongly recommend to all thought-
ful Ontarians who are interested in the
province they live in and to which they
pay the lion's share of their taxes, that they
read this firmly based book with care. They
will find it knowledgeable, informative and
challenging.
Thank you, sir.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that is
not a point of order but I am glad the mem-
l:)er stepped into that. Mr. West has stated
that if he were asked to write that foreword
to the book today he would refuse to do it,
because it is so outdated. I suggest the hon.
member-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is the usual method
of research by the hon. member for High
Park. It would have been an easy thing for
him, as I would do in his case, "Well, now,
maybe this man has changed his mind or
maybe even the introduction to the book is
not authentic." It could happen. It so hap-
pens it is authentic, but if he had called Mr.
West just to make sure before he got up in
the House and made the statement, just to
check because he is going to make a charge-
Mr. MacDonald: Why should he do that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because he is going
to make a charge here and he is going to
document it.
Mr. MacDonald: Where did Mr. West say
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, let
those members-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
just read one more quotation from this book
which I think the hon. member forgot to
mention. Right through this book it is shot
with many statements such as "Conservative
3520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
governments" with a capital "C"; he was not
saying it with a small "c".
Mr. Sopha: The Minister is not ashamed
of that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, of course not.
The hon. member might have mentioned to
some of the hon. members who come from
the rural areas, is the other paragraph in here.
"Regions and nations dominated politically
by Conservative or rural and peasant parties
uphold a punitive and custodial orientation."
Why does the hon. member not tell his
colleagues who are from rural areas what
this man thinks about people from the rural
areas? I do not think I will carry on anymore
with this man's book. I will give it as much
attention as it deserves— absolutely none!
Mr. MacDonald: Give us your source—
where did Mr. West say that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not as brilliant
as the member for York South either.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: This vote has been increased,
Mr. Chairman, from $847,000 in salaries to
$1,378,000, an increase of approximately $.5
million. Will the Minister advise what the
increase is for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This increase to the
main office staff is mainly due to taking over
county and city jails. We naturally require
a larger main office staff to look after the
additional 37 institutions.
Mr. Sargent: I do not understand this. You
are not having any more institutions. The
county jails were being paid before.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
had a difficult time with the hon. member in
other years in estimates. I am attempting to
explain that the county and city jails were
not under our department. All we did was
pay them 10 per cent of their maintenance
costs. Now, in taking them over bodily, if I
may use that expression-
Mr. Sargent: How many?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thirty-five and two
city jails.
Mr. Sargent: Well, $500,000 increases for
35 jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no, this is only
for the main office staff required to admin-
ister the additional responsibilities of 37 or j
more institutions, and their 900 or more staflF.
Mr. Sargent: Where are you picking up
the balance in the grant then? j
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: All right, down in this section j
they have $600,000 grants to county and city ]
jails. What is that for— in section 9 of the !
first vote? '
Mr. Chairman: Could we deal with— I
Mr. Sargent: No, just a moment now, I
want to find out. He says that the increased ;
cost of $.5 million is for the taking over of i
county jails. Now, if you are going to assume
all the cost of county jails, where does the
balance of the moneys come from? What
vote? \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: Then what is the $600,000 i
for? !
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The $600,000 is for j
our share of the maintenance, which is usually \
calculated in the current year on the basis
of what your expenses were in the past year.
So we will owe that.
Item one agreed to. i
On item 2.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, we are up
200 per cent in travelling expenses. Why is
that? \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The increase— where
do you get 200 per cent?
i
Mr. Sargent: The item is $145,000 now,
and it was $41,000 prior.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was $105,000 prior, \
according to my record here. I
Mr. Sargent: On page S (X) 5, in the book I
here. Look on page S5, under W7, $41,000. \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has the hon. member \
got before him the estimates of 1967 and i
1968?
Find the public accounts— the public ac-
counts last year; this item showed $105,000.
I have it in front of me. Main office salaries
and traveUing expenses, $105,000, and our
estimate for the coming year is $145,000.
That is accounted for to cover new courses
and conferences for staff training, and also
additional staff in the main office. We are
MAY 28, 1968
3521
going to require, as I mentioned in my open-
ing remarks, more training for the stafiF we
are taking over from the county and city
jails.
Mr. Sargent: I want to thank you for
bringing it to my attention, but here we have
to use three books to find out what you are
talking about.
We have the public accounts for 1967, the
estimates for 1968, and the needs for 1969,
so we have to jump back and forth in three
volumes to find out what you are talking
about. This is the continued intelligence of
the estimates in this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I can
understand the hon. m.ember's concern. This
is not within the purview of my department.
Although I know that The Treasury Depart-
ment and those responsible for drawing up
the method of the estimates have improved
them from year to year. What is, I think
actually happening, is that the member is
confusing the estimates last year with the
amount that is actually expended, which
appears in the public accounts.
Mr. Sargent: I see it now, but you must
agree that for any body of men who sit
together to discuss a $2 billion budget, we
have to jump back and forth from three
different books to find out what is going on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member will
now know the difficulty that I have as a
Minister. Trying to get some of these things
that probably are not even estimates.
Mr. Sargent: Well, knowing your thinking,
I can realize how you have them.
Items 2 and 3 agreed to.
On item 4.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, would this be the travelling ex-
penses of moving prisoners from one prison
to another, or one jurisdiction to another? Or
would this be under 2?
I am trying to discover whether this is the
item of expenses of moving prisoners from
one prison to another.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask the
Minister? There was a little bit of un-
pleasantness at Millbrook a few weeks ago,
and prisoners were taken from Millbrook, all
the way to Sarnia. I am wondering on what
basis this travelling is done so far?
Why would you take them to a jail which
is as far away as that? Why not transfer them
to a closer jail? The item is not a monstrous
item, but I think that it is important to know
the reason.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
asking why we would transfer them so far
away?
Mr. Pitman: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having regard for the
type of prisoner that we were dealing with
at the time, the staff would consider the kind
of security required for this type of prisoner,
and where there was sufficient accommodation
of course.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on this same
subject. Yesterday morning, a group of
prisoners were transferred from Owen Sound
county jail to Burwash, and they will arrive
in Burwash on Thursday night. I do not
know what the course is, but they do pick
up some by bus in Mimico and otiier places
along the way. It seems to me that, number
one, the families involved-
Mr. Chairman: Order! There are too many
private conversations taking place in the
chamber. The Chairman would like to have
a little more silence.
Mr. Sargent: Let them go for a moment
and see what happens. Put their speakers on
for a second and let us hear what they are
saying.
An hon. member: It is all those commis-
sioners in the back row there.
Another hon. member: Will you look at
that? All those well paid commissioners.
Arguing about their salaries.
Mr. Sargent: Try and follow the proceed-
ing, will you, fellows?
The trying thing about this is, Mr. Chair-
man—realizing that you have a harder bit,
when I saw your release in the Globe and
Mail that you are going to try and upgrade
the lot of the prisoner— the families involved
with these prisoners.
When a man is sentenced, a family usually
wants to be near where he is going to be,
but because of the tight security, no one
ever knows where they are, until two or
three weeks later. I think this is a fault in
your department. The wife and family
should be told where the man is being trans-
ferred to, so that they can be near him.
3522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Secondly, I think that in this modem day
of travel, for prisoners to have to 2;o through
Owen Sound, down and take four days to
get to Burwash near Sudbury is rather hard
to take. I think that there is a bit of need—
evtm though they are treated like animals
when they get into your hands— I think that
there should be some kind of respect for
the individiial dignity. Taking them from
camp to camp before they arrive at the
final end.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
resent, of cours(% and deny completely, that
they are treated like animals in our care.
Nobody is treated like an animal in our care.
Mr. Sargent: Did \'ou see the cells in our
jails up there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would agree that
when they are in the jails that the condi-
tions are less than desirable. I have said that,
and on—
Mr. Sargent: And }ou do nothing about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossmr.--: —numerous occasions.
Mr. Sargent: You do nothing about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member was
giving the impression that we, in our reform-
atories and in transferring them to the
reformatories, were treating inmates like ani-
mals, which I deny.
Mr. Sargent: It is all a part of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of the inmates,
but not most of them, travel by Gray Coach.
This is what the axcrage citizen uses— a
Gray Coach type bus. I have been in the
bus myself— tra\ el led in it— and there is
nothing wrong with it at all.
Insofar as allowing the family to wait three
or four weeks, the inmates are not only
entitled to, but they are encouraged to write
the day they arri\'e. I suppose that would be
three or four days, at the very latest. So I
do not know where the hon. member gets
the impression it is three or four weeks
before the family knows where they are.
0])viously we cannot let the family-
Mr. Sargent: It takes them four days to
get there. What else happens?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Three or four days,
that is not three or four weeks. Obviously,
the hon. member must understand that when
we are transferring prisoners, we cannot
advertise to the world, or to anybody for
that matter, that they are en route to a
particular institution. This has to be as
clos(^ly a guarded secret as possible.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4 carried?
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, just one more
question, I find it rather hard to understand
why prisoners will be taken from Millbrook,
which on your chart is "D" maximum security
prison, why they would be taken from that
prison and placed in a county jail where
surely, security would not be as great as it
would be in a maximum security prison.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: A good county jail
would be as good, if not better than the Mill-
brook reformatory as a security institution
Millbrook reformatory is the most maximum
security institution within the reformatory
system, but there is a great deal more free-
d m widiin the reformatory than there is in a
loc.il county jail, which is all maximum
security. One of the problems of the county
fads is that they are geared to the highest
requirement for security whereas the reform-
atories, grnrrally, are the other way around.
Tlutt is why we have one completely maxi-
nnun security institution. So when we trans-
fer them to a county jail, it is for this pur-
pose because that is where there is complete
sccuritv.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4
ried?
Mr. Shuhr.an: No, Mr. Chairman. I would
li.ce to pursue this transferring of prisoners
a little further. ;
The member for Peterborough has already j
pointed out that a few weeks ago, prisoners I
were transferred from Millbrook to Sarnia. ]
Also, this month, we have had prisoners
transferred from Guelph all the way up to ;
North Bay while there was capacity available
in jails in southern Ontario. I would like to \
ask the Minister why in the world he trans- |
feired prisoners to Nortli Bay?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the first place, it is '
quite possible that for the maximmn security
we required for these p<^ople, there was ,
ample accommodation for them in North i
Bay, although, (^uite frankly, Mr. Chairman,
I do not appreciate the fact that the hon. I
nv mhvr has announced here that these par- ]
ticulir people were transferred to a particu- '
lar institution. \
We try to keep this as secure as we pes- 4
sibly can and it is going to be difficult— I 1
know it is going to be difficult for the hon. |
member to do this— but it is important for J
MAY 28, 1968
3523
many of tliese hard core prisoners. It is
going to be very difficult for us to handle
tlieni if, by and large, the public is going to
know where they are being transferred to
from time to time.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4?
Mr. Shulman: Mr, Chairman, I would just
like to point out to you first of all, before I
pursue this matter, that just a few minutes
earlier, the member for Peterborough pointed
out that hard core prisoners had been trans-
ferred from Millbrook to Sarnia. I subse-
quently pointed out that first incarcerated
prisoners had been transferred from Guelph
to North Bay.
I want to point out for the record, Mr.
Chairman, that the Minister took no umbrage
at the mention of the hard core prisoners
being transferred to Sarnia. He did not get
up and protest about that. He found it very,
very upsetting that these boys from Guelph
had been transferred to North Bay. He should
be upset because those boys, when they are
transferred up there, find it difficult to have
their families visit them.
I have had occasion to visit a number of
jails in the last few weeks and I find prison-
ers who live in Toronto, transferred down to
southwestern Ontario; prisoners from south-
western Ontario transferred into the other
areas including the north; and this whole
system appears to be a part of this punitive
poHcy carried out by this department.
When there is capacity for these prisoners
and if you wish to move them to a jail, very
well. But when there is capacity for these
prisoners in a jail near their homes, you are
just being punitive and nothing more in mov-
ing them to an area far from their homes
where they cannot have visitors.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, the hon. member has deliberately ig-
nored what I stated previously— tliat they are
placed in jails for this particular purpose-
where they are being pulled out of a reforma-
tory because there have been behaviour
problems and they were creating disturb-
ances. They are moved to jails where there
is a maximum degree of security and accom-
modation for them, and this is the main
concern at that particular time.
It is not the policy of the department, in
the first place, to transfer them to jails. The
policy of the department, in fact, is to pull
people out of jails as quickly as possible,
quicker than the law heretofore requires, to
get them into the reformatory system be-
cause; we do not like the jail system as it
is being operated. But for this particular
purpose, we move them to jails where there
is the greatest degree of security, and also
having regard for the accommodation
required.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, let us pur-
sue this a little further, then may I ask
the hon. Minister-
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member if
he is dealing with motives or is he dealing
with some specific action?
Mr. Shulman: I am dealing with the travel-
ling and other expenses of bailiffs and
prisoners.
Mr. Chairman: For the sheer allegation of
bad motives, I do not think it really requires—
Mr. Shulman: I am asking a question at
the present time, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
The question I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is
why, when there was capacity in the Hamil-
ton city jail, were only two prisoners of this
group moved to the Hamilton city jail, while
a number were moved up to North Bay and
other prisons?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, of
course, we could go all the way down the
line and I would have to ask my people why
they transferred a particular prisoner to a
particular jail, and why they transferred one
to another. We could go on this way for
hours. I am advised that at the time we
transferred those first ones to North Bay be-
cause there was separate and ample accom-
modation for them in North Bay as against
Hamilton.
If the hon. member wants me to go into the
details of what I mean by separate and so
on, we are getting into technicalities. I think
this is the sort of thing that can be entrusted
to my staff who are concerned about tlie
inmate as well as the security of the public.
It should not concern the hon. member.
Perhaps the ones he wanted transferred to
Hamilton may have people there— but they
came from North Bay originally. So that does
not hold water either.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4.
Mr. Shulman: First of all, Mr. Chairman, to
set the Minister straight. This is not correct
3524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but I want to pursue one other point which
he brought up earHer. I would hke to know,
and you have mentioned this a number of
times in the House, but have not made it
very clear. Perhaps you could explain what
is the security risk in letting the public know
that prisoners are in, for example, North Bay
or Sarnia or any other jail? That is what
the jails are for.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Certainly, Mr. Chair-
man, it does not require too much imagination
on the part of the hon. members of this
House to visualize the implications— to con-
sider the implications in allowing it to be
known, by and large, where you are moving
a hard core, a trouble maker, at a particular
time.
Now, if the hon. member needs to have
this explained to him, I am afraid that it will
be useless trying to, because he obviously is
not going to be convinced. I am sure intelli-
gent members of this Legislature will under-
stand the need for that.
Mr. Shulman: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I
asked the Minister one question and he ans-
wered another. I did not ask why it could
not be announced when they were being
transferred— that is obvious. What I am ask-
ing is that after they have been moved, and
this is the question I have asked in the
House a number of times, why can people
not know where they have gone?
Mr. Chairman: Item 4 agreed to.
On item 5:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
I could ask a question. I read through the
Minister's report and I noticed a number of
advisory councils on the treatment of the
offender— on trade and industry advisory
committees. I imagine this expenditure is in
relation to these advisory committees.
Do these committees make reports to the
Minister on occasion? I understand that under
these headings there are reports. Are these
reports available to members of the Legis-
lature or to any other groups who are
concerned with certain—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All of these reports
are privileged to the Minister or to the de-
partment. I should say that the Minister's
advisory council, when it was set up, I believe
by order-in-council about 1960 or somewhere
around that time, it was on the understanding
that its considerations and its recommenda-
tions would be privileged to the Minister.
As a matter of fact, it has worked very well,
because they have been given a free hand.
They come in with all sorts of recommenda-
tions which they might not do if they were
giving them to the public, and for the public
consumption, and many of their recommen-
dations have been accepted by the Minister
and by this Legislature.
The training schools advisory board, while
it is in the same capacity, works in conjunc-
tion with the department in addition to the
Minister. They also have departmental duties
and they carry them out. They make recom-
mendations to the Minister in respect of
some of the things they find at training
schools. Some changes they recommend are,
from time to time, accepted, sometimes they
are delayed, sometimes they are turned down.
They give their views, and they meet regu-
larly as well.
The trades and industry advisory board,
of course, has been sitting, I think, for about
a year and a half, and they have not come
to any concrete conclusions yet. As a matter
of fact, one of the things that we are sujffer-
ing from at the moment is the fact that the
chairman of the training schools advisory
board has taken on other work, and has asked
us to get another chairman— I should have
said the trades and industries advisory com-
mittee.
We have quite a number of reports from
them but they have not been finalized, and
it is from this committee that we expect to
get a great deal of our knowledge to go
ahead, for example, with our work release
programme, pay for work programmes, and
so on. But these reports are also for the
Minister.
Mr. Pitman: If I may just ask a question
on this point, I can understand the reason
for some of these documents having to be
privileged to the Minister, but I am wonder-
ing. You have a number of eminent people
on these advisory boards. First, does this
make it impossible for them to write, or to
make known, their own feelings about the
reform institutions or the correction institu-
tions in the province. And secondly, is there
any possibility that some of the reports, or
some parts of the reports of these councils
and these committees, could be made avail-
able to the Legislature for the general edu-
cation of the people of this province.
I think there is an educative function in
committees of this nature, as well as a func-
tion of advice to the Minister which, of
course, in some cases must be privileged.
MAY 28. 1968
3525
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I must
admit that I have thought of this from time
to time, but I think it becomes pretty obvious
that if you are going to make public some
portions of the reports, or some reports, there
would also follow from that the imphcation
that there must be some ulterior reason for
not publishing other reports. And I think on
this account it would be, it would militate
against the smooth operation of the board.
I am not too sure that it might not have
been better in the first place to make this
committee not privileged; to have their re-
ports made public. On the other hand, when
I discussed it with the members of the com-
mittee there was a division of opinion there,
because these people are able to debate
things that they would not want to debate,
perhaps, if these debates were publicly
known.
They know that they can go into an institu-
tion and come out with some idea. Then in
further debate at the committee level, after
further investigation, they may find out, per-
haps, they were misinformed about it, or
wrong about it, and they would then feel
badly about their original recommendation
having seen the light of day. All I can say
is that by and large most of their recommen-
dations, as far as I can recall, and they have
been major ones, have been already adopted.
As a matter of fact, the last bill, the one
I presented yesterday, was largely a result of
the recommendations of this committee. The
taking over of the physical operation of the
jail systems across this province was recom-
mended by them. I can say that now because
it is already adopted. And having regard for
all these circumstances, the smooth operation
of this committee would be just as well car-
rying on this way, because it is working well
and we are getting lots of results.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: The member for Peterborough,
I think, has got a very good point. Probably
the advisory committee's suggestions were
given to the Minister five years ago, and your
shortcomings would be noticed if they were
made public. And I think that the Minister
is very suave at these estimates. But through-
out the year in the House we get up to ques-
tion him on his estimates and on his portfolio,
and he is very arrogant. But today you will
see through the estimates that he will be
very suave and polite and agreeable.
Mr. Chairman: Will you get back to the
point.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about the ad-
visory committee. How many people are on
the advisory committee, what are they paid
and how often do they sit, and how long
have you had them in operation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While I am getting
this information, Mr. Chairman, may I say
that I cannot think of a member on this com-
mittee that would stay on it very long if they
saw no reasonable action coming within a rea-
sonable length of time as a result of their
work. They are not interested in attending
regular committee meetings as an exercise in
frustration. They want to see action. They are
getting it. And they are very happy about
the action they are getting. As to this specific
amount they are paid— $35 a meeting. Are
we referring to the Minister's advisory com-
mittee?
Mr. Sargent: I am asking you, sir, who
they are?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which committee are
we referring to?
Mr. Sargent: We are talking advisory now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister's advis-
ory committee?
There are a number of committees. The
Minister's advisory-
Mr. Sargent: We are talking about item 5,
Mr. Chairman, the advisory committee— al-
lowances and expenses.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are talking about
all the committees or are we talking about
the Minister's advisory committee?
Mr. Sargent: Oh, you have more than one?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were just talking
about that. I just mentioned all these matters.
But as to the Minister's advisory committee
for the treatment of offenders, the chairman
gets $50 a day plus traveUing expenses and
the members get $35 a day plus travelling
expenses. The chairman gets $5,000 per year
and acts, in that capacity also, as a consult-
ant. The number of meetings they attend is
two a month. They go up in various parts of
the province.
Mr. Sargent: For $5,000 a year they have
two meetings a month.
3526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is for the chair-
man. He is also a consultant for the depart-
ment in addition to that, because he has a—
Mr. Sargent: That covers a lot of ground.
Hon. Mr. Grossman. He has a long record
in corrections.
Mr. Sargent: Who are these people?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The chairman is the
Reverend Martin W. Pinker. It is right in
your book on page 6. You will see there is a—
Mr. Sargent: I will look it up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a biography
for each one of them. I am sure the hon.
member will be impressed with them.
Mr. Chairman: Item 5?
Mr. Sargent: Did they five years ago recom-
mend the taking over of the county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am afraid to tell
the hon. member that; it would be a contra-
diction of what I just explained to the hon.
member for Peterborough.
Mr. Sargent: I did not get that. What was
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It would be a contra-
diction if I told the hon. member when. In the
first place, I cannot remember when they did
it and even if I did, I do not think I should
divulge that, otherwise I would be contradict-
ing myself. It is better that these things are
privileged to the Minister, so that they can
confide in him and he can confide in them
and respect their recommendations. As a mat-
ter of fact, there are other people who recom-
mended this.
Mr. Sargent: That means you call that
privileged information.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: John Howard recom-
mended—
Mr. Sopha: That is a new constitutional
practice.
Mr. Chairman: Item 5. Items 5 to 7, inclu-
sive, agreed to.
On item 8:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister could explain what these compassion-
ate allowances are to permanently handi-
capped inmates who are wards?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is when an
inmate injures himself in the prison.
Mr. Pitman: In the prison?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the prison as a
result of seme work he is doing in prison.
We then allow the workmen's compensation
board to make a decision as to what the
amount of disability is and what he should
be paid and then we go before the Lieuten-
ant Governor in council and ask for an
award.
Item 8 agreed to.
On item 9:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, five years ago
I stood in this House and I must confess
that I was nervous when I made my maiden
speech. But my theme was built around the
injustice of the county jail and I have never
forgiven the Minister because he took it upon
himself to take me apart and he did a good
job on it. I lost my pitch, my whole point on
this thing and I built—
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You will
get your own back tonight.
Mr. Sargent: And I built what I thought
was a great case for people who could not
defend themselves and you were great— you
made me look like nothing and probably you
can do the same thing again tonight.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I doubt that.
Mr. Sargent: But I want you to hear this,
sir, that tociay I do not give a darn what you
people say. I know what you are doing and
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: I am saying what I think, Mr.
Chairman, I stood in this House and I fought
for a cause and you laughed me down. I
quoted Bill Sands and his bock, "My Shadow
Runs Fast," I quoted that at length and you
made him look like the real crook he used
to be, but today, this man is known in
penology as a shining light in the United
States.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Point of order, Mr.
Chairman. I am pleased to hsten to the hon.
member but not when he puts words in my
mouth. I never made Sands "look like a
crook."
MAY 28, 1968
3527
Mr. Sargent: I will get Hansard and show
you tliat you are not telling the truth.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
would get Hansard and read it-
Mr. Sargent: I certainly will,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And if he turns out
to be correct I will apologize but I am sure
he will find that—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I wish we
could recess the House to get Hansard right
now because he definitely said that.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9, grants. The hon.
member has something to say on that?
Mr. Sargent: I certainly have. Tonight, in
Owen Sound and in every county jail in this
province, some built 100 years ago, we have
people locked in a cell 38 inches wide and
about nine feet long with a cot with no
mattress on it and a pot and no light. They
are locked in there from 8 o'clock at night
until 6 or 7 in the morning, like animals.
They cannot read. They cannot communicate.
They cannot talk.
An hon. member: Run by the CPR.
Mr. Sargent: And here we go, Mr. Chair-
man, the old Tory front row try and think
this is a great deal. And I want to say that
we should build jails, that we may use them
oiurselves sometime; and it would be a good
spot for a lot of you guys in the front row
there.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that this discussion-
Mr. Lawlor: Compassionate society!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —that this discussion
would more properly come under vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: We are talking about grants
to county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, this is for the 10
per cent. I think that this discussion more
properly belongs under 1903, and in the
meantime it will give the hon. member a
chance to go and get Hansard and not only
remind himself and see what 1 said about
Sands but also what 1 have said in regard to
what the hon. member has said in respect of
county jails. I do not ever recall disagreeing
with him about the conditions of the county
jails because he was only repeating the tilings
I said in public about the conditions of the
county jails.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, perhaps he
could use this time to get those back copies
of Hansard and he will find out what I said
at that time.
Mr. Sargent: You are really stick-handHng
tonight.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I do not
want to restrict the members—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised it is
only three years ago. If you get Hansard for
three years ago and read it out to the House,
I will be very glad to hear it.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please! I do
not want to restrict the members from dis-
cussing in connec'.ion with county jails. The
Minister suggested 1903. 1 point out that this
governs institutions and industrial operations.
There is no reference to county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Provincial jails.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chainnan, item 9— no, it
is county and city jails, $600,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are
talking about the upcoming estimates. Tlie
upcoming estimates now come under the
heading of provincial jails. All of these jails
will now be provincial jails and they are
under this heading. I have no objection to
hearing it now except that there is no use
debating it twice. That is all I am sug-
gesting.
Mr. Sargent. The only point I want to
make, Mr. Chairman— and there is some way
that he will dodge this whole issue and he
will come up like a rose, I guess, but the fact
was that these institutions that you are so
proud of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not proud of
them.
Mr. Sargent: —continue to operate. For five
years you have been saying the same thing,
"We are going to replace them."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We never operated
them five years ago.
Mr. Sargent: I know you said you were
going to change the whole system.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. I said we were
going to take tliem over.
3528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: Five years ago you were go-
ing to correct it but we still have the same
punitive system we had a 100 years ago.
People are going into those jails, Mr. Chair-
man, and they are not convicted. They are
in there before they are tried, whether they
are guilty or not. But here we have a man's
first connection with the breaking of the law.
He is put into one of these dungeon-like
affairs and this system is continuing to oper-
ate and will operate, if this Minister has his
way, for many years to come.
I think it is a shocking shame that he sits
there and says we are going to change
things. He told me that five years ago. We
are still going along the same old way,
using a system we used a 100 years ago,
putting a man in the moon or locking a
man in a room at night, like an animal. He
cannot read. He cannot talk in the dark there
until six or seven o'clock in the morning, and
the place has no plumbing. He cannot even
walk down the aisle, he is so crowded in a
space 38 inches wide. I think it is a shocking
shame that you have the nerve to be called
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions when
it is such a dishonourable programme you
have got.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! The member's
remarks are entirely out of order.
Mr. Sargent: I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a
dishonourable programme he has got.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I think my re-
marks will be in order on this particular esti-
mate, because this relates to some statistics
which the Minister has presented at the end
of his report in relation to these jails and
these county and district jails. I find it
quite—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you mind pull-
ing the microphone over.
Mr. Pitman: I am sorry. I find some of the
statistics here quite shocking and surprising.
I wonder if the Minister could perhaps ex-
plain them first and perhaps indicate how he
is going to change the situation. For example,
if you look on page 102 you will see the aver-
age cost of each prisoner per day. It seems
incredible to me that the average cost of
each prisoner per day is $53. In the Dufferin
county jail, it costs $7 and $7.3 in the Middle-
sex jail. I just do not see how tiiere can be
a discrepancy from $53 to $7.3.
I admit that the Minister only gives 10 per
cent, and is not wholly responsible. Is tliat
not right?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
must remember that figure is the average
cost of each prisoner. For example, if he
goes down to the Toronto jail he will find
that the average daily cost is—
Mr. Pitman: It is $6.7.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. No, no, that is—
Mr. Pitman: It is $53 in Dufferin.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The difference is the
number of prisoners. This is precisely the
point that I have been making for three or
four years in attempting to put across the
regional detention centre programme. You
must take into account the average number
of prisoners in jail in that particular institu-
tion. On another page you will find the aver-
age number of prisoners is so small that three
prisoners have to absorb the cost of the
whole jail. So obviously, the average daily
per capita cost would go up. Yet with 50 in
the same jail, the average daily cost per
prisoner would go down, would it not?
This is the problem here. This is one of
the reasons that we said there would be some
economies in the regional detention centre
programme, where you would eliminate some
of these jails. Some of them are going to be
closed down. Four will be replaced with
one, because there is obviously no reason for
keeping a jail going where they have an aver-
age daily population of perhaps four prison-
ers. This is the reason for the high per
capita cost in that particular instance.
Mr. Pitman: Would that be the reason also
for the next column, where the average cost
per day for clothing and fuel is $8; there is
only one in Carleton and 39 cents in Halton?
In other words, what we have is a massive
misallocation of public funds in the county
system as it exists right now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am advised
that the reason for that is the cost of the
fuel— they are much larger jails. I hope the
hon. member will not think I am callous
about it, but it is really academic, because
all of these inconsistencies, all of this waste
of funds in some of these areas, all the human
waste has all been discussed and discussed
by me in my efforts to convince the counties
to come along with us in our regional deten-
tion centre programme.
MAY 28. 1968
3529
It is one of the reasons we are happy at
having to take on the added responsibility of
900 employees and 37 more institutions. We
are happy to do it because this will help us
alter this situation, and even though the hon.
member from Owen Sound keeps saying that
it is a horrible thing and we have overlooked
it and so on, he is really reading my speeches.
This is precisely what I have said.
Mr. Shulman: But it is not what you are
doing. You are the one who should do it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
Quinte regional detention centre is now either
going out to tender or tenders have already
been called. The land has been bought. The
location has been chosen. There was even
a regional detention centre board set up.
There has been a lot of money expended on
it. Right at the beginning, this will replace
four, 100-year-old jails. Now if that is not
a start what is a start?
Mr. Shulman: You took five years to get
started.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It did not take us five
years.
Mr. E. Dunlop (York-Forest Hill): It
would take the member longer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It took us about three
years to convince some county jails to come
along with it. Some of them decided to come
along with it and we started on the pro-
gramme. Happily, we are now in a position
not to have to go and sell the programme; as
we are now in control of the situation.
Mr. Singer: Whose speeches has the Minis-
ter been reading?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the hon.
member spoke about this, too.
Mr. Singer: For many years!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
the old story; this is what anyone can say to
a government when in Opposition. It is very
easy to get up and say what I know is going
to have to be done 10 or 15 or 20 years from
today; but we have to find a means whereby
we do it. We hope that within 12 years all
of these jails will be replaced. We cannot
replace them all tomorrow unless somebody
wants to get up here and recommend that we
take $50, $60 or $75 milHon in one year and
build all new jails. If anybody is prepared
to do that and convince the taxpayers of it,
as far as this department is concerned we
would be happy to do it.
Mr. Sargent: You are spending $30 million
on a centennial project.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now we are doing it
on a gradual basis. And I am sorry if there
is going to be some suffering in some of the
other jails in the meantime. We will try to
alleviate that. Our task force is working now
in attempting to find out those jails where we
can put some money into it without obviously
wasting it because the jail is going to be
replaced in, say, three years. We do what we
can in the meantime to alleviate the situation
in all the jails, and replace those on the basis
on which we have decided.
I should also remind the hon. members
that right off the bat we in this department
have taken over some $7 million from the
burden of the local taxpayer, just to take
over the existing system, and are going to
spend many millions more in new regional
detention centres. And it is going to take
time.
Mr. Pitman: Could I ask just one further
question, and I do not want to press this
point, but it is going to be 12 years before
we have these regional detention centres. Is
there any way that you can at least alleviate
the miscalculation which is taking place here?
It means, really, looking at the whole county
jail system. There are a number of jurisdic-
tions where it already exists. Can he start
closing some of the worst of these? As the
Minister says, nearly all of them are 100 years
old.
Can he start closing some of the worst of
these, can he start putting people into the
jails that are the most humane which we
presently have, and can he close out some of
those that are costing the taxpayers of Ontario
an unconscionable amount of money?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know if the
hon. member was here when I made my
introductory remarks.
Mr. Pitman: Yes I was.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I referred to this. This
is precisely what we are planning on doing.
There is a task force working now — the
member will recall I used that expression—
in covering each one of the county-city jails,
and on this—
Mr. Pitman: For the purpose of closing
some?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is contemplated.
There will be some which we will be closing
3530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and I am waiting for their report to find out
which ones. I have a pretty good idea which
ones are the most Hkely for this, but there is
no use prejudging what their report will be.
There will be some closed and we will be
making some changes in some of the others,
which will be awaiting replacements.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what bothers
us here in the Opposition is the self-satisfied
obsequiousness of the Minister, along with
the whole front bench there on the govern-
ment side. The Minister has said at least
twice tonight, "you are quoting from the
speeches I have made over the years". Well,
since he has assumed this portfolio, he has
stood in his place and told us that he had a
logical programme going, he was touring the
province, he was meeting with county coun-
cils and municipal councils and the council
of London.
Oh yes, he was about to produce in the
new capital of Ontario an agreement where
they were going to build a new jailhouse in
London and in Middlesex county. It never
arrived, but he was explaining away this
perfectly logical programme, the selling pro-
gramme, that he had taken from one end of
the province to the other. He was saying this
was logical and sensible and eventually we
were going to replace all these jails he had
been talking about.
Mr. Dunlop: He was not using the speeches
of the hon. member, I take it?
Mr. Singer: Now the hon. member for
Forest Hill was here and he is a good listener;
and he is an intelligent man, Mr. Chairman,
and he knows full well the point I am making.
The point that bothers me about the Minis-
ter is not that he has arrived at the decision
tonight or he and his colleagues have arrived
at the decision tonight. Nobody can expect
him to spend all of the provincial revenue
on rebuilding jails, but the point is his self-
satisfaction, where he pats himself on the
back and says, "This is what I, the Minister,
have been advocating over all these years".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Read my speeches!
Mr. Singer: That is not true. That is
absolutely not so. He has been justifying a
programme over these several years, until this
year, of avoiding the issue. He has been
blaming a variety of municipal councils for
not having assumed their full responsibility;
he has been telling us what a great salesman
he is; he has been hither and yon and back-
wards and forwards, convincing people they
should get together and spend municipal tax
money.
Only the now deceased mayor of London
had the courage to stand up to him, an
anomaly, sir, and that is why I was interested
thi.s afternoon in learning where in the hier-
archy of precedence the city of London ranks
concerning its new jail. Apparently it is not
No. 1 but I bet it is awfully close to the top.
I would think that the Minister would
minimize the credibility gap if he came in
and said, "We have been wrong in the past;
we now recognize the full cost of administra-
tion of justice, including the provision of
jails, is the responsibility of all the people of
Ontario, and we are now going to attack it,
we are going to do away with these hideous
creations that we have had, the jails that are
120 and 150 years old."
No, the Minister has justified the present
situation, or attempted to justify it over
the several years that he has occupied die
portfolio.
So I say only this. Mr. Chairman, it sits
very badly in the Minister's mouth tonight
to stand up and say "you are only quoting
back to me my speeches". That is a bunch of
rot, with all due respect to the Minister. He
would be much more credible if he said, "All
right, we have changed our course, now today
we are embarking on a new programme, we
are now going to build the jails and we
cannot build them all at once." And we in the
Opposition, being reasonable people, would
accept that as a reasonable programme.
But to stand up and try to convince us
tonight, Mr. Chairman, that he has been
advocating this programme over the years
just does not sit. It does not make sense and
it is not what the Minister has said over
several years.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, would it be a
violation of the human rights code in the
realm of fiendish punishment to send the
member for High Park to Polar Bear Park
with a complete set of the speeches of the
Minister of Reform Institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Even I would not
want to punish him that way.
Mr. Sopha: I doubt that his speeches will
equal the popularity of the sayings of Mao.
May I ask the Minister, in respect of the John
Howard society, whether there is an overall
John Howard group. Is there a central office
of the John Howard society, a sort of a head
office, in the province of Ontario? I notice
MAY 28. 1968
3531
two communities are referred to here, Toronto
and the district of Thunder Bay.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, they have been
to some extent separated, but as of this year,
I think, they are working together. As a
matter of fact, I think the cheque we sent
to the John Howard society at Tliunder Bay-
Mi*. Sopha: That is not quite what I am
after. Is there a head office of the John
Howard society?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, in Toronto.
Mr. Sopha: Overall?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, in Toronto, for
the province.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, so the item for Toronto—
that docs not mean the Toronto chapter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, no, that is for the
Ontario association of the John Howard
society.
Mr. Sopha: That is very misleading indeed.
We have a John Howard society in Sudbury
and I wonder why they did not— I want to
ask a number of questions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the reason for
that is that up until this year there was the
John Howard society, the provincial one, and
for some reason or other which I cannot
recall at the moment, the John Howard and
Elizabeth Fry of the Thunder Bay area oper-
ated separately in respect of grants. Now
they have gotten together and I think you
will find that they will be all under one item
and it will be under the John Howard society
of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: If it would not violate Minis-
terial secrecy or fracture the constitution,
could we have an idea how much the John
Howard society would have like to have had?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: More money!
Mr. Sopha: How much more? You must
have some idea.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not have tlieir
letter here, but if I recall when they accepted
the cheque with graciousness, I think they
did remind us they would like more money
this year because of increased costs, and I
do not think they mentioned a figure. I know
that whatever extra we could have given
them they would have received with appre-
ciation, of course, but they are not the only
ones. I think naturally that any extra money
we can give to these organizations would be
acceptable, but they are managing to get
along with this. As I say, if we did have
any extra money to give them we would be
glad to give it to them.
There has been a number of times in the
year when we had a little extra money left
from these grants. We have gone to Treasury
board for permission to give extra money to
the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies
and perhaps one or two others when there
v/as some additional money.
Mr. Sargent: You gave a cocktail party or
something.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no cocktail parties
—John Howard and Elizabeth Fry do not
operate that way. But I cannot tell the hon.
member how much more they asked this year.
Mr. Sopha: It would be elaborating the
obvious and gilding the lily at the same time
to refer in any detail to the nature of the
valuable work that this society does in the
community. One observes from even the most
attenuated contact with it that frequently the
people involved are some of the most highly
trained people in the community in the sense
that some of the most highly educated people
in the community are attracted to public
service in the John Howard society and it is
to their great credit that they take that
interest in the sufferings and disabilities that
attend those that have run afoul of the law.
But I merely remark this— and I have noticed
there have been some interjections that really
hit the nail on the head, so I do not have
to persuade hon. members other than the
Minister— that this seems to be a terribly
modest amount and creates a shocking anom-
aly against a background where Canada is
said— and it is never challenged in this House,
this statement which I have heard for nine
years— to have either the highest, or almost
the highest, recidivist rate in the western
world.
Somebody said tonight there are more
people in jail in Canada than anywhere else
in the world. I think that statement is rather
exaggerated. There are probably a good many
countries with less democratic forms than we
have that have more people in jail and one
has no statistics on that score. Our record is
bad enough; we do not need to etch it in
blacker framework than it is. But one finds
it terribly difficult to understand the sum of
$24,500 granted to two organizations such as
this when only ten days ago we voted a gravy
3532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fund for the Minister of Tourism and Infor-
mation (Mr. Auld), who needs it like he
needs another hole in his head, of $75,000 for
entertainment. We voted in this Legislature;
there was no standing vote on it. He got
it and he is going to entertain all sorts of
people from in and out of the province, wine
and dine them presumably, and take them
to the best places.
As a citizen, and having some contact with
the criminal element that I have had— I have
a good many former clients who have been
in these institutions, some are in now; I do
not say that lightly, but I have had consider-
able contact with these people— I just do not
understand it. No amount of rhetoric— most
of it empty, meaningless phrases, citing all
the old aphorisms, and the tired euphemisms,
hackneyed expressions of the Minister— is
going to justify this shabby treatment of this
very valuable pluralistic group in our com-
munity, the John Howard and the Elizabeth
Fry society, which function best in the large
urban centres where they can establish con-
tact with people who come out on the street,
in the parlance of the trade, and find it
difficult to become adjusted.
In many ways you cannot call Canadian
society human— or humanistic, is a better
word— you cannot call it humanistic because
there are narrow prejudices that have no basis
in rationality: The policeman, who still exists,
seeing the former inmate of the penal
institution working, gainfully employed, and
walking in to his employer and deliberately
telling him that the man is an ex-con. That
still goes on and that is the type of thing
we cannot prevent except by education and
enlightenment. But it is the kind of thing the
John Howard society has to contend with,
getting that man placed who is fired. The
most enlightened group, if they are that, in
the financial community, are the bonding
people, and they will not bond ex-prisoners,
so they cannot get employment that involves
the necessity of suretyship. And there are
many other instances.
That is the wrinkle in the social order that
the John Howard society endeavours to work
out and if we are among the highest recidivist
rates in the western world, then $24,500 is,
as my friend from Downsview says, nothing,
nothing at all; it would not pay a portion of
the administrative costs. Yet, in a few weeks
time we will vote $1.8 million for horse
racing. Nothing is too good for E. P. Taylor,
resident of Nassau who thinks so little of his
Canadian citizenship that he gives it up— that
is how great a Canadian he is— but we are
going to give him $1.8 million of the public
money.
It is a defection from justice, ordinary
justice. If we were progressive and enlight-
ened and really meant what we said and said
what we meant, $250,000 would not be
too much if we saved ten people a year from
recidivism; $250,000 would not be too much.
I am no particular agent of the John
Howard society; I am entirely objective and
independent of mind about this. I only
speak on the basis of having seen the work
that they do and the selfless devotion that
tliey give to this type of thing. Believe you
me, Mr. Chairman, in the world of charity
there are a good many more prestigious
organizations which society will laud the
individual for being involved in— hospitals
and that type of thing. But if you are
involved with the John Howard society you
will be an unsung hero because it is not the
type of organization that attracts attention as
having particularly high prestige. So I say
to the Minister, spare us from the rhetoric
about it; you might as well give them nothing
as give them tlie small, niggardly amount
that you are giving them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
I should make this quite clear, lest the
impression get around that the John Howard
society is operating on this grant alone. In
the first place I point out to the hon. member
we have raised their grant this year 12.5 per
cent. I should also point out they received a
great deal of money from other sources— the
United Appeal fund, the federal government,
and other persons— so they are not just oper-
ating on this. I have just been handed a
note that the letter they sent us was that they
would like to meet with me to discuss an
increase for next year and we will meet with
them on it. They are quite happy with the
progress they are making here.
Might I also add that I have the Elizabeth
Fry letter before me and I am afraid to read
it for fear the hon. member will say the only
reason I read that is because it says something
complimentary about my department.
Mr. Sopha: They are intelhgent people,
they are buttering you up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The John Howard
society does the same thing. The Elizabeth
Fry writes:
On behalf of the board of directors of
the Elizabeth Fry society I sincerely thank
you and The Department of Reform Insti-
tutions for our grant of $11,000. This
MAY 28. 1968
3533
grant is a very substantial aid to our budget
and allows us to provide service to many
girls who would otherwise go unassisted
upon release of custody.
May I take this opportunity to say that
the staff and board and volunteers find
working relations with your staff at the
Mercer reformatory and the woman's guid-
ance centre very cordial and co-operative,
and The Department of Reform Institutions
should take great pride in the strides they
have taken towards establishing a phi-
losophy of treatment for the offender in
the province of Ontario.
This progress makes our work far easier
and more effective. Combination of the
wonderful co-operation and the receiving
of a grant for $11,000 contribute greatly to
the success and continuation of our serv-
ices.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. J. P. Bruce,
President.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the
Elizabeth Fry society has not necessarily
always heaped paeans of praise upon our
department. They are quite outspoken. I
would say this is a sincere tribute to the
work of my staff and the department.
Mr. Sopha: Of course, the province of
Ontario is one of the toughest to get money
from.
Any applications, so far as I am aware,
for a position of responsibility and the prov-
ince of Ontario pokes its nose into the
previous history of the person, asking if he
has a criminal record, so it is one of the
employers the Elizabeth Fry society is talking
about.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park
is next.
Mr. Shulman: I just want to associate
myself with the member for Sudbury. I
agree completely with what he said, but I
want to point out one statistic which might
bring this home. There were some 60,000
committals in this province last year. With
a budget of $40 milhon we are spending
approximately $700 a year for each incarcer-
ated person. For each committed person, of
that $700, the princely sum of 60 cents is
going toward rehabilitation through grants
for the Salvation Army, the John Howard
society and the Elizabeth Fry society.
This really sums up what is wrong with the
whole department. The Minister gets up and
outrageously says "we gave a 12.5 per cent
increase," which works out to something less
than $3,000 this year, in a $40 million
budget. Their emphasis is incarceration; it
should be in rehabilitation.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, I specifically wanted to ask, what is the
criterion for selection for after care agencies,
which are in receipt of grants made under
this section? Why are some of the agencies
mentioned on page 61 of the report dismissed
with a mere vote of thanks?
Of course, what I was thinking of is the
half-way house. This is not just a local
organization; it now has active groups formed
in Toronto, Brantford, Bramalea, Hamilton
and Ottawa. I understand that this organiza-
tion has been flatly turned down.
I agree with some of the other members
with regard to the John Howard society and
Elizabeth Fry society. I had occasion, when
I was on tour of the jails and reformatories,
that I ran across them while they were inter-
viewing inmates. I am sure they are doing
a good job.
I have a copy of a letter that the hon.
Minister sent to the half-way house in
Windsor, with regard to not allowing them
the grant, and I was wondering if you care
to enlarge on that now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is a great deal of misunderstanding about the
half-way house. The term "half-way house"
is abused so often, and is used by so many
diflFerent people and means so many different
things.
I would point out to the hon. member that
half-way houses do get grants. They get
grants from The Department of Social and
Family Services on a per diem basis; they
do not get grants from our department. This
is in respect of having to get some capital as
well, and on a per diem basis, and this comes
from The Department of Social and Family
Services. If the hon. member will look up
that department's estimates, he can see it
there.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Has the hon. Minister any
philosophy or background, or approach to
that particular problem? My colleague, the
member for Sandwich-Riverside, raised a
considerable point in Guelph, at some length
3534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on St. Leonard's house, in Windsor, and its
rehabilitative services, and the role that it
plays in the community.
I missed the Minister's opening statement,
regrettably, but I wonder if he would care
to make a statement to this House as to how
he feels about these places like St. Leonard's
house? What are the future prospects, as far
as his department is concerned, with respect
to the benefit of such institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is no doubt about it, there is a place in this
system for half-way houses. I might also
add that one of the problems we have had—
although it does not directly concern my
department insofar as the grants are con-
cerned, it, of course, is an adjunct of our
work. One of our problems is that we have
had a great number of people, in the last
couple of years, who want to get into this
business. They want to go into the business
of half-way houses.
A great number of them have been
approaching us lately, some of whom we
feel are not qualified. You can do as much
harm in a half-way hovise, as you can do
good. I am not suggesting St. Leonard's
house is not doing a good job, but there are
many others who are doing a good job as
well. There is the Harold King farm, Santa
Maria house, Beverley lodge— many of them,
and they deserve a lot of encouragement.
Our problem is to find out just how far we
should allow half-way houses to expand with-
out knowing what value you are getting for
the taxpayer's dollar.
There have been a lot of figures quoted— a
lot of figures which, by and large, have not
been proven. The hon. member for Sudbury,
for example, talked about the high rate of
recidivism. Nobody really knows. Nobody
knows, any place in the world. We have not
been able to establish what the rate of recid-
ivism is in a particular jurisdiction. It is an
almost impossible task, as the situation exists
today.
I could go into the reasons why it exists in
Kent. It also is an impossible task, and a
fruitless one, to attempt to compare rate of
recidivism in one jurisdiction as against
another, because they compile their rates in
different ways. I found that to be an exercise
in frustration.
One of the difficulties in attempting to
get the rates of recidivism in the province of
Ontario, for example, is that unless you
commit an indictable offence, you have no
way of controlling your figures, insofar as a
person using an alias is concerned. Because
your fingerprints are not taken, unless you
have committed an indictable offence, and
you can use all sorts of aliases and your
figures would not be authentic.
One of the problems is that we have been
trying to arrange-and I think it looks like
we are in sight of success— with the federal
government to have an overall system. We
envisage an IBM system, every other prov-
ince can send a punch card on every inmate
to headquarters in Ottawa, and in return they
will do the same thing. So that every pro-
vincial department will know what the figures
are, and the people with whom they are
dealing. We are ready for it. We set up
this system two or three years ago, and we
are ready.
Whether they have trouble with one or
two other provinces is another matter,
although I am rather hopeful of tliis. But
insofar as this specific question about half-
way houses, I only mention the question of
success rates in this sort of thing, because it
was mentioned by the hon. member.
No one really knows what success rate any
institution has. It is an almost impossible
task, which is one of the reasons we may
some day get to a compulsory probation at
the end of a sentence, so that you can control,
you can have the legal right to follow a
person, and find out what has happened to
him for at least five or ten years after he
leaves the institution.
This may have implications insofar as
human rights are concerned. Otherwise, how
are you going to find out how succcessful you
are?
There are some agencies, private agencies,
who, in order to get a lot of financial support
for their work, have used— I do not want to
use the term inflated figures— but have used
optimistic figures. There was one organiza-
tion, I will not mention its name, which,
after it was in business less than two years,
started to issue figures on its success ratio.
This is ridiculous. How can anybody in
this world give you figures on a success ratio
in a matter of two years? Any researcher will
tell you this is impossible.
As a result of this, the government is now
discussing setting up research. As a matter
of fact, I am not just sure where it stands in
Treasury at the moment. Some research on
half-way houses has been accomplished. How-
ever, how much success we are having with
these half-way houses; which type of half-
way house is a better type; which one should
MAY 28, 1968
3535
get support; or whether the government itself
should go into the half-way house business, is
not known.
I think that until that report comes, we
would rather see the half-way houses that are
in existence carry on tlieir work, so that rather
than expanding on a rapid clip without having
any guarantee that a great portion of the
work is not wasted. I do not know what I
can add to that.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have a num-
ber of questions. I thank the Minister for
that fairly elaborate answer.
Does the Minister exercise any advisory
control at all over the moneys granted to
the various institutions mentioned in his
estimates?
Let us take, for example, the Salvation
Army— to whom, incidentally, I wish to give
high praise, as to the role that they play,
particularly around the magistrates' courts in
this province. And the work that tliey do
among young people, assisting them in a way
that no other institution, so far as I know, in
the jails, in the county jails, and in the courts
—that no other institution even attempts to
do. They deserve the highest praise.
But, again, the amount of money. I know
that they get money from other sources, but
there is $33,000 for the kind of work that I
think that anyone of us that are lawyers
know that these people do— in the courts, day
after day, keeping an officer in every court
in the city, practically. I am not aware of
their position elsewhere in the province, but
they certainly do yeoman service in this
regard. But in whatever it may be, I would
like to know whether you investigate, or have
any control, or exercise an information serv-
ice, whereby you receive reports from them.
Or is it that they asked for a certain sum,
you have confidence in them, and you simply
give it to them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
would say that it is a combination of both.
We have a great deal of confidence in the
Salvation Army and we work very closely
with the Salvation Army.
I would confirm wholly what the hon.
member has stated in respect to the work of
the Salvation Army. They are one of the
groups doing a great deal of work without
too much fanfare and without too much
publicity. We are very happy with the work
they do, right in our institutions.
Insofar as the grant that they are getting
from us is concerned, again this is not the
sole money that they depend upon, they get
money from other sources as well. What is
the point; shall we just say: Let us give them
another $5,000 or $10,000 just because we
like their work? I mean there is no point
in that.
Mr. Lawlor: I know; but how much can
they do on $33,000?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not just the
$33,000, they are getting money from other
sources. They get it from the United Fund
and other sources such as their own appeal.
Of course they could use more money; we
could all use more money, my department
could use more money. But the point is that
if the Salvation Army is happy with the
amount they are getting, which does not
mean when they read this in Hansard they
are not going to send me a letter and say,
"Well now, we heard that you said we were
quite happy with the money; do not get the
idea that we want more."
But, really, there is no point in putting
more money in the estimates unless they come
before us and put up a good case for more
and, having regard for our commitments in
other areas, we are able to give it to them.
So as far as we are concerned, all of the
organizations are fairly content with the way
we have been treating them in the past, and
this year as well.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, returning to
the business of the grants to the county and
city jails. My friend from Peterborough read
a couple of columns, but there is the third
column. Again, I do not know how the
answer of the Minister— that with the regional
detention centres and with an averaging or
an accumulation of prisoners the cost can be
brought down— how it would particularly
affect the daily per capita dietary costs and
the enormous discrepancy, which incidentally
does not fall within the same county units as
the figures cited by the member for Peter-
borough under odier headings.
For instance, Bruce has 41 cents per day,
whereas it has a fairly high figure on tlie
average costs situation. On the other side of
the fence, you come down to $1.14 for
Prescott and Russell. Are the bacon and eggs
of Prescott and Russell particularly appetiz-
ing? Why would the Minister argue that
with these regional detention centres he
would feel that he could in any way really
alter the discrepancies of these dietary costs
throughout the province?
3536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, that the answer is the same as I gave
in respect of the average daily costs. The
hon. member will note that those jails which
have the least number of prisoners will gen-
erally have a higher per capita cost for food.
There are certain built-in basic costs in any
operation.
Mr. Lawlor: Only up to a point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I think that
you could look at page 104. I think that the
hon. member mentioned Prescott and Russell.
Prescott and Russell have an average of 9.7
daily jail population and Toronto has 702.
You will notice the difference there; the one
with the largest population has the lowest
per capita cost for food. Obviously you are
dealing in larger amounts and you can buy
and serve the food cheaper.
Mr. Lawlor: Take a look at Bruce, with
15.5. It just does not seem to jibe, that is all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may be that the
purchasing agent in Bruce, or the cook at
Bruce, decides that he can buy more expensive
food, or that he does not know how to buy
food as cheaply; or perhaps he is treating his
prisoners a little better than they do in other
jails. We hope to standardize this when we
take over the jails.
Mr. Lawlor: You have a French cook up
tliere, you had better tell the hon. member
for the riding about him.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course there will
still be some imbalance because of other
factors, but we will standardize it as much
as we can,
Mr. Lawlor: On the business of your
menus, arising out of food in these institu-
tions: You know I have been around to quite
a number of them in the past few months and
I have very severe doubts as to whether those
menus represent the facts of the case. There
is a lot of stew given and a lot of pretty
shallow watery soup served at these meals,
which go under another nomenclature. We
will check that out in the near future and
see whether this is a true representation. It
is all right to stand up in this House and
pretend—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
referring to the jails?
Mr. Lawlor: I am referring to food in the
reformatories.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you referring to
the reformatories?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I am referring to food.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now that is a different
thing.
Mr. Lawlor: I have said what I want to
say about the matter; I have got it off my
chest.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
wants to tell me there is any particular
reformatory that does not serve at least the
diet and the menu as laid out by our head
office, then we would like to know which it is.
On the other hand, if he is referring to
jails I will agree that there is a great possi-
bility that among these 35 jails there are some
which might not, at a particular time, be
following the diet as approved of by the
department. But they certainly shall once we
are able to take them over and control them,
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
stunning me with his fairness tonight.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I happen to be a fair
man; can I help it?
Mr. Lawlor: One last question arising out
of the centre of criminology: Could you give
us a bit of an outline on the work they are
doing for your department, or what their
service is going to be?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The centre of crimi-
nology actually was set up with a grant from
our department, of $30,000. At that time I
do not think there was any understanding
that they would provide a service for our
department. It was to help set up a centre
for criminology at the University of Toronto.
But I could tell the hon. member that since
that time we have been able to get a great
deal of information when we require it.
Mr. Lawlor: For instance?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They help us with
staff training. Some of our staff are using
the centre of criminology for staff training,
and this work will be expanding. But tiiis is
the way it started and this is the grant they
are receiving. I hope that I am not leaving
the hon. member with the impression that
they are living on $30,000 a year. This is
only the grant from our department.
Mr. Lawlor: Arising out of that, Mr. Chair-
man, this staff training, I would take it the
hon. Minister means that people within his
MAY 28, 1968
3537
own department, that is within the Queen's
Park arena, have been subjected to or ex-
posed, thank heavens, to a Httle penology and
contemporary sociological thought? Have any
of the staff at your various reform institutions
been exposed to any type of modem thinking
at all?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think there was
some mention made of that. There is a whole
chapter on that in the annual report. Was
the hon. member not satisfied with what he
read in that report?
Mr. Lawlor: I think when we get to
Guelph we will come to it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the hon.
member that there is an increase of $100,000
in the estimates this year for increased staff
training.
Mr. Lawlor: They sure need it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I would say
they—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
go back to the item concerning the John
Howard and Elizabeth Fry society of Thunder
Bay. On the general principle, of course, I
support the eloquent remarks of my hon.
colleague from Sudbury, but more specifically
the Lakehead cities, the hon. Minister will
immediately recognize, is what you might
call a collecting screen for transients with
records from both east and west. We lie in
the middle of a 1,000 mile stretch.
The man who leaves from Winnipeg and
heads to the east will go 1,000 miles. The
only city he will see in that area of any real
size that will attract him to stay for a while
will be the Lakehead; and the same for those
coming from the east and travelling west.
The result is that the incidence of break
and entry at the Lakehead is extremely high
every year and in many cases, these are
transient people with records.
A lot of these people stay around the
Lakehead looking for a job and usually, as
soon as it is found out that they have a record
or that their past is somewhat shady, they
have a lot of difficulty. Ultimately, they wind
up in the hands of the John Howard society.
The John Howard society at the Lakehead
is made up of volunteers primarily. Just
people who are interested, who want to pro-
tect their city and who have a sincere, genu-
ine human interest in helping these people to
rehabilitate.
But their hands have been tied financially
because, besides this $2,000 grant and what-
ever they get from the federal government,
which is not that sizeable from what I can
understand, they are at the whim and fancy
of the Thunder Bay United Appeal and if
the appeal succeeds they will get more
money. But if it does not succeed, then of
course they will not get more money.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, that this $2,000 grant has
been unchanged in approximately the last
eight years and yet the number of transients
—the number of people who need help and
service in the Lakehead area— has increased
and the need is greater. It only stands to
reason that if the cost for everyone else is
going up then, of course, the John Howard
society at the Lakehead is going up too.
I do not know how much of this increased
12.5 per cent to the John Howard society of
Ontario is going to rub off on the Lakehead
area. I have no idea. But I do know that the
type of jobs that most of these needy men
are channelled into are labouring jobs. Jobs
in the bush or in the grain elevator; and
these jobs require special gear, special cloth-
ing, special boots and so forth. That is what
costs money. The society can get a new suit
for a man but when it comes to getting the
necessary work clothing, this is when it begins
to cost money. Besides that, a man is not
going to be paid unless he has put in a couple
of weeks' work.
So, naturally, John Howard has to sustain
him for his board and his keep and his meals
and so on until he gets his first pay cheque.
What is happening is that a lot of private
citizens have got to reach into their pockets
and pay for these fellows.
Inasmuch as the John Howard society of
Thunder Bay is taking care of boys from all
across Ontario and all across Canada, it seems
to me that the province should pitch in more
—because we are taking care of the province's
boys. It is those boys who come through our
area and we are not rejecting them. The
kind of people I am talking about at the
Lakehead are extremely dedicated people and
this is why I feel so sincerely about this right
now.
I have been closely associated with several
cases of boys they have tried to rehabilitate.
They have been successful with some and
they have been unsuccessful with others. But
I would say for even those with whom they
are not successful, for every day that one of
3538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these boys is kept out of the courts, kept
from returning to the courts, returning to a
jail or the reformatory, this society, through
its efforts, is saving this department and the
people of Ontario money.
Let us face it. It is a great work of human
mercy that they are carrying out and at the
same time, they are saving us all money. They
are doing a job that a lot of us would not
want to have to do and for that reason, I
respectfully ask the Minister to consider an
increase.
It has been eight years, approximately,
since this grant has been revised.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chainnan, I
wonder if tlie hon. member heard me earlier
when I said that John Howard society at the
Lakehead was now become part of the pro-
vincial John Howard society. Therefore, they
will be getting tiieir funds directly from the
provincial headquarters and we will be deal-
ing with provincial headquarters. Tliat should
ease their problems somewhat because they
will be able to present their budget to the
provincial headquarters of the John Howard
society. They do good work up there. There
is not any doubt about it. But I think this
would probably go a great distance toward
solving their problem.
Incidentally, perhaps I should take this
opportunity to point out that all of this dis-
cussion may lead some of the new members,
at least, to have the impression that the only
people doing any rehabilitation work are the
private agencies. Our department does a
tremendous amount of this work and we have
an office in the Lakehead.
As a matter of fact, in some of the work
the John Howard society' does, when they
run short of clothing and things of that
nature, when working with a releasee who
has not gone to our rehabilitation officer,
when they need things of that nature, they
get help from our own rehabilitation officer
as well, because we provide these things in
addition to the John Howard society.
Mr. Bullbrook: What is your total-
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, if I may—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will find this
comes under another vote.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is $187,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will discuss this.
Mr. Bullbrook: Less than 5 i>er cent of your
total.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, now the Min-
ister is talking my language. I tliink that
he should relieve the John Howard and
Elizabeth Fry society and take this matter
over completely.
Mr. Bullbrook: Right. Why should these
people be volunteering for an effort that they
think the province of Ontario cannot do or
has not been doing? I really think that you
should take over their work completely.
Their hands are tied. They can only do so
much with a limited amount and even if the
province takes over the John Howard society
of Thunder Bay, there is still no guarantee
to me that we, in our area, are going to get
sufficient financial assistance. This is just
going to be another channel to go through
to get it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, I know I am
repeating some of these things which other
members have heard in other years, but
there are new members here.
As far as we are concerned, we would like
to do all of tlie work in the half-way house
area. One of the reasons being, as is usual
in areas of government where some of the
work is done by government departments and
some is done by private agencies, the private
agencies are usually given all the kudos
where the government agencies are given all
the brickbats.
We would like this very much except tliat
we find the privately operated, after-care
agencies have a place for this reason— there
are a considerable number of releasees that
want nothing to do with the agency which
kept them incarcerated. There is a certain
amount of hostility on tlie part of some of
them and they want no part of the institution
when they leave. They want no part of those
squares who had anything to do with keeping
them in the institution, and they will some-
times accept help from a private agency like
John Howard or Elizabeth Fry or some of the
other agencies and, therefore, they have their
place. So long as they are able to help some
of these people who will not accept help
from us, that suits us fine.
So, there is room for both and there is
room for that organization up there. I am
sure if the hon. member would suggest this
to the John Howard society of Thunder Bay,
they would tell him, "No, they would rather
stay in the business", and so would we.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say that as long as they are going to
stay in existence then they should be assisted
MAY 28, 1968
3539
to the hilt and just one more thing. I wonder
whether the department, through you, Mr.
Chairman, keeps any specific statistics not
only on how many men with records are kept
out of the prisons and are assisted by John
Howard, but how many dollars this represents
in savings to the people of Ontario? Is there
any such record available, say on the Thunder
Bay district?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that I
am afraid, with our present knowledge, would
be an impossible task. It is an impossible task.
We are faced in a free society with the
philosophy, and I am not too sure it is not
correct, that once a person has paid his debt
to society you cannot insist that he report to
you. Now a person may go to an after-care—
to a half-way agency. The minute that person
accepts its help or apparently accepts its
help, then disappears from that agency, you
would not really know whether, in fact, he
has been helped or not. It may appear that
he has been helped.
This is one of the problems we have in
corrections generally, that it is easier to
document your failures because they come
back into the institutions. But it is almost
an impossible task to document your suc-
cesses. All you can presume is that those
who do not come back, you have done some-
thing to help them. The half-way houses, by
and large, are in this same position, although
some of them do use some figures which are
not really based on scientific evidence.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would submit
that if even tentative figures along these
lines could be accumulated, people like the
member for Sudbury and myself would not
have to be on our feet tonight to ask for
more money on their behalf. This would
come automatically, because I think it would
be somewhere in the phenomena.
Mr. Singer: Before the Minister expends
too much energy and sprains his right arm
by patting himself on the back, I thought it
might be worthwhile bringing him back to
Metropolitan Toronto, and asking him a few
questions about that institution on the east
side of the Don river.
You know, Mr. Chairman, there was a man
named Alexandre Dumas who wrote about
the Count of Monte Cristo—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest if the hon. member is going to talk about
the jails there is a special-
Mr. Singer: Well, yes, there is, I read vote
1901, item 9. In the second line from the
bottom it talks about county and city jails
and the jail on the east side of the Don
river in Metropolitan Toronto is the Don
jail, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is only a book-
keeping item to pick up the grant from last
year. I think the hon. member would be
more in order discussing it under 1903 and
1904.
Mr. Singer: It is not an institution, it is a
jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a special item,
provincial jails, if the hon. member will
notice.
Mr. Singer: But it is not a provincial jail,
it is a municipal jail now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To all intents and
purposes, there are no municipal jails.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
pettifogging, he is splitting hairs; it is a
county or municipal jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon. mem-
ber will give me a chance to explain it to
him, perhaps I can convince him.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I ask for your
ruling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I explain, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Singer: No.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order,
insofar as these estimates are concerned, all
of the jails now are under the item of pro-
vincial jails. Because we presumed by the
time these estimates are through, the bill
making them provincial jails will have been
passed. So it is in the estimates under pro-
vincial jails. I was merely suggesting for an
orderly procession in these estimates that the
hon. member bring it up under provincial
jails.
Mr. Chairman: I believe there has been
considerable discussion so far on vote 1901
regarding item 9, county and city jails. I
believe the Minister pointed out previously
that there was a special provision in vote
1904 for provincial jails as such.
Mr. Singer: Vote 1904 is industrial oper-
ations.
3540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: In the middle of page 119,
the member will notice an item in bold type
"provincial jails".
Mr. Singer: I was not aware, Mr. Chair-
man—there may be something new that has
happened— that there was a county called
Metropolitan Toronto. To the best of my
knowledge, no such county exists in the
province of Ontario. There is a county of
York, but there is no county of Metropolitan
Toronto, unless something new has been
created.
An hon. member: Oh, stop pettifogging!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not understand what the hon. member is
referring to. Where is there a reference to
tlie Metropolitan jail here?
Mr. Singer: Oh, now we get down to it!
Obviously the Minister does not want to
discuss it at all. Either, Mr. Chairman, it is
a municipal jail or it is some other kind of
jail. What kind of jail is it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I explained earlier
that the item under—
Mr. Singer: I do not care!
Mr. Chairman, I am asking for your ruling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to help
the speaker-
Mr. Singer: On a point of order, I have the
floor at the moment. I would appreciate the
Minister silting down.
Mr. Chairman: Would the member state
clearly, if he can, his point of order?
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wish to
address myself to the problem of the Don
jail, which is situated in the municipahty of
Metropolitan Toronto, which I suggest is not
a county jail.
Mr. Chairman: Therefore, it should not
come under vote 1901.
Mr. Singer: It does indeed; under 1901,
item 9, the fifth or sixth— the second heading
from the bottom, county or municipal jails.
Mr. Chairman: County and city jails.
Mr. Singer: That is right, it is a city jail.
Mr. Sargent: He is right, it is a city jail.
Mr. Sopha: If it is not a city jail, what is
it?
Mr. Chairman: I want to hear more before
I can make a ruling on that point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
item the hon. member is referring to is the
$600,000 which we now owe to the county
jails for last year's operations, so that is in
under county and city jails. As a matter of
fact, to all intents and purposes as of January
1, 1968, they are all provincial jails and
tlierefore, if the hon. member will look-
Mr. MacDonald: It was a little illegal, but
the Minister is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not a httle illegal;
the staff is in there. We do not own the
buildings as yet unless the Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell) has made his
agreement with the Toronto jail; I do not
know.
Mr. Singer: Do you own the Toronto jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is page 119. The
figures involved for the operation of all of
the jails in the ensuing year is there under
provincial jails, $9,044,000, and all tlie jails
should be discussed under that item.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it is a very
simple point. Some of the $660,000 goes to
the Don jail and therefore it is in order
under this vote.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Some of the $9 mil-
lion will also go to the Don jail.
Mr. Singer: And it is here in this estimate
at this time and I am entitled to debate it,
and I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that the
item under vote 1901, item 9, grants to the
county and city jails, as the Minister has
said, constitutes only a 10 per cent contribu-
tion.
Mr. Singer: Let me debate only about the
10 per cent of the Don jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has nothing to do
with the upcoming estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, you should
bear in mind that the hon. member for
Downsview cannot be here tomorrow and
that is why he wants to speak tonight. Maybe
you should take that into account.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, the hon. member for York South is
impugning motives to me and I ask that that
remark be withdrawn.
MAY 28. 1968
3541
Mr. MacDonald: I was not, I was just
delineating the member's inability.
Mr. Sopha: We do not need a break-
through in Quebec, we have one.
Mr. Chairman: It seems to me if the
member wants to discuss the Don jail and the
operation thereof, that this vote 1901, item
9, is only the 10 per cent portion of the
grants for last year. The estimates for the
new provincial jails, which will include the
Don jail as I understand it, are on page 119,
provincial jails.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, surely I can
discuss the 10 per cent of the amount that is
there, otherwise why is the Minister asking
for it? So let me only confine all the point
of my remarks to 10 per cent of the Don jail.
Let the Minister choose whichever 10 per
cent he wants.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I started to
say, there was a man named Alexandre
Dumas, who wrote a book called the Count
of Monte Cristo, wherein he described—
An hon. member: What has that to do with
the vote?
Another hon. member: Was it the Don?
Mr. Singer: No, he described a person
called the Count of Monte Cristo, who was
imprisoned in a jail called the Chateau D'If.
I am sure my erudite friend, the Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), Mr. Chairman, would
know this book well because he is a scholar
and he reads classics such as this.
As bad as the description by Dumas of the
Chateau D'If was, he could have related it in
all its aspects to the Don jail or the 10 per
cent of it that I am allowed to discuss.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Don jail is a
palace compared to most of the other county
jails.
Mr. Singer: It may be a palace, Mr. Chair-
man, in the view of the Minister of Reform
Institutions, but I would ask the Minister if
he is aware of how old the substantial portion
of that building is. It is well over 100 years
of age.
Mr. MacDonald: Put your reply in the
remaining 90 per cent tomorrow.
Mr. Singer: Only 10 per cent!
The old portion, the substantial portion of
which I can only talk about, Mr. Chairman,
is very old, it is well over 100 years old. It
lacks in sanitary facilities, it lacks in segrega-
tion facilities, and it is one of the busiest
institutions of its kind in the province of
Ontario. The Minister was referring to the
figures in regard to that building just a few
moments ago.
In the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, because of the fantastic traflBc
throughout magistrates' courts, because of
the inadequacy of our bail system, and
because of the inadequacy generally of the
administration of justice in our lower courts,
that jail has fantastic traffic out of all pro-
portion to any other institution of a similar
kind within the province of Ontario.
That jail, Mr. Chairman, demands attention
far over and above any other priority to my
mind insofar as reconstitution of jails in
Ontario— far and above even the one in
London. And I would like to know, Mr.
Chairman, what justification the Minister has
in allowing that institution to continue in its
present form even one more day. I have
been there on several occasions to visit clients
of mine. I have been there on several other
occasions as a member of the legislative
assembly to investigate the conditions there
and believe me, Mr. Chairman, a proper
description of it defies my powers of oratory.
It is a horrible place, it is a disgrace to the
people of the province of Ontario.
An hon. member: About 12 per cent now?
Mr. Singer: Some of the rest of it, the most
newly built part of it is better, and there was
an addition put on in about 1953 or 1954, I
have forgotten the year. However, it bespeaks
well of the whole system cf administration of
justice in Ontario. Unfortunately it bespeaks
it far too well. The Minister, as I say, strains
his arm to pat himself on the back and tell
us how fond he is of the fact that we are
quoting his speeches back to him and of the
advanced steps that he has taken. I wonder
what plans he has made for the rehabilitation
of that horrible institution which is a disgrace
to all citizens of the community of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: I would limit tlie Minister
to 10 per cent of a reply.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
keeps saying that I am patting myself on the
back for making speeches about this, and he
claimed earlier that I was repeating his
speeches. So, I am patting myself on the
back for having repeated the speeches for
.542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which he was patting himself on the back
for repeating what he said.
Mr. Shulnian: That has nothing to do witli
the Don jail.
Mr. Singer: Let us stay with that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As far as the Don
jail is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the old part
of the Don jail, of course, is a very bad
situation. But if we are talking about
priorities, as I said to the hon. member if
he thinks that even the old part of the Don
jail is bad, he ought to visit some of the other
county jails, and there are many of them in
worse condition than that, which does not
justify the continued existence of the old
part of the Don jail. But at least there is a
very large portion which has been recently
built. As I mentioned earlier, there is a task
force out examining all of the jails with a
view to setting up some kind of priority, and
there is no use prejudging what that report
will be. When the report comes back we
will examine it and see where we will put
some money for renovations and where we
will establish—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. I suspect that the Minister is mis-
leading the House. In this House in 1965,
on page 2028 of Hansard, talking about the
new regional detention centres we are all
talking about, he said: "We will pay 50 per
cent of the cost of construction and the other
50 per cent will be shared by the munici-
palities entering into an agreement on a use
basis." That was in 1965. He has been doing
this whole thing since 1965, and now he tells
me that he has a task force doing it now.
Mr. Chairman: Order, in what way is the
Minister misleading the House?
Mr. Sargent: He is giving us all this non-
sense about a task force and he has had this
going on since 1965, and still he has not built
one jail.
Mr. Chairman: No, he is not misleading
the House at all on that issue.
Mr. Sargent: I suspect that he is,
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the point that
I want to make is this. From the Minister's
own statistics, I am sure that he will agree
with me that because of the density of the
population in the metropolitan area in this
province and because of the traffic tlirough
our courts here in Metropolitan Toronto, that
notwithstanding the age of various buildings,
such as the age of the building in Quinte
that he referred to earlier, the traffic through
the Don jail and the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto from his own figures is far
and above, by any standard that he wished
to apply, to the traffic through any other
similar institution in the whole province.
How many thousands of people are lodged
in that institution every year? The Minister
can supply us with those figures, but I say
without any fear of contradiction at all that
it exceeds in great proportion, and you could
multiply it by a substantial number, the use
of any other similar institution in the province
of Ontario. It sits badly in the Minister's
mouth to say that we have to look at great
length to see how we accommodate thousands
and thousands of prisoners who go through
that institution in a reasonable and modern,
and sensible, and sanitary way.
I am just asking the Minister to provide
reasonable accommodation for the institution
that has the largest traffic through it in the
province of Ontario, and that now comes
under his aegis. The substantial part— and it
is far more than 10 per cent, and perhaps to
that extent I am out of order, Mr. Chairman
—the substantial part of that institution is a
disgrace to every person in the province of
Ontario, and it is used to capacity and over
capacity.
The situation is unsanitary, unhealthy, un-
reasonable, and it flies in tlie face of every
modern theory of penology that the Minister
has been trying to enunciate to us in the
years that he has been in that portfolio.
Mr. Sargent: That is a palace compared to
county jails, as you said yourself.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to inquire about staff training and develop-
ment under this vote.
Mr. Chairman: We are on item 9.
Mr. Shulman: Is this not on item 9? I have
a sheet in front of me and there does not
seem to be another number after 9?
Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the
member that item 9 is grants only, and I
believe that there was some discussion on
staff training previously under item 1, salaries.
Mr. Shulman: Staff training is at the
bottom of the sheet; what number is it?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, well I would point out
to the member that this is a breakdown. If
MAY 28. 1968
3543
he will take the administration and the staflF
training, and total them, he will find that
they equal the total of vote 1901, so that it
has been discussed.
Mr. Shulman: It has not been discussed at
all.
Mr. Chairman: I put it to the Minister.
Has there been discussion of staff training?
There has been discussion of staff training.
Mr. Pitman: The most important item-
Mr. Chairman: This was discussed.
Mr. Shulman: There is no item above for
it, Mr. Chairman. Under what item are you
suggesting it has been discussed?
Mr. Chairman: It has been discussed under
the general discussion under item 1. There
was quite a considerable amount of discussion
under this.
Mr. Pitman: Staff training is more than
salaries, and we have no way of knowing that
this item was included in item 1901-1. It
is the most important item of this entire
estimate, I would suggest to you, sir. No
matter how you change the name of the
department and no matter how the Minister
indicates his progressivism in terms of
rehabilitation instead of isolation.
Mr. Chairman: There is no item specifically
for staff training, and it has been discussed
under item 1, and also I believe that there
was mention under items 2 and 3.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order again, the Minister did mention this
whole question of staff training under item
9, under the centre of criminology in the
University of Toronto.
Mr. Chairman: Only to the extent that they
give them advice in staff training.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I suggest that if the
member for Downsview is going to discuss
10 per cent of the Don jail, then perhaps we
will be able to present or discuss a percentage
of staff training and development.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Surely the Minister would not
want to restrict discussion on this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
be gracious enough to be entirely guided by
the Chairman. If you wish to discuss staff
training now, I will discuss it now. I leave
it up to the chair to keep proper order.
Mr. Sopha: And further, Mr. Chairman,
surely on this point, notwithstanding that
you take them item by item, it is the vote
that carries. And after you finish the item
before the vote carried, any member ought
to have the liberty to raise any matter that
has not been raised before. I submit that
to you.
Mr. Chairman: No, this has not been the
procedure at all. Even at the beginning of
the estimates, it was suggested by members
of the Opposition parties that we take it
item for item. We tried that on several of
the departmental estimates and it worked out
well. In some of the various votes, the votes
did not lend themselves to item by item
discussion, and we took them as a total vote
by general agreement. We have taken this
item for item as the Chairman mentioned
right at the beginning of the debate. We
have covered items 1 to 8; there is only item
9, on grants.
Mr. MacDonald: Does that include staff
training?
Mr. Chairman: No, it does not.
Mr. MacDonald: We have not discussed
staff training anywhere, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It was mentioned under
item 1.
Mr. MacDonald: I think you are being a
bit restrictive to say that staff training is
included in salaries and salaries alone.
Mr. Chairman: No, I said travelling and
maintenance, and if the member will look-
Mr. MacDonald: Then take travelling and
maintenance alone.
Mr. Chairman: The $232,000 is listed as
1, 2 and 3; salaries, travelling and mainte-
nance, and that is exactly where they were
discussed.
Mr. MacDonald: That does not add up to
$232,000.
Mr. Chairman: That is a portion of the
total, I must point out to the member.
Mr. MacDonald: We want to discuss the
other portion of it.
Mr. Chairman: That is under administra-
tion which you have already discussed.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, look, Mr. Chairman,
if you want to be legalistic, we have not
discussed staff training at any point. We
3544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have not discussed it and the Minister has
no objection to discussing it. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Chairman, we tried when we were
on Social and Family Services to get a
seriatim discussion, and for some reason or
other that mystified me, we suddenly got
into the whole bag of issues at once. Now
we are back to it with this restrictive
approach— if perchance something is hidden,
like "staff training", in salaries and travelling
and expenses it is excluded. My colleague
is correct, it is the most important issue in
the department, which is going to change its
name to live up to some modern standards.
Mr. Sargent: You were asleep at the switch.
Mr. MacDonald: I was not asleep at the
switch. If you do not want to debate this,
fine.
Mr. Sargent: You cannot now, it is passed.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not passed.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to all members
of the committee that we can stick to one
procedure, if this is what they wish.
We can take every vote in every depart-
ment item for item and restrict it to the
discussion on that particular item. Or we
can take it a little broader— we can take a
total vote.
Are we going to have it two ways? If the
Chairman puts it to the members before we
start the discussion, surely we can resolve it
in that manner, which we attempted to do
tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: Except this, Mr. Chair-
man. If you are going to take salaries and
travelling expenses and then maintenance and
to include that as staff training, then I think
it is your responsibility to indicate that it
includes staff training.
Mr. Chairman: Surely the members can
read the estimate page.
Mr. MacDonald: How can you? You can-
not tell. Staff training and development-
Mr. Chairman: It is obvious to the Chair-
man. The first item, administration, plus
staff training, equals the total of the vote
1901.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: I do not want to prolong this,
but I want to point out that if you are going
to say that staff training is in 1, 2 or 3, then
I say to you the obligation is upon the
Minister to remove that item, staff training,
and put it up in one of the seriatim items.
That is his obligation, so that we would be
able to see the specific item.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
would say that as far as the government side
is concerned you can debate it now, or any
time you like. We are quite content.
I understand the position of the Chairman;
he is trying to run the estimates on an
orderly basis. The printing of this particular
estimate, as I interpret it, has caused the
trouble— the way it is set up on the page.
Let us debate it and we will consent to this.
There is no problem, but you can still, I
hope, stay with your endeavour to keep the
subject matter of the estimates within
reasonable control.
This problem is caused by the way it is
printed on the page. We are not trying to
prevent a discussion of staff training, we are
trying to conduct the estimates in an orderly
fashion, and believe me, it is not simple for
the Chairman to attempt to do this. So
why do we not, by agreement, debate this
particular question? You may still, Mr.
Chairman, follow your procedure in dealing
with the estimates.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, it should
surely be your experience, sir, that once the
clock indicates 11 in the evening after a full
day of debate, there is a tendency for us to
grind to a halt in the orderly discussion of
this business. It happened last week and it
appears to be happening again.
There is every reason that good sense
would indicate that we have discussed the
matter sufficiently for today and we can
continue another day.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
leader of the Opposition-
Mr. Nixon: It happens night after night—
1 1 o'clock.
Mr. Chairman: I am sure the leader of the
Opposition was not specifically speaking to
the Chairman, because he knows right well
the Chairman has no authority to rise and
report without a motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr, Chairman, I do not
know what the whole point of the leader of
the Opposition is, but if he was protesting
the prolongation after 11 o'clock, I join him.
I have no objection to lengthening the hours
of this House, but common sense enters into
it, and I suggest that common sense suggests
MAY 28, 1968
3545
that at 11 o'clock we adjourn and go home
so that we can come back tomorrow and do
a decent day's business in a condition to do
it.
We just waste our time. We have had
classic proof of it for the last half hour. We
wasted our time last Thursday. Now I
thought we had a—
Mr. Chairman: Order! May I say the
member for York South is discussing matters
of vital importance to the entire committee.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought a part of the
agreement that we had made, in trying to
get an orderly approach, was a general agree-
ment that 11 o'clock was an adjournment
hour and I am a little disappointed that, with
the Prime Minister— we have had this experi-
ence when the Provincial Treasurer and
others have been in direction of the House-
but with the Prime Minister here, I am
puzzled as to why this is going on.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have a couple of
comments to make. In the first place the
lack of sense in this debate occurred before
11 o'clock. I think that this would be fair
to state. And I would say further you asked
why we have come past 11 o'clock. I think
it is quite important to settle this question;
we are in the middle of a procedural discus-
sion. I do not think any agreement to
adjourn at 11 o'clock means that as soon as
11 o'clock is reached, regardless of whether
a man is in the middle of a sentence, or
when we are in the middle of a discussion,
that we discontinue. That is just nonsense.
Mr. MacDonald: The House leader cut
debate off in mid-sentence last night. Why
did he do this?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The other point, if you
are going to raise this— I did not necessarily
want to mention it— but there were several
parts to the agreement to adjourn at 11
o'clock.
Mr. MacDonald: What was that?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: One of them was tliat
we would limit the opening speeches to 20
minutes, and we listened over an hour to
one this afternoon.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, there has to be
some flexibility in the matter. We have
limited some of the marathon sessions since
we made this agreement, and we will con-
tinue to do so, but I can only say that I
wanted to settle this procedural matter as
to whether this is going to be debated.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought we had settled
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Actually we have
settled it, but you have been so busy talking
ever since I have not had a chance to move
that the committee rise and report, which I
now do.
Mr. Nixon: Why does the Prime Minister
not move the adjournment while he is up
on his feet?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just at the next elec-
tion, do not let those two young Liberal
NOP candidates say that I am old and tired.
I can stay up longer than they and work
longer than both those men.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is used to
patting himself on the back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just raring to go.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report progress and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumes; Mr. Speaker in the
cliair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with bills on
the order paper, and if we complete those
that are ready to be dealt with I would like
to call order No. 2 and order No. 3. When
that is completed, if there is still time tomor-
row evening we will return to these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:25 o'clock, p.m.
No. 98
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3549
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3549
Statement re appointment of committee on uniform building standards, Mr. McKeough 3549
Questions to Mr. Wishart re campaign signs placed on police buildings, Mr. MacDonald 3550
Questions to Mr. Simonett re the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company, Mr. Sopha 3551
Question to Mr. McKeough re fence on La Cloche Island, Mr. Martel 3552
Questions to Mr. Randall re placement of OHC applicants, Mrs. M. Renwick 3552
Jurors Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Crown Witnesses Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Justices of the Peace Act, bill to amend, reported 3555
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Partnerships Registration Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Judicature Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Probation Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Registry Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Hospital Services Commission Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Pharmacy Act, bill to amend, in committee 3557
Medical Act, bill to amend, in committee 3557
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, reported 3557
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, second reading 3557
Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act, 1964, bill to amend,
Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3557
Training Schools Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, held on second reading 3557
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3559
Recess, 6 o'clock 3593
3549
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, May 29, 19G8
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today we have in the
Speaker's gallery the Olinda United Church
ladies' group from Olinda, which I am in-
formed is in the great county of Essex; and
something unusual this afternoon, both
galleries are filled with students from the
same school— the General Vanier senior public
school in Welland. We welcome these visitors
from a distance.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the Ontario northland transportation
commission's 67th annual report for the year
ended December 31, 1967.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE PENSIONS BENEFITS ACT, 1965
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend Tlie Pensions Benefits Act,
1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker,
section 1 of the bill is intended to clarify the
roles applicable pertaining to the deferred
life annunity prescribed in subsection 1 of
section 21 of the Act when the pension plan
is wound up or terminated.
Section 2 provides that where an employer
appears to be discontinuing his business, the
commission may deem the pension plan
wound up. The amendment also provides the
employer with the right to appeal from the
commission's decision and provision for this
is made in section 3.
Section 5 makes provision to allow the
Lieutenant-Governor in council to make regu-
lations specifying service that shall be deemed
not to be a service in a designated province,
or more simply, in specific situations to
facilitate portability.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs has a statement.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in February of
this year, in response to a question from a
member opposite, I stated in this House my
support of the principle of uniform building
standards throughout Ontario. I also out-
lined the support that the staff of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs has given to the
use of the national building code of Canada,
or the shorter form, as a guide in the prepara-
tion of municipal building bylaws.
I always hesitate to admit, Mr. Speaker,
that we do not always move as quickly or as
expeditiously as we should. On the other
hand, in this particular instance, I freely con-
cede and admit to the House that the hon.
member for Halton East (Mr. Snow) con-
tributed greatly towards the expediting of
this matter. You undoubtedly are aware that
the hon. member brought a resolution before
this House on March 4 of this year on this
very subject. It was his efforts at that time
that helped to bring this matter closer to the
surface.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is a
good quote for the local paper.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): That is all it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The member for Sudbury will please give
the Minister the courtesy of a hearing.
Mr. Sopha: Well, ask him not to be so
political.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member for
Sudbury please to show courtesy to the Minis-
ter.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Through you, Mr.
Speaker, may I assure the hon. member for
Sudbury, that if he introduces a resolution
which is as helpful to my department as the
resolution was from the hon. member for—
3550
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: It will ne\er get men-
tioned.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: —from the hon. mem-
ber for Halton East, I will give him due
credit as well.
Mr. Sopha: I have had several adopted in
nine years, I have had several.
An hon. member: You have got credit.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): How much
credit did the member for Yorkview (Mr.
Yoimg) get for the motorcycle law?
Mr. Sopha: I did not need a press release.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The national build-
ing code is known internationally as the best
advisory document that municipalities can use
as a basis for building bylaws. It has been
prepared by voluntary commitees of experts
selected from all parts of the Canadian con-
struction industry. Contractors, house build-
ers, union ofiBcials, material suppliers, public
officials, architects and engineers have given,
and continue to give freely, their time and
talents to ensure that the national building
code remains currently useful. Considering
the rate of technological change, this is no
small task.
Much has been said about the adoption of
the national building code by all municipali-
ties in the province. There are many who
support the principle of uniform building
standards, as I do. It is encouraging to note
that the boroughs of North York, Etobicoke
and Scarborough have just recently brought
into force uniform building bylaws and that
the city of Toronto hopes to accomplish this
by the end of June. I am sure that the
boroughs of York and East York cannot be
too far behind in doing the same, so that
MetropoHtan Toronto will have achieved the
goal of uniform building standards towards
which much eflFort has been exerted.
However, it is evident from tlie corres-
pondence and discussions I have had that
there is no unanimity about how, when and
to what extent the principle can be fully
realized. Should the national building code
be made mandatory? Would it be better only
to consider similar standards for similar
buildings— recognizing the lesser needs and
capabilities of small municipalities? The
ability of local municipalities to administer
the sound principle of performance type by-
laws, such as the national building code,
cannot be ignored. The availability of quali-
fied building inspectors is but one of the
keys to successful achievement of the desir-
able goal of uniform building standards. How
quickly can they be quafified?
About these questions and about otliers
pertaining to approval of new building mater-
ials and products, factory inspection of pre-
fabricated components and to amendment
procedures, there are diflFerences of opinion
amongst those in support of the concept of
uniformity.
It is therefore my intention to establish a
small committee of persons, knowledgeable
and experienced about buildings and building
bylaws in the province, to examine, report and
conmient to government within six to eight
months, about uniform building standards.
The members of the committee will repre-
sent the manufacturers of building materials
and components, the building construction
industry, municipal building oflBcials and the
professions closely associated with building
design and construction. It is our intention
to invite representation from the national re-
search council.
Tlie scope of the committee will be broad
enough to permit an examination of all essen-
tial facets of the subject but not so broad
that the task is too great. There are important
associated issues, some of which I have al-
ready mentioned, and not the least of which
should be the adequacy of existing enabling
legislation.
The general authority for local councils
to pass building bylaws is in The Planning
Act. Authority for specific aspects of buildings,
such as electrical and plumbing installations,
elevators and lifts, and so on, is contained in
other Acts. The general authority for passing
building bylaws needs to be rewritten. Per-
haps now is the time to consider all enabling
legislation pertaining to buildings in one
perspective view.
The committee will receive briefs from all
who have an interest in uniform building
standards. Its report should provide a base
from which to decide the merits of uniform
standards, the extent to which they should
apply, and the means whereby such an end
may be achieved.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Attorney General, in three parts.
1. Is the Attorney General aware of the
fact that the local police headquarters build-
ing on Prince Street, in Hearst, was this
morning displaying a large campaign sign of
the Liberal candidate Stewart?
MAY 29, 1968
3551
2. Is such an action in violation of The
Police Act?
3. Would the Attorney General refer this
public involvement of the local law enforce-
ment in partisan politics for investigation by
the Ontario police commission?
Mr. Sopha: Was it a picture of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau?
Mr. MacDonald: I hope not; oh, I hope not.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, it seems apparent that the oflR-
cial Opposition does not find this nearly so
offensive as the hon. member for York South.
I have checked the matter. I was not aware of
the situation, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): They have professors going out
and checking signs. I found that out in my
campaign.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I cannot find that what
has happened in the placing of the sign on
this building is contrary to anything in The
Police Act. The building is the property of
the local municipality of the town of Hearst.
It was the former municipal building and the
police force in Hearst is administered by a
committee of council. I would think it per-
haps reasonable to say that tlie building
would be available for all parties to display
their signs on.
An hon. member: We will try Tommy's
picture tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: To answer the latter
part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think this is a matter that needs to be re-
ferred to the Ontario police commission for
investigation, I did consult them to get some
of the facts, and found there is a four-man
pohce force operated under a committee of
council. Possibly by this time this sign has
fallen down.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the Attorney Gen-
eral say fallen down? Mr. Speaker, on a
point of information, I would hke to inform
the Attorney General that pictures of it are
available if it has fallen down.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: The NDP always run third in
Cochrane, of course.
Mr. MacDonald: You just wait tmtil June
25. We ran second last time and we will
run first this time.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: I have a question for the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management,
which is very helpful and constructive.
Was a charge laid earlier this year, and
perhaps in the month of January, 1968,
against the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany at Kenora, for polluting waters with
industrial wastes? What was the specific
charge? Was the charge later withdrawn?
Why?
Has the situation of pollution to which the
charge related been corrected, and if not,
why?
Mr. MacDonald: That sounds like a famil-
iar story.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
information against the Ontario-Minnesota
Paper Company at Kenora was laid in To-
ronto, December 20, 1967. A summons was
delivered to the company in Kenora January
11, 1968. The company was charged that it
did unlawfully discharge material, namely,
wood and chemical wastes, during the period
of eight months commencing April 1, 1967,
into the Winnipeg River, contrary to section
27, subsection 1 of The Ontario Water
Resources Commission Act.
The company subsequently advised me
they had recently received a report from a
consultant they had retained to advise them
on this subject, and were on the point of
presenting proposals to the Ontario water
resources commission for a programme of
pollution abatement. This being the case, I
agreed to withhold prosecution to give the
company time to submit its report, which it
did on April 13, 1968. This report was dis-
cussed with the Ontario water resources
commission at a meeting in Toronto on April
30, 1968.
In answer to the fifth and sixth parts of
the question, the situation of pollution to
which the charge related has not been cor-
rected, simply because although progress has
been made on plans the physical facilities
have not yet been installed.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask a supplementary
question? Would the Minister explain to us,
if the serious step of laying a charge in a
court was taken, then why has the situation
not been corrected by the end of May?
3552
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I would
think the hon. members know that after a
phin is received and approved you do not
l>uild the remedial measures overnight; it
takes time. I would expect if it is remedied
18 months or two years from now, they will
Ix,^ making very good headway.
Mr. MacDonald: They ha\e been pro-
crastinating for so long, they—
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Mai-tel (Sudbiuy East): I have a
(uiestion for the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Gomme).
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member will
notice the Minister of Highways is not in
his seat. He will please use one of his other
<{uestions.
Mr. Martel: A fiuestion for the Minister of
Labour: Does The Employment Standards
Act, 1968, spell out clearly whether or not
a man can refuse to work overtime on a day
on which he has already worked eight hours?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, this is a question which con-
cerns Bill ] 30. It will be discussed on second
reading alcmg with odier matters. I think it
should be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Martel: I have a question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs: Did the govern-
ment contribute financially to the fence con-
structed on La Cloche Island on Manitoulin
Island? If so, how much and why?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this
(luestion is a little bit on the vague side. My
answer is no, not to my knowledge. We have
no record of contributing to a fence as far
as Tlie Department of Municipal Affairs is
concerned, either directly or through some
centennial project grant.
We have checked with The Department
of Highways, and they have no knowledge of
this. We also checked with the Indian devel-
opment branch of The Department of Social
and Family Services and they have no such
knowledge. It may well be that the federal
government or the municipality has contri-
buted, but without more information I cannot
supply anything more than a, "no, to the best
of my knowledg?."
Mr. Chairman: The nicmber for Scar-
borough Centre has a question.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
I ]ia\e a question for the Minister of Trade
and Development. Can the Minister advise
the House whether intervention by the To-
ronto Telegram's Action Line or the Toronto
Daily Star's Help Wanted, or other news
media, has a softening eflEect on the stringent
disciplines referred to on May 14, on page
2898 of Hansard, with regard to the place-
ment of OHC applicants?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): xMr. Speaker, I can an.swer
that very briefly with a "no." But as the
hon. member is undoubtedly aware, the On-
tario housing corporation receives repre-
sentation from a wide range of agencies and
other interests with respect to families requir-
ing accommodation. Frequently these families
are in "emergency" circumstances, which
have not been brought to the attention of
OHC by the family itself. There may have
been fire or other abnormal circumstances.
In certain circumstances, the emergency
has arisen so suddenly that the family has
n(;t even applied for accommodation. For
example, last year the corporation housed in
iMetroix)litan Toronto alone, a total of 1,272
families which were in emergency circum-
stances of one form or another, and many of
these cases were brought to our attention
by elected representatives, social agencies,
and other interests.
Help Wanted and Action Line are just
two of these. It so happens, however, tiiat
where these two papers do bring a problem
to our attention, and the family ultimately
receives housing, there may be some com-
ment about it in the paper concerned.
To give the hon. member some indication
of the volume of representation on behalf of
applicants, in 1967 the tenant placement
branch handled approximately 38,000 tele-
phone calls concerning applicants, in addi-
tion to calls received from die applicants
them.selves.
To reply specifically to the hon. member's
(luestion, representation by outside interests
which bring to light an additional fact con-
cerning an application, may have the e£Eect
of giving a family a greater degree of priority.
This has nothing to do with the source of
representation or the degree of pressure
applied. It is a simple matter of additional
information wliich had not been brought to
Ontario housing corporation's attention by
the applicant.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Minister if he would accept
a supplementary question. I would like to
ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister agrees that
MAY 29, 1968
3553
this is good procedure— that people do indeed
find places to live through Action Line, and
thrcAigh Help Wanted. Would he table in
the House exactly what these emergency
cases are? Not the specific ones, Mr.
Speaker, but what qualifies at Ontario hous-
ing corporation as being the kind of emer-
gency that hastens the placing of applicants
such as this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I think
that it is obvious. I said emergency cases.
As to this family that you are talking about,
as I understand it, imder the building codes
of Toronto, the inspector walked in and
found 18 people living in one house, and the
inspector ordered 11 people to get out. That
is this family that we are talking about.
The moment that they did, they applied to
Ontario housing corporation for assistance.
That is what we call an emergency— or they
could be burned out.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask a supple-
mentary question, Mr. Speaker? Do you
consider that an eviction would fall under
this category?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, we have had many
evictions that have been looked after imme-
diately, too.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my last
question for tlie Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps in future— I certainly
will allow the member to ask this further
supplementary question, but perhaps in
future, she might incorporate these several
questions in her original one?
Mrs. M. Renwick: They are based on the
answer, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: They may be based on the
answer, but they are obviously prepared
ahead of time, and I would respectfully
request that the member do tliat in the
future. The member has the floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I would just like to state that my
(luestions following this one— I had no idea
what they would be, except according to
the Minister's answer-
Mr. Speaker: Would the member please
place her supplementary question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes. My supplementary
question is, Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister
aware that recently, of two eviction cases
which appeared at the Ontario housing
corporation offices, one was accommodated
by threatening from the newspapers, and
one was turned away.
I think if we are going to handle this
kind of case in an emergency, I would like
to have it clearly stated by the Minister what
emergencies are; if eviction falls under it I
would like to know— I would like it tabled
in the House that it is one of the emer-
gencies.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister takes the
floor I would like to point out to the member
that it would have been very simple to have
asked the Minister in her original question,
if eviction and these other matters she has
mentioned were the type of emergency which
would come within the regulations.
It would require no answer from the Min-
ister to enable her to .so phrase her question,
and I point out again that supplementary
([uestions must be questions based on the
answer and not questions which would flow
from an answer.
The Minister had the floor; if he cares
to reply to that supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member would be specific-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this point
of order— may I rise before the Minister or
not— on a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: You may rise at any time on
a point of order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to point out that I did
not know, nor have any indication, that the
ca.ses I am referring to were emergencies.
They could have been old applications which,
through this particular publicity, got accom-
modation. I did not know they were emer-
gencies, so therefore, I did not know that I
would be questioning the Minister, today, of
what an emergency actually is in the place-
ment bureau at Ontario housing corporation.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker still considers
that his original remarks with respect to this
matter were quite proper, and in line, and
again respectfully requests that members
put their supplementary questions, as far as
possible, into their original questions.
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I just
suggest that the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre gives me the names of these
two evicted cases and I will try and get the
3554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
details. I do not know who they are, but
if I have the details, I will look it up. I
might say that it is my intention, and that
of my people, not to bow to pressure in these
cases. We will bow to need any time, but
not pressure.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 4th order,
House in committee of the whole House; Mr.
A. E. Renter in the chair.
THE JURORS ACT
House in committee on Bill 74, An Act to
amend The Jurors Act.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 74 reported.
THE CROWN WITNESSES ACT
House in committee on Bill 75, An Act to
amend The Crown Witnesses Act.
On section I.-
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): In section
1, Mr. Chairman, it said that it switched
over to the director of public prosecutions
from tlie Attorney General, then it said, "May
increase the sum ordered to be paid so that
the witness will be reasonably compensated."
Under the present system re indictable
offences, experts get $15 and all otlier wit-
nes.ses get $6. For summary conviction
cases, they are getting $4 plus ten cents a
mile for their travelling.
Is the hon. Minister taking into considera-
tion the review of the fees that would be
considered reasonable fees, in accordance
with page 862 of the McRuer commission
report wherein, among his recommendations
he says that all witnesses, other than quali-
fied experts, should be paid $15 a day?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Before the
Minister rephes, I would point out to the
House that there are several private conver-
sations taking place in the chamber which
makes it very difficult to hear the proceedings
of the House. I would ask for a little more
quiet please. The Minister.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chairman, we have noted the views set
forth by Mr. McRuer and I think they have a
good deal of merit and certainly deserve con-
sideration. I would point out that the only
change in this section is a substitution of the
director of public prosecutions, who is an
officer of The Department of the Attorney
General, for tlie Attorney General.
The language of the section, which is un-
changed otherwise, permits the increase in
fees and, in our study of the recommendations,
if we will find it possible to carry them
out, we may make such increases as may be
merited.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 75 reported.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I will try this again if I may?
Mr. Chairman: Is tlie member rising on a
point of order?
Mr. Sargent: No, sir, I am on this bill tliat
is coming up.
Mr. Chairman: The bill has been carried.
Mr. Sargent: But all these bills here—
Mr. Chairman: Order! The bill has been
carried.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill 76, An Act to
amend The Division Courts Act.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, respectfully,
all these bills, 76 to 85 inclusive, are enabling
legislation in the transferring of the costs
here. I tliink if the chair were to ask anyone
if they have any points to bring up we coidd
pass these bills in total— these ten bills, at
once— saving going through all this.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree ( Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs ) : We are going to do
the estimates now.
Mr. Sargent: On these eight or nine bills,
I think it is 75 to 84 inclusive, if the chair
were to ask anyone who has any interest
in any of these bills, then the chair could
pass all these bills at once.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have very
many questions regarding the bills and the
hon. member is quite right. There is no
question at all about the bill coming up, but
as to 77, the bill deahng with justices of the
peace, I may have a few questions on that.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I could call each
bill in its entirety.
MAY 29, 1968
3555
Mr. Lawlor: There are a number of bills
on which I do not want to ask any question,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Would the committee con-
cur that it would be acceptable if the Chair-
man were to call each bill, ask if there were
any questions and if there were no questions
then pass the bill?
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act. Are there any questions per-
taining to this Act?
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I did not see-
the member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): I wonder if
the Minister could explain this section 1
where it says:
The provision repeal requires municipali-
ties to provide accommodation for division
courts.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is simply a part of
the whole proposal to take over the cost of
tlie administration of justice and also the
responsibility which, under the present legis-
lation, rests upon the municipality. Now the
responsibihty is on the province of Ontario.
The municipality is relieved by the repeal of
that section of the responsibihty to provide
the facilities. The province must now do so,
Bill 76 reported.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Just a
brief question. In the situation where munici-
palities are not actually providing physical
space within their own municipal buildings,
but are providing rented accommodation, is it
the intention of the department to eventually
provide accommodation for division courts
within provincial government buildings, or
will the present system of using some rented
accommodation be allowed to continue?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I would
expect that we will work out arrangements.
Certainly, we have the responsibility now
as a province to provide all the costs of the
administration of justice, administration and
facihties, and we are moving, as I think we
discussed in this House before the session,
to complete the provision of facihties for all
our courts. It may take a littie time to do this
and we are making arrangements with all
municipahties to cover this whole area.
Bill 76 reported.
THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT
House in committee on Bill 77, An Act
to amend The Justices of the Peace Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there questions pertain-
ing to this bill? The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: A question with respect to
section 1 of the amendment— it is a minor
point, but I would like to know. Section 6
of The Justices of the Peace Act says:
A justice of the peace may use any court-
room or hall for the hearing of cases
brought before him but not so as to inter-
fere with its ordinary use.
Why are you repealing the section? Are the
justices of the peace being tossed out, in
effect?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, Mr. Chairman,
again if we are to go, as we have undertaken
to go, to the assumption of the responsibihty
of the costs of administration of justice which,
as I point out, includes not only the admin-
istration, salaries of persormel and so on, but
also the provision of the buildings, we have
to relieve the municipality, I think, to be
consistent, of the responsibihty or the obliga-
tion to allow people who are engaged in the
administration of justice to use municipal
facilities— unless we compensate them or make
some arrangements.
So, therefore, we remove in this particular
section, by the rejjeal of the section, that
obligation from the municipality and it will
be incumbent upon the provincial govern-
ment to find a facihty which the justice of
the peace may use, or to make an arrange-
ment with the municipality so that the justice
of the peace may be accommodated. Again,
of course, I am sure we will have in mind
arrangements which will not interfere with
the municipal government itself.
That is simply all it means— that we are
going the complete distance to say, "You
have no obligation to supply facilities or to
look after persons who are engaged in the
administration of justice; this is the obligation
of the province of Ontario."
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, that is not
precisely what the section says, but as I say,
it says, "to use any courtroom at all." In any
event, within the context of the old situation,
I suppose the section and the explanation
given does make sense.
As to section 2, Mr. Chairaian, particularly
with 9 and 10, and particularly 10:
3556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Lieutenant Governor may authorize
the payment of a salary to a justice of the
peace.
This is very much in hne with the presenta-
tions of McRuer, quite apart from anything
contained in the Smith report. I refer you,
Mr. Chairman, and the members of this
House, to pages 518 and 519 of vohime 2 of
McRuer, w^here he inveighs against the justice
of the peace and against the system that has
grown up in the province— the pohtical hocus-
pocus, as my friend from Grey-Bruce might
say.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: With great respect to
your ruling about the procedure, Mr. Chair-
man, by adopting this overall procedure, you
are permitting a debate to take place which
should properly take place on second reading.
This is the danger of the procedure which
you have adopted. Any comment or debate
must be directed to the sections of the bill
which are contained in the amendment and
which are only those sections which are now
before the House. This is not a second read-
ing debate.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, the Chairman concurs
with the Minister and I would ask the member
for Lakeshore to confine his remarks specific-
ally to any particular section and the opera-
tion thereof.
Mr. Lawlor: I would ask the Chairman
again to read page 518 and 519. Thank you.
Bill 77 reported.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
House in committee on Bill 78, An Act to
amend The Land Titles Act.
Bill 78 reported.
THE PARTNERSHIPS REGISTRATION
ACT
House in committee on Bill 79, An Act to
amend The Partnerships Registration Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this particular bill? If not, shall
the bill be reported?
Bill 79 reported.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
House in committee on Bill 80, An Act to
amend The Judicature Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this particular bill? If not, shall the
bill be reported?
Bill 80 reported.
THE PROBATION ACT
House in committee on Bill 81, An Act to
amend The Probation Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 81 reported.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
House in committee on Bill 82, An Act to
amend The Sheriffs Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 82 reported.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
House in committee on Bill 83, An Act to
amend The Fire Marshals Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 83 reported.
THE REGISTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill 84, An Act to
amend The Registry Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions
pertaining to this bill? If not, shall the bill
be reported?
Bill 84 reported.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES
COMMISSION ACT
House in committee on Bill 121, An Act
to amend The Hospital Services Commission
Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 121 reported.
MAY 29. 1968
3557
THE PHARMACY ACT
House in committee on Bill 122, An Act
to amend The Pharmacy Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): What is the
net effect of that amendment? I would like
to ask if that is entirely new legislation or—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will hold that bill
until the Minister is here. We will proceed
with Bill 123.
THE MEDICAL ACT
House in committee on Bill 123, An Act
to amend The Medical Act.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps you will hold that one
too.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
House in committee on Bill 119, An Act
to amend The Highway TraflBc Act.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 form part
of the bill?
The member for Timiskaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Chair-
man, I just have one question on section 1,
subsections 1 and 2, where it says, "but does
not include the cars of electric or steam rail-
roads" and goes on to say "or a motorized
snow vehicle". By doing this, it takes the
snow vehicles out of The Highway TraflSc
Act and eliminates them from coverage under
section 105, which is insurance coverage. I
was wondering if the Minister would care to
comment on this?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, the matter of insurance cover-
age on the motorized snow vehicle is cared
for in The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act itself.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. I think it would be
better for the House if we get back to the
usual procedure of starting the bill and read-
ing clause by clause. It is sort of—
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that is exactly what the Chairman
has done. I called section 1. We are debat-
ing section 1.
Any further comments on section 1?
Sections 1 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 119 reported.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of tlie whole House rise and report
certain bills without amendment and ask fqr
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
moves second reading of Bill 107, An Act to
amend The Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES CAPITAL
AID CORPORATION ACT, 1964
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer) moves second reading of Bill 127, An
Act to amend The Ontario Universities Capital
Aid Corporation Act, 1964.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions) moves second reading of Bill
128, An Act to amend The Training Schools
Act, 1965.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, the bill is not—
Mr. Speaker: On my order paper, it is so
marked. I might advise the House leader it
has been printed but has not arrived from the
printers yet.
Mr. Sopha: That is right, they are not in
the book.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will call order
No. 2.
Clerk of the House: The 2nd order, con-
sideration of the reports of the liquor control
3558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
lioard of Ontario and tlie liquor licence board
of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. I am sure the Op-
position does not question the right of the
government to call the business of the House.
However, I am sure that when the Prime
Minister announced last night that the second
Older would be dealt with today, that he
thought that the report of the liquor con-
trol board and the report of the Uquor licence
board would be in the hands of the members
of tlie House.
That is not so, and at least two of us, my
hon. friend from Waterloo North (Mr. Good)
and myself, on specific request— which in-
cidentally was directed through the Provincial
Auditor this morning and passed by him to
the liquor control board— received about seven
minutes ago, for the first time, the report of
the liquor control board.
The report of the liquor licence board is
one of the sessional papers, I believe number
4, part of the proceedings of the House.
However, it has not been received. Last
week at the meeting of the standing com-
mittee on government commissions, we were
informed that it would not be received until
the month of July. The explanation given
was that apparently the tabling of the
report by the Provincial Secretary in this
House— I paraphrase, actually— the tabhng by
him triggers the mechanism to get it printed.
They have to wait for the words to fall from
the lips of the Provincial Secretary here and
then the order can be transmitted to the
printers to print it.
It was said by the president of the liquor
licence board that it would not be received
until July. I add that my friend from Water-
loo North has very assiduously pursued tliis
matter in an endeavour to get tlie report.
We could, of course, have looked at tlie
sessional paper, but that is scarcely practical
for all the members of the Opposition.
Accordingly I am glad to see that my leader
has arrived here, I did not want to say that
he will, of course, exercising his initiative I
am sure, but I just wanted to report to you
that it is rather difficult. I was to be the
lead-off speaker, and it is very difficult to
deal with a report that one has received only
minutes ago.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Prime Minister
remarks on the matter, I have been advised
by the Clerk that the liquor control board
report was tabled on February 22 of this
year, and the liquor licence board report on
Nhuch 26 of this year, so that both reports
have been tabled and are available.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, if we are going to wait for the
most recent report of these various bodies to
be available, it may be that we will eliminate
the possibility of debate on these subjects.
Now with regard to the second order, which
is the report of the workmen's compensa-
tion board, it operates on a calendar year,
not a fiscal year basis, and therefore its
most recent report might not be available
for some time, I would say tliis, that the
device of the listing of these reports is
simply to have means whereby the policies
and functioning of these boards may be dis-
cussed.
Tlie debate very seldom bears much rela-
tionship to what is in the report, although
I realize that the most recent report would
be helpful to those who might want to take
part in the debate. If however, we are to
wait until the most recent report is available,
it might very well be that we will defeat our
own purpose and there will be no opportunity
for debate on the function of these boards.
This is why we use this device of tabling the
report, and the reports on the order paper
in both these instances, and the most recent
available.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
I think that we on this side have some dif-
ficulty in both these circumstances, and in
the estimates of some departments, when the
most recent report is not available for the
support of certain arguments and discussions
that we would like to initiate. But certainly
we would have no objection to proceeding
with the debate as it was originally scheduled.
It is unfortunate that although the reports
have been sessional reports for some time,
it has not been possible to get them repro-
duced in sufficient numbers so that all mem-
bers would be able to use them individually.
Mr. Sopha: I would say furtlier that the
workmen's compensation board report was
tabled just a few days ago; was that not the
most recent one?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, but I do not think
it has the most recent information you might
want, because of the way that the compensa-
tion board operates. As I say, it is not so
much the report itself that is the subject of
the debate as it is the function of the board.
We use this device which was started some
years ago to perm! I: a debate on the func-
MAY 29, 1968
3559
tion of the board or commission from which
the report comes. It is immaterial to me,
but all 1 can say it that you might eliminate
your own chance of debate.
Mr. Nixon: Since tlie Premier has risen
again on that, I am sure that he will agree
that since the papers have been tabled for
some weeks, the most recent ones at least,
it would be in the interest of an orderly
debate at this time if they had been repro-
duced and we had a chance to peruse them.
Certainly we want to take advantage of this
occasion, and I have no doubt that we are
prepared to proceed.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Without furtlier ado, I
will see if I can get tliem reproduced in the
next couple of weeks. We are going to be
here for a while, and maybe I can get them
into your hands in quantity. So I would sug-
gest that we proceed with the estimates.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply; Mr, A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, 1 would just like to
point out that this is the second occasion
on which we have been promised that we
could debate the compensation board, and a
number of members here have prepared all
their material and 1 think that it is rather
petulant on the part of the Premier to now
say that—
Mr. Speaker: Order! If there is any point
of policy or principle widi respect to that
matter, I would be certainly glad to have it
placed before the House by the leader of the
third party or his deputy leader, because it
is a matter which has been dealt with be-
tween the leader of the government and the
leader of the Opposition. If the member
for High Park wishes then to speak on behalf
of his group, and is the official spokesman for
them, I am sure that the House would be
glad to hear his submission.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker, when you refer to the
third party, you mean the New Democratic
Party?
Interjections by hon. members.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
our leader is not here and our deputy is un-
able to speak, as you know.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(Continued)
Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with
these estimates, in view of the discussions and
the misunderstandings that had arisen last
evening, the Chairman would like to take the
occasion to inform the members of the com-
mittee that we will deal henceforth with the
estimates vote by vote, rather than item by
item.
I would also inform the members at this
time that the practice of retaining or main-
taining of list of speakers will be discontinued
by the Chairman. I would refer the members
to rule 14, in which, when they wish to par-
ticipate in the debates, they will rise and
address the chair.
On vote 1901:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbuiy): Mr. Chairman,
I wanted to direct some remarks to this item.
At the end of the list of grants there is the
centre of criminology. University of Toronto,
$30,000. I wanted to say-and I hope the
Minister (Mr. Grossman) will not consider it
an unfair allegation— that I infer from his
remarks that there may be some confusion
in his own mind about his place in the struc-
ture of things, I rather infer that the Minister
in his thinking goes beyond the strict con-
fines of that which his department is set up
to do.
We on this side have for many years taken
the position, sometimes more vigorously than
others, that in the order of things there is a
good argument that this department ought to
be a branch of The Department of the
Attorney General. I really believe that in
the Minister's mind he has a feeling that he
goes beyond custodial care. As I see it, a
court sentences a man and he comes under
the care of the Minister, and that is where
his work begins.
He keeps him incarcerated for that period
that the law determines and you add the
parole board and so on, and then he is
released and properly the Minister should be
responsible for after-care. But looking at this
grant to the centre of criminology, a person
can readily believe that the science or the art
or the humanist discipline of criminology
really deals with the whole compass of anti-
social behaviour.
The criminologists, I would say, would start
with those factors in human living that stimu-
late a person to a life of anti-social activity.
It starts well before any individuals come into
the hands of this Minister.
3560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
So then, my question really is, what has
The Department of Reform Institutions got to
do with criminology? This is the function of
the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart).
The Attorney General and his staff, if they
saw tliemselves— and we sometimes doubt
whether they so see themselves— as some-
tliing more than mere prosecutors of offenders
against the laws of Ontario and/or Canada,
if they really evinced an interest in the causes
of crime, the stimuli that start a person on an
anti-social road, if they felt that way, it
would be the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General who would be establishing the con-
tact with the department of criminology.
I have very little idea of what they do over
in the centre of criminology. I would suspect
—and I have read some of the brochures, and
I read some of the agenda for their confer-
ences that they hold from time to time— that
that centre is far more interested in the
causes of crime than it is in the after-care of
offenders as they are released from the institu-
tions supervised by the Minister of Reform
Institutions.
Seeing this vote here indicates to me that
the government as a whole is to be suspected.
It does not have a very accurate conception
of what this criminology business is all about.
And rather, it looks like this is a grab bag,
catch-all, sort of place to put this grant in.
As we said last night in respect of the John
Howard society, and perhaps rationally the
remarks are equally germane here, if the
government had a serious interest in this
business and if, on the other hand, the centre
of criminology was doing very deep and pene-
trating and valuable work in the field of
criminology, one would expect that the grant
would be much more than the $30,000
allocated. So in view of that I would like to
hear from the Minister, if he will grant my
premise to begin with, if he agrees with me.
I am not really seeking to cross-examine him,
but if my premise is correct that he, as a
Minister of the Crown in charge of his
department, has nothing whatever to do with
the causes of crime or how people are pro-
cessed through the courts. And, in fact, I
doubt if the Minister has little to do with the
sentences that are imposed upon them for
anti-social behaviour.
I must hastily qualify that and say that for
many years consistently on this side we have
advocated that the present system of sen-
tencing people to jail is completely wrong.
It may well be, as experience has shown
in other jurisdictions, some people, more
enlightened than ours, think that sentencing
should be a function of somebody quite inde-
pendent of the courts. And in line with the
modern philosophy of penology, that being
that the sentence must fit the offender, not
the crime, any longer.
So, if my premise, as I say, is correct— and
I do not want to obscure too greatly that at
least a major portion of the work of the
centre of criminology does not fall within this
department— I hastily say in that regard that
the centre of criminology, no doubt, would
see their work and their researches, their
studies, their evaluation, to be a total com-
posite picture. That is very fine. That is the
way they should approach it.
But we are dealing with governmental
structure here, and it is the Prime Minister
(Mr, Robarts) and the Treasury board that
determine that we shall have a separate
Department of Reform Institutions to care
for those who have been sentenced to im-
prisonment. That is purely an artificial struc-
ture within the total government picture, but
my point being that the jurisdiction of this
department is far too limited for a meaningful
contact with the centre of criminology.
The thesis I make is that if the govern-
ment is interested in rehabilitation, then the
place that this should reside is in The Depart-
ment of the Attorney General, where we
would be striking at the root of crime and
focusing on the preventive measures which
this Minister has nothing whatever to do.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Chairman, I think the hon.
member finished up by giving a good reason
as to why The Department of Reform Insti-
tutions is involved, because the hon. member
did state the centre of criminology concerns
itself with a total spectrum of crime, its
effect and its treatment.
Yesterday, I pointed out that the centre of
criminology started off with a grant from our
department because of the concern of our
department with the lack of research in this
field. I would like to point out, of course,
that I do not want to miss the opportunity of
making a comment on the hon. member's
suggestion that really reform institutions
should come under The Attorney General's
Department. I think it was one of the great-
est advances in Canadian penology when the
government saw fit 21 years ago to set up a
department especially designed to look after
corrections.
As a matter of fact, I think the hon.
member will recall my making appeals to the
MAY 29, 1968
3561
federal government to do precisely the same
thing. It is recognized in correctional circles
that so long as a Minister has within his
department corrections as only a branch of
his department, this will, generally speaking,
be the last branch which gets any attention.
Because, as has been stated on frequent
occasions, and I agree with it, corrections is
not by any means the most glamorous branch
of any governmental operation. So the ten-
dency of Ministers who have this as merely a
branch of a much larger department, is to
neglect corrections to a larger extent than
they might otherwise.
As a matter of fact, the federal government
has already recognized this, because it was
only a year or two ago that they assigned to
the Solicitor General the duties, which form-
erly came under the huge branch of the
Ministry of Justice, of looking after the federal
penal system. Now the Solicitor General's
ministry has the jurisdiction of penal institu-
tions, and the RCMP.
Incidentally, I still do not think this is an
ideal situation. I think that the hon. member
for Sudbury, with his high regard for keeping
everything in its proper place, will agree that
they really do not belong together— the pohce
and the rehabilitation branch of correction.
However, having said that, let me add that
criminology does not, as the members pointed
out, take in just the causes outside the cor-
rectional institution— but also is concerned
about what happens, what is the efiFect on
crime, of the manner in which the person
is treated inside a correctional institution.
This is important to them too.
As a matter of fact, there have been some
suggestions that criminals are made in cor-
rectional institutions. I think there is some
degree of truth in this. There are some who
would be, I think, and probably do become
greater criminals by the fact that they have
spent much time in institutions.
So it all comes, really, within the purview
of the centre of criminology, but our interest
is that we shall have a place where we can
go to get some research done. There is now
also a centre of criminology at Carleton Uni-
versity, and we are now able to use Carleton
University to do some of the research for us.
I should also point out to the hon. members
that they do not, of course, exist on the
$30,000 grant. He will note, in the estimates
of The Department of the Attorney General,
there is also a figure of more than twice this.
There is a grant, under vote 206 in the esti-
mates of The Department of the Attorney
General, $74,000 for the same centre, and
we know that they are in receipt of funds
from other areas. It is really an academic
question.
They deal with matters which concern the
department under the Minister of Justice and
the Attorney General, and The Department
of Reform Institutions, and one could argue
that for tidiness of operation it should be
in one branch. I really have no strong views
on this. It just started this way, and when
they asked for more money, they went to
the Attorney General. For reasons which the
Attorney General will explain when his esti-
mates are called, they are providing for
grants.
As a matter of fact, as far as I am con-
cerned, I think eventually, all grants, to any-
body, will hopefully— I am giving you a
personal view which, perhaps, I should not-
come from The Department of the Treasury.
So all the grants will come through one
source, rather than from difiFerent places.
Mr. Sopha: Is the Minister saying to us
that he is ordering $30,000 worth of research
projects? Is that what he is doing?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is not. No, not
from the centre of criminology. As I tried to
point out, and I, perhaps, did not make my-
self clear, they started off with a grant from
our department. We are able to use their
facilities, but we are not purchasing neces-
sarily $30,000 of research from the centre of
criminology. Their very existence is helpful
for anyone else who is doing research. Their
very existence is very helpful to people in our
department who are seeking information
which otherwise might not be available.
Mr. Sopha: Will the Minister relieve my
mind? You are giving them $30,000, and
you are not imposing any terms or conditions
as to how they spend it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: None at all.
Mr. Sopha: So it leaves me to ask the
Attorney General when we vote— how much
do you say?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: $74,000.
Mr. Sopha: Would you ask him whether he
imposes any terms on how they spend it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would not think so.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to rise to speak on this item. I
have a statement that the hon. Minister of
3562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Reform Institutions and of correctional serv-
ices has made, stating that the setting up of
a separate department to handle what he
calls, corrections, was the greatest step for-
ward ever taken by any government of this
province, or anywhere else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say anywhere
else, I said in Canada.
Mr. Ben: Oh, in Canada. To me, it was
the most retrograde step that was ever taken.
Because it would follow, from my point of
view, sir, that the passing of laws; the sanc-
tions that are imposed by those laws; the
apprehension of miscreants or criminals; the
bringing of them before a bar of justice;
the prosecution of the offences; a trial of the
offenders, the conviction of the accused,
the incarceration, the reformation, and re-
habilitation of the individual should be under
one department, run by one individual, be-
cause all those are a series of events, concern-
ing one individual. Yet we have a number of
departments that are sometimes acting at cross
purposes. Furthermore, I can hardly accept
the Minister's statement, when he talks about
having set up a correction department 20
years ago, because we have had no correction.
The rate of recidivism has remained con-
sistent for generations, Mr. Chairman, whether
it was under this Minister, or the previous
Minister. The fact remains that our system
of reformation, if that is what it is to be
called, or a system of prisons, is completely
archaic. No one has stopped to build up a
new system from the bottom, they keep on
trying to add to an already old, derelict and
useless system.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, we put people
in prison, for one of three reasons. We put
them in there either to punish them, to
isolate them, or to reform them.
In the first category would be what we
would call "habitual criminals". There is no
hope of reforming them, and a select com-
mittee of this Legislature, if my memory
serves me correctly— the year may be 1957—
decided that you should not concentrate so
much money on trying to reform people who
are completely beyond reformation, but should
try to use this money you have to reform those
who are capable of reformation. But there
are certain people, certain elements of society,
whom we put in prison because they are be-
yond reformation, and we put them in there
to punish them.
There is another category we put into
prisons to isolate them. Now they may have
some quirk in nature, they may be pedophiles,
they may be alcoholics, they may be drug
addicts, they may have some other illness
which requires their removal from society,
either for their own protection, or for the pro-
tection of society, or for both.
The third category, which we have all
referred to as "first offenders", we put in
there to reform.
Now prisons should be designed to accept
these three different categories. We should
not just have maximum security, medium
security, and minimum security prisons as we
have at the present time, but prisons should
be geared to the purpose for which they are
supposed to serve. The prisons in the middle,
the ones for accommodating people who are
put there for isolation, should have compre-
hensive and intensive treatment available to
the inmates, so that whatever quirk they have
of nature, or whatever illness they have, it
could be cured, or at least an endeavour made
to make the cure.
As far as the people they put into the so-
called reformatories are concerned, there we
ought to concentrate on making sure that
they come out reformed, or, at least, and here
I should digress. I asked the Minister if he
would send me a copy of the statement he
made yesterday, and he did.
At least here it is not necessary to keep
them in prison during the whole of the period
of their reformation. But if it is obvious to
the Minister's staff that tlie person is capable
of being reformed, he could complete his
reformation on the street, so to speak, under
the aegis or imder the guidance of the depart-
ment, and I compliment the Minister for
suggesting such a system take place.
There is another aspect that goes together
with reformation, and that is rehabilitation.
This also should come under one department.
We have parole for instance— last year I was
ruled out of order when I found I was dis-
cussing parole instead of probation or vice-
versa.
They fell under two different department
heads, and I was told that one comes under
The Attorney General's Department, and the
other under this department, and the Chair-
man was quite right.
If my memory serves me correctly, you, Mr.
Chairman, were the chairman who brought
that to my attention.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out that that
is in the next vote.
MAY 29, 1968
3563
Mr. Ben: The fact is that you brought to
my attention that there was a distinction be-
tween parole and probation, and they came
under two different departments, headed by
two different Ministers of the Crown, although
they are to be discussed at the same time-
dealing with the offences committed by citi-
zens.
Now, we are talking alx)ut what the hon.
member for Sudbury was speaking of-the
centre of criminology.
At the centre of criminology, or the crim-
inology department at Carleton— to which the
Minister refers, now headed by Professor
Taduesz Grygier, who was the chief research
director, I beheve, rtr one of the chief
research—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Director of research.
Mr. Ben: Director of research for the hon.
Minister's department. I am sorry the Min-
ister lost the services of tliis individual,
because to me he was one of the most
enlightened men who had come into the
services of this province in almost any depart-
ment.
He came with an open mind and did not
accept a lot of old cliches that had been
battered around for generations and genera-
tions. He went out to find out for himself.
He carried out an empirical study and I
believe that he used grants as a source of
his figures.
According to his paper, putting a person
in prison, as the Minister just intimated, does
not necessarily reform him or make him a
better citizen. In fact, Professor Grygier dis-
covered, or at least his findings led him to
believe, that if you put a bad person into a
prison he will come out worse, and if you
put a good person into prison, he will come
out better. Rather than converging towards
the norm, there was a divergence.
If we accept this finding, we have to ques-
tion about putting people into jail at all,
because obviously we are not interested in
making good people better, we are happy they
are good. We do not want everybody to be
perfect, we just want them to be good.
Simply putting them into prison and making
them better people does not benefit society
that mucb
The other aspect of it, making bad people
worse, should bother us. What we are try-
ing to do is to make bad people better, not
worse, and if we follow the findings of Pro-
fessor Grygier, we ought not to be putting
bad people into prison. I am not suggesting
that is a system that we have to follow, but
this is the conclusion that one is led to by
Professor Grygier's findings.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much
of the time of the House, Mr. Chairman,
but I had to in Hght of what the Minister
said about the centre for criminology and
also about his so-called correction system. I
hope that the name will lead to a refinement
of the system and that the system will be-
come what the name suggests. It is obvious
the previous name— the name that is still
being used at the present time— reform insti-
tutions—and the department did not live up
to its name. Let us hope that under the new
title there will be more success.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to say flatly, in respect of
the hon. member's opinion, that The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions should not exist
as a separate department, that there is no
person that I know of in correctional service
who would agree with him. They not only
would disagree with him but they would do
everything possible to see that every juris-
diction in Canada has a department dealing
with correctional institutions. As a matter of
fact, we have been asked by the Canadian
correction association to permit our Deputy
Minister to accompany that association to the
western provinces to help them revamp their
system along the same line that it is in
Ontario.
Mr. Ben: Every bird likes to feather its
own nest.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
how we are feathering our nests. As a mat-
ter of fact, the fewer people who come into
our institutions, the happier it will make us.
The fact remains that any place that I went
where there was no separate correctional
branch under its own aegis, but just a branch
of some other department, they were most
envious of the fact that not only was there
a branch, or department for this with no
other duties, but they were very much and
pleasantly surprised that some jurisdictions
thought well enough of it to have a Minister
for it. For many reasons— and I have men-
tioned this in the House before and there is
no use repeating things which are already in
Hansard— it was a great encouragement to
people to know, in a department, that they
have at the head of it, a Minister who is
concerned with nothing else but the job that
they are doing, and they do not have to
compete with 15 or 20 other civil servants
for the time of the Minister in respect of
3564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dealing with matters of correction. This is
one of the problems.
The members also mentioned something
about the rates of recidivism, and this is
constantly referred to, I am afraid that so
long as it is constantly referred to I am going
to have to find it my duty to constantly refute
it because of the misunderstanding that is
spread across the country, and that is that
the rate of recidivism has remained constant
in Canada. In the first place it is a confusion
between Canada and the system of Ontario,
and there is a vast difference. Nobody knows
what the rates of recidivism are. I mentioned
this last night-
Mr. Sopha: May I ask you a question? If
individual "A" goes through the doors of
Guelph, can it be ascertained if he was ever
in an institution before? And if he was, he is
a recidivist.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Up to a point.
Mr. Sopha: What do you mean, up to a
point? He either was or he was not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mentioned this last
night.
Mr. Sopha: Stop giving me a snow job.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mentioned to the
hon. member that there was no way of
getting the correct rate of recidivism.
Mr. Sopha: These things here—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will recall last night, I mentioned to him that
only those people who are convicted of in-
dictable offences are fingerprinted.
Mr. Sopha: Those are the only ones who
go to jail, except for the drunks.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh come on, there
are many others.
Mr. Sopha: I earn my living in the criminal
courts; what do you mean "come on"? The
only people who go to jail are those people
who are convicted of indictable offences, and
the drunks, nobody else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the hon. member's
consideration, I will get reports from Pro-
fessor Grygier and others who attend to the
problems of the rates of recidivism.
Mr. Sopha: I will give you some informa-
tion—most of the people in jail are the drunks.
Mr. Chairman: Order, orderl
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will agree with the
hon. member on that.
Mr. Sopha: I have the figures right here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would just like to
add for the hon. member's knowledge that
while we have lost Professor Grygier as the
director of research of this department, we
still have his services available as a consul-
tant and we are continuing to use them.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901, the mem-
ber for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, under vote 901, I noticed that there is
no specific item set out here under any of
the headings, or items, specifically dealing
with research. Adverting to "the statement
of purpose," which is a very high-minded and
edifying statement of purpose issued in the
annual report by the Minister, in the third
paragraph he says that the department lays
great stress on research. Its principles should
be guided by research findings and assessed
regularly for efficiency.
He goes on: "The development of an opera-
tions research and assessment unit is neces-
sary for this approach." But I would suggest
to the Minister that that sort of thing is
a computer analysis, which could be done in
Public Works— all this business during these
estimates of operations branches. Why can
they not be centralized, and why can the
computer units of this government not be
taken into a focus, instead of every depart-
ment talking about research and this sort of
context?
The Minister goes on later in his section
to deal with research that is purportedly
going on. He has got a few pamphlets pub-
lished. The White Oaks clinic is mentioned
as to the study of children who were returned
either to their parental or to their foster
homes, and that would be my second ques-
tion. Dealing with the White Oaks study
in the statement here it says the expected
completion date of this study is 1968. Apart
from that, what does not appear obvious on
the surface is that despite all the protestations
of wishing to look deep into the problems
of the criminal mind, and the rehabilitative
problems that arise out of that, not much is
being done in Ontario, despite the extensive
research going on at the present time through-
out many jurisdictions, particularly in the
United States, and in the world at large.
For instance, I will refer to the department
of correction for New York state, in their
annual report of 1966, where they say that
MAY 29, 1968
3565
the trend towards diversity of experimental
programmes is continuing, "as the pendulum
of theory and concept of diagnosis and treat-
ment of offenders swings through the psy-
chiatric to the sociological schools of
thought"; and it goes on in that vein.
Where is work being done here? If your
emphasis falls anywhere, it seems to be on
group therapy now. That concept, which
has been around for a considerable time
elsewhere in the world such as Sweden
and California, is a dawning piece of busi-
ness here in Ontario, which you seem to think
puts you in the pro forefront of criminal
reform. I suggest it does not at all. It is, of
course, crucial and necessary but, neverthe-
less, the true role is that of the criminal in
the community, and the reflecting role of that
community upon him.
Some of our best people, 1 suggest, tend
to be criminals. These people are unique
individuals who break the conformist laws of
this society and who do not subscribe to the
mealy-mouthed and bourgeois concepts as to
how people should conduct their lives. They
may be highly creative individuals.
In any event, what is your department do-
ing with respect to research into these various
matters? I want to know to the dollar, to the
cent, precisely what your department, at this
time, is actually spending on research?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, first I
should point out that our Training Schools Act
—brought in, I believe, in 1965-was an Act
based, I think, completely on research. A
great deal of research was done.
Presently, we have the position of director
of research vacant because of Dr. Grygier's
moving to Ottawa and we are presently inter-
viewing potential prospects for this job. In
the meantime, we have been purchasing re-
search and doing research in our own depart-
ment. The amount that we spent for research
last year— research which we purchased— I
believe was $50,000, and in addition to that,
there was about $150,000 research being done
by the department itself, to places like Gait
training school and so on.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, is that centre of crim-
inology included within that figure, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901. The member
for Dovercourt.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): May I
ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,
what type of research these funds paid for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The research varies.
We have some research done, for example,
as to the efiicacy of a particular programme
in effect at a particular institution or institu-
tions.
There is a study being done now as to the
success of our programme at Hagersville—
Gait; a study on parole, what effect this has
on the recidivism. That sort of thing; it is
quite lengthy. We have quite a list of
research on which we have had reports.
I mentioned yesterday that we had done
a survey on half-way houses. As a result of
the survey— which is in the nature of research,
but is not what is known as scientific research
—we have now requested a scientific research
project.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, is there any
preventive research being done? In other
words, research that would prevent even the
offender coming back or being in the courts
for the first time by this department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
should appreciate the fact that any research
we are doing which will help guide us as to
the best programme to undertake to keep
people from coming back into institutional
life, or keep them from becoming oflFenders
again, is preventative. It is all preventative.
Mr. De Monte: In view of the recent statis-
tics, Mr. Chairman, that crime is on the
increase— and serious crime in particular— I
am wondering whether the Minister has con-
sidered that type of research down in our
cities here, where we could do research among
the groups and the gangs as to what motivates
these people to go out and commit crime or
commit petty offences. I would suggest that
with the minuscule amount of research that
is allotted here, that type of research cannot
be done, but should be done.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps this would
come under the heading of what the hon.
member is referring to. There are two studies
being conducted now concerning personality
changes and correctional treatment and an-
other one is associated with recidivism after
release from our Ontario Brampton training
centre. The latter study has been developing
new methodology for prediction and evalua-
tion and a new classification of offences inte-
grating legal, social, psychological and
statistical data.
)66
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I hope that will assure the hon. member
that we are concerned in any aspect of re-
search which will help us make a decision in
respect of the best type of treatment to pro-
vide in our system, to help these people from
becoming repeaters.
Mr. De Monte: Well, I agree with the hon.
Minister and I commend his department for
going into the reciditive aspect of criminolog>'.
But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
perhaps the Minister might consider the pre-
ventive prior to being in a correctional institu-
tion or a jail or a penitentiary and that
perhaps he might consider this when he sets
down his research programme for the years
to come.
I have another question of the hon. Minis-
ter, Mr. Chairman. What type of staff train-
ing is given to the guards of the Ontario
reformatories-
Mr. Sopha: Before you start that—
Mr. De Monte: All right, fine. I will yield
to my friend from Sudbury.
Mr. Chairman: If the member wants to
yield, all right.
Mr. Sopha: My friend from Lakeshore, very
usefully following the lead given by the
Minister, began to examine some of the aims
and obejctives of this department. The Mini-
ster talks about the research programmes and
his difficulty in defining the rate of recidivism
and, as is his veritable infection on that side,
he also talks about being in the forefront of
all of Canada.
Out of curiosity, as I have a pretty good
idea what the response would show, I would
like to see a little study by that department,
that centre of criminology to determine
whether there is any province in Canada that
shows more proclivity than Ontario for put-
ting people in jail. I would like to find that
out.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, that bothers you, does it
not? That gets you up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only thing that
bothers me about it, is that the hon. member
for Sudbury—
Mr. Sopha: That gets you up!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only thing that
liothers me about it is that the hon. member
for Sudbury was at great pains just a few
moments ago to tell me that we were moving
into an area that does not belong to us, and
that is, those people-
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those people who—
Mr. Sopha: That bothers you. Why do you
not sit down and let me make my speech?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber must appreciate the fact that our depart-
ment cannot deal with that. I agree with him
wholeheartedly that there are too many people
in this province being put into penal institu-
tions and he did not have to wait until
today. I have said so publicly. There are too
many people, particularly those who are con-
victed of such things as drunkenness, who
should not be put in institutions. I have said
so publicly. And hopefully this is what we
are working towards. The detoxification centre
pilot programme will hopefully lead to this.
Mr. Sopha: All right. Fine, fine. Let me
continue what I was going to say, because
according to the statistics I have you would
be out of business.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Good!
Mr. Sopha: If there was ever a major re-
form in the attitude toward infractions against
The Liquor Control Act, then your depart-
ment would disappear or become an adjunct
of The Department of the Attorney General
simply for want of something to do.
Now I suppose we need Professor Parkin-
son to come over and conduct an inverted
study of the reactions of a government depart-
ment when it is threatened with going out of
business, instead of the other way that he
speaks of; it is in tlie process of empire
building.
According to the statistics furnished me by
the Deputy Minister this morning for the
Sudbury district jail, which is an institution,
of course, completely under tlie jurisdiction of
the department, out of a total of 1,479 people
in the jail in 1967, all except 209 of them
were in jail for liquor offences. I can give
you, Mr. Chairman, .some very clean figures.
Out of 1,479 people incarcerated in that jail,
1,270 of them, that is, all except 209, were in
for violations of The Lifjuir Control Act. What
are you running there? The Sudbury district
jail is then nothing more than a Salvation
Army hostel with a little more stringent in-
carcerative characteristics. In other words, the
department is a drying out institution for
drunks.
MAY 29, 1968
3567
In order to correct that and to demonstrate,
as the Minister says, something other than
the prochvity of Ontario to put people in jail
—I say to the Attorney General that there
were 56,000 out of seven million in jail last
year and a rate for 100,000 of population
could easily be calculated. I would like to see
that rate compared to the other provinces of
Canada, to ascertain how many people per
100,000 of population in the other provinces
are incarcerated. And I will bet you a nickel
that Ontario's rate is either the highest, or
right next to the highest, of people in jail.
Whether that is called recidivism or whatever
it is called, I say it demonstrates a great pro-
clivity to lock people up.
I want now to introduce this reminder. A
few years ago another Attorney General sat
over there. It was probably four or five years
ago; my friend from Huron-Bruce (Mr.
Gaunt) will remember it, as indeed will my
friend from Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator).
One day he came in and made a great gran-
diose announcement that hereafter all drunks
were going to go to farms. The government
was going to go into the agricultural business
apparently, and hereafter there would be way
stations for these people to do their drying
out procss, amid an atmosphere of construc-
tive labour and they would no longer be
incarcerated in the classic institutions.
I do not know what happened to that pro-
gramme. I suspect, though, that it was a
matter of conscience bothering the govern-
ment which is in the liquor business in a big
way and there ought to be a little finger of
conscience about the liquor business and what
happens to people who drink too much of
the stuff, because it is the government that
gives it to them— they give it to them.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Gives?
Mr. Sopha: Well, hardly gives— makes it
available to them and controls its supply
and tlien picks them up— always the lower
economic orders, the poorest people. You do
not see many well-heeled drunks in magis-
trate's court on a Monday morning.
Mr. R. M. Johston: What do you suggest?
Mr. Sopha: What do I suggest? I will tell
you what I suggest. The revolving door, in
the words of Professor Martin, starts at the
magistrate's court. That is where it is, not at
the district jail next door. Dry them out
and let them go. No fine. No punishment.
No social aspersion whatsoever. You dry
them out and let them go. That is the human
way, that is the enlightened way.
I do not see how any society can call itself
civili/x'd that adopts the methods that this
government adopts, I really do not. How
it can mark itself as being a civilized society
by picking those wretched creatures up, as
they do over the week end, and hauling them
into the magistrate's court and imposing that
silly fine on them and giving the alternative
of the time in jail? What is it in Sudbury?
According to the figures the Deputy Minister
gave me, it is 1,270 people out of 1,479.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, please.
Mr. Sopha: Are those figures wrong? Those
are the ones I got.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I think your
secretary got them a little wrong.
Mr. Sopha: Well, it came by telephone.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not that it is impor-
tant, really, for my estimates. It is an
important matter, but with all due respect,
Mr. Chairman, I think what the hon. member
has been discussing quite properly comes
under the estimates of The Department of
the Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, it embarrasses you. Now
you want to bail out, do you?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mean this depart-
ment can do nothing about the fact that
people are committeed to our institutions.
When a judge says a person is to go to
one of our institutions we have to accept the
committal order. It does not make any dif-
ference whether we agree with the judge or
not.
But just so the hon. member's figures are
correct, there was a total of 2,252 com-
mitted to Sudbury. Of these, 1,479 were in
the nature of liquor offences— although 12 of
them were for drunk driving, and so on—
about 66 per cent. But I should tell the
hon. member-
Mr. Sopha: I doubt very much if there are
800 people-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I should not
have gotten involved in that. Perhaps I
should tell the hon. member anyway, that all
of these figures— and that is the problem with
figures, you can do anything you like with
them — the trouble with these figures — the
situation is bad enough without making it
appear that all of tliese are individual people
who are being committed. Actually, of this
number, a very large number of them are
3568
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shown as if they had been in there only once.
In other words, this figure of 1,479 would
give tlie impression that 1,479 people-
Mr. Sopha: I did not mean that at all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —were incarcerated.
Many of these are in two, three, ten, and
sometimes 20 and 25 times the same year
and show here as if there were 1,479 different
human beings being convicted.
Mr. Sopha: I did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just wanted to get
the record straight so people will under-
stand; this is what it shows on the record.
By and large, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter
that should be discussed under the estimates
of The Department of the Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. Just a moment on this,
if that is a point of order.
The Minister wants to wear two hats, you
see. He wants the best of both possible
worlds. He comes in here and he wants to
call his department The Department of Cor-
rectional Services and, as soon as you start
talking in the realm of correction, he gets up
and says, "Oh, I have nothing to do with
the way people get into jail. I look after
them only. I am only concerned with their
care once they are in." Well you cannot
have it both ways and, if correctional serv-
ices means what I think it means— that it
envelopes the concept of whether the people
should be in jail in the first place— that is
part of correction.
Mr. Chairman: I think—
Mr. Sopha: Do you know those people you
sit with? Do you know them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot discuss the
estimates of The Department of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I think the Minis-
ter is right in that, dealing with sen-
tence, this is within the purview of The
Attorney General's Department. If the mem-
ber wishes to concentrate on remedy and
treatment in the actual institution itself,
this is within this department.
Mr. Sopha: My complaint, Mr. Chairman,
is simply this. It can be baldly stated in this
way. No one emphasizes more than the
Minister himself— I do not use that phrase
"patting himself on the back," I leave it to
others to use that— no one more than him
emphasizes the grandiose nature of his ideas
in the realm of criminology, so far as it
pertains to recidivism. But the moment one
of us gets into the realm of recidivism and
really questions what the Minister is doing in
respect of people incarcerated in this prov-
ince, then up gets the Minister— do you see
what he is doing— up he gets and he says,
"I have nothing to do with that."
He reads me a lecture— did you notice the
lecture he read me about the meaning of the
figures-that it is not necessarily 1,479 dif-
ferent people? In invisible ink he is saying,
"Poor old stupid Sopha over there, I am
going to straighten him out on this." Of
course, I know it is not 1,479 people. I have
been in magistrates' courts when those people
have been convicted and sent to the Sudbury
jail for the sixth or seventh time during the
course of a year, but I do not want you to
give him too much leeway to monkey with
us in a way that he wants to do.
My point is simply this, that this $30,000
to the centre of criminology— I would wel-
come the spending of the whole $30,000 by
that branch to see whether it is not more
sensible not to put the drunks under his care
at all-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have agreed with
the hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: —to let them go.
An hon. member: What care?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, what care? As I have
said, the care is drying them out, giving them
some—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree with the hon.
member.
Mr. Sopha: All right, if you wish.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And that is what the
government is considering.
Mr. Sopha: If you wish. I have made the
point that 56,000 people a year in jail in
Ontario—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: 56,000 convictions.
Mr. Sopha: All right, 56,000 different cir-
cumstances where a person comes through the
clanging door and the door bangs shut behind
them— 56,000 incidents, most of them, I say,
for violations under The Liquor Control Act.
We have also, I say finally, in respect of
the aims and objectives of this department—
and I want to make the point that for many
years— this maybe is brought on by the
MAY 29, 1968
3569
unctuousness of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough) today— for many years
we consistently said here that we question
the division of jurisdiction between the federal
and provincial governments in this area. My-
self, after looking at it, I can see no reason
why, in respect of violations of the criminal
code of Canada, of which the Attorney
General by the constitution happens to have
jurisdiction in respect of its enforcement, but
I see no logic at the other end of the process
that government should divide jurisdiction in
respect of incarceration and rehabilitation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree.
Mr. Sopha: I would prefer to see the one
government advancing on an enlightened pro-
gramme.
Now, a Canadian who has tried to keep
aware of what is going on, has to be very
discouraged about the attitude of the federal
government in this area. Ever since the Arch-
ambault report and the Fauteux, they have
not shown very much of a progressive nature
in the realm of rehabilitation.
But what has happened, I ask the Minister?
For years we protested on this side that all
offenders incarcerated for a year ought to
come under the jurisdiction of the federal
government— the penitentiaries branch. What
progress has been made in that area?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry to tell the hon. member about all that
is happening is that another committee has
been set up, called tlie Quimet committee,
and we are hopeful that more will result from
this committee. As a matter of fact, some
things have already come about as a result
of the work of this committee.
As far as this department is concerned and
this government, I mentioned yesterday in
introducing the bill, we hope they will rein-
troduce the bill which died with the dissolu-
tion of Parliament and upon which much of
our legislation will depend. We hope that
they will go even farther.
I will tell the hon. member that what we
are asking for is, in fact, that at least all
of those inmates which, according to present
laws, come within the jurisdiction of provin-
cial institutions, shall be handled completely
by the province. So that there will not be all
of tliis confusion in the minds, not only of
the public, but the inmates, and even some
of the legal profession. There will be no such
thing as definite and indefinite sentences, and
all of the confusion and injustices that occur
because of it.
We have asked the federal government to
give us the right to look after those people,
but, of course, this would still just include
those who are subject to terms of less than
two years. What the federal government will
do about this we do not know. We will pur-
sue this.
Insofar as taking all prisoners— I do not
know whether the hon. member was referring
to those who presently go to a penitentiary—
I think this would be a constitutional ques-
tion. But insofar as we are able to get a
uniform system— as closely as possibly a uni-
form system— we have been pressing for it.
I have already seen every Minister of Justice
since the hon. the late Mr. Favreau, and un-
fortunately, the last interview we had was
with the hon. Mr. Pennell, and we happened
to be there just at the time the crisis
occurred.
Mr. Sopha: What crisis?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You know, the crisis
that caused tlie election.
Mr. Sopha: I was not aware of any crisis.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The constitutional
crisis which caused an election, presumably.
In any case, I would say this, in all fair-
ness and to the credit of Mr. Justice Pennell,
that we were getting some action from him,
and we were really getting places. Unfortu-
nately, these bills were allowed to die and,
as far as this department is concerned, we
think that those bills they were bringing
forward were important enough to get
through and enacted before Parliament dis-
solved. Perhaps that is expecting too much.
Mr. Sopha: I just make the additional com-
ment that I do not know how this is. I have
been discouraged over the years, but it has
not come to any point of fruition. We just
talk perennially about it. Everyone agrees
that the federal government should assume
jurisdiction over a greater number of these
people than it does, so costly to the people
of Ontario.
I am even more concerned about a uni-
form programme and, with respect to the
co-operation of the federal government, it is
very opportune and relevant to comment that
you cannot expect to win their co-operation
as long as the Premier of this province plays
the dangerous game that he is playing, in
respect to intervention in this election.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, there has
been some discussion of recidivism under
3570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this vote, so I will pursue this matter. Has a
study been made in any of the institutions
under the Minister's department of the rate
of return?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we made a study
—I think it was between the years 1960 and
1965— we made a five-year study, in co-
operation with the RCMP. As far as it was
humanly possible to follow through with
those who had been in Brampton training
centre— which is, of course, picking the most
likely candidates for this open institution
from Guelph— we found in following through
that, for a period of five years after they left,
66 point something per cent had committed
no further offences witliin that five-year
period.
Mr. Shulman: And has another study been
done on the rates of return of the boys sent
to training schools?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no such study has
been made. There are many implications to
attempting to do this because of the lack
of authority to follow these people through
after they have left the jurisdiction of the
training schools.
There has been what I suppose one could
call a study— although it is really not based
on a scientific research— which we made at
one of the schools. A survey was done by
the staff at Brookside school some years ago.
It was done for the school's own use and it
really was inconclusive. It is not the kind
of study— we do not like to speak about re-
search unless it is based on scientific study,
and this could hardly be called a scientific
study, unless it was based on scientific
methodology. When this was done it was
an informal one and therefore we considered
it inconclusive.
It was a survey only and because, as I
say, it was not a piece of scientific research,
its results and methods were never vali-
dated. It attempted to assess placements, that
is placement over a very short period of time
in one school, and could not possibly be con-
sidered indicative of the effect of this on
the training school programme.
That is all I can tell the hon. member.
As to the results of it, I do not have it
here.
Mr. Shulman: Well, perhaps I can en-
lighten the Minister then, and also the rest
of the House, because I inquired about this
particular study. I had the pleasure of visit-
ing Brookside and speaking to the staff there,
and I am informed that 58 per cent of the
boys who had been to Brookside subse-
quently were returned to the custody of the
institution.
I would suggest to the Minister that if
58 per cent have returned to this institution
—and there will be others who got into
trouble elsewhere— there is something very
wrong with the methods being used.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, as I
said, this is not a scientific study. It would be
very difficult— there are many factors involved,
and many of these youngsters are placed back
in their own homes. Because of the reluctance
of the department to place them in a foster
home, unless they are positively convinced
that it is better to take them out of their
own homes, they go back to their own homes.
And, because of some of these home condi-
tions, they have to be brought back. Some of
them are only brought back for a month or
two and then they are placed in foster homes.
I do not know from where the hon. member
got his information, or whatever it is, but it
would not be the kind of conclusive informa-
tion that one could make a decision on. As
a matter of fact, if we were satisfied that we
could guarantee 42 per cent— to use the hon.
member's figures— were rehabilitated to the
extent that they would never become offend-
ers again within the reasonable future, this in
itself would be a tremendous amount of suc-
cess. I hope that we are successful.
We must keep in mind that the training
school rarely gets the child until everything
else in the community has been tried and by
the time a judge decides to send the youngster
to training school, he has pretty well given up
hope that anything else will do that youngster,
in the outside community, any good. If wc
can, after the community has skimmed off
all those who can be helped along the line,
the residue admitted to training schools, if
we can save 42 or 50 per cent of those, we
will have done a very good job for the tax-
payer.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to point out that if we only save 50 per cent
of those boys who come to training schools,
we are going to save a lot less of those who
wind up in reformatories or penitentiaries
because, by that time, their habits are more
formed and even more difficult to change.
So if we are going to save only 50 per cent
of the boys at training school, we are going
to have a pretty bad show when we get up to
the higher levels. May I suggest to the Minis-
ter that he should try for a httle better ratio.
Perhaps there is a better system and way of
MAY 29, 1968
3571
training the boys. Perhaps they should be kept
longer, if it is necessary, so that we do not
have such a high rate of return?
I would like to go on to another matter,
if the Minister has no further comment there.
This is that in today's press, there appears a
release on St. Leonard's house about which
we heard so much yesterday. It is a brief on
prisons and corrections which I received
today and which I believe was presented to
the department last month. There are two
quotes here. The first is that our current
methods of treatment are a gross failure, and
second, I quote:
We are informed by reliable sources, by
both the professional people in corrections,
and many offenders, that prison is the
single most important contributing factor
in crime today. Our country is imprisoning
the greatest proportionate number of its
population in the free world today, and at
the same time has one of the most deplor-
able prison systems in the western civiliza-
tion.
In the light of these comments by people— the
list of which I am sure the Minister is aware
of— fine people who are involved in nmning
St. Leonard's house, would he have any com-
ment to make or any changes to be made in
the present system in connection with the
brief that has been presented to him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
generally the criticism that has been directed
at correctional systems from time immemorial,
that you should not incarcerate people.
There are a number of people, right across the
world, who say that there is no use putting
people in correctional institutions, because
it is not going to do any good. They have
never really given us an alternative. They
just say that the present system is failing
because you do not reform everybody. Now,
I do not know whether in the foreseeable
future we will ever get to any kind of sys-
tem that will reform anyone and everyone.
The fact remains that society, for its own
protection, has decided that some people must
be taken out of circulation. If we do that, it
means that they have to be institutionaUzed.
You have to put them in an institution. Now,
we, as well as anyone else, are quite familiar
with the fact that the very institutionalization
of those people makes it difficult to treat them
because, at the same time as you are attempt-
ing to be their doctor, you are their custodian,
and it is very difficult.
I am a little disappointed, quite frankly, at
some of the statements that do emanate from
St. Leonard's house. I think that Father
Libby and his people are doing a wonderful
job but I think that in order to make their
case, sometimes they use some rather starthng
and unnecessary language. What is the point
in saying that the present system does not
work without telling you what they would
replace it with?
I read this, and I cannot recall it in detail,
but my recollection is that he suggests that
you have some sort of system outside of cor-
rectional institutions. Well, what does that
mean? It means that you will have a system
outside of a correctional institution which
will not be called an institution, but which
will be one. If a person needs security, and
the public needs to be protected against some
of these people, obviously you are going to
have to place them in a secure place.
I do not want to use any terms because
some places may be called this, and I would
not want to give the wrong impression as to
my opinion of them. What is the use of say-
ing put them in "A" institution because it is
not called a penal institution rather than put-
ting them into a penal institution that is called
that?
Mr. Shulman: That is not what they say.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What in fact do they
say? In the first place, they say that the
single most important factor contributing to
crime is really the penal institution. I do not
know how they come to that conclusion. In
the first place, somebody comes into an insti-
tution, at some stage, for the first time, and
he has committed a crime. Now, how anyone
can make a sweeping statement that it is
because of his having committed a crime and
been incarcerated in an institution, that the
institution itself was the single most con-
tributing factor to this man's criminal record,
I do not know.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): There
is plenty of evidence— look at your recidivist
figures.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, let us check
that. It is possible. We have never denied
that it is most difficult, by the time a person
reaches a correctional institution, to do some-
thing about reforming that person. As a
matter of fact, the select committee of this
Legislature in 1954, which was referred to
by the hon. member for Humber, by imani-
mous decision including representatives of
the NDP and the Liberals and our party,
decided that 75 per cent of those people who
came into our institutions are not reformable.
3572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If the hon. member will check the select com-
mittee's report, of 1954—
Mr. Shulman: I have it right here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, you will find
that that is the statement that they made. As
a matter of fact, that was the point that the
hon. member for Humber was attempting to
make. We should concentrate on the 25 per
cent, and in fact, write the others off. Now,
of course, how one does this, I do not know,
but this is what the select committee reports.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to know on what
page the select committee said that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that.
Mr. Shulman: Would you look it up, be-
cause I would like to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is in the select
committee report. The hon. member can take
my word for it that they said 75 per cent are
not reformable.
Mr. Shulman: I have read the report and it
does not say that at any point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will take the ter-
minology for the hon. member. I am advised
that they said, "Send them to Burwash and
do not worry about treating them; just keep
them incarcerated for the period of their
sentence".
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would get me the reference?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will get that for
the hon. member. Now, in the first place, of
course, that is another sweeping statement
in respect to the select committee. How do
you decide which are the 25 per cent that
are reformable? In the second place, even
if you have decided that, it would presume
that the judges should use the law on 75
per cent of habitual criminals, because if they
are going to keep coming back, and we can-
not reform them, they should not be allowed
out. As a matter of fact, the judge should
sentence them—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is surely the im-
plication in that— if these people are going
to go in and out of penal institutions, having
committed serious crimes— which they would
have done, or else they would not be getting
these sentences— what is the point in having
them go out for two months and in for two
years? And then out for two months and in
again for two or three years?
We take the view that we have to do
everything we can with everyone who comes
within our jurisdiction, because we just do
not have the wisdom of Solomon to decide
which are reformable and which are not.
Now, to a point; our classification and review
system helps us to bring on those who appear
to be more likely to benefit from our help—
for instance, the Brampton training centre.
We have accommodation at the Brampton
training centre for about 200. I think usually
there are about 150 at the Brampton training
centre.
After they have gone to Guelph, after sen-
tence, our review board and our classification
board decides, after looking at the history of
these people, that they are more likely to
benefit from an open institution like Bramp-
ton, where they take up vocational training
and academic training. I just pointed out, a
few moments ago, that it appears that about
66 per cent of these do not get into trouble
for at least five years or after. So that is
a measure of the success.
We cannot even fill this institution. There
is room for 50 more, but in order not to
destroy the effectiveness of the work we are
doing with the 150-odd that we have there,
we have to be very careful about sending
more there just because we think we might
be able to help more. We have set up train-
ing centres across the province where we send
others who also appear that there is a greater
likelihood of helping them. But it is all a
matter of degree.
How can we decide which 75 per cent are
not reformable? I suppose, all I am doing
here, is admitting— and there is no reason why
I should not, I do not apologize for it— we
wish we could reform everyone and I am
sure there is no one in this House that feels
that that is possible with the knowledge-
Mr. Sopha: What you are really admitting
is failure—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, let us say this;
that we are all failures in respect of a great
number of people who get into trouble in
respect of our norms and in respect of our
laws— in respect of the society generally. The
only thing is, I do not want to give encourage-
ment to those people in the institutions who
blame society for everything. So I must be
careful about making this statement as well.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come back
to the question I originally asked. I find my-
MAY 29, 1968
3573
self now in the position where I must defend
St. Leonard's house because, obviously, the
Minister has not understood the brief which
was presented to him.
St. Leonard's house most certainly is not
suggesting that these people be institution-
alized elsewhere. In fact, what they are sug-
gesting is increased use of fines, suspended
sentences and probation, an increased number
of parolees, a pre-release programme, conjugal
visiting, leaves of absence, and a work release
programme. Finally, and most basic, what
they are suggesting is a half-way house
movement which is a form of foster home.
In this the person who would otherwise be in
a jail of reformatory, will be in a home in
the community, going about his business, but
with the support of the people in that home.
This is their whole point. I am a little dis-
turbed that the Minister has not understood
what they were saying.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. If this is
what the hon. member wants to talk about
in the first place. As far as all these matters
are concerned, the more people that are put
on probation, the more people that are put
on parole, the more people who are fined
rather than incarcerated, will make us very
happy. The fewer people we have to deal
with, the better, and the more attention and
the more concentration we can give to the
ones whom we have in our care.
But it is not as simple in the suggestion
about half-way houses. Let us not get so
imbued with this idea that we think this is
going to be the salvation of these people. The
half-way house movement is, by no means, a
new movement. It has been going on for a
very long time and I have seen it in many
other jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, in the
United Kingdom— I have been there and have
seen these places. They not only have half-
way houses, but now they have found it
necessary in many instances, to have what
they call a second half-way house. In fact-
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): A quarter-
way house.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is most diflficult.
What you are trying to do is solve this prob-
lem of the difficulty of a man to readjust to
society after he gets out of an institution. It
is most difficult. We could get into a philo-
sophical discussion here for two or three
hours on this one subject alone.
Half-way houses have their place. All of
these things have their place but they are,
by no means, a panacea. They will not solve
the problem. You could argue about more
fines and yet somebody— and I suppose the
hon. member for High Park might be the
first one to get up— if you start a system of
more fines— and say that this is the law for
the rich because the man that can afford to
pay his fine will not go to jail.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no. They will not give
them time to pay, and the Attorney General
defends that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you argue for more
parole— and, incidentally, if I am wrong I will
be corrected by my officials here—
Mr. Sopha: Do not worry about it, they
could not pay the fines.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think about 64 per
cent of the people eligible for parole in our
system are paroled. That is about the figure,
I am told— about 64 per cent of people who
are eligible according to their sentence-
eligible for parole in Ontario are paroled.
How much higher than that you can go
without paroling everybody, I do not know.
Of course, there are those who think that we
are too easy with our parole. We have heard
something about that in this session here
today— about being too easy with parole.
We agree with all of this, and the legisla-
tion I brought in this House the other day, as
a matter of fact, has dealt with some of the
matters this report deals with— the matter of
live-in, work-out, pay for prisoners, this sort
of thing.
We are moving towards this, but we are
very hopeful that it be helpful. We think it
will be helpful. But if anyone thinks it is
going to solve the problem of institutionalizing
people, then they have more knowledge than
I have been able to acquire from anyone in
this field.
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Is the member going to
pursue the same point?
Mr. Shulman: I wish to pursue the same
point as I have been doing.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, no one is sug-
gesting that these methods— half-way houses-
are a panacea. What St. Leonard's house has
been suggesting, what many members here
have suggested and what I would like to
suggest to the Minister, is that they will cut
down the number of people who are behind
bars, which is what we are trying to do. They
will, as a result, remove your training schools.
3574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And I am not referring to training schools as
the Minister refers to them. I am referring to
training schools involving penitentiaries and
reformatories and jails— training schools for
crime, because this is what you have. You
have people going into Guelph who got into
trouble by stealing a radio and they are learn-
ing all the techniques of forging a cheque.
They are learning new forms of criminality.
The half-way house, of course, is an old
idea. But it is a good idea and it should be
pushed, because anything that we can do to
reduce the number of people that are in jail
is a progressive move and should be en-
couraged by the department, far more than
the department now encourages it.
The Minister pointed out that 64 per cent
of the people who are eligible for parole get
their parole. I find this is a shockingly low
figure. You have men incarcerated, under the
complete control, really, of the system which
has them there. I find it very difficult to
believe that 36 per cent of those people
who are serving their sentence do not behave
properly in the jail. I have brought this
matter up— I do not wish to get into parole at
length, because that will be coming up under
the next vote. But there is a great deal to
be said on that subject, because there are
many people who are not getting parole who
should be getting parole.
I would like to second the remarks of the
member for Sudbury. For the Minister to
suggest he would be very happy if we had
more probation and if the government would
do something is rather ridiculous, because
sitting right next to him, if he would just turn
his head, is the Attorney General who, if he
was willing, would be responsible for these
things. For the Minister to suggest, as he
did a few minutes ago, that if we brought in
more fines, I, as the member for High Park-
Mr. Sopha: The Attorney General only puts
them in— they keep them in.
Mr. Shulman: —I, as the member for High
Park, would suggest that this is not bringing
in one rule for the rich and one rule for the
poor and is begging the question. These
people should be allowed time to pay. Fines
should not just be for everybody on the same
level, but according to ability to pay, to make
a truly, if I may use the term, just society.
If a Mrs. MacMillan is being fined, she should
be fined far more than a girl who is up for a
marijuana offence.
And, may I suggest that the fines system,
used more intelligently than the present gov-
ernment is using it, would not provide a law
for the rich and a law for the poor. It would
provide a law which would allow people to
stay out of jail. Tlie fine should be accord-
ing to means and time should be allowed for
people to pay those fines, if they cannot just
write a cheque, as the rich people in this
country can.
I received a letter today. This is a place
where the judge should use his common
sense, and I direct this to the Minister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it has nothing
to do with my department. The hon. mem-
ber, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman— I
mean a lot of this—
Mr. Shulman: Is this a point of order, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —a lot of this is
going to be repeated again.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, is—
Mr. Chairman: Is the Minister rising on a
point of order?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I am, Mr. Chair-
man. It will all be repeated again and I
think it is most unfair for hon. members to
attempt to draw me out to giving an opinion
which the Attorney General may, during his
estimates, disagree with, because he is more
learned in these matters than I am and they
may have some implications in respect of law
of which I am not familiar.
Once a man is committed to our institu-
tions then that is when we have to deal with
him. I have given the blanket statement be-
fore, that the fewer people that are sent to
our institutions the better.
The hon. member mentioned about parole
—that he would like more. Why are there 36
per cent or 37 per cent not eligible for
parole? He suggested that the reason for this
certainly could not be just because of their
behaviour in the institutions. He is quite
right. That is not the only factor. Many of
these people have been tried on parole in the
past and have broken parole.
May I also, v/hile I am on my feet, point
out this statement, which I said was a ridicu-
lous one, in the brief— with all due respect
—from St. Leonard's house, if that was where
it was from, that the institutions are them-
selves the single greatest factor. The fact re-
mains that, if the hon. member will look at
page 86 of the annual report— this is one
of the reasons we put this graph in for the
first time, so that hon. members would get
MAY 29, 1968
3575
a better picture of what is going on— 60 per
cent of those who were sent to the reforma-
tory from April 1, 1967, to September 30,
1967— six months— 60 per cent of them had
no reformatory record at all.
So where did they learn their crime, in a
penal institution?
Mr. Sopha: In the district jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no, just a
moment now. The point is this. The hon.
member said: Why should you send a man
to a penal institution because he stole a
radio?
Mr. MacDonald: This is a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an implica-
tion that a man is usually sent by a magis-
trate—of course, I suppose I should leave
this to the hon. Attorney General— very
rarely is a man sent to an institution the first
time he is up on a charge.
Mr. Shulman: What is the point of order,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Sopha: Are you finished?
Mr. Shulman: No, I was involved in a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Have you ruled on the point
of order, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman, to con-
tinue, the purpose of the reformatory, we
presume, is to reform. Now in our travels
about the province, the member for Lake-
shore and I have made some rather dis-
turbing discoveries about reformatories.
Surely, if the purpose of the reformatory is
to reform, then the majority of people in
the reformatory should be receiving educa-
tion or training, or classes.
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the mem-
ber for High Park, we have votes 1903-4
which deal with institutions— Ontario refor-
matories— I wonder if tlie discussion would
not be better placed under those votes.
Mr. Shulman: I would be glad to leave
that for those two votes if you prefer.
Mr. Chairman: We will take the two votes
together so there will be no confusion—
1903-4.
Mr. Shulman: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
In that case, I would like to come back to
the general matter which has been discussed
earlier— of who goes to jail and what hap-
pens to them and the whole system. This
should come under this vote. Just today, in
fact, just a few minutes ago, I had a man
come upstairs who has been in trouble with
this particular department and he wrote this
letter out just a few minutes ago. I would
like to just read two paragraphs of it be-
cause it really sums up the whole problem.
Interjection by an hon. meml^er.
Mr. Shulman: What a shame the Minister
has so little interest in the problem of re-
formation, but I will continue.
Mr. Chairman: What point is the member
trying to make in connection with vote 1901?
Mr. Shulman: The point I am trying to
make is that the $2.8 million is not being
spent in the correct direction, and if directed
a little more wisely, we would have less need
for this particular department and less need
to be spending these millions of dollars. May
I continue, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you. I will quote
this letter. This is a man who got into trouble:
For some information about myself, it
all began in 1964, in October. I had been
depressed and sone night I was drinking
very heavily and I became very drunk
and later that same night I broke into a
TV repair store, stealing a colour TV and
a black and white TV portable. I left then
and went home. I seemed to sober up
quite fast lying there in bed and I got
scared. I got dressed again, took the small
portable in my car and drove to the Pape
Avenue police station and gave myself up.
Going to court, the policeman in the
car said not to worry— "Giving yourself up
was the best thing you ever did and the
judge will certainly take tliis into con-
sideration."
I obtained probation and I will say I
had one swell man for a probation officer,
Mr. Ken Mitchell. Time after time, I tried
to land a job but when asked if I had a
record I was then refused a job— job after
job. I finally landed a job with Canada
Packers and I was set to stay there for
a good long time.
The money was good. The work was
very tough, lugging meats, fronts and
3576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hinds, around is not easy work, but I was
happy. One day after working there
roughly seven weeks, Mr. Westlake, the
superintendent of drivers, came up to my
truck and asked my name. He then told
me to see him when I had cashed in my
route.
My normal cash-in was roughly over
$1,000 a day. I was never in all the time
employed there one cent over or one cent
short. Upon going in to see Mr. Westlake
he informed me he would have to let me go.
I asked why. He stated because I was on
probation and unable to be bonded.
Well, he goes on at some length explaining
how he could not get a job and finally was
forced to get back into crime.
Mr. De Monte: On a point of order, Mr,
Chairman, is this specifically related to the
estimates? This has to do with sentence, not
with correctional institutions.
Mr. Chairman: On a point of order, it
seems to me the member stated the point
he was trying to make. He has pointed out
that we have $2.8 million in this estimate.
In the opinion of the chair, he is dealing
with the method of operation. This is the
main office vote and the Chairman cannot
see that he is out of order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Except, Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on a point of order, the hon. mem-
ber is dealing with probation which is not in
my department.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, I am not
deahng with probation.
Mr. Chairman: May I just say that probation
has been discussed for some time during the
past hour, and other members have spoken
about it too. I do not see why we should cut
the one member off the debate when it has
been discussed previously by other members.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, actually I do
not wish to discuss probation at all. The point
I wish to discuss here is the fact that—
Mr. Sopha: I thought you explained for
Viola MacMillan?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is parole.
Mr. Sopha: That is parole? What is the
difference?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber knows the difference between probation
and parole?
Mr. Chairman: May I ask the Minister
if he has— order please!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where probation
comes under The Department of the Attorney
General, because it is in place of a sentence
to an institution, he is put on probation and
the staff of the probation department is under
The Department of the Attorney General.
Those who are on parole, after having served
time in an institution, come under my depart-
ment.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Then if the mem-
ber will restrict his remarks to—
Mr. Shulman: I do not wish to discuss pro-
bation at all, or parole. What I wish to dis-
cuss is the fact that these people get into
trouble because they cannot get a job, and
the reason they cannot get a job is because
they cannot be bonded. Now let me come
to the point of my remarks.
I suggest to you, sir, that a great deal
of your time should be directed towards
efforts to see that these people do not come
back into your institutions— or come into
your institutions the first time. This is what
happened to this man because he could not
be bonded. Now this is one of the major
problems, this is something about which, as
far as I have been able to find, nothing has
been done. Now I am asking the Minister
if any efforts are being made in this regard,
and if so, what?
Mr. Chairman: With respect, is this not
parole and rehabilitation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Chairman, I
think the hon. member has made a legitimate
point in this area. First, the hon. member
has read a letter and he said as far as he can
ascertain no effort was made to help tliis man
obtain a bond. Can we take it, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. member has discussed
this matter with the probation branch of The
Department of the Attorney General, and
given them the name of this man to ascertain
whether, in fact, an effort was made to get
this man bonded, or whether in fact there
were other reasons why this man lost his job.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, as the Min-
ister knows, I stated here I just received this
letter-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then, all right.
Mr. Shulman: What I am talking about is
not this specific man. I am talking about the
general problem that bonding companies will
MAY 29, 1968
3577
not bond ex-convicts. This is what the prob-
lem is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man, I was going to follow up on that. In
the first place, if the hon. member just got a
letter— with all due respect— I do not think he
should jump to his feet and read it. There is
a great responsibility that devolves upon the
members of this Legislature. As a matter of
fact, many times-
Mr. Shulman: The Minister is missing the
point as usual.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not missing the
point. I will talk about bonding.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a responsi-
bility upon members of the Legislature not
just to get up and read letters which could
be of a damaging nature. In the first place-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, nonsense, of a dam-
aging nature!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course it could.
We tell our people in our institutions-
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I will deal with
the issue if the hon. member will give me a
chance and he does not have the floor. I am
dealing with bonding.
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the point of
order on which you rose.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am dealing with
bonding. I am not dealing with a point of
order at all. The hon. member read a letter.
Mr. MacDonald: Right!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he said he has
not had even a chance to do any research to
find out whether in the first place-
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the point which
you said was—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, do I get
—well, I will not bother explaining it if he
does not want me to.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Shulman: I would like to say some-
thing, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: We hear the same story from
this Minister time and time again; he tries
to avoid the point and gives us a sermon. The
point is very simply this, and if the Minister
does not understand it, let me say it to him
again—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You do not have to
say it again.
Mr. Shulman: Ex-convicts cannot be
bonded! What is he going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is this a point of order
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shulman: That was the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I asked the question
as to whether he had investigated this letter
because it is my understanding that the pro-
bation people are doing a very good job in
respect of bonding, and I have asked my own
rehabilitation officers, in respect of this matter,
whether in fact they had found that there
were any great number of cases, which could
not get jobs because of the lack of bonding.
They said, generally speaking, they had no
difficulty getting bonding where this was the
only factor involved. And I said, "Now, are
you sure about that?" They said they are
quite positive about that; they think some
more could be done, but, generally speaking,
a man who was well- motivated, was looking
for a job, and had the kind of a record which
would convince the rehabilitation officer as
well as the potential employer, that he was a
good risk, had no difficulty in getting a bond.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, why did you not
say that instead of preaching another sermon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will just listen.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member for York
South please remain out of this: the Minister
has the floor and I would ask him to respect
the rules of the House and stop interrupting.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have the
greatest appreciation for your fairness, but at
the moment I think you have strayed, if I
may say so. The Minister was asked a ques-
tion, and he got up and he preached a ser-
mon, and now he has gone on to give the
answer to the question. And what we are
objecting to is that he is never asked a ques-
tion but he then goes on to deliver a Httle
lecture to people on this side of the House as
to what they should do and should not do. If
he would give that answer which he has just
3578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
<?iven, then perhaps we would have been
enlightened on the question of bonding.
Mr. Chairman: I say to tlie member for
York South that if he objects and if there are
any faults within the area of the Minister's
remarks, the member for York South could
easily rise on a point of order and point
it out to tlie Chairman. But the member for
York South has carried the full conversation.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if you
want to get tough, that Minister got up a few
moments ago on a point of order and rambled
on for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have the
greatest respect— let me say this and empha-
size it— for the job you are doing, but when a
Minister gets up on a point of order and
rambles on for five minutes, sir, you have let
him abuse the rules of the House. And if
five minutes later, you then get up and start
to chop the Opposition down, that is an
uneven application of the rules of the House.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree ( Minister of Financial
and Commercial AflFairs ) : Mr. Chairman, I
think that this question of lecturing each
other in the House has gone far too far.
Mr. MacDonald: You are right!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not appreciate it,
I do not think any of our members do, and
I am quite sure that the members of the other
parties do not appreciate it. And when I use
the word "appreciate," I just mean that. I
do not think it is proper. Now, if somebody
wants to question the Chairman's ruling, there
is a proper procedure for it. I do not think we
ought to jump the established rules to deliver
these outbursts.
I do not think that any one side can lay
the finger on the other successfully because
I would think in all fairness that there is a
precedent on all sides for pointing the finger
if you wanted to look at that approach. I do
not think that is the proper approach. I
think, Mr. Chairman, you have been elected
to sit as the Chairman of the committee, and
as far as we on tliis side of the House are
concerned, we would like to follow your
rulings whether we agree with them or not.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, just let
me repeat this again— and I do it in the con-
text of saying I have the greatest respect,
for the Chairman and he will have our sup-
port—but I am not going to sit in face of
what I am convinced deep down is an un-
even applieation of the rules in this House,
and it happens t(K) often.
An hon. member: That is what you are
always saying.
Mr MacDonald: Just let me finish. If you
want to interrupt again, that is fine; just let
me finish. The hon. Minister got up on a
point of order, and abused the rules of the
House and was rambfing on.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): You said that
before!
Mr. MacDonald: I know I said it but I
want to make another point, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Because I interjected, the
Chairman became indignant and he rose and
uncharacteristically— I will say this in fair-
ness to him— angrily said, "Will the member
for York South sit down!" If we had had
somewhat of the same display of anger on the
abuse of the rules of the House by the Minis-
ter, we would have felt that it was even.
This is the kind of thing I am disturbed
about. I agree with the House leader that we
quit preaching at each other. But we will
quit preaching when we become convinced
deep down that there is an even applica-
tion of the rules of the House.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: On that point then, I
would only add this— I think that it lies as
part of the responsibility of every member
of this House not to be provocative in a
deliberate way. And I say that deliberately.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! May I say
to the members, and specifically the member
for York South, that when the member for
High Park was trying to make his point after
he had read the letter into the record, the
Minister did rise in his place and tliere were
objections from several members of the New
Democratic Party as to whether the Minister
was on the floor on a point of order.
I asked the Minister if he was on a point
of order and he said he was, after he had
made a few remarks. I was following it care-
fully and the Minister was bringing out a
very valid point in connection with the re-
marks made by the member for High Park.
And it took the Minister several sentences
or paragraphs to make his point of order,
and he convinced me that he was properly on
a point of order.
Now, by comparison, I say to the member
for York South, that the member for York
South did not even have the floor. And I say
to him that he was entirely out of order. And
I resent very much any implication that I
MAY 29, 1968
3579
have been unfair in dealing witli any mem-
bers of the Opposition because I have bent
over backwards to be fair, and to be impar-
tial; and perhaps part of the difficulties we
are having in this House is simply because
I have bent over backwards.
Now I have no intention of strictly en-
forcing the rules in committee debates, which
are supposed to be free and to promote free
discussion. It is my intention to continue with
this attitude. But, surely to goodness, this
assembly should display a much better de-
gree of respect for parliamentary procedure
tlian has been the display taking place in
these chambers for the past several weeks.
And I say this to all members of the
committee, not just members of the Opposi-
tion, but to members of the government side
too.
It is a difficult job to rule people out of
order when you are not sure if they are
out of order. It is difficult to listen to them
sometimes and to follow the entire remarks
to determine whether they are in order or
not But this Chairman has endeavoured to
be very fair and impartial; I will continue to
do tliat.
But I ask the members if they do
not think in their own interests— the public
is reading the press, the public is here ob-
serving the proceedings. Surely to goodness,
there should be more dignity, more respect
for the chair, more attention to the rules of
this House than there has been displayed.
And I ask the members please to observe
these rules. The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much. Just to get this point straight in
my own mind then. Some of the bonding
companies— I am sure the Minister knows—
will not bond ex-convicts. Am I to under-
stand that if a man gets into difficulty, he
may then go to the probation officer and the
probation officer will arrange a bond for
him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not really know how to go into some of these
matters which concern us very much, without
being considered as lecturing people. I do
not know; I have been accused of this a
number of times, and I am beginning to won-
der whether—
Mr. Shulman: Here we go again, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: — tliere is some truth
in it. The fact remains that it is important,
for the work of our department, to make sure
that no wrong impression goes out of this
House becau.se thousands of inmates arc
listening.
Mr. Shulman: That is why we are asking.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me please make
my point— it is important to the work of our
department, Mr. Chairman. Thousands of
inmates are listening; they get the news-
papers; they read all of these things; and I
am very anxious that they do not get the
impression, to reinforce their feeling of hos-
tility to society, that it is not their fault be-
cause no matter how hard they try they
cannot go any place; they cannot get bonding
or anything else.
And that is the reason, I am most anxious
to make this point. And I asked then, the hon.
member, I remember, if he has a particular
case, if he would bring it to our attention,
and get the facts; and if, in fact, some man
who really should be bonded cannot get
bonded, we will do everything possible to do
it. In answer to the specific question-
Mr. MacDonald: Now we get the answer,
after we have a lecture.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has again, Mr.
Chairman, used the word "probation". I am
not responsible for probation but I will take
it upon myself, knowing the probation people
as I do, to say that they will do everything
possible to help the man get bonding. But not
only that, I am sure that the probationee
knows this. As far as the rehabilitation offi-
cers in our department are concerned, they
know this.
The rehabilitation officer is working closely
with the parolee. He is under supervision.
He could not be out on parole unless he were
under supervision, and the parole officer and
the rehabilitation officers are dealing with him,
and where he needs to get bonding to get
his job— and where, in the view of the re-
habilitation officer, this man should get
bonded— he will do everything under heaven
and earth to get him the bonding, and gen-
erally does,
I do not want to put myself in the position
where the hon. member can find one man, or
two perhaps, who might, and should have
been bonded, and were not. I will say that,
generally speaking, as I have said before, a
person who is well motivated, who wants to
work, should get bonded under normal cir-
cumstances, even having regard for his record.
He will get it with the help of our rehabili-
tation officers.
3580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: Mr, Chairman, I would just
like to say that the Minister could have
answered the question simply by saying "yes"!
It would have saved us a lot of time.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other remarks
on vote 1901?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I have— staflF training
development.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, is there anything fur-
ther in connection with the topic that has
been discussed?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I want to make one last
comment. Listen very carefully to what the
Minister said.
At one point in his remarks, he implied,
though he did not actually articulate, that
one of the difficulties he encounters in the
rehabihtation field, and correctional services,
is the numbers that he has to deal with, the
numbers of people in his institutions.
I am absolutely sold on the idea that if the
Minister had fewer people incarcerated in his
institutions, by reason of the diminishing
numbers, he and his staff could do more
effective work with the reduced number.
So then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause it made no headway with the Minister
at all, that here we are asked to spend $40
million of public money in running this de-
partment, and time, and I think to a good
many citizens outside this House, it is no
answer at all.
It is no search for absolution on the part of
the Minister to say, "It is not my fault that
I have so many, I just happen to have them".
He is part of the ministry. He sits with the
rest of the 22 around the common table, and
what is wrong is a matter of rationality of
this Minister, in turning to his colleague, the
Attorney General, and saying, "Look, Mr.
Wishart, I wish you would stop enforcing
those laws with such draconian diligence as
you do, and putting 60 per cent, I calculate,
of the people of the population in the insti-
tution who are offenders against The Liquor
Control Act".
That is my own calculation. Sixty per cent
in a year, three out of every five are there
for violation of The Liquor Control Act. I
will not accept this Minister's easy and facile
explanation— do not blame me, because: (a)
I do not put them there, somebody else does;
(b) I have too many to be really effective.
It is part, Mr. Chairman, of the whole pro-
cess.
Finally, that is the point I mean, and I
hope it gets home. I hope the germ starts
from Reform Institutions and the $40 million.
That is all I can hope for, that the Minister
—who can say he is not articulate, persuasive,
capable of well-developed use of the lan-
guage?—would be the seed in the government
to say, "Let us call a halt to this method,
let us diminish the numbers for which I have
responsibility, and let me do more effective
work with the balance that I have got".
The Attorney General made a comment, he
made an interjection this afternoon. I say in
regard to that interjection, I do public
penance here, I do public penance and I
apologize to the drunks in Sudbury.
On Thursday, May 23, perhaps I was not
as guarded in my speech as I should have
been. I said I am happy to report the drunks
get time to pay in Sudbury. My friend from
Downsview said, "treated like people." Both
the comments were reported in the Sudbury
papers. On Friday, May 24, with a spartan
diligence in the magistrate's court, no drunks
in Sudbury got time to pay. Who does that
hurt? It hurts the drunks. They had to go
over to the Crowbar hotel next door, that is
true; they did not get time to pay. I want to
suggest to you that it hurts the conscience of
thoughtful people in the community more.
Mr. MacDonald: Sounds vindictive.
Mr. Sopha: I want to suggest to you that
thoughtful people picking that paper up and
reading about no time to pay on Friday in
Sudbury, they have got to say, "Well, there
is the measure of our failure." There is the
measure of society's failure, because if you
are a high class drunk, and you have got the
money in your pocket to pay the fine, you
go free. But if you have not got the money,
into the hoosegow you go— a discriminatory
law. I say to this Minister that he would so
better work for the people of Ontario, if he
were deluged by the large numbers of of-
enders under The Liquor Control Act that
the Attorney General sends you, and he is the
one. He is the man that stood in this House
and justified that spartan code of justice, that
mark of inhumanity to man, for drinking the
stuff that the government sells.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Along this line, the Minister,
last night did not have the recidivism rate in
Ontario; he could not quote a rate for
MAY 29, 1968
3581
Ontario. Last year in the estimates he quoted
the rate of 35 to 40 per cent. The fact is
that-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the hon. mem-
ber care to mention from what he is quoting?
Mr. Sargent: I think last year, in Brampton,
you quoted 34 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just quoted that a
few moments ago. That is not for Ontario,
that is for tliat one particular institution.
Mr. Sargent: As the member for Sudbury
has pointed out, I think the fantastic return
of the people to your institutions is your
baby. At times we brought forward patterns
of handling this subject, of an intelligent
approach to the parole boards— such as in
other areas of the United States they use a
medical doctor on the parole board; they use
a polygraph man skilled in lie detectors; a
man skilled in the use of hypnotism; a man
skilled in the use of sodium pentathol, and
in every other technological advance within
the human mind.
I do not know in this amount of money
that you are asking us for in this particular
vote, how much money you have insofar as
equipping these people, when they go out in
the world, not to come back. In the county
jails, we have people in there up to maybe
60 to 90 days. They have absolutely no pro-
gramme at all. They just sit around there.
No wonder they go crazy. There is nothing
for them to do, and I think that there is a
great area for you to stop repeating this
recidivism by getting a more skilled approach
to handling these people.
I would like to ask you, first of all, the
thing that is very important to me and I am
told this by authorities. In these institutions,
in your jails, in the interviewing room, do you
have wire tapping? Do you have hidden
microphones in your interviewing rooms?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I will take the Min-
ister's word for it, but I am told repeatedly,
by staff in these jails, that this hapi>ens. Now,
I think the Minister had better—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are
back again where we were last night, we
are talking about jails. Now we have not
taken over the jails yet. If the member is
referring to reformatories, the answer is,
"no". If he is referring to the jails, as far as
we know this does not exist in jails. And I
would have to qualify it that way.
I would doubt it very much. When we take
over the jails physically, then we would be in
a better position to assure them that this
does not exist in jails, and I could be fairly
certain now that it does not.
Mr. Sargent: One more thing then on this
line, Mr. Chairman. Will the Minister advise
—I should know this but I do not think I am
clear on it— how does the policy so far as the
Ontario parole board differ from the national
parole board?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, could
we keep this in order? In the first place, we
have been talking about rehabilitation and I
have not risen to a point of order— but it
really belongs, I think, in the next vote. I
hope we will not have to repeat the rehabilita-
tion thing all over again. Parole also comes
under another vote.
Mr. De Monte: I have a question of the
Minister. Could the Minister inform the House
what educational requirements are required
for jail guards under the reformatories
system?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Grade 10 or the writ-
ing of a grade 10 equivalency test.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, what type of
training do the guards take after? I under-
stand they have a training period.
Mr. Chairman: Might I interrupt the mem-
ber for just a moment? Is he on staff training
and development now?
Mr. De Monte: Yes, I am.
Mr. Chairman: There was not anything
further on the other aspect? Staff training
and development.
Mr. De Monte: Thank you. What type of
training and how long a training do they take
before they become full-time guards?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I sup-
pose there will be many questions asked
about this, so we might as well read into
the record all of the staff training the cor-
rectional officer undergoes.
Mr. Chairman: This would be something
that has not been included in the opening
remarks? It relates to the staff training?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume the hon.
member wants to know the details of the kind
of training they get.
Mr. De Monte: That is correct, Mr. Chair-
man.
.582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Is this agreeable to the
members, to have a statement read into the
record regarding staff training? The Minister
may proceed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an introduc-
tory training, Mr. Chairman, of up to three
weeks, which is provided at each institution
to give new employees sufficient knowledge
of the correctional process to pennit them to
progress to training on the job under direct
supervision by experienced officers.
There is an in-job training up to ten
months, after they have been working for a
while— employment with experienced officers
who guide and instruct the new employee.
His mistakes are pointed out and he is shown
the correct methods. It must be clearly under-
stood that no correctional officer is placed in
direct charge of inmates until his superiors
consider him ready for this responsibility.
There is a staff training course of five
weeks. This course must be successfully com-
pleted by all correctional officers within the
first year of service. It is conducted at the
staff training school, which is located on
the grounds of the Ontario reformatory at
Guelph.
There is a continuation of training;
refresher training is conducted by institutions
to meet their specific needs. Supervision is
exercised over correctional officers at all times
to insure that the purpose of the department
is achieved. This represents a continuing pro-
cess.
There are conferences, seminars and work-
shops for the more senior staff— that is,
captains, chief supervisors, deputy superinten-
dents, assistant superintendents and superin-
tendents. They are held at least once each
year and are designed to provide a forum for
discussion of common problems, dissemination
of information concerning advancements and
trends in the field of corrections, and to hear
the views of specialists in relevant fields.
A conference for superintendents of adult
institutions was held in 1967 on November
15, 16 and 17. A conference of training school
superintendents was held February 26, 27
and 28, 1968. Conferences of jail governors
were held May 23 to May 26, 1967, and Feb-
ruary 12 to 16, 1968. Seminars for assistant
superintendents were held in April, 1967 and
1968. Every effort, Mr. Chairman, has been
made and will continue to be made to insure
that our staff is kept abreast of the latest of
trends and developments.
If the hon. member would like to know
the topics which are discussed and taken up
at the session, the topic of human behaviour
has an allotted time of 14 hours and 45 min-
utes. This is to provide some knowledge
about what social scientists have found out
about people. Specificially selected to be
pertinent to the correctional field— no inten-
tion of attempting to make psychologists of
these people, of course.
The DRl organization— that is training in
wliat the oganizational structure is— three
hours and 20 minutes, to inform trainees as
to the organization and function of the civil
service and the regulations under which it is
operated. Purpose and philosophy of The
Department of Reform Institutions, is given
one hour, to ensure that trainees understand
and appreciate the statement of purpose. The
roles of the chaplain, the social worker, the
officer manager, the parole and rehabilitation
services, the probation services and the pub-
lic relations, get ten hours and 50 minutes, to
inform the trainee as to the roles of institu-
tional staff and how they contribute to the
correctional process.
There are tours of various institutions— to
the training centre at Brampton, to the train-
ing school at Guelph, and to the reformatory
at Guelph, 12 hours, to study firsthand cor-
rectional methods at a variety of institutions
from medium security to minimum.
First-aid: 20 hours and 40 minutes; success-
ful trainees receive a St. John ambulance
society certificate. We feel this training is
important since many of our operations are
some distance from the main institutions, as
in the case of forestry camps.
Training schools: one hour and 15 minutes,
to inform trainees as to the function and
operation of training schools. There are others
such as defence training, weapon training
and public speaking. I think this will give a
fairly good nmdown of the kind of thing they
get.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, I am
delighted to hear that there is—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will just forgive me for one moment, I meant
to mention that our budget for this time has
increased from the year 1963-1964 from some
$33,000, to $232,000, in these upcoming esti-
mates.
Mr. Dc Monte: May I also ask the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chainnan, how many psycholo-
gists are in his department and how many
social workers are employed by his depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The psychologists and
psychometrists, 21 full-time and 22 part-time.
MAY 29, 1968
3583
I am sorry, 21 full-time last year and 22 full-
time this year. One psychiatrist. Part-time
psychologists, six. Part-time psychiatrists, 21.
Mr. De Monte: What institutions under the
care of the Minister, Mr. Chairman, have a
psychologist available?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not all of them have
u full-time psychologist, Mr. Chairman. Per-
haps this would be more relevant when we
take up the various institutions and the hon.
member could enquire as to what staff is on
hand at particular institutions.
Mr. De Monte: I am wondering, Mr. Chair-
man, how the principle of group therapy is
being applied ii;i various institutions, with a
view of preventive detention. In other words,
if we could use the modem psychological
approach to penology and for the treatment of
offenders, we would most necessarily require,
in my opinion, perhaps one psychologist and
perhaps a number of social workers in each
institution, so that we could apply the group
therapy system which, I understand, is bring-
ing forward certain, fairly good results in
other countries and in other jurisdictions, and
perhaps the use of social workers to help the
inmate solve his family and other problems
on the outside.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that 20 part-
time psychologists— if I got that right. Did
the Minister state 20 part-time psychologists?
Twenty-one, I think. I am wondering whether
these are suflScient to carry out these modern
techniques in the reform of convicted people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objections to answering this. It really
comes under vote 1903, and I think that the
hon. member has a suggestion, but as for
particular institutions or how we handle this,
to get a clear picture of it I should tell him
that we, of course, have this and do carry
out these various types of therapy. We have
group therapy and other types as well, but I
think it would be more appropriate under
each institution.
Some of them require more than others,
and I can tell him generally, if he wants to
know whether we have sufficient for this
staff, the answer is, "no". There are vacan-
cies in the complement. We would like to
have them filled, but it is just impossible to
get them.
Mr. De Monte: I agree with the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, that if it comes up
under another vote, that we should discuss it
there, but I would like to ask the Minister
generally, in how many institutions is this
type of therapy and work being carried on?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it
would be a lot easier for my officials to give
me this information as we come to each
institution.
Mr. De Monte: I will wait for the appro-
priate item, but one more question there, Mr.
Chairman. Does the Minister's department
have a course for social workers to enable
them to learn group therapy systems?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume, Mr. Chair-
man, the hon. member means, do we have
students, whom we hope will come in from
the university, who will come in from the
school of social work and learn to do this?
Mr. De Monte: Yes, to a degree, Mr. Chair-
man. I notice that there is quite an extensive
course being taken by the guards in order to
protect, perhaps, society from the prisoners
in the particular institutions, but I would
like the Minister to inform the House whether
there is any special course envisaged, or is
there a special course that trains people to
handle the inmates other than from a pro-
tective point of view— in other words, from the
point of view of psychology, from the point
of view of psychiatry, from the point of view
of sociology, and all those things that might
assist the guards in the prisons to administer
to prevent the prisoners from coming back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
thought and I hoped that I had made it
clear, if I have not I would like to make it
clear now that, as far as we are concerned,
every member of the staff, from the correc-
tional officer 1, all the way up through the
system, is taught in the philosophy of the
department under the heading of "attitudes".
As a matter of fact, the correctional officer
in our view, in the view of many professionals,
is the best person to do rehabilitation work,
therapy work, if you want to call it that,
with the inmate.
If the hon. member has the impression that
there are a great number of people in our
department who are considered correctional
officers, only for custodian purposes, I would
like to disabuse him of that. Each member
of the staff is expected to leam something
about the philosophy of corrections, and as I
outlined in the course on training, they are
expected to leam a variety of things, and
take some of these courses, and qualify
themselves.
3584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Because no matter how many psychiatrists,
or how many psychologists, or how many
social workers you have, none of them can do
as good a job as the correctional officer who
is practically living with the inmate at all
times. This is why we concentrate a great
deal of our attention on staff training with an
approach to changing and reenforcing a good
attitude on the part of staff, including correc-
tion officers.
Mr. De Monte: I agree with the hon. Min-
ister, Mr. Chairman, but I notice when he
read out the type of course that the guard
takes— and I presume that the Minister, by
correctional officer, means the guard, and
perhaps I am using the wrong term— it seems
to me, Mr. Chairman, that a course in human
behaviour for 14 hours is just not quite
adequate to deal with the type of people that
perhaps the guards might have to deal with.
Noiw my reason for arriving at this very
point, Mr. Chairman, is that, from listening
to the course that a correctional officer gets,
perhaps we just need a further course for that
type of person, so that he could, as the hon.
Minister has pointed out, treat these people,
and get close to them, and perhaps prevent
their return to the institution. I would like
to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
that it is all very well for the correctional
ofiicer to be close to the inmate, but it is also
necessary that the inmate have available to
him other people, perhaps a bit better
schooled in the art of dealing with humans-
inmates— so that the inmate can communicate
with them, and perhaps find out what his
psychological problem is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I refer, Mr.
Chairman, the hon. member to page 20 of
the annual report in which it points out that
staff training courses were taken in the last
year by 136 correctional officers and 22 train-
ing schools supervisors; and that 107 took
the certificate course in corrections at Mc-
Master University, and the University of
Toronto.
Mr. Shulman: What page?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Page 20, and there
are many others. There were other seminars
for senior staff, and many other conferences
that they attended, which in fact, are part
and parcel of the training.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901, the member for
Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have a few
thoughts on the business of staff training
which with your leave, I would like to com-
m.unicate briefly to the Minister.
One of them is, that perhaps the the com-
munity colleges might be more deeply in-
volved in a training programme, particularly
in therapy. The facilities for the training of
guards at Guelph is severely limited; there
are 34 places for guards' training at any
one time. There is a considerable number of
guards throughout Ontario— 900 and some
odd.
After they go through this five-week
course, while they may take seminars, in
order to better there pay, and so on, I do not
think there is anything more mandatory within
the system. Why should they not be exposed
to courses in psychology and human deport-
ment—in a whole realm of things which
would be highly beneficial to guards. And
why should not the new community colleges
—which are largely concerned with technical
matters, perhaps to some extent parallel with
universities— be pressed into service in this
regard? There are many fields in which this
can be done, but the one of the training of
guards seems to me extremely sensible.
These men are men without high educa-
tional qualifications, and their pay acocrd-
ingly, is not very great. The need then is to
upgrade all the way along the line, because
the rehabilitation of the offender becomes an
evermore onerous burden in our society, and
the ways in which it can be brought about,
I think this will be agreed upon on all sides,
are extremely complex and men with grade
9 to 12 educations are simply unable to cope
with the inter-relationships. Commendably,
throughout his report, and particularly in
the section on training, the Minister talks,
for instance, Mr. Chairman, about ruling out
that old Victorian habit of saying that guards
are not to speak to the inmates, not to have
any commerce with them. He said this is
atrocious.
Guards should be open and speak in hu-
mane and gentlemanly terms back and forth
to set up some kind of relationship to show
that these people are not total outcasts, quite
the contrary and to aid in that period of re-
habilitation, so that their contact wi'h society
and with ordinary decencies of civil address
are not lost to them in these institutions.
Now the Minister is in favour of that. He
can go a good deal further in this direction
by continuing upgrading of the guards.
What is feared in these institutions, and
going around again a number of them, I
have not run into it in any decisive form, is
that a certain kind of troubled soul seeks
MAY 29, 1968
3585
out the jobs of looking after people in jails
and penitentiaries. We have to beware of
the sadist and in some of our institutions,
there is the atmosphere and I have no doubt
—and this is in the incidence of things— that
some guards will be sadistic, will torture
prisoners unnecessarily, will subject them to
all kinds of routines and measures, perhaps
behind the backs of the authorities and
against their will.
I know in Millbrook they ran into a situa-
tion where numerous inmates complained
about their good time being constantly under
intimidation. The guard would allow one fel-
low through the door or allow one fellow
to do a certain thing, and the next fellow
he marked out for special vindictiveness. But,
that was not common in that institution, if
I may say so.
When we come to Guelph, may I say, I
think that there is something wrong there,
something deeply and profoundly wrong with
Guelph reformatory. It may not be sadism.
I spoke to quite a number of guards. They
seem to be decent enough fellows— again, not
sufficiently exposed to contemporary methods
of penology, which is perfectly possible
vdthin their level.
It means just being a decent human being,
which is rather a difficult thing to do at the
best of times. But in any event, I would not
go so much in that direction. What we have
to be aware of, work against, I suggest to
you, Mr. Chairman and this House, is a sec-
ond thing. That has to do with military regi-
mentation.
Perhaps the trouble in that institution is
precisely the spit and pohsh, the sense of
disciphne, the sense that the individuals run-
ning the place are an inheritance from the
Khyber Pass days or something of that sort.
Whatever it may be, there is a form of op-
pressiveness, a form of military tattoo that
everybody has to stand up and meet.
In other institutions there is a certain air
of give-and-take. At Burtch, for instance,
you do not get certain formalities. They con-
duct themselves efficiently and well. There
is not all that acrid holding back with all the
rules and enforcement of rules and the con-
stant supervision and the sense of pressure
that remains in that Guelph institution.
In other words, this is good if you are not
going to create terrible resentments in men,
turn them in on themselves, and turn them
against the whole society, so that they are
aching for the day when they will emerge
from the institution to take their revenge,
which many of them do, and hence the high
rate of recidivism, however established or not
established in these institutions.
You have created within these places a
festering sore. These people are deeply re-
sentful of what has been inflicted, and the
whole of our society, including this Legis-
lature, falls under the bane as far as they are
concerned. There is no place for them. They
become scapegoats and they become preyers
on the body politic. If these various things
can be brought to the attention—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, with
very great respect, is this not an address
which should properly come under Throne
debate or Budget debate?
Mr. Sopha: It is a very thoughtful address.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Where are the ques-
tions that had to do with the estimates, and
which the Opposition should be directing its
attention to? The speeches and the theories—
An hon. member: Do you not like him to?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Speeches and theories
should come under another heading.
Mr. Lawlor: I am getting—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Not on the estimates.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: With respect please, may
the Chairman reply to the point of order?
Mr. Lawlor: May I speak to the point of
order first?
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I am getting a
little tired of the Minister interrupting my
discourse.
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order-
Mr. Lawlor: In any event, my point of
order is as follows—
Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Will the member-
Mr. Lawlor: I want to make my point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: I ask the member to resume
his seat.
Mr. Lawlor: I wish to make a point of
order.
3586
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The member did not raise a
point of order.
Mr. Lawlor: I am raising one now.
Mr. Chairman: All right. What is it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Do not get angry.
Mr. MacDonald: You are asking an awful
lot.
Mr. Lawlor: The Minister made a consider-
able statement. I think the Chairman will
agree with me. We wanted him to talk about
the training to which the guards and these
personnel were exposed to, to make them
competent to deal with the problems they
have inside these institutions.
Mr. Chairman: Well, perhaps—
Mr. Lawlor: I am replying to that.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member will
let the Chairman rule on whether there is a
point of order.
The Minister has pointed out that it should
perhaps be a Throne debate or a Budget
debate speech, and I take it from that, that
he has indicated to the committee that it is
irrelevant to the estimates before us. Now
the Chairman has had no guidance as to
whether or not a Budget debate topic or
Throne debate topic can actually be brought
up in the estimates or not. In my opinion,
if the subject matter being discussed by the
member relates to these estimates, in the
absence of any rule to the contrary, it is not
out of order.
Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and having had that little debate with you,
I finish my statement.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, all I
can say is, holy smoke.
Mr. MacDonald: Out of order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure the hon. member must have some access
to information in our department. He would
be pleased to know that the director of staff
development in our department has already
been holding discussions with the community
colleges directly for the purposes as he has
outlined. As a matter of fact, a member of
our department is already lecturing at one of
the community colleges and we expect to
expand this to a great extent.
And he will also be glad to know— this is
a secret we have been trying to keep and I
suppose this is as good a time as any to
announce it— we have been awaiting the new
name for the department before instituting
non-military uniforms which have already
been designed. We did not want to have
them tailored and then have to tear the
names and lapels off them and so on, and I
agree wholeheartedly with them.
We are not sure at all, we are not positive,
that this is going to be helpful— we hope it
is— to get away from the military approach.
Even those jurisdictions in Europe in Scan-
dinavia which are always held as being
models of, for us, where I have visited—
Mr. Sargent: Anything would be a model
for you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Generally, they stick
to the semi-military uniforms. We are going
to come away from this just as soon as the
new name of the department is official and
we will gradually begin to replace all the
uniforms with non-military type.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, I would like to draw the
Minister's attention to the report which has
already been mentioned today a number of
times, the 1954 select committee on reform
institutions. One of the recommendations that
was made—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I, Mr. Chairman?
I promised I would have this on my desk,
and have had now for 20 minutes. I promised
to give the hon. member the reference in the
report. It is on page 453, under the heading
"recidivist and habitual criminals, section
129," and it reads— these are the recommen-
dations:
That sentences of confirmed recidivists be-
long in a penitentiary to bring real benefit to
society, and that Burwash provincial prison
be set aside exclusively for non-reformable
recidivists,
Nimiber 130:
That persons who have served a previous
sentence in a penitentiary or three or more
sentences in a reformatory should not be
readmitted to a reformatory.
Number 131:
That confirmed dereficts be given longer
indefinite sentences, segregated completely
from other inmates and provided with an
extensive work programme in keeping with
their capabilities.
MAY 29, 1968
3587
Incidentally, it has always puzzled me how
we would carry out 130, because if we do
not accept them in a reformatory what else
can we do with them?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I must point
out with some regret that the Minister has
misled the House, no doubt not deliberately.
The conmient he made earlier was that the
report says that 75 per cent of these prisoners
can be written off, he said this was one of the
recommendations. I have all the recommen-^
dations here. I asked him for this report, and
he quoted the page, I have page 453 in front
of me and there is nothing here about 75 per
cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I wish
the hon. member would not be so free with
the words "misinformed the House". There
is no need for that.
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not resign?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been in public
office now for, I think, 17 years. The first
time anyone ever suggested that I deliber-
ately misinformed anybody or lied, is when
the hon. member entered this House.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): He said, "no
doubt not deliberately".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just recall now, think
tlie hon. member will find the reference to
this was by the then leader of the Opposi-
tion, I think it was Mr. Oliver. I think you
will find this in Hansard, when he was giving
his comments when this report was being dis-
cussed. I think he stated this as the opinion
of the select committee. So it was not a mat-
ter of misinforming the House.
I think it does not help at all, Mr. Chair-
man. I hope I am not going to be considered
as lecturing, but it does not help a proper dis-
cussion across the floor of this House if I
have to weigh every word in the hope tliat
someone would say, "Ah, that was a wrong
one, I'll catch him on that one". If the hon.
member wants a good debate, he should not
be that sticky.
Mr. MacDonald: You are being picked on
again.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, if he will go to Hansard for this par-
ticular year when it was discussed, he will
find this reference.
Mr. Sopha: Well, what does the Minister
mean, he has been in public office for 17
years? When I came here nine years ago, you
were—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was an alderman for
four years and I have been here since 1955.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister means he has
been in public life. But you did not hold an
office nine years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said since I held
public office.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton ( Provincial Treas-
urer): What kind of nitpicking is that?
Mr. Sopha: It is not nitpicking at all, I
want to be accurate. I knew this man when
he rolled his own cigarettes.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, just so there
will be no misunderstanding, I pointed out
when I made my comment that it was no
doubt inadvertently, and I must say I was
somewhat more polite than an associate of
this Minister who used a much stronger
word— I am referring to the Minister of Social
and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko)— and who
refused to retract it.
However, the question which I wish to
bring to the Minister is as follows: It has
been the custom, as the Minister has out-
lined, to put them to work in the reforma-
tories or prisons and at a subsequent time,
some weeks or some months later, tliey are
sent to the staff training school, where tliey
receive their education following their job
training.
What I started to point out was tlie select
committee, away back in 1953, said this was
not a good system— and I give you recom-
mendation 24— that all guards be given in-
struction in the staff training school before
assuming their duties. This appears to me to
be common sense. We have been travelling
about the province and we find that guards
are put to work in charge of prisoners, ad-
mittedly in non-sensitive areas, but in charge
of prisoners. For example, at Millbrook they
are not put in charge of the escapees, they
are not put in charge of the hard criminals,
but they are put in charge of the sex deviates,
and the arsonists, and this is before they get
their training. Tliis was a very sensible sug-
gestion by the select committee, and I would
like to ask the Minister why it has not been
put into force.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a matter of
opinion, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member
thinks we ought to get these people, put
them on the staff training before they begin
work, and other people think it is better if
they are faced with situations in the presence
3588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of others more experienced in the institutions,
and realize what they are faced with in the
particular institutions that they are going to
in. Quite frankly, 1 see no reason to disagree
with this.
I do not know how lecturing mid all this
sort of thing is going to do anywhere near
as good as doing the lecturing and the staff
training while you are on the job and you
are faced with the actual situation. It is a
person-to-person relationship and this is the
only way, it set^ms to me, that people are
going to learn. Because you could talk until
you are blue in the face to people but unless
they actually live in a situation, a good por-
tion of it might be wasted. But tliis is a mat-
ter of opinion and I have no strong opinions
on it except to say perhaps that if we waited
for this, we would even ha\e a greater short-
age of staff than we have now.
We have many vacancies now for correc-
tional officers which we cannot fill because
we cannot find qualified people for it. So
if wc had to wait even longer until they got
training outside, this would be another factor
which would mitigate against doing it that
way.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, woidd the
Minister-
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, is this a point
of order?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Sargent: I thought maybe we could
ask some questions over here once in a
while.
Mr. Shulman: The member will get his
turn.
Mr. Chainnan: I recognize the member
for Grey-Bruce; we will give the member
for High Park a chance to catch his breath.
Mr. Sargent: Tliis is not too earth-shaking
but-
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I believe I
have the floor, 1 wish to yield the floor to—
Mr. Chairman: I nxognize the member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Shulman: If I cannot yield the floor,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue. Mr. Chair-
man, I was in the middle of a series of
(luestions and I will not be interrupted.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of r)r(ler, what do vou rule?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you will allow me
to explain. The member for High Park
asked a question of the Minister, which he
ans'wered; I noticed that the member had
risen, I recognized him. He has a ques-
tion? It can be answered. It is not a matter
of yielding the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, what
new rule is it that suddenly when a man is
asking a series of questions you break it off
if one is answered?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): He is
trying to give the floor to his colleague.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the member for Lon-
don South in the diair?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. MacDonald: What is it, if I may ask?
Mr. Chainnan: I said order, please! I
would ask the member to be seated. How
is the chair to recognize that there is
a series of questions? The one question was
asked and it was answered.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Except when the
member for High Park rises.
Mr. Chairman: Anybody can speak a num-
ber of times in committee. Now, the member
for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, on a ix>int of order, I wanted to
follow up exactly what this member was talk-
ing about.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is tough
luck.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, you are entirely correct, sir, and for
the edification of the House, I quote from
May's 16th edition, page 446, which reads in
part as follows:
In the Commons, when two or more
members rise to speak, the Speaker calls on
the member who, on rising in his place, is
first observed by him. It is the Speaker's
duty to watch members as they rise to
speak and the decision should be left with
him.
And, sir, the practice in the United States
Senate, which the hon. member for High
Park is trying to introduce, has never been
used here and has not been used in any other
parliament anywhere in the world. You just
cannot do that.
MAY 29, 1968
3589
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I would just like to point out it
has been the practice in this House, in this
session, when a member is asking a series of
questions, to allow him to complete his ques-
tions and not interrupt him and let another
member rise. You have made an error, sir.
Mr. Chairman: Commenting upon that
matter, I would like to give this my own
opinion. I have noticed in this House, in
this session, that there are some members who
appear to believe that this is something of a
courtroom and that the Minister who is giving
the estimates may be examined at length.
This is not parliamentary procedure in my
view. Parliamentary procedure here should
be in the form of debate and our rules in
committee permit a member to speak more
than once. Hence when one question is
answered, in this instance I recognized an-
other member, and I now ask him to proceed
with his question.
Mr. Sargent: Really, it is not worth all this
trouble, but can I talk about the fact that in
county jails across this province, there are
possibly 3,000 or 4,000 people in there for
up to 60 days. May I ask tlie Minister, does
he have any planned programme of activity
or is this just a continued-
Mr. Shulmtan: This is a different subject.
Mr. Sargent: Maybe I should ask the mem-
ber for High Park, first, should I? This man
is an authority on everything, and I am try-
ing to find out something myself.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On everything,
the member is right.
Mr. Sargent: That is the first question.
Second, I am trying to find out something my-
self. If a fellow cannot cook in a jail, no one
eats because they do not have a cook in
county jailhouses. Do you have any pro-
gramme to have a cook in county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
again attempt to make it quite clear that we
appreciate some of these problems and this
is the reason we appointed the task force
which is now covering every jail in this prov-
ince. I do not know how far they gone, I
think-
Mr. Sopha: Have they got a cook yet?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, you may
as well understand one of the problems, if
you have a jail which has an average inmate
population of three-
Mr. Sargent: Oh, no. Maybe 30 people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to explain
to the; hon. member what the problems are.
It was hardly right to expect that county
to hire a permanent cook to cook for three
people. So the practice has been in some of
those to get one of the inmates, with some
of the staff-
Mr. Sargent: Most respectfully, they never
have less than 15 to 20 people there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You arc talking about
a particular jail; I realize this. I am talking
about jails generally. This is one of the pur-
poses for the task force, to go into every jail
and make recommendations to us so that we
can make a decision as to which jails to close
up completely; which to do some renovations
on; where we might necessarily, perhaps, have
to hire cooks; and, where we would decide
to set up a priority, which priority would
come first in respect of not only renovations
but new buildings.
Mr. Sargent: Well then, one final point on
this. We have, all over the province, all these
jails with people in there for up to 60 days.
There is nothing for them to do but sit
around. Do you not have a programme of
planned activity where they can be educated
in something?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no use
attempting to have planned activity in a jail
where there is not any room for planned
activity. In those areas where there is, the
task force will report it. If there is not, we
will try and make some arrangement for it.
Mr. Sargent: What is the target date?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The target date is as
soon as is possible.
Mr. Sargent: You said that years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I did not say it
years ago. I said yesterday that our target
date for replacing all of the jails was about
12 years.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901. The member
for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Yes, I just want to make one
point on the training aspect.
There seemed to be some difficulty as to
whether we should put them in a class first
or after. I was thinking you could possibly
follow the example used in the teachers'
colleges, where you do both at the same
5590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time. Consequently you would be getting ex-
posure, and the background knowledge neces-
sary, at the same time. In other words,
attend class part tune and go in to act as a
guard or custodial ojBBcer at the same time.
In this way, you would be getting exposure
in both fields at the same time.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this
is, generally speaking, what we are doing
iiow; the rman is on the job and at the same
time taking his training. Is that not the same
thing?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I was under the impres-
sion that this went on for possibly a couple
of months before he went into the academic
classes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it could be two
or three months before he gets under way in
his training, that is true. Ideally, he would
start on the same day. Hopefully, we will be
able to do this some day, but I do not think
it is that important because the man is going
to be surrounded by others who have been
taking the training, and would be imder their
influence. And it is not the ideal situation;
we work towards it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote
for High Park.
1901. The member
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come back
to the question I was asking when I ran into
difficulties. I would like to inquire, how are
guards paid for overtime work? Do they
receive bonus payments?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The correctional offi-
cers are paid overtime in accordance with
civil service regulations, whichever they hap-
pen to be. I do not have them in front of me.
Mr. Shulman: Then the situation has
changed whereby guards used to work over-
time at tlie same rate of pay. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, may I suggest
that the hon. member refer to them as cor-
rectional officers? I am advised by my deputy
that this has been changed; they are paid for
oN'ertime.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to inquire if guards now advance in salary
by length of service. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They work within a
salary range and they increase in their salary
range in accordance with the length of serv-
ice—and performance I should say.
Mr. Shulman: And performance?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And performance-
merit increases.
Mr. Shulman: Well, then, I am referring to
recommendation 22— has this been carried
out? That guards advance in status and salary
by a system that recognizes merit and cap-
abihty, as well as length of service?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Theoretically, this is
what merit increases are for. Merit increases
are not automatic; they must be approved,
and presumably on the basis that they are-
Mr. Shulman: Recommendation 23 was that
employees be recognized for meritorious and
faithful service by merit awards, and desig-
nated by chevrons to be worn on uniforms.
Has that been done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The merit increases—
I have already referred to that— and I am
told that they are wearing chevrons, but not
necessarily being paid on that basis.
Mr. Shulman: Oh, no, no. This has nothing
to do with payment; this was that they be
recognized for meritorious and faithful service
l^y merit awards— this has nothing to do with
money— the chevrons are to show that they
have excelled.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, they do not get
paid, the award is the chevron.
Mr. Shulman: I am asking has this recom-
mendation been carried out?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, in respect of the
recognition for their years of service.
Mr. Shulman: No, no. This is not years of
service, I am sorry. Let me read it: (23)
Employees be suitably recognized for meri-
torious and faithful service, by merit award.s,
and designated by chevrons to be worn on
uniforms. This does not refer to length of
service, this is unusually good worker. They
suggested in this report they be recognized.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Presiunably this sort
of person would be recognized by promotion.
I cannot think of any other way. I do not
think we would be pennitted to do this under
civil service regulations.
Mr. Shulman: Are all experienced personnel
given refresher courses o\er a period of time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes,
fresher courses.
there are re-
MAY 29, 1968
3591
Mr. Shulman: I know tliere are refresher
courses, but is it compulsory for them to take
them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman:
every case.
advised not in
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister not
agree that it might be advisable, after a
period of years, for correctional officers—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is our aim; that
is our aim.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you. There is one
other matter I would like to bring up under
staff training. I am not sure if this is the
correct place, or if it should Ix? brought up
under the Guelph situation, and I will be
guided by you, Mr. Chairman. There is a
situation at Guelph which has received some
publicity in recent days. Guards who are
taking the staff training course— who are not
guards at Guelph, but who were on the
grounds because they were taking a course
at Guelph— were involved in that.
I wish to make some remarks alx)ut that.
Would you prefer I wait until we come to
Guelph?
Mr. Chairman: I think it would properly
come under the institutions.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901. The member
for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: How many psychiatrists are
you short of across the province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suppose the easiest
way to answer that for the hon. member,
without even going into the detail of what
we have complement for— I do not think there
is even a complement. We will take all the
psychiatrists who will come with us; we can
always use them. We will take as many
psychiatrists as will come with the depart-
ment.
Mr. Sargent: You will take all you can get.
What are you paying them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I tliink it works out,
on the basis we are paying them— I was going
to say $25,000. It runs up to $25,000.
Mr. Sargent: Up to $25,000. One more
question. All the shoes that the irmiates
wear, and their clothing, is that all on a low-
bid basis? Is that bought collectively or is it
bought individually in institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that we
make a considerable amount of clothing in
our own institutions, and that which is pur-
chased is purchased on tender.
Mr. Sargent: And how often do you buy
new shoes?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not suppose there
is any regular-
Mr. Sargent: Why I ask is because the
shoes in a lot of these places are in shocking
shape, and I think—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you talking about
jails again?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir.
Vote 1901 agreed to.
On vote 1902:
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, on parole, in
contra-distinction to probation, although they
pretty much end up being the same thing.
I suppose the same people, to some extent,
carry out both services, and they are closely
allied; it is a shame they are not taken to-
gether. But leaving that aside, I had heard
the hon. Minister say, Mr. Chairman, that 70
per cent of the people eligible for parole
obtain parole. Now, whether that is so or
not—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I said 64 per
cent— did I not say 64 per cent?
Mr. Lawlor: Sixty-four per cent, sir, I am
sorry. Well, 64 per cent then. I am not
really questioning the figures, I simply would
like a clarification of the statistic. It appears
from your report on page 84 that people dis-
charged on the expiration of sentence— in
other words people who do not get paroled,
are just discharged— were about 5,900 out of
a constant prison or jail population of about
—it runs from year to year— about 12,300 or
about half. Over against that, the two figures
of the national parole board and the Ontario
parole board give a sum total of 638, leaving
aside the differentiation between those two—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wonder, would the
hon. member permit me, so he will not be
getting a lot of figures together on a mis-
understanding—he appreciates, of course, I
hope, that we only deal with those in our
institutions who are on indefinite sentence
so when I refer to those 64 per cent who
are out on parole, I am referring to those
who are paroled by the Ontario parole board
3592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who are on indefinite sentence. We cannot
deal with the national parole board— there
are definite sentences.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, let us discuss the tenus
of eligibility.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think you will find
that better on page 59. I think that will help
the hon. member to get a clearer picture of it.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, that was the
page I was looking at here. What I had done,
Mr. Chairman, is place the figure of 1,200
over against the figure of 12,700 constant
inmates of the institution. Of course, that
would come out at a far lower figure than
anything close to 64 per cent but I am look-
ing for light.
But before getting into that, on the
eligibility business, it is two years less a day
that you are interested in, and do they not
have to serve a third of their definite sentence
before they are eligible in any event? Is that
not the first condition?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To be ehgible for the
Ontario parole they have to serve all of their
definite sentence unless they are paroled, of
course, by the national parole board.
Mr, Lawlor: Now, could you explain the
inter-relationship between the two parole
boards? I notice that the national board pa-
roled about 478 last year and you paroled
about three times that number— 1,252. In other
words, what I would like to know is would
you have paroled the same people had they
left it up to you, or is it a question of longer
than the two year period, or is it the question
of the determinate sentences being paroled,
or just on what basis is this done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am afraid, Mr.
Chairman, I did not get the hon. member's
question. I am sorry.
Mr. Lawlor: We will make it simple. What
is the inter-relationship between the two
parole boards; what area does each one
cover? Is there any overlapping, and if
there is—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, there cannot be
any overlapping. As a matter of fact, we
have an arrangement with the national parole
board. Strictly speaking we have to ask
their permission to parole somebody on in-
definite sentence, but it is an understanding
we have with the national parole board that
we may parole those who are on indefinite
sentence. They, and they alone, can deal
with a definite sentence. Where they are
planning on giving a national parole they do
this in co-ordination with us. We are in
contact with each other so that there will not
be any cross action without the other knowing.
Mr. Lawlor: Just to have that absolutely
clear— are there cases where you would refuse
a parole and they would grant one, or vice
versa?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that the
national parole board will never grant parole
where their is a combination of sentences
and where our parole refuses to parole in the
indefinite portion.
Mr. Sargent: What do you pay the mem-
])crs of the parole board? What salaries do
they receive?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member gets in
range of $10,500 to $12,500.
Mr. Sargent: Each member of the board?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a permanent
member.
Mr. Sargent: How many iDcrmanent mem-
bers do you have?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Five.
Mr. Sargent: What is the occupation of the
five parole board members?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The permanent mem-
bers of the parole board, of course, this is
their occupation. This is all on page 58— the
hon. member will find a description of them.
Five permanent members; this is their job.
Mr. Sargent: Is there a medical doctor
there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Sargent: Is there a man trained in the
use of lie detectors?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that.
Mr. Sargent: Tlie experts in penology in
the States say that to have a good parole
board you should have these different type
of people on the parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can tell the hon.
member that as far as we are able to ascer-
tain there is no parole board that we have
ever heard of that has had any better suc-
cess on parole.
Mr. Sargent: Like Viola MacMillan for
instance?
MAY 29, 1968
3593
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you like to
talk about Viola MacMillan?
Mr. Sargent: We certainly would.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps when we get
back here after 6 o'clock— the dinner hour—
we can discuss Viola MacMillan, if the hon.
member will ask me a specific question on it.
But I just tell the hon. member in answer to
a specific question that our parole board has
an international reputation for being one of
the best on the continent.
Mr. Sargent: How do we know that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact,
I think the hon. member read that in the
paper after all this discussion about Viola
MacMillan. I think the people in corrections
came out with this statement.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): I think we read that you said it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I think you read
it from the civil liberties association and per-
haps some of the others, I cannot recall.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Can the member finish
his remarks before 6?
Mr. Sargent: I have a series of questions.
Mr. Chairman: You have a series of ques-
tions?
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 99
ONTARIO
legislature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3597
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 3634
3597
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(Continued)
Ou vote 1902:
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Chairman, before rising for
the dinner hour, you will recall that there
was some discussion with myself and the hon.
member for High Park— I do not know if he
is around— as to the fact that I had misin-
formed, misled the House regarding the
report of the select committee regarding the
number of reformables, and the number of
unreformables. At that time I said that it
probably was in Hansard as a result of being
reported.
I have now had this Hansard looked up for
me, and with your permission, sir, I would
like to quote this. At page 399— Hansard of
March 8, 1954 when the select committee
report was being discussed.
Mr. Stewart, the chairman of the commit-
tee, stated— Mr. Stewart, who, of course was
the Progressive Conservative member on the
committee, and the chairman— and I quote-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Former
Speaker of the House.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Former
mayor of Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Stewart said:
Mr. Speaker, we made a study of this, and the
ratio—
if one should recall parenthetically, Mr.
Chairman, that when he says that we made
a study of this, he is referring to the com-
mittee.
—and the ratio between jail reformables is about
30 per cent as against 70 per cent who are not
reformable. In our provincial institutions, about 20
per cent are reformable, while the other 80 per cent
are not.
Further on, the same Hansard, page 403,
the Liberal representative on the committee,
Mr. Oliver, who was leader of the Opposition,
I think; it does not make any difference, he
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
was a member of the committee. He stated,
referring to the reformatory system:
They are dealing with 100 per cent of the institu-
tional population. There are, I suppose, only be-
tween 20 and 25 per cent of that population whom
it is possible to reform, yet our efforts are directed
towards the 100 per cent—
and there was some criticism later on as to
why we should really put all that work into
the whole 100 per cent.
The representative from the CCF at the
time, Mr. Grummett, at page 406—
Mr. Sopha: He was for keeping them
jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He states:
The committee belives the institution at Burwash
should be made an Ontario prison, and those who
are not reformable should be sent to that institution,
so that officers attempting to reform men can concen-
trate their efforts on the 20 or 25 per cent who are
reformable.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): When was
that, 18 years ago?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that was the point
that I made when the hon. member for High
Park read it.
Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Thirteen
years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I add to that,
too? It might be interesting for the members.
Further on Mr. Grummett stated:
The committee as a whole, believes a separate
institution should be constructed, preferably at Bur-
wash, to where men who are not reformable can be
sent, and there serve their terms of imprisonment.
At the same time, those men could be given bard
labour-
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he added:
In our courts, we quite often hear the convicting
magistrate, or judge, sentence a prisoner to hard
labour.
Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as
hard labour in our institutions today. A man
may be in our county jails, and considered
serving a term with hard labour. All he has
to do is sweep out the corridor, and his own
cell, perhaps. That is not hard labour. We
think that in each institution, some industrial
3598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
plan should be set up, so these men can be
given work which will keep them busy. If
they are not reformable, then hard labour,
and a greater degree of punishment, will not
induce these men to decide that they will
not come back again in the near future.
Mr. Sopha: No sympathy—
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1903?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, we have not
passed vote 1902 yet. The member for Lake-
shore was on his feet, but first of all I would
like to—
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. With great
respect, the Chairman would indicate to the
member that vote 1902 was called, and car-
ried. No member was on his feet, and I had
called vote 1903.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, were you in
a great hurry to pass this vote?
Mr. Chairman: If the member would please
remain silent for a moment. I want to point
this out to the committee that I had called
the vote, and I had declared it carried, and
called vote 1903, and no member was in his
place, on his feet, and the Minister— however,
I saw the member for Lakeshore coming to
his seat, then I called vote 1903. So I will
permit him, if he had something to say on
vote 1902, to proceed.
I want the committee to know that vote
1902 had been carried.
The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, before he
goes ahead, I wish to explain, sir, that I had
a great deal to say on vote 1902. The mem-
ber for Lakeshore informed me that he was
going to speak first, and I left my chair for
that reason, and I expected to be able to
make my comments on this particular vote.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. We have heard that there
are 64 per cent of all ehgible inmates who
get parole. As far as the Ontario system is
concerned I wonder if it is possible at all for
the hon. Minister to indicate what number
of all persons in custody are eligible for
parole? Could you give any idea of that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While every person
who is sentenced to a provincial institution,
with an indefinite sentence, is entitled to be
considered for parole for that portion of or
some portion of his indefinite sentence, if
he does not have an indefinite portion at-
tached to his sentence, then we cannot deal
with it at all.
Mr. Lawlor: Does that apply equally to
reparolling inmates? I mean is it more diffi-
cult to get a parole if you have been paroled
previously?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, this would de-
pend on the particular circumstances of the
particular case. The parole board takes every-
thing possible into consideration. I rather
imagine that if a person has broken parole
previously, this would stand against his
chance of getting parole, but not necessarily.
Mr. Lawlor: I see. Mr. Chairman, I have
several questions; it will not take long.
Why not the same officers, or are some of
the officers the same— I am sure they are
not— as between the federal government and
the Ontario government? I will rephrase thfe
question. Should not the federal government
handle the whole thing, or should not your
office handle the whole thing with respect to
determinate and indeterminate sentences?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The parole board, the
national parole board, deals with parole in
all the provinces except British Columbia and
Ontario, because British Columbia and On-
tario have their own parole board systems.
I should tell the hon. member that I think
it was the Fauteux report which recom-
mended that it all be placed in the hands
of the national parole board.
Mr. Lawlor: That was in 1934.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. There was a
further report after that, the Archambault
report. I should say that at that time there
was some considerable opinion in favour of
this, among correctional people. I think it
would be fair to say that, by and large,
opinion has changed now, and I hope the
hon. member will not feel that I am patting
myself on the back, because I have nothing
to do with having instituted the Ontario
parole board. It was here long before I en-
tered the picture. I am giving credit to the
parole board of Ontario for this because of
the method by which the Ontario parole
board works— perhaps British Columbia as
well— as against the method employed by the
national parole board. There is now a feeling
in reverse, that the parole board should be
left in the hands of those provinces which,
at least, have them now.
MAY 29, 1968
3599
This feeling derives from the difference in
methods of handling parole. The national
parole board, by and large, deals with this
parole by paperwork. That is, the local repre-
sentative of the national parole board will
consider an application for parole from one
of its inmates, and make a report to the
national parole board in Ottawa, and a de-
cision is made there. As far as the Ontario
parole obard is concerned, no one need make
application. Our parole board visits every
institution, at regular intervals, regardless of
whether there is an application made or not.
Every inmate who is on indefinite sentence is
reviewed for parole. It is felt that this system,
particularly the fact that the parole board
confronts the inmate personally, provides a
better way of sizing up the situation. Because
of this, our parole board in the view of cor-
rectional people— and I say this with some
qualification, because I cannot speak for all
correctional people, but by and large, they
feel that our parole system is a better one.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I am interested
in the recruilment of parole officers, as to
whether these men come from the system
itself, as to whether they are social workers.
What training or special qualifications would
such people have?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
referring to the parole board or the rehabih-
tation officers?
Mr. Lawlor: The rehabilitation officers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no hard and
fast rule. Some of them are required to have
academic standard of grade 13— at least grade
13, some of them. Some are social workers.
They are people who, by and large, have
learned to deal with people and know some-
thing about the work, and I would think this
is a better way, as a matter of fact, than
setting up special academic standards because
you might decide that an academic degree is
a better qualification for this work. But you
might get someone who does not really relate
to the inmates in this particular work.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, one final ques-
tion of the Minister. You have a $350,000
item here for foster parents. Could you en-
lighten me as to what that is all about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is for the pur-
pose of paying maintenance for youngsters
from our training schools for placement in
foster homes.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on the mat-
ter of parole. First of all, I would like to
discuss the matter of not being able to find
out why inmates have been refused parole.
I had brought this matter up earlier in the
session and the Minister, I believe, said at
that time that he was not aware of the
reasons. In any case, that no one looked over
the decisions of the parole board.
I would like to submit to you, sir, that this
can lead to very serious abuses and at least,
in cases where the Minister is requested to
look into the reasons for refusal of parole, he
or someone in the department should be as-
signed to look into those reasons.
As an example, to illustrate the abuses that
can occur, I am going to read the letter to
you, from a girl who is now in reformatory
without mentioning her name. The Minister
has a copy of all this correspondence. This
shows the type of frustrating situation that
can occur for the inmate, which can lead only
to embitterment against the system, frustra-
tion among her family and among her elected
representatives; and disrepute for the whole
parole system. It is only a brief letter and I
would like to read it in full.
Dear Doctor Shulman,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): That ought to be syndicated.
Mr. Shulman: To continue:
Dear Doctor Shulman,
I understand you were here at Mercer a
few weeks ago. I am enclosing a copy of
our letter to the parole board.
On June 8, 1967, I was given an 18-
month indefinite term for uttering and
theft. I would be paroled by December.
I am still here and the parole board has
flatly refused to review my case at this late
date.
I have the complete backing of the
Elizabeth Fry society of Ottawa who have
directly requested parole at this time for
me. They know my whole history.
I have a university education, employ-
ment recommendations, my own apartment
sublet until September 1, 1968, a place to
stay rent free with a teacher and his wife
and no financial habilities.
Yet even with all this in my favour, the
parole board turns a deaf ear. I have asked
for a reason and have been told personally
by Mr. Potts that a reason would be given
for a refusal of review, but I am kept wait-
ing with no results.
I have seen inmates paroled since my
arrival here who cannot even pay a fine;
nowhere to go, yet they are granted parole.
3600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My job here is a responsible one, such
as they go, and I have no complaints levied
against me, so tliat my conduct here is not
the factor. My discharge date is September
24, 1968, and I am most anxious to be able
to have an opportunity of making concrete
plans for my home before my lease expires
on September 1. Is there any help you can
suggest?
Sincerely,
Miss C. H.
I wrote to the Minister when I received tliis
letter and I sent him a photostat of the letter
which I received. I received this letter on—
it is dated April 24, it came in on May 2. I
wrote the Minister the same day:
Dear Mr. Grossman,
I am enclosing a photostat of a letter
received today—
and I asked the Minister to look into the
matter of why she had not received parole.
I received a letter back from the Minister.
I will not read the whole letter, but the last
paragraph sums it— the last two paragraphs:
Your specific question in this matter is
to ask why the girl had not received her
parole. I can only answer that the parole
board had interviewed her, considered all
of the factors normally necessary and all
of the points which they usually consider
in such cases and in the light of their
examination decided that at this time she
is not suitable for parole.
Mr. Sopha: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Shulman: They do not give a reason.
Mr. Sopha: Why should they?
Mr. Shulman: To continue the letter:
I might also add that they have reviewed
her case on two occasions, and of course it
is still open for further consideration at an
appropriate time. I am satisfied that this
case is being dealt with in accordance with
the general policy which must have regard
for the safety of the public and the success-
ful rehabilitation of the person concerned.
The member for Sudbury has asked what is
wrong with that; let me tell you what is
wrong with that, Mr. Chairman.
Here is a girl whose conduct has been good
in prison, whose future prospects are good,
who cannot find out, either through the
parole board or through her elected member,
why she is refused parole.
Mr. Sopha: Had she been convicted of
paperhanging before?
Mr. Shulman: I do not know what tlie
reason was for refusing her parole. I have
asked the Minister if there is an explanation;
and I bring this case up not because of this
specific case, but because I have a file here of
cases, I must have 20 of them, of people who
have applied for parole and have been
refused their parole and cannot get any
reason for it. Surely Mr. Chairman, if some-
one is refused parole there cannot be any
deep dark reason why they are not given the
reason.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
in the first place—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Is this another
answer to one of your advertisements?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Shulman: This is a duty of the House,
Mr. Chairman. It is not necessary to adver-
tise for them—
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The member need not reply to the inter-
jection. It is completely out of order.
Mr. Shulman: Please tell that to the House
leader.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, of
course you do not have to advertise. All the
inmates of our institutions respond as soon
as they find out that someone is prepared to
listen to that sort of thing, you get hundreds
of letters.
I am not going to comment on this par-
ticular letter except to use it as an opportu-
nity, again, to advise the hon. member, again
—I know his hon. leader is going to say I am
lecturing him again— about the danger of it.
I do not know whether the hon. member
knows, but he is dealing in the first instance
with a forged letter. I mean these are the
dangers that are inherent in this thing. He
has the letter, which was not signed by the
inmate.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
should be careful. He was not there when she
signed the letter; and there is no use going
into that, it is not really germane except to
suggest to the hon. member that he ought
to be careful about taking the word of any
MAY 29, 1968
.3601
inmate who writes him a letter with
j^rievances.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have mentioned be-
fore tliat obviously these people are unwill-
ing guests of our institutions. They all want
to get out and they all have good reasons
why they want to get out.
Now as to the general policy of why the
parole board does not give reasons let me
cite the case that was mentioned earlier this
year. This caused me a great deal of con-
cern and 1 reviewed it once, twice and three
times to satisfy myself that this was the only
way to handle it.
Mr. Sopha: What case?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a case we may
discuss in a few minutes 1 am sure.
Perhaps I should begin at the beginning.
When a person appears before a parole
board and parole is denied some people be-
lieve that the reasons for such a denial should
be explained to the person concerned in
every case. This matter has received a great
deal of consideration by the members of the
Ontario parole board. Experience and reflec-
tion indicate that it is not always advisable
or possible to do so, for the following reasons:
Information received about the person
from school, church, family doctor, employer
and members of the family might have to be
revealed, putting the safety of the informant
in jeopardy. All information that is received
by the board is received in confidence. If it
were not kept in confidence little would be
supplied, and what was would be given in
such general terms that it would probably
be valueless.
Frequently when people are undergoing
treatment in the institutions, their prognosis
is in doubt and might be better explained by
their therapist. This is particularly so with
patients with emotional problems— sexual
deviates, alcoholics and drug addicts.
StaflF are required to submit written
progress reports on each person appearing
before the board. If the source of this infor-
mation was revealed it could make institu-
tional treatment very difficult and sometimes
impossible, especially since one of the prime
functions of the department is to change at-
titudes. When it is felt therapeutically de-
sirable to reveal why parole is not granted,
the chairman of the board explains the
reasons to the inmate and to concerned next
of kin.
In practice, we find that the majority of
people who appear before the board know
why their parole is being denied before they
leave the parole interview. In any event, if
parole is not granted a person may apply
to have his case reviewed.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure that
our practice was in keeping with the general
policy of other parole boards, and I find this
is the case. I asked Mr. Potts to write to the
national parole board to see how they handle
these things. I have before me a letter from
the national parole board, dated May 9, 1968,
from Ottawa. It is addressed to Mr. Frank
Potts, chairman of the board of parole. Par-
liament Buildings, Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Frank:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of
May 3 asking about our practice with re-
spect to giving reasons for refusing of
parole.
Generally speaking, we do not give
reasons for our decisions, simply because it
is not feasible to do so and because we are
bound by the confidentiahty of the reports
which we receive. However, if an irmiate
cannot appreciate why he was refused
parole and wants to know why, he is inter-
viewed by one of our regional representa-
tives who explains to him as best he can
from the summary of the case which was
submitted to the board.
If I receive a letter from an inmate, or
someone on his behalf asking why a cer-
tain case was refused, I usually say that the
reports we received about him were simply
not conducive to favourable consideration
for parole.
In other words, we usually answer in
general terms because we are not supposed
to disclose the information in the reports
received from institutions and other
sources. Apart from this, though, I often
tell a person inquiring why he was refused
parole, if it is something definite such as
failure to recognize an alcoholic problem
and doing something about it, or failure to
do anything in the institution to help him-
self, such as taking training, and quite
often I mention that he has a hostile,
aggressive attitude. In cases hke these, it
is usually easy to give some fairly definite
reason.
On the other hand, it is more diflBcult in
borderline cases to explain precisely why a
parole was refused especially if there has
been some indication of improvement no
matter how slight. Sometimes, in cases like
this, I say we have noticed some slight
3602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
improvement and we hope for the inmate's
own sake that he will continue to try to
help himself. There is no easy answer that
I know of to this problem but I hope the
above remarks will be of some interest to
you.
Yours sincerely,
T. G. Street (Chairman).
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what else I
can add to this. It is very difficult to lay down
precise guidlines because you are dealing
with many different types of people, each one
of whom has different problems involved in
the case. You have received information from
confidential sources that, as was pointed out,
may not be in the best interest of the in-
mate to know. The parole board assures me
that, generally speaking, unless it is some-
thing which it is just as well the inmate does
not know about when he leaves— for example,
if it is behaviour— he generally knows, through
the questioning that has gone on during the
interview, why his or her parole was not
granted at the particular time. Aside from
that, I do not know how else a parole board
can operate.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
make two points to the Minister. The first is,
I accept the validity of much of what you
said, which is common sense, but there are
two points which I vi'ould like to make.
First of all the letter from Mr. Street, of
the national parole board, appears to make
very good sense. I understood you to say,
when you were reading it, that if the inmate
is not satisfied and wants to know the reason,
someone of authority will meet with them and
give them, from the summary of the case,
general reasons for their refusal of parole.
May I suggest that this is a very much more
satisfactory system than just saying "we will
not tell you anything". May I suggest to the
Minister that this would be a good improve-
ment for the Ontario system.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I point out to
the hon. member that what he has over-
looked is that the inmate he is talking about,
in respect to the national parole board, has
not seen really any parole board in the first
place. He has been dealt with generally by
paper. Our people have been sitting down in
front of a parole board of three people which
has discussed his case; and he generally is in
the same, if not a better position, than the
person the hon. member refers to, who in
respect of the national parole board, then is
seen by someone else. He has already been
seen by three people and, as a matter of fact
if, in addition to this, he does want to discuss
some of these problems, he has the counsel-
lors available at the institution. We have
people at the institution level, or we have
officers, who will discuss these cases with
the inmate at great length. All I am asking the
hon. member to keep in mind is, that the
letters he is getting do not necessarily tell
him the whole story.
Mr. Shulman: This is of course true, Mr.
Chairman. Of course the inmates put on the
best face but the point I am coming back to,
before I go into my second point, is would
the Minister not agree with me that the
parole board should be willing to give some
general reason to the inmates for refusal of
parole without going into detail of confiden-
tial information which might endanger some
other person?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I covered this
in the explanation of the board.
Mr. Shulman: If I may finish please. Mr.
Street has said that someone who is familiar
with the case will give some general reasons.
Whetlier this person has appeared before a
board or not, general reasons are given. To
have the inmate in an Ontario institution
appear before a counsellor who has no idea
why the parole board turned the person down
is extremely unsatisfactory; but the major
point which I am making— and I come back
to this again— it is even more important, I
think, than the fact that the inmate being let
known why they are refused— although this
is terribly important— but even more impor-
tant, I think there should be someone who is
willing, when there is a request to look over
the parole board's findings, to see whether
they made the right decision; and that per-
son should be a senior official in your depart-
ment.
I inquire from the Minister why certain
people are refused parole and he replies: "I
do not know, I will look over their record".
And sometimes there are a number of pre-
vious convictions. So he says, "Well it seems
reasonable". This is fine in many cases but in
some cases it is not. For example, this case
I have just mentioned now. In a case when
you have a specific request, I would expect
that the Minister should assign someone in his
department, some senior official, to look over
the records of the parole board to see if the
decision that they made was a reasonable
one, because we all know, that relying on
confidential information sometimes produces
injustices to the people who are under judg-
ment at the time. We are all aware of files in
MAY 29, 1968
3603
this, and other, governments which have con-
tained confidential information which was
not true; and I think when a case like this
comes up, which on the face of it appears to
be a reasonable request for review, the Minis-
ter should be willing to review. If necessary,
he should be willing to come to the elected
member in this case and say: "Look, there
are confidential reasons we cannot tell this
girl, it may be a psychiatric thing, but I have
looked into the case, I have seen that it
would be to her advantage not to let her out
at this time". Just to say: "the parole board is
fine, we trust them", is just not good enough.
There has to be a court of appeal. These
people are people, even if they are locked
up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
already pointed out that any inmate can have
his or her case reviewed again by the board.
Mr. Shulman: By the same board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. In the first
place I am able to look at any file in the
department that I like. If I wanted to look
at the file, I can see the file, but what really
does that mean? It means that I have to
satisfy myself that as far as I am concerned
the parole board is operating in an intelli-
gent fashion and beyond that, I could not go
anyway.
But the hon. member is suggesting that my
review of such files implies that, in some
instances, I will disagree and tell them other-
wise. Well now, that is where the danger
point is. Political influence can become in-
volved and I want no part of it because once
I am in a position where I disagree with a
board, and impose my decision on the board,
then the board ceases to be independent, then
I am in charge of the decisions made by the
board, and I do not want to put myself in
that position so long as I am satisfied that
the board is carrying out its job in a proper
fashion. The very fact that 64 per cent of
the cases who are eligible for parole are
paroled— which is a very high proportion-
certainly must be evidence of the fact that
the parole board is anxious to parole as many
people as possible.
If the hon. member wants to suggest that
there may be some injustices in some cases,
well, there may be some injustices in our
whole system and you cannot destroy the
whole system merely because by carrying on
there may be a possibility somebody is being
done an injustice. Aside from that, I do not
know what else, what other system we can
employ here, to keep the parole board out of
the hands of political influence. And I want
no part of it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I make
a suggestion here? I must agree with the
Minister, of course we do not want political
interference, but there should be a court of
appeal and the appeal should not be back to
the same people who just turned it down. If
I may take as an example, and it is a terrible
example to take, we will have a great deal
to say about that board. The compensation
board at least has different levels of appeal,
so that if a workman gets turned down at a
certain level then he goes to the next level,
and there is not the same people judging the
thing all over again.
When the appeal comes back to the same
persons, it is only natural they are going to
arrive at the same decision. May I say to the
Minister, I was not suggesting that he should
be the person who is making the final judg-
ment, I said a senior person or persons in his
department should be set up as a second
court of appeal.
I am not worried about the 64 per cent
who get their paroles, it is the other 36 per
cent, and if only 1 per cent of them are
having their parole unjustly refused— and it
can happen I am sure the Minister will agree
with me— mistakes do occur. Just for that one
per cent there should be a second level of
appeal. I think this is in all justice in this
society, this applies everywhere else, surely
it should apply here. You should not have to
appeal back to the same judge who has al-
ready convicted you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I ask the hon.
member what happens if they are not satis-
fied with the second?
Mr. Shulman: There should be at least a
second.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could go on ad
infinitum. Does the hon. member realize that
by the time this happens, the person would
probably be out of the institution?
Mr. Shulman: I would like to beheve that
your department would be more eflBcient
than that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And there is another
factor here, of course. We have a difficult
enough time getting some of this confidential
information, as I have pointed out. There are
people who may be prepared to talk to ft
limited number of people on this. If you add
3604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
another level, there are going to he people
who want no part of it.
There are people like the psychologists
who are giving psychological reports within
the institution. Incidentally, over a period of
years we have had a great deal of difficulty
in this area. There is a feeling amongst
many of the professional staff, psychiatrists
and psychologists, tliat not even the Minister
should be allowed to look at these files. This
is an ongoing discussion. It also bears upon
this pa^'ticular matter because there may be
a sociological rei>ort from a psychiatrist and
a psychologist involved.
Now, if we are going to add more people
who are going to be allowed to look at these
reports, we will not be able to get these
people to do this work. They will just refuse
to do it, because obviously they could be
charged for divulging confidential statements
they are making in some of these reports.
The hon. member Ixiing a physician, should
know that very well.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I am not
suggesting, first of all, there be another hear-
ing. I am suggesting there be another level
so that in case of appeal, just as at the board,
they keep the persons involved on a confi-
dential basis, just the same as it is now.
But they should look over the file to see if
the decision made was a reasonable one. It
is done in every court in the country. It is
done in every other board. I find it very
difficult to understand why it is so—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber know of any other parole board any-
where else in the world doing other than
what we are doing?
Mr. Shulman: I must c^onfess I am not
familiar with the patterns or policies of other
parole boards. I will look into tliis gladly.
May I ask the Minister if I find that other
parole boards are doing this, will he then
institute it in this province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will guarantee that
if he finds one, I will go and discuss it with
them, find out how they operate and see if
it can be carried out.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, a good start
would be to put the hon. member for High
Park on the parole board. It would be a
good start in cleaning house there probably.
The Minister asked the advisability, Mr.
Chairman, of having a look at these goings
on of the parole board. He said they even
object to the Minister having access to these
files. Well, I think it is high time that the
elected people of the province know what
goes on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say-
Mr. Sargent: The Minister said they ob-
jected to him looking at the files.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the hon. member will recall
I did not say the parole board objected to
my looking at the files. I said there was an
ongoing discussion about the advisability of
the Minister having the right to look at soci-
ological reports from psychiatrists and psy-
chologists generally— not tlie parole board
itself.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I say most
respectfully that we have in this country
built up now a bureaucracy controlled by
civil servants and they control our whole
lives. Someone has to set policies, and if
the Minister divorces himself from setting
policy in such important things as the rights
of people, then I suggest to him, Mr. Chair-
man, it is time that those of us who are
elected by the people to see their rights are
being looked after— and we have the case of
Viola MacMillan, which the Minister wanted
to talk about and which we are glad to talk
about.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Does the mem-
ber think we could get rid of the Opposition,
too?
Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask tlie
Minister, what did this lady have, what does
Viola MacMillan have, that the other girls
did not have— except a million dollars? What
did she have that I do not have?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: I was talking financially.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
that any attempt to completely rehash the
Viola MacMillan case, in my opinion, would
be out of order during the consideration of
these estimates. However, the Chairman does
recall that the Minister invited the member
for Grey-Bruce to discuss the matter of
\'^iola MacMillan. Proceed.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make some very short remarks. I have no
intention of having a witch hunt, but I
think there is a very important point at issue
here in that 221 women, I understand, ap-
MAY 29, 1968
3605
peared for parole consideration. Before we
go into that, I would like to ask the Minister
at what point is a person eligible for parole?
Do you have a 75 per cent forgiveness
factor involved for all inmates or is it just
for a millionaire? Where do we start? You
forgave 75 per cent of her sentence.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
suggesting that special consideration was
given to Mrs, Viola MacMillan because she
had a million dollars?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am coming
through pretty clear, I guess. I think the
Minister understands me.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Say it out loud.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is about time we laid this
thing to rest. Let us find out whether Mrs.
MacMillan actually received any special con-
sideration.
Mr. Sargent: Before the Minister does, will
he answer my question? Where does parole
start? Where do you start giving parole, at
what point?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will soon become
clear when I read this. "Parole can be given
to a woman the day she starts her sentence
in Mercer reformatory providing it is not a
jail sentence, providing it is a reformatory
sentence. She can be paroled the day she is
put in the institution."
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, before he
gives us this diatrabe or whitewash he has
there, I would like to suggest that 221 people
who appeared—
Hon. Mr Rowntree: I hope the member is
not speaking for the Liberal Party when he
uses that kind-
Mr. Sargent: As much as the Minister
speaks for the House when he gets up and
belabours us too late at night, as much as
he does—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: With that kind of
rot, the member is no credit to the Liberals.
Mr. Sargent: Well, the Minister is no credit
to his party either sometimes, I will tell him
that. They are not bragging about the Minis-
ter a lot of times.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): You
both have a point.
Mr. Chairman: The meml>er for Grey-
Bmce.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask die Min-
ister how many of the 221 people who ap-
peared got the same treatment she is going
to get by this report?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is only one way to deal with this, I think,
and that is the way I did. I spoke to the
chairman of the parole board, incidentally
the parole board was really lilx;lled by one
or two members here when they made some
remark about hanky-panky on the part of the
parole board, a parole board which has on
it some very distinguished gendemen.
On that account, I said to the chairman of
the parole board: "You had l^etter go into
your records and let me know what happened
over a certain period of time and let me
know the kind of parole that was given to
people generally in this particular area"—
that is, the length of parole. Let me read
now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a numlx^r of
cases-
Mr. Chairman: Is the Minister going to
review several cases?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Twenty-one; this is
the only way I can make my point, Mr. Chair-
man—to point out, to read in this House, the
kind of parole that was given to the same
kind of people, over this same period of time,
so as to prove that Viola MacMillan was not
given any special consideration.
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the Min-
ister, the Chairman has suggested to members
of the Opposition parties that they should not
come into this House and review numerous
cases. I point out to the Minister, if he is
going to do exactly that now, he is setting a
precedent, and I do not think this should take
place.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: With due respect, Mr.
Chairman, if someone gets up and states that
someone has been given special consideration
with respect to parole, how else can one
prove that she was not given special con-
sideration except by reading out cases of a
like nature to point out just what parole they
were given, and the length of terms.
Mr. Chairman: Could the Minister use them
on the basis of statistics—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But I would have to
give you some examples. In the first place,
to be fair to this thing, I would have to, to
give a true picture. I would have to point
out the person— not the name, of course— the
occupation, to prove that we are not dealing
3606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only with people with money. I would have
to prove the length of term to which she was
sentenced and the length of time she had
served, I think this is the only way to prove
it. If the hon. members in this House want
to have this thing cleared, this is the only
way I can do it.
Mr. MacDonald: You have already done
that in the House; it is on the record.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have not.
Mr. Sopha: I have another consideration
that may cut down your cases. I want you
to pick out-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well we both should not be
standing!
Out of your 21 I want you to pick out
only those where the parolee was facing a
charge on the strength of which she was
liable to imprisonment for 10 years. Those
are the only ones that I want you to pick
out; that is to say facing a charge on the
strength of which she was liable to imprison-
ment for 10 years.
Mr. Sargent: You have not got one case.
Mr. Sopha: If the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) ever gets around to prosecuting her!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have pages here of
people who are facing outstanding charges.
Now you ask me: Are they liable to imprison-
ment for 10 year? To go into all of that is
ridiculous!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The Minister is
attempting to provide an answer.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I make my point?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, this is not the
answer to my question. He can pick out 21
cases that will make him look great.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well of course this is
the point, is it not? I want to prove otlier-
wise.
Mr. Sargent: But not, as my hon. friend
from Sudbury said, on the same set of cir-
cumstances.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it the hon.
member does not want me to prove that Mrs.
MacMillan was not an exceptional case?
Mr. Sargent: There is no parallel at all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to give
you a parallel. I have some with outstanding
charges, and some which had no outstanding
charges.
Mr. Shulman: Let us hear the outstanding
charges.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You want the out-
standing charges?
Mr. Sopha: Liable to imprisonment for 10
years!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man: Case number one, a salesman— these are
cases where there have been outstanding
charges.
Mr. Sopha: Right!
Mr. Shulman: A woman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Case number one: A
salesman, 28 years of age, his total sentence
is one year definite and one year indefinite.
Mr. Sargent: A woman or a man?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is a man.
An hon. member: It should be a woman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How tall must she be?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, he has 1,800
cases to look at dealing with males, and we
are talking of a female case here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
answer any one of these. The hon. member
asked for outstanding cases. I was going to
give him all of them. The hon. member wants
me to talk only about the women.
Mr. Sargent: Right!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give him those.
Mr. Sopha: I have no quarrel with my
friend, but I do not care if they are men or
women.
Mr. Sargent: Well I care, I am the one who
asked the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will answer this the
way I want.
Mr. Sargent: I do not care what he wants.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
satisfy both hon. members.
MAY 29, 1968
3607
This man who was sentenced to one year
definite and one year indefinite served none
of his indefinite sentence; he was paroled
completely for the year of his indefinite
sentence.
Mr. Sopha: How much time did he spend?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He spent one year
definite, less the period of his good conduct
remission.
Number two, a mortician, 12 months defi-
nite and six months indefinite, served none of
his indefinite sentence.
An hon. member: He served the year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, you will have
to go to the national parole board to find out
what he served on his definite sentence. That
is why I was going to deal originally with
the women who are on totally indefinite sen-
tences, which would give a truer picture.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order!
Mr. Chairman: Point of order!
Mr. Sargent: The motivation in my ques-
tion was they were talking about an institu-
tion called Inglewood where Mrs. Viola-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I do not care what you think
about it, this is the point of issue here. We
have an institution—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not the ques-
tion raised, Mr. Chairman. Can we deal with
one question at a time? He was not talking
about the way she was treated; he said she
was given special consideration for parole.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if
I confused the Minister. He knows what I
am talking about.
We have the case of Mrs. Viola MacMillan
who was in Inglewood, a very special home
with television and lounges and all the ac-
coutrements and everything that she is used
to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is also tele-
vision at Mercer and Kingston.
Mr. Sargent: All these things that most
people do not have. Now I am asking about
Inglewood, not across the whole of the prov-
ince of Ontario, I am talking about Ingle-
wood,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
were not dealing with that, we were dealing
with parole and I insist I have the right to
answer this question. It was a very provoca-
tive question. We will talk then only about
tlie women, shall we? We will talk about the
indefinite sentences, complete indefinite sen-
tences, so that the hon. member will be
satisfied about how much time was actually
served because—
Mr. Sopha: What was Viola's sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mrs. MacMillan's
sentence was nine months indefinite, of which
she served 66 days, or 24 per cent of her
term.
The next case was a switchboard operator,
age 47, who was given nine months and
served 60 days of her sentence, which is 21
per cent.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): What was the
outstanding charge?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are no out-
standing charges.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I am trying to
give the hon. member both. I have got two
tables here, one with outstanding charges
and one with none. Now look if the hoii.
members opposite really wanted a true pic-
ture they could let me proceed with this and
give them those with outstanding charges
and those without outstanding charges.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, will the
Minister answer a question?
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
for High Park that the Minister already has
a question that he is attempting to answer.
Mr. MacDonald: Can you give the date?
Mr. Shulman: But we asked him the date.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Parole was granted to
the switchboard operator, who served 60 days
of a nine-month sentence, on January 21,
1966.
Case number 12: Female, 28 years of age,
a bank teller, was given 18 months, and she
served— that was on October 17, 1966— she
served 152 days, which was 28 per cent of
her sentence.
These are all non-outstanding charges. I
will deal with the others later if the hon.
member permits.
Case number 11: January, 1967, a house-
wife, age 43, was given seven months; served
48 days, 22 per cent.
3608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Case number 10: A housewife, paroled on
June 30, 1965. She was 69 years of age, a
housewife and was given one year; served 42
days of her sentence, which was 11 per cent
of her sentence.
Another one, paroled on May 19, 1966,
age 47, a housewife; of nine months' sen-
tence served 74 days— 27 per cent of her sen-
tence.
Now I have two pages of these, generally
along the same line. The reason I gave the
occupation is obvious, so that no one will
feel that one is treated different from the
other.
Now tliere is one aspect here which we
all note, that age was some factor. As a
matter of fact there is one case here, I notice
earlier, that the party served a one-day sen-
tence—a one-day sentence— of six months,
merely because the judge, I think it was,
said that he had to give this sentence, and
before he actually gave the sentence he dis-
cussed it with our people and said he would
hope that we would parole this woman the
moment she got in because of the following
reasons. There were some very good reasons
for it and the parole board, after considering
the matter, decided to let this woman out on
the first day she was in.
There was no special consideration given
to Viola MacMillan.
Mr. Sopha: You have not got a case yet.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now you want some
outstanding cases; I started to give you those
in the first instance.
Mr. Bullbrook: The first two served a
year each.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have not said
they served a year. As far as it was within
the control of our parole board I have told
you what our parole board did with them, the
balance of it was up to the national parole
board.
Mr. Bullbrook: You are going to talk about
the indefinite period of tlieir sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, that is all
we have control of. Many of them serve just
about the same sentence or a lot less. I think
it was most unworthy to suggest that this
distinguished board, which has the respect of
eveiyone across tliis continent, should be
accused of dealing with this woman in a
special fashion merely because she happens
to be a woman allegedly with money.
Mr. Sargent: Is that not too bad?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes it is too bad and
we cannot get distinguished people to serve
as long as they have these loose accusations
made against tliem.
Mr. Chairman: Will the Minister please—
Mr. Sargent: As long as you are paying
these handsome salaries you will still con-
tinue to get them. In no case— in all these
cases you have quoted— did they have an
outstanding charge still waiting when they
left the jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They did have. I was
reading them out to you and you stopped me.
Ml-. Sargent: I did not hear one of tliem.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon.
members will be quiet I will tell you about
the outstanding cases. I started to read them.
Those were in the first cases I started to
read.
Mr. Shulman: We did not hear them.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order. It was at least conveyed to me as
one member of this House that we were
going to get at least one analogous situation.
I put it to the Minister, sir, on this point of
order: do you have one woman subject to an
indefinite sentence, who was released with an
outstanding charge against her? Give me one
of those.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was released
with outstanding charges?
Mr. Bullbrook: Right.
Mr. Sopha: And liable to imprisonment for
ten years.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh now somebody
adds something.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I am starting to
read, I have two pages of them if you will
give me a chance.
Here— parolled, Ontario parole board, effec-
tive October 6, 1967. The superintendent's
report June 22, 1967, notes:
the board is obviously aware that this
inmate faces an unresolved legal situation
in Michigan as she is presently on appeal
bail from that state and has been since
May 19, 1966. Amount of the bail is
$5,000.
MAY 29. 1968
3609
This case had two years indefinite and the
amount of term she served was 10 months
indefinite— she served a ten months indefinite
sentence.
These are people with the outstanding
charges— and here is a typist, 23 years of age,
who had a 15 month indefinite sentence and
served 7 months. Here is two years indefin-
ite—ten months indefinite served.
Mr. Sopha: Any outstanding charges?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: These arc all out-
standing charges.
Mr. Bullbrook: You do not even under-
stand what we are talking about.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know what you are
talking about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ghairman: Order! The interjections do
not add to the dignity of these proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
obvious that some of the members feel dis-
appointed that they cannot continue with their
suspicion that somebody dealt improperly
with Mrs. MacMillan. They are not charging
this government with anything, they are not
charging this Minister with anything, because
all they have to do is talk with the parole
board and the chairman of the parole board.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have
arranged— I have asked the chairman of the
committee on welfare and reform to have the
chairman of the parole board appear before
the committee as soon as possible so that tlie
members of that committee can discuss the
matter with the chairman of the parole board.
It is an insult to that man to suggest that he
would take any advice from anybody in the
government. He would not keep his job for
one day. He would resign at a moment's
notice if we even attempted to do that. And
may I just, Mr. Chairman, along these
lines, quote what has been said by people in
the field. In the Telegram, Phyllis Haslam,
of the Elizabeth Fry society, said it is quite
usual for first offenders to go to Ingleside
regardless of the offence.
She said that Mrs. MacMillan was eligible
at any time for parole and she does not
believe that Mrs. MacMillan got any prefer-
ential treatment and I should point out to the
hon. members that the Elizabeth Fry society
works right in Mercer reformatory and at
the Ingleside branch of the Mercer reforma-
tory. They know what is going on.
Mr. Sargent: Well you are just giving them
$12,000 in this first vote here so I mean you
are getting nice letters back from them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber is now charging that the Elizabeth Fry
society is being bought with $12,000.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, now let us find
out. What do we pay Allan Mintz, civil
liberties supporter and legal aid lawyer. He
made the strongest plea for Dr. Shulman to
stop trying to destroy "probably the most
enlightened and progressive parole system in
North America"— Ontario's parole system.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of privilege-
Mr. Chairman: Point of privilege?
Mr. Shulman: I believe one of the priv-
ileges we are— I am sorry, maybe it is a point
of order. I rather think that Mr. Mintz got
me confused with another member in this
particular House because the comments which
he was referring to were not made by myself.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then I take it,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is
referring to his colleague, the hon. member
for Lakeshore?
Mr. Shulman: I am not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because he also refers
to him. Well I do not know who else he
would be referring to. Mr. Chairman, it was
the duty of the member if he was misquoted
in such a manner to get up in this Legislature
on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Mintz made a remark
obviously mistaking me for a certain other
member in this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, are you saying
that he has quoted you as saying-
Mr. Shulman: I am not misquoted— I was
not quoted.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Next vote, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, it becomes
evident that we have here the greatest co-
incidence then, because 221 people came
before the board for parole and it is very co-
incidental that this person with all her wealth
and connections, got this favourable treatment. '
3610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not care how the Minister tries to dress
it up, the fact is in the minds of the people
of the province of Ontario that this parole
board is not serving the best interests of the
people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not worth an
answer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell
the Minister-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Mr. Sopha: I want to say to the Minister,
through you, just the position I do take in
regard to this and my friend from Grey-
Bruce was perfectly right in the last com-
ment. He summed it up succinctly in what
he said that in the minds of the people of
Ontario there was certainly a very deep and
anxious question about the conduct with
respect to the parole of Viola MacMillan.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree. I agree.
Mr. Sopha: Here is the way I see it for the
Minister's consideration. He said he had to
assume the intelligence of the parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Integrity.
Mr. Sopha: No— and the intelligence— that
they were an intelligent group. I must say
publicly that I cannot credit them with a
good deal of intelligence in the handling of
the parole. In view of the remarks made in
the first place by Judge Moore when she was
convicted downtown— and at the time of her
sentence— and here is denotation of the fla-
grancy of her ofiFence, and indeed against the
background of the nationwide, if not inter-
international, publicity that the woman got
at the height of the Windfall scandal— one
must assume that the parole board was aware
of that, that they knew about Windfall, they
knew about the trial, they read what Judge
Moore said. Then after such a short period,
I would take it, the parole board being reas-
onable people, might say to themselves or
one might say to another: "We are entering
a very sensitive area here, in considering the
parole of this woman and we must consider
the impact upon the public and the view that
the public will take."
They would have to, I would think, be
fastidious— they would have to be fastidious
about parallels, because they might consider
that somebody over here is going to ask the
question of analogous circumstances.
Now those are some of the considerations.
What I think the parole board should have
done, before granting parole— and we are
always informed here that it was a sudden
revelation to the Minister and the govern-
ment—I would think that having decided, they
should have attended upon the Minister.
From the point of view that the parole of
Viola MacMillan, in all the circumstances—
in all of them, would have to be a political
decision, the Minister would have to ask the
opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
and he might ask the Attorney General and
all of them might ask themselves. Because
aside from the context, the very thing to me
in the whole piece is the fact that the woman
at the time of her parole by this board—
which the Minister epitomizes as being the
be all and the end all of everything in the
universe— at the time of her parole she is
facing this charge.
Everyone who, by deceit, falsehood or
other fraudulent means, whether or not it is
a false pretense within the meaning of this
Act, defrauds the public or any person,
whether ascertained or not of any property,
money or valuable security, is guilty of an
indictable ofFence and is liable to imprison-
ment for ten years. That is quite a serious
charge.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: So you are being the
judge.
Mr. Sopha: I am not being the judge at
all. I am stating a fact, that Viola MacMillan
is facing that charge at the time of her
parole. All right!
Perhaps the Minister vdll explain to me: I
have sat in the magistrate's court in Sudbury
and I have seen inmates of Burwash industrial
farm arrange to have charges from all across
Canada— the charges sometimes come from
B.C., they sometimes come from Nova Scotia
—brought to that court and be dealt with on
a plea of guilty by the presiding magistrate.
I enquired, a long time ago, the reason for
that procedure. They might bring as many as
four or five or six charges from Saskatoon
and Halifax and all over the place, bring them
there and the fellow pleads guilty and he is
sentenced on the charge. I was told the
reason is that they want to make parole and
they cannot make parole until the outstanding
charges are cleaned up.
Not so with Viola MacMillan. Viola
MacMillan can make parole, and did make
parole, after spending a very limited time in
custody with that serious charge, which has
not yet been tried incidentally, outstanding
against her.
MAY 29, 1968
3611
Well every newspaper, every one of the
Metropolitan press I am certain, had an
editorial at the time in which they reflected
the anxiety of the public about the possibihty
of special treatment to this woman.
That decision I say again, and I take the
responsibility for saying it, that is a decision
that should have been made by the Minister.
The circumstances were so flagrant and were
of such widespread interest and knowledge,
and so many people out there on the street
had been hurt by activities in the Windfall
business, which is all recorded in Mr. Justice
Kelly's report, that Viola MacMillan, in all
the circumstances, ought only to have been
paroled on the personal responsibility of the
Minister and the Cabinet—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, may I
be permitted a question.
Mr. Sopha: —of the Minister and in con-
sultation with the Cabinet body. Now that
is what I see was wrong with the whole thing.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Will the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Sopha: Go aheadi
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Having in mind the
general spirit of your proposition, suppose the
legislation says that the authority is entirely
within the board and there is no authority in
the Minister.
Mr. Sopha: Is that what it says?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What would you say
to that?
Mr. Sopha: There are lots of parallels. The
Hydro—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well let us—
Mr. Sopha: Let me tell you the parallels.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Let us just consider
them one at a time.
If the Act says that the parole board has
the authority of the Minister of Justice of
Canada, and there is no clue as to the one
that has the overriding authority, what right
has this Minister, but to accept their decision?
Mr. Sopha: There are lots of parallels. The
Hydro, the liquor licence board; all kinds of
parallels—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Oh, nol
Mr. Sopha: All kinds of parallels where
they have independence of action, but be-
cause it is such a—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are talking about
people and parole.
Mr. Sopha: Just hear me outi
This is such a high policy decision that the
decision has to be made as a reflection of
government policy. It must be decided at
the highest level.
Do you want a parallel? The liquor licence
board has the power to order sales of bever-
ages on Christmas day—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is a question of
the content of the Act. Here the legislation
says that the parole board-
Mr. Sopha: Read that section, where is the
section?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is right in the Act.
Mr. Sopha: Well read it.
Hon. Mr. Grossnum: I will read it if you
like, Mr. Chairman. I happen to have it in
front of me.
Section 6: "Subject to the regulations, the
board"—
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not instruct the
parole board then?
Mr. Chairman: Orderl order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Section 6:
"Subject to the regulations, the board
may order the release on parole of any
prisoner:
(a) In the case of a prisoner referred to in
sub-clause 1 of clause b of section 1, upon
such conditions as the board deems proper
and,
(b) In the case of a prisoner referred to in
sub-clause 2 of clause b of section 1, upon
conditions approved by the Minister of
Justice, under section 43 of The Prison
and Reformatories Act, Canada."
Which is the Act under which we operate.
I think that is beside the point anyway, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like to make this point. I think
it is rather surprising to hear the hon. member
for Sudbury, whom I have watched here over
a period of years and listened to as he gave
some very impassioned speeches about justice
and how to mete out justice and so on, to
hear him, to actually suggest, that in a case
like this, which could have been and I must
admit was, a political embarrassment for me,
that because it was a political embarrassment
for me and the government, that means—
3612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: You said that the parole board
was intelHgent—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now just a moment!
That is right. They are intelligent. They
are intelligent but—
Mr. Sopha: I do not think they are.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment!
But they have integrity and they are not
supposed to allow their decisions to be based
upon what might embarrass the Minister or
the government or else this would create
havoc in the parole system.
Mr. Sopha: Are they out to embarrass you?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Viola MacMillan is
not the only one who could embarrass, be-
cause as I just mentioned here before there
are many people who would disagree, in this
province, with allowing a woman out the
first day she went into a jail on a six-month
sentence.
It is not just Viola MacMillan. Viola
MacMillan makes headlines because she is
the kind of person that makes headlines.
Mr. MacDonald:
v/hat he said.
Not when the judge said
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber for York South really does not agree that
the parole board should, because it feels it
might embarrass me or the government, base
its decision upon that.
Mr. Sopha: They should ask you.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not suggest that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, of course, I would
not want them to ask me. They would not
ask me; and if they did ask me I would still
not interfere. It was quite an embarrassment
the day that happened as far as I was con-
cerned, and you may rest assured that I spent
a very bad day.
Mr. Sargent: Now you have changed your
tune.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No I am not changing
my time. I am defending their integrity.
Mr. Sargent: What integrity is there in a
case like this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician, my
decision-
Mr. Sargent: It was your job!
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician my de-
cision may very well have been something
else. That is precisely the reason why it should
not be a political decision, and that is the
way it will remain as long as I am head of
this department.
Mr. Sargent: You cannot cope with the job.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not interfere
with the parole board so long as I am on this
job. They will do their job without inter-
ference from me no matter how embarrassing
it is to me.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
made quite a point.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order!
Mr. Chairman: Point of order!
Mr. Sargent: There is a point at issue here.
If the Minister was embarrassed by the actions
of the board then he has responsibility to the
people of this province to—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is not a point of
order.
Mr. Sargent: Then he has responsibility to
the people of this province to do something
about the board.
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order
whatsoever.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): You are
talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure everyone else in this House understands
the point I am making and I will not pursue
that part of it any further.
Mr. Sargent: Quite a snow job you are
doing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the benefit of the
hon. member for Sudbury, as far as what the
judge should have or should not have done,
as a matter of fact we went into this the first
time this case was mentioned. In spite of
what the judge said and what he might have
felt, the fact remains he made it quite clear in
his committal order that she was to serve nine
months indefinite.
MAY 29, 1968
3613
Mr. Sopha: That sentence was changed in
the court of appeal.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I will tell you
how it was changed, it was changed—
Mr. Sopha: I never understood why it was
changed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is the point, the
point I am trying to make is that in the first
instance the judge said nine months indefinite
and a fine of $10,000 or in default thereof
additional imprisonment for a period of six
months. Now when the case was appealed
the high court made sure for some reason or
other — which I cannot understand, because
everyone sentenced to a reformatory is auto-
matically on an indefinite sentence; every
female I should say, every female sentenced
to a reformatory is automatically on an indefi-
nite sentence. For some reason or other the
supreme court added the words— they did not
change the sentence except they added the
word— "indefinite," as if it were necessary to
point this out.
So if they felt this strongly about her they
should have, in the view of the hon. member
for Sudbury, sentenced her to penitentiary.
They sentenced her and the parole board
looks at this, presumably in addition to all
the other reasons, including incidentally the
woman's age-
Mr. Sopha: Just a moment, you cannot say
those things unless you know what goes on.
Did the Crown appeal sentence? Did the
Attorney General appeal sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mrs. MacMillan ap-
pealed.
Mr. Sopha: She appealed?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: Did they cross-appeal?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not tliink they
cross-appealed.
Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) :
This is out of order.
Mr. Sopha: What is out of order?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This department has
nothing to do with the sentencing of prisoners.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps you are right; but the
Minister is talking about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point I am mak-
ing, Mr. Chairman, which I think is a valid
one, is that two courts made quite certain
that the correctional system, and, they were
quite emphatic, that tiie correctional system
should know that this was an indefinite sen-
tence. Presumably the parole board took this
into consideration.
Again I just want to emphasize that as far
as I am concerned, this ends it. The gist of
the criticism that has been directed at me in
this case is that because of the potential poli-
tical embarrassment involved in it, I should
have interfered with the parole board. I did
not then, I will not now, and I never shall.
Mr. Sopha: I want to n>ake one final com-
ment to make my position perfectly clear. I
never said a scintilla, a smidgeon of anything
to indicate that I ever questioned the integ-
rity of that board. I said I did not. They
were not very bright; that is fair comment.
I do not think they were in the circumstances.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): That is not what the member's col-
league says.
Mr. Sopha: And I hope in the future when
dealing with a flagrant case like this, I hope
they will tread more carefully, because they
are like Caesar's wife, they are in the Caesar's
wife category the same as the rest of us are.
Not only must justice be done but it must
appear to be done. And I hope they will
appreciate that. And I say again there was
grave concern among the public about the
early parole of this woman.
Finally, I sum up by saying this, the Min-
ister has failed, has utterly failed— the mem-
ber for Sarnia will correct me if I am wrong
—to show us a single parallel case, and in
fact he has not cited any case where the
parolee faced a charge of this seriousness,
that this woman faces, for which she has not
yet been tried. There has not been a single
parallel case. And indeed—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How do you find an
exactly parallel case? That is ridiculous. The
hon. member is a lawyer, he ought to know
that.
Mr. Sopha: I will put it this way. The
parole board that the Minister says was so
intelligent— before they paroled Viola Mac-
Millan in these circumstances they should
have made very sure there was a parallel case
to buttress themselves; they should have
made very sure.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Nonsense.
Mr. Sopha: We are asked to vote $1,608,-
000 and we would be remiss in our duty, in
3614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
view of all the editorial comment there has
been across the length and breadth of this
province about that action, if we did not
stand up here and question it. I say again,
I question it from the point of view that,
having supported my argument with facts,
that in all the circumstances they are not very
bright.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: No one has ever been treated
in the way Viola MacMillan was treated. I
have a fellow going to jail for 45 days now
and the Attorney General does not think it is
enough, he is cross-appealing the sentence.
He does not think it is enough. I do not
come here and complain unless I am pro-
voked. But you let this woman march out in
the street after 60 days.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the Minister if parole— if every Minister in-
terrupted his colleagues as much as the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management
I do not know how he would ever get
through his estimates when he gets the floor.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We will get through
them.
Mr. Chairman:
South.
The member for York
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, my ques-
tion to the Minister, which I was attempting
to make through the din from Sharbot Lake,
is this: Is a man returned automatically to
prison if he break parole— any of the regula-
tions with regard to parole?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told not in every
case. I am told this is another instance where
they do not lay down a fast rule, he may be
taken to a local county jail and have his case
reviewed by the board; and they make their
decision there whether he is to go back into
the institution. On the other hand, they may
decide because of circumstances perhaps— just
a few days left or a minor breach of parole
s-uch as not carrying out one of the minor
regulations perhaps of the rehab, officer— that
they will not consider this a breach of parole.
Mr. MacDonald: I suppose it depends on
what is minor, but let me give a case to the
Minister. Certain aspects of it, I will have
to agree, are indefensible. But the basic pur-
pose of parole should not be lost sight of.
This was a case of a chap who was paroled
in Sault Ste. Marie— that is a good place to
get out of— and he apparently got out of it.
An hon. member: That is a good place to
be coming from.
Mr. MacDonald: He apparently got out of
it and did not report to the rehabilitation
officer, in fact they did not find him for a
year. And when they found him, he had
been working in an industry in the west end
of Toronto, and apparently was completely
rehabilitated. He had worked for a year, he
was getting a good income, he was maintain-
ing his family, he apparently had succeeded
in the objective of parole— of being rehabili-
tated back into society. But as soon as he
was found, he was immediately put back in
the institution.
Let me acknowledge that there are aspects
of this that cannot be defended. Obviously if
you have parole regulations and you are sup-
posed to report to your rehabilitation officer
and you do not do so, one cannot just ignore
such breaches. But when you discover that
the person has, in effect, achieved the objec-
tive of parole, namely, successful rehabilita-
tion, is it not a more advisable procedure that
the case should be reviewed and perhaps the
advice of the rehab, officer be solicited rather
than an automatic return to the institution,
which takes you right back to the original
weary trail? I would appreciate the Minister's
comment on that kind of handling of the
situation.
Hjon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised it has
been agreed this man will be paroled. I
have the summary here if the hon. member
would like to read it. I am told—
Mr. MacDonald: You mean you have
spotted the case?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is in here, it is in
the file-
Mr. MacDonald: He was returned to the
institution and he is now going to be paroled
again?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All the cases are
automatically reviewed and his case was
scheduled to appear before the Ontario board
of parole on May 22. I understand the board
of parole has granted him parole in the very
short period of time it would take, which I
cannot give the member at this time.
Mr. MacDonald: The second time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, paroled again,
probably because of the circumstances the
hon. member has outlined.
MAY 29, 1968
3615
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the situation
in respect of Viola MacMillan is of interest
to me from a different aspect. Let me say to
begin with, I am not at all interested in
Viola MacMillan. I am delighted she got out;
the only thing is, I am sorry that others were
not able to get out under the same circum-
stances. The point I wish to make— I am
very sorry the Minister was not able to find
an analogous case because it would have
relieved the minds of many of us who are
still not satisfied— but I want to tell you the
viewpoint on this matter of parole and Mrs.
MacMillan at the Mercer reformatory. The
Mercer reformatory is one of the better run
reformatories in the province, and I must say
how pleased I was when I toured it a short
time ago with the member for Lakeshore,
to see the attitude of the staff and the care
that is given to the prisoners there. One of
the progressive things that is done in this
reformatory is that they have set up an in-
mates committee and it is allowed to bring—
Mr. Chairman: Is this all in the question
of parole?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
This inmates committee is allowed to bring
the complaints of the inmates to the attention
of the authorities. One of the complaints of
the inmates is in relation to parole. They
were very upset about the parole system and
on February 29 of this year, they sent a
letter to the parole board in relation to their
complaints. This letter, of course, received
the prior approval of the officials at the
reformatory before it was allowed to be sent.
Because it shows the attitude of the inmate
toward parole, I would like to read it in full.
It is headed, "the Mercer reformatory, 1155
King Street west, Toronto 3, February 29,
1968." It is addressed to Mr. F. Potts, chair-
man, provincial parole board, 484 University
Avenue, Toronto 1.
Dear sir.
We, the inmates of the Mercer reforma-
tory for women, have become most con-
cerned with the low percentage of inmates
fortunate enough to make parole these last
few months particularly. Our concept of
parole is based on believing that if an
inmate has served a sufficient portion of
her sentence, has shown an improvement
of character and attitude and has a feasible
plan worked out with a responsible and
acceptable person or organization, her
chances for parole should be considered
fairly good. We understand the percentage
of men being granted parole is much higher
than that for women, and it makes us
wonder where the obvious prejudices lie,
and what we can do about improving
relations between ourselves and the parole
board.
When an inmate's case is called for
review, her hopes are built up into expect-
ing parole. If the parole board has
examined a case and decided against parole
for an inmate, then we strongly feel that
the inmate should be advised by letter,
thus avoiding embarrassment and unneces-
sary release of pent-up emotion which is
very upsetting to the whole house. If the
board sits at the Mercer for hearings during
a morning, then we feel that all results
should be posted that day, and not delayed
as was the case recently. When an inmate
appears before the board members for
only a few minutes, her image is often
damaged by nervousness, and so on, and it
is highly unfair to judge whether or not
she is ready for parole on such short con-
tact. We would hke to see a plan in force
similar to the federal parole system whereby
an inmate is interviewed intensively by a
regional representative of the board, prior
to the date set by hearing.
When an inmate is rejected or deferred
for parole, then some reason should be
given, either to the inmate or to the
rehabilitation organization involved, in
order for her to better her position for
parole at a later date. It would also seem
that a person's progress over the months
of living in the institution is completely
overlooked and unconsidered in favour of
reviewing her past history, for which she
has paid dearly and which should not have
any bearing on her future plans which,
when requesting parole, she is trying to
better.
Parole is something that concerns every
inmate of the institution, and when the
percentage of acceptees is so low, it be-
comes very discouraging indeed. If parole
is granted on the basic principle of ho.ping
an inmate to better her prospects of the
future, then we as a group feel very
strongly that a long hard look should be
taken lay the parole board at the attitude
used upon which the last paroles were
refused. It would seem that the purpose
of applying for parole is defeated before
the inmate's case is given a fair perusal.
According to various cases, indeterminate
sentences are treated on an equal basis to
indefinite sentences.
3616
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Perhaps we have been badly misinformed
by the courts but it is our understanding
that an inmate serving an indeterminate
sentence is eligible for parole before serv-
ing one third of her time. We would like
this point clarified. Our general feeling is
that a member of the institution's staff, with
the necessary qualifications to better the
inmate's position with the board, be per-
mitted to sit in on the hearings each month.
As we have already stated, we as a body,
and individually are concerned with the
parole board's recent findings in particular,
and we would appreciate being given the
opportunity of bettering our positions for
future parole considerations. Trusting you
will, as chairman of the provincial parole
board, give our letter your consideration
and attention, we shall await your reply.
Yours very truly,
that is signed by the secretary of the inmates
committee.
To give you just one piece of background
to this letter. What upsets the inmates so
very much was that in January and February
of this year, in January, 11 inmates of this
reformatory applied for parole, and 10 were
rejected. In February, 17 applied for parole,
and 16 were rejected. This situation changed
very radically at the beginning of March, for
reasons that I will go into very shortly, or
reasons which the inmates believe. But before
I go on to that, I would like to ask the
Minister if any of the suggestions made by
the inmates to the parole board, and which
of them, are going to be followed, and if
they have been given consideration?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr, Chairman, this
is a very difficult position that I am in. This
is a pilot project which we are trying at
Mercer reformatory. The success of this
system depends upon the successful operation
of the inmates committee. Now, for me to
make any comment on this might jeopardize
that. I may be inclined to say something
which may antagonize the committee. I
mean, if this is to operate properly, this
should not be made a subject for discussion
in this Legislature. This is an inmate commit-
tee, and as I say, it is a project. They should
have been allowed to be left alone, to operate
this in their own way as has been set up in
the institution. They sent a letter to the
chairman of the parole board and whatever
the chairman of the parole board has arranged
with that committee should be a matter for
an institutional programme not subject to pub-
lic discussion.
As a matter of fact, as a result of the public
discussion which has occurred as a result of
the hon. member's visit there and the dis-
closure of something which appeared on their
bulletin board, there was a great deal of
difficulty at that time at that institution. It
was a great risk, and for a time it looked
like tlie whole programme would have to be
scuttled.
Mr. Shulman: Why?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought I made
myself clear. I hope I made myself clear to
the other members. It is a project of a com-
mittee of the institution. It is made up of
inmates, and we are trying to teach them
independence and to make their own decisions
and this sort of thing, so that they will not
become as we call it "institutionalized." That
is so that they will think for themselves and
so on. If that is the case, they should not
be subject to a public discussion of some of
their deliberations, and then have comments
made on it by either the hon. member or
myself. I may say something in criticism of
this which puts their committee in bad light.
It is a project which I think would be better
left alone to those in the institution. The
hon. member has already stated that they are
doing a wonderful job. Why not let them do
their job without interference from outside?
Mr. MacDonald: I am sure they would not
object to reasonable comment.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1903?
Mr. Shulman: Oh, no, we are not through
with vote 1902 yet, Mr. Chairman, not by a
long shot!
Mr. Chairman: You may be through. If
you are going to speak to vote 1902, you
may be through or not.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, I am
going to speak to vote 1902.
Mr. Chairman: I will say whether you are
through or not!
Mr. Shulman: And I will say when I am
through or not. Not you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: On a point of order, vote
1902 carried one hour and a half ago. The
Chairman, the Deputy Speaker, occupying
this place did permit the member for High
Park to ask some questions because he had
been absent when vote 1902 carried.
Mr. MacDonald: That is not right, this is
obstructionism.
MAY 29, 1968
3617
Mr. J. H. White (London South): But
surely, Mr. Chairman, this cannot be per-
mitted to go on indefinitely when tliat
particular vote has carried?
Mr. MacDonald: I would just like to clarify
that point of order. This is the kind of
legalistic obstruction at which the hon.
gentleman has become almost a professional
in the House. It is true that the chairman at
the time called it, and said that it had
passed—
Mr. White: And it carried, yes.
Mr. MacI>onald: Because it was when we
were resuming the business of the House,
and he said why he had called it, and nobody
had objected, he recognized that the hon.
member for Lakeshore had not spoken, so
he gave him the right to do it, and there are
many others that wanted to speak. To go
back and drag up this legalistic point is the
kind of obstructionism on that side of the
House that prolongs the proceedings.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member take his
seat, please? The member for High Park.
Mr. White: Vote 1902 has carried.
Mr. MacDonald: It has not.
Mr. Chairman: The chair will say when it
has carried and it has not carried, and I am
listening to the member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, before I go
on to my next point, I would just like to point
out to the hon. Minister that I did not wish
to discuss the inmates committee except to
praise it. What I wish to discuss are the
suggestions that they made for improving the
parole procedures. Some of them are obvi-
ously good commonsense. I cannot see how
it can possibly endanger the committee to
consider these suggestions. For example, our
general feeling is that a member of the
institution staff with the necessary qualifica-
tions to better the inmate's position with the
board should be permitted to sit in on the
hearings each month. I do not wish to discuss
the committee, I wish to discuss the sugges-
tions, which are good suggestions whether
they come from the committee or the Minister
or anyone else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What does the hon.
member mean?
Mr. Shulman: All I am asking the Minister
is: Are the suggestions being considered?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are
always pleased to consider any suggestions
made by the inmate committee of the Mercer
reformatory.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902 carried?
Mr. Shulman: Not quite, Mr. Chairman, I
have another matter.
Mr. White: That vote carried one and a
half hours ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the member for
London South want to persist in defying the
chair?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min-
ister has made some mention of a matter
which the member for Lakeshore and I made
notice of on the staff bulletin board at Mercer,
which is in relation to parole. And because it
is relevant to this discussion, particularly the
matters raised by the member for Grey-Bruce
and the member for Sudbury, I would like to
pursue it, because the chairman of the parole
board, subsequent to receiving this letter was
good enough to come to the Mercer reform-
atory and he was good enough to speak to a
number of the inmates there, plus members of
the staflF, and as a result of his visit a letter
was written up by the inmates, given approval
by the staff, and put on the bulletin board.
This particular letter, the portion which is of
interest in relation to this particular matter
reads as follows:
On March 15, 1968, Mr. Potts, chairman
of the Ontario board of parole, was here to
speak to the corridor representatives regard-
ing our letter to the parole board.
I am not reading the whole letter, I am read-
ing relevant parts.
If you have been deferred or given a no-
action parole slip, the reason is not given
to you at that time because it is usually
complex. If you write to the parole board,
they will send to you a written explanation
of the refusal of your case.
This is what the inmates and the staff mem-
bers believed Mr. Potts had said to them.
Unfortunately, it is in direct contradiction to
what the Minister has said in the House
tonight. I would like to get that point straight-
ened out.
The letter goes on:
If you have other charges outstanding it
is best to get them—
May I finish, please, Mr. Chairman?
3618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order-
Mr. Shulman: No, I am not going to allow
—may I finish, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order,
the hon. member just a moment ago said he
did not want to make an issue of the minutes
of the meeting of this committee. Now the
hon. member is going into the details of the
minutes of their meeting.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, he reveals some-
thing that is directly in contradiction to the
Minister's earlier statement.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, then we
understand he is prepared to make an issue
of the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. MacDonald: Do not drag a red her-
ring in on it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can speak for him-
self, I am sure. Is that what he is doing?
Mr. Shulman: If I could speak to this point
^f order-
Mr. Chairman: Let us have no more points
of order. The member will finish what he was
going to say.
Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, the Chairman
does not wish me to speak to the point of
order. I will come back to the paragraph I
was quoting:
If you have other charges outstanding, it
is best to get them cleared up as soon as
possible because you cannot be given parole
while another charge is outstanding.
Mr. Sopha: That is what I always believed.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I find this is
in direct contradiction to what has been said
here by the Minister tonight. I have no fur-
ther comments on this particular portion of
this vote. I would like to go on with some
other matters unless the Minister wishes to
make a comment on this matter.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902?
Mr. Shulman: No. I wish to go on to some
other matters unless the Minister has some
comments he wishes to make.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, again, Mr. Chair-
man, I just want to make one correction. The
hon. member stated that these minutes were
approved by Mr. Thompson, the superinten-
dent. I should point out to him that Mr.
Thompson does not approve minutes— he
approves them being put up on the bulletin
board.
Now, to go into all of this and make com-
ments on what the committee had put in their
minutes is again going to put me into a
position— there is an attempt to put me in a
position where I may be criticizing the actions
of that committee and I am not going to
jeopardize the work.
As a matter of fact, quite frankly I was
faced with a possible resignation of some
top-flight staflF of that institution-that staflF
which the hon. member for High Park praises
so highly— because a public issue was made of
these minutes and the reply of my department
to the hon. member's charges.
These are minutes of a meeting of Mercer
reformatory inmates and they belong to them
and no one else. I am not going to get en-
gaged in a discussion as to whether I agree
or disagree with them or whether there are
any errors in them or not. That is the business
of that committee.
Mr. Sopha: Does the parole board agree
with them?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly
understand the Minister's comment in the
light of the facts that have been exposed.
Mr. Chairman: Could we get back to vote
1902?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, 1902 refers
to parole and rehabilitation. I would just like
to draw to the Minister's attention an article
in Time, dated March 29, 1968, which is
entitled: "Criminals should be cured, not
caged". It is a very lengthy article which I
do not intend to read at this time. I hope
the Minister is familiar with it. But the matter
which I would like to bring up— one of the
matters which is suggested here— is in rela-
tion to the problem of conjugal visits and
homosexuality, and I would like to quote just
one line here:
It is ironic that only in Mississippi are
married convicts allowed conjugal visits
with their wives. Sexual deprivation in
other American prisons incite riots, mental
illness and homosexuality.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that
homosexuality is one of the problems in our
prisons. It is an admitted problem in every
prison we have gone through, including some
of the boys' training schools. It is not an
overwhelming problem, but it is a problem
which you run into in any society where men
MAY 29, 1968
3619
are cooped up without the possibihty of
female companionship.
May I say that I believe that the sta£F of
the various institutions have done the very
best they can with the problem, segregating
active homosexuals from the other prisoners
as best they can. I have no criticism what-
soever to make of the staff effort in this
problem. But in spite of the very best efforts
at the very best places — I am thinking of
places like Burtch, and when I say Burtch I
am speaking of staff, not facilities, which are
abominable. The staff at Burtch are superb,
the same at Brookside. But in spite of the
excellent staff, this problem exists and I wish
to ask the Minister if consideration has been
given to allowing conjugal visits of wives
to prisoners, not as a right, but as a privilege
in return for good behaviour?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, cer-
tainly the hon. member should realize the
implications in that. In the first place, I think
it is the most disgraceful method of trying to
solve the problem that one could think about.
Mr. Shulman: Having the wives visiting?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, having a wife
come and visit an inmate at an institution
obviously for that purpose. I cannot think of
a more undignified method of arranging what
the hon. member suggested. Might he also
suggest to me how— this is a problem which
has concerned correctional people all across
the world— how would he look after the un-
married man in a case like that?
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister asking me a
question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: I am not suggesting that this
is a universal cure. I am saying that for the
married men this will solve the problem,
which is an admitted problem. I do not say
it is a cure for the unmarried men. I am
asking the Minister on behalf of the married
men. Can he not set up quarters in his
reformatories where, for good behaviour, a
wife can have overnight visits?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I think, Mr.
Chairman, there are much better ways and
certainly the implications involved for the
single men, who are not going to be permitted
this sort of thing, would create such terrible
problems in an institution, Mr. Chairman. It
would create more problems than it would
solve.
I would like to tell the hon. member that
men in most jurisdictions in the world have
struggled with this and no one has come up
with an answer yet. My deputy was down to
see the system in Mississippi and the reports
he brought back are of such a disgraceful
nature that we would not even consider that
kind of a system. We do not know what the
answer to this is yet. It may very well be
there may be some aspects of the bill which
is before this House which may provide a
better solution than any of these plans which
are ostensibly or obviously for conjugal
matters.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister has said there
are better methods. I am interested in what
these better methods are.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not saying there
were better methods.
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps I misheard the
Minister. Mr. Chairman, may I say I was not
suggesting that we model our prison system
on Mississippi. There are other countries
which use this system, which I think are
probably a little more well-run than that
particular state.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): And
more persons in jail, too. It will not work.
Mr. Shulman: No, you are wrong. Mr.
Chairman, I must point out the hon. member
is wrong. Our country, unfortunately, ranks
first in the number of people in jail.
The other matter I would like to bring up,
under rehabilitation— and I would like to
quote from a very interesting pamphlet I
have here. It is called: "The county jail— the
front door corrections." It was written by the
hon. Minister of The Department of Reform
Institutions and there is just one line I want
to quote—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you mind tell-
ing the House by whom it was published. I
would not want them to think I was publisher
of my book like some other members.
Mr. Shulman: There is no publisher's name
on it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was by the John
Howard society.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much. The
one line I wish to quote here:
the statement of purpose — the main
purposes of The Department of Reform
Institutions are:
3620
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
1. To hold in custody for a prescribed
period, those persons sentenced by the
courts to its jurisdiction.
2. To attempt to modify the attitude of
those in its care, whether children or
adults, to such an extent that their actions
upon release will be essentially law abiding
rather than law breaking but to provide
them—
and this is the part which I wish to draw
to your attention:
with the kind of training and treatment
that will afford them better opportunities
for successful personal and social adjust-
ment.
I think that last phrase is the key for the
whole matter of rehabilitation and that is
why I find it so verj' disturbing that the
largest proportion of those people first incar-
cerated, particularly males, in our institutions
—something like 80 per cent of them are not
receiving any type of this training and treat-
ment. Most of them are put to work in indus-
try, and there is a great industry that is being
run by our institutions, of folding cloths, or
making licence plates and I would like to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this
would come under the next vote.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I was waiting to see if
the member would get back off institutions
and back to rehabilitation.
Mr. Shulman: I was talking about rehabili-
tation. If the Minister is agreeable to bring-
ing it up in a later vote I am quite—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has it to do witli
rehabilitation?
Mr. Shulman: Well no, it involves a num-
ber of institutions. What I am really talking
about is the rehabilitation there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The types of pro-
grammes they have in the various institu-
tions?
Mr. Shulman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I would think
it had better come under the institutions-
keep it clean.
Mr. Shulman: All right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In more ways than
one.
Mr. Shulman: I am almost through, Mr.
Chairman. There is just one further brief
matter. The Minister, at one point of his
interchange with the gentleman to my right,
said he could look at any file he wished to
look at.
What I am asking is: in future, will he be
willing, if a member here is unhappy about
the treatment and the fact that they cannot
get a reason for a parole, will he be willing
to look at the file and find out, at least on a
confidential basis, or even if he does not wish
to tell a member, that the parolee— or rather
the inmate— was refused his or her parole for
a valid reason?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
of course I could look at the file, but really
I would have to have before me all the things
that went on in the interview between the
board and the interviewee. His attitude may
be such that the board may not have con-
sidered that he was ready for parole. He may
have been hostile. There are many things
that come into it which may not show on
paper. The hon. member's suggestion that I
call and have a discussion with the board on
all these instances would be impossible. I
have told the hon. member— I told him and
I told other members— what I could gather
from the general departmental file and I said
it may very well be that these are some of
the factors which may have militated against
these people receiving parole.
But I am, quite frankly, concerned about
getting involved, to a closer extent, with the
parole board in individual cases. I know it is
very nice for the hon. member to say, "I took
it up with the Minister. I took it up with the
jmrole board and his answer is as follows or
I do not agree with them," or something of
that nature. There are many implications to
this. If the hon. member has a case he would
like me to look up in the parole board files,
I will ask the parole board to let me see the
file. What he gets in reply to that I am not
going to be able to guarantee.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Because as you know I have
asked you to look up cases and you will recall
a letter which I read earlier tonight which
really says nothing. To come back to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member must appreciate the fact that
once you start this, the hon. member will be
deluged with dozens of, if not hundreds of
letters of this nature. In addition to this,
letters of another nature from all the inmates
—all our system will be clogged up with this
sort of thing. Unless there is an appearance-
Mr. White: He does not care as long as he
gets his name in the paper.
MAY 29, 1968
3621
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unless there is a prima
facie case of an injustice, unless there is some
reason to believe tJiat the parole board is not
doing its job, why not let it continue to do
the great job that everyone in the field— in
the correctional field— has stated publicly that
it is doing so well.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Sopha: Except with Viola MacMillan.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, that is your
opinion.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I point
out that I have already been deluged with
letters from inmates of prisons— hundreds of
them—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course.
Mr. Shulman: —but I have not bothered
the Minister with tliem because we investi-
gate them before we bother the Minister, I
believe I have got in touch with the Minister,
with four or, at the most, five cases in the
months in which I have been in this House.
Certainly less than one a month. I take great
care not to bother any of the Ministers with
cases which I do not feel are justified. But
here, I brought up a case earlier today and
I would like to make comment-
Mr. Sopha: He advertises for them.
Mr. Kerr: You are right, he buys them
their stationery.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to make com-
ment again because the Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Order. May I point out to
the member for High Park that he has sub-
mitted the Minister to an exhausting question-
ing in connection vvdth parole, rehabilitation,
various cases. The Minister even went so far
as to discuss the Viola MacMillan case. It
seems to the Chairman that the member for
High Park is becoming repetitious, and I
hardly think that in these estimates there
should be any repetition of the submission
made by the member to the Minister,
Mr. Shufanan: I assure you I will not be
repetitious and if I say anything that I said
before, I hope you will draw it to my
attention.
Mr. Chairman: I will listen very carefully.
Mr. Shulman: The hon. Minister has said
earlier this evening that this letter which I
referred to him was a forgery. Since that
time I have had an opportunity to compare
the writing of this letter with other letters
which I have from the same inmate and I
would Uke to inform him, through you, sir,
that it is the same writing. I would be happy
to supply these letters to the Minister, so I
would hke to suggest to him that perhaps his
information was incorrect.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not important,
anyway,
Mr. Shuhnan: All right, Mr. Chairman. I
would just— to conclude and I am concluding
now— I would just hke to ask in this specific
case which I—
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Shulman: —which I find a rather fla-
grant one and particularly, in comparison, as
the hon, member for Sudbury said, with the
MacMillan case. I would hke to ask the Min-
ister if he would be so Idnd as to look into
this case and see what the circumstances are.
Vote 1902 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: I tliink votes 1903 and 1904
overlap to a considerable degree. There are
institutions, the Ontario reformatories, the in-
dustrial institutions, and so on, and I beheve,
if the members would concur, we can have
discussion on both votes at the same time to
avoid any difficulty in dealing with the votes
separately. So we will deal with votes 1903
and 1904 together. The member for London
South.
On votes 1903 and 1904:
Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
do not know which of these votes my own
remarks come under. They will be very brief.
I was one of a large number of citizens to be
extremely well pleased by the government's
announcement last fall to take over the cost
of administration of justice including jails of
one kind or another which have been tlie
responsibility of tlie municipahties. I was well
pleased, because I think it is one of those
areas of government which are now better
handled at a senior level. I expect that
decades ago when the assignment of these re-
sponsibilities was made and when transporta-
tion and communications systems were very
rudimentary that the municipal level of gov-
ernment was the appropriate one for local
jails, housing short term offenders.
But, of course, things have changed and
now I believe that the province should, as it
has, take over this responsibifity and attendant
costs. I make mention of this, Mr. Chairman,
3622
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
because for the last two or three years a very
real ejffort has been made by large numbers of
thoughtful and well informed citizens in the
London area to construct a regional jail serv-
ing three or four counties in that part of
Ontario. It will come as a surprise to some
of the members here to learn tliat the county
jail in London is the oldest structure in the
city, built at the same time as the court
house, and that it could have held Napoleon
Bonaparte during his second incarceration. It
was available to prisoners at that time. It has
been condemned unmercifully by jurists, grand
juries, lawyers, and citizens like myself who
have visited this building. And as a result of
this public concern and the movement which
was spearheaded by the able ofiBcers and con-
cerned members of the John Howard society,
quite a lot of progress has been made in the
last two years to persuade the municipalities
in that part of the province to come together
for a regional jail. There was some reluctance,
as you might imagine.
For instance, I think in Oxford county, the
warden and his colleagues on county council
were not anxious to incur new capital and in-
creased operating costs, because the numbers
of prisoners in that jail are very small. Their
per diem costs were extremely low, in the
order of $6 per day, and so they were not in
a hurry, as one can appreciate, to enter into
a new arrangement which would cost sub-
stantially more. There were these and other
reasons for the delay. Those reasons have now
disappeared, I suggest, now that the province
has taken over these costs and this responsi-
bihty. I think that the objections which had
been posed and which had some validity,
have now gone by the wayside.
I stand in my place, Mr. Chairman, to ask
this Minister and the government to ensure
that the change in responsibility from the
municipal to provincial level, should not fur-
ther delay the construction of a regional jail
to serve the counties of Elgin, Middlesex,
Perth, and maybe Huron. I think that it
would be unjust and inequitable if this pro-
gressive step were to introduce a new element
of delay insofar as our part of the province is
concerned. I make that plea very sincerely to
the government.
I am going to make just brief reference to
a comment which the member for Grey South
made when he wondered if the $10,000 to
$12,000 paid to parole officers was an
extravagance.
An hon. member: It was the member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. White: Grey-Bruce. My expectation
is that they are being underpaid.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We have
completed the vote on parole and rehabilita-
tion. We are dealing with provincial jails.
Mr. White: I am not going to speak on
parole now. I am moved to ask if it is fair
for the taxpayers in this province, most of
them working men, some of them in straitened
circumstances— and I see that my friend from
Sudbury is following my words with care. I
now ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is fair for the
taxpayers in this province to pay $11,000 a
year to the member for Scarborough West
(Mr. Lewis) so tliat he can spend most of
this session in Montreal— working for the
socialists? And concluding in my brief
remark, I express the view that the member
for Scarborough West and the member for
Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Brown) are being
flagrantly unethical in accepting their in-
demnities while absenting themselves to work
on private projects.
The member's
Mr. Chairman: Order,
remarks are out of order.
On votes 1903 and 1904?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
has the floor.
Mr. Sopha: Part-time members, part-time
workers for Brown Camps, and part-time
organizers for the NDP. The champion part-
time.
Mr. Chairman: May I suggest to the hon.
member that we have started out with the
provincial jails, and perhaps we could keep
to the discussion and finish with provincial
jails. Is this agreeable to the members?
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, it was not this party that started
the digression. The digression came from
that side of the House, and then from this
side of the House. I think that we should
retaliate with that back bench that has not
been there for a week!
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member
for London South was out of order, and the
Chairman ruled him so in his final remarks.
He started out with the discussion of pro-
vincial jails, and I simply suggest to the
members that perhaps we could keep on
provincial jails at this point in order to keep
some semblance of order.
MAY 29, 1968
3623
Mr. Mattel: I suggest that the Chairman
should have jumped out of the chair when
this man was out of order.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss some
of the conditions in the Burwash institution.
I-
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please. The
member will take his place when the chair
calls him to order.
Mr. Martel: I am talking about Burwash.
Mr. Chairman: I am suggesting that we
discuss the matter of provincial jails, which
is shown on page 119 of the estimates in
votes 1903 and 1904. I would ask the Minister
if any reference to Burwash is shown in the
estimates on page 118, under industrial farms.
Hon. Mr. Crossman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. I would urge the
members to stay on provincial jails at this
point. They can come back to Burwash or
Mimico or any other institution. But let us
deal with provincial jails.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you
if we take it that vote 1903, that amount of
money, refers to provincial jails on page 119?
Mr. Chairman: I do not believe that it is
possible to separate from the total in the
votes. The provincial jails are included in
votes 1903 and 1904.
Mr. Sopha: Well, simply put, institutions
are provincial jails, and the rest of them are
adult institutions and industrial operations.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The whole point, if I
may suggest— the whole point, was that the
heading adult institutions and industrial oper-
ations, Ontario reformatories, and on the
other pages, industrial farms, provincial jails
and so on, do not really belong in the esti-
mates. They are put in there so that the hon.
members can discuss the institutions them-
selves. If they really formed the body of
the estimates, they would come under vote
1903, which is institutions. So, the suggestion
is that when we are discussing vote 1903,
we would discuss all of the institutions; and
we may as well discuss vote 1904 because
the industrial operations are in the various
institutions. That is why the chair suggested
that we take them all together. But within
that framework, I would suggest that we
follow the Chairman's suggestion that we
deal first with the jails, now that they have
been started; and then the reformatories; and
perhaps training schools after that.
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
members that it is simply because the first
speaker on these votes talked about provincial
jails. The important thing is that the Chair-
man recognized it. Provincial jails. The mem-
ber for Lakeshore on provincial jails.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I will speak on
provincial jails in just one moment, but on a
point of clarification. I do not know quite
how you are going to handle it. We can
discuss each reformatory in turn, but I have
some remarks that I want to make in an
overall way about industrial operations. Shall
I make them now?
Mr. Chairman: I put it to the members
that, if they wish, they can take each institu-
tion separately. Guelph, Mimico, in the order
that they come. They can make general
remarks. I do not mind.
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we will do that, too, Mr.
Chairman, but I wanted to take the overall
operation of, say, industrial operations.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They would come
under reformatories, I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lawlor: As far as provincial jails are
concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
talk for a moment about the Don. We have
raised in this House, without any great
measure of satisfaction, at an earlier time,
the problems in these jails of psychiatric
attention to the prisoners.
Having looked at a number of county jails
in the province, and asked questions around,
I find that in most cases— for instance, at
Wentworth county jail— you have a psychi-
atrist on staff or on call. As a matter of fact
you have two, and they are the only ones.
The regular medical practitioner, or jail
surgeon as he is called anachronistically, has
nothing whatsoever to do, as I understand it,
with the inspection of prisoners as to their
mental condition. He stays free and clear
so that you have somebody who is competent
to judge the abihty of prisoners to stand
trial, and as to their reference over to
psychiatric institutions.
This, peculiarly speaking, is not true about
the Don jail, the cheapest institution in the
province, the one with the largest number in
turnover of inmates. This institution has a
doctor— I have nothing to say against him or
for him, for that matter, as to his medical
qualifications as a pure doctor— he has been
there since 1941, and is very grossly under-
paid. Nevertheless, he has saddled on his
3624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shoulders the task of seeing, interviewing
and making adjudication on the state of
prisoners to stand trial.
I am sure the legal profession of this prov-
ince was not aware, or even particularly alive,
to the condition that exists there. A man
comes before tlie magistrate's court. He
comes from the Don jail. If there is some
question raised as to his mental condition, as
to problems of insanity or problems of grasp-
ing the true nature and intent of his act—
anything like that— he is referred back to the
Don jail, then brought on for trial.
The jail surgeon has no more competence
to judge this matter, I suggest to you, than
my younger son. The mere tenure in office
does not qualify him, and I suspect he has
very little knowledge of Freud and none of
Jung at all. He says that from the way they
talk, and the way they act, you can tell if
a man is mentally ill. I suggest you can tell
no such thing— that a wide range of depres-
sive people remain steely cool, and it is ex-
tremely diflBcult to tell what state of mind a
man is in. Certainly this condition, which
exists as far as I know nowhere else in
the province, does exist in this particular jail.
I am begging you, I am suggesting to you,
to review it and to change it because if he
refers them back and says in his opinion they
are mentally ill and not fit to stand trial,
then of course the magistrate will refer them
out into the regular mental hospitals where
they will come in contact with a psychiatrist
and get good care.
If he says, on the contrary, that they are
capable of standing trial, then they stand
trial; and if they are convicted then they go
to the regular institutions of this province. It
would be more or less haphazard whether
or not they would then come into contact
with adequate, or any, psychiatric care at all,
unless they ran amok or did something com-
pletely atrocious. Apart from that, these
people would not. They would be sentenced
to considerable terms— it is possible for ten
years and longer— to institutions of this prov-
ince without an opportunity for this type of
care— on the most unfair basis.
Presuming that they are mentally ill, pre-
suming that they have never been given
adequate testing to determine that, they are
treated as ordinary prisoners. They are no
doubt among the mischief makers in the
institutions, are no doubt recalcitrant prison-
ers, no doubt spend half their time in the
hole, no doubt cause all kinds of difficulties
in the prison system; and all based upon the
word of a totally unqualified individual at
the beginning of the whole chain.
That condition, I suggest, has gone too
far. It has existed for a long time in this
city. I think that the legal profession should
raise its voice on being informed of the
conditions. Without even asking for that
particular development, the Minister is
sufficiently cognizant and suflSciently good
willed, I am sure, to take the matter under
advisement. If he has any comments I would
be pleased to hear them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I just
have to add that the Don jail is not yet under
our control, but in any case the hon, mem-
ber's whole argument is based upon his
opinion that a medical practitioner is not
competent to judge the mental competence-
Mr. Lawlor: It is generally accepted.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
where tlie hon. member gets that idea; medi-
cal practitioners every day certify people as
being mentally incompetent, do they not?
Mr. Shulman: But they are seen by a psy-
chiatrist immediately after.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: After they are certi-
fied.
Mr. Shvilman: But these people are not.
That is the whole point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of them are
seen by a psychiatrist.
In the first place there is a psychiatrist
available to the Don jail in the person of Dr.
Cooper from our head office. There is a
whole range of psychiatric facilities in Metro
Toronto. There is the solicitor for the person
who is not satisfied with the decision of the
practitioner at the jail that this person is
mentally competent; he can ask for a remand
for psychiatric examination.
There is quite a to-do made about this sort
of thing and I have never really been able
to understand this.
Now, if the hon. member is suggesting, if
he wants to say that the doctors at the Don
jail are overworked, that is another matter
altogether, we will agree with that. But to
suggest that they are not competent to judge
the mental competence of a person; all medi-
cal practitioners tell me that by law they are.
Mr. Shulman: By law?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Naturally by law; how
else do we operate?
MAY 29, 1968
3625
Mr. Shulman: On this particular point, Mr.
Chairman: The whole point here is that it is
very true that any medical man in this prov-
ince may certify— or rather any two medical
men— may certify someone as mentally ill and
he will then be sent to a mental institution,
but they are then examined by a psychiatrist
so that if those doctors have made a mistake
the person is let out.
In this particular situation, the examination
is being done by general practitioners with
no psychiatric training whatsoever; for the
Minister to suggest that if the defence coun-
sel is not satisfied he can get the opinion of
the psychiatrist, this is just not so.
I have a letter here from the Clarke insti-
tute of psychiatry which was sent to Chief
Magistrate A. O. Klein. I think this under-
lines the situation very clearly and proves
why you must have a full-time psychiatrist at
the institution.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is absolute non-
sense and you know it.
Mr. Shulman: If the Minister of Health will
be so kind as to listen to this letter he will
realize it is not quite so much nonseiise.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is absolute nonsense
and you know it as a practitioner.
Mr. Shulman: This is dated March 12,
1968, it is from the Clarke institute of psy-
chiatry, it is signed by Dr. R. E. Turner,
chief of service, forensic science.
To Chief Magistrate Klein.
Your Worship:
We feel it is important for you and the
magistrates to know the reasons for the
increasing delays in arranging appoint-
ments for statutory referrals. We are ex-
tremely short of professional staff at the
present time and have only Dr. Zacek and
Dr. Howie to liandle outpatients statutory
referrals. We have no postgraduate psy-
chiatrist in training since December 31,
1967, for the first time since the forensic
clinic opened in 1956.
This is a result of a general decline in
physicians undertaking psychiatric training
which began tliree years ago. The situa-
tion is improving but the effect of this
improvement will not reach us until such
physicians in training reach at least the
third-year level.
At this moment statutory appointments
are booked until May 15 with yet another
ten of such referrals still to be assigned ap-
pointments. This means that a statutory
outpatient referral request today will likely
not be reported to the referring magistrate
until the summer.
I am enclosing an explanatory letter
which will accompany all such now refer-
rals.
And there is a letter along with it to the
individual magistrates saying that they just
cannot give any assessment until the sum-
mer. So the result is that when a defence
counsel goes into a case where he knows—
and I have one specific case— where he knows
that the doctors at the Don jail have made a
mistake and he wants to get a psychiatrist to
give an opinion, he cannot rely on the Clarke
institute. If the person is so unfortunate as
not to have a large sum of money to get a
private psychiatrist there is just no recourse.
I do not wish to waste the time of the
House, but I have here four letters concern-
ing people who were examined by the phy-
sicians at the Don jail. They had been
referred for mental examination by the magis-
trate after being charged with certain offences.
The letters describing their mental examina-
tion are rather pitiful.
In each case it took something under 12
minutes, two visits of some 12 minutes, with
each of the individual doctors asking the most
cursory questions and filling out a form. I do
not think any psychiatrist would consider such
an examination competent.
I diink it is quite understandable why this
system grew up. It is because of a very
ridiculous salary that is given to the Don
jail physician. I believe it is less dian an
intern is paid at the present time in the
smaller hospitals in Toronto. In order to
supplement his income he gets his extra $15
for each of the 300-odd patients he examines
every year.
This is a bad system. The doctor should be
paid a suitable salary and those patients whose
mental competence is in question should be
diverted to a proper place. I would like to
draw this to the Minister's attention. I think
this is terribly important.
Can I go back to this report again, from
1954? I would Hke to quote from page 44 on
this very point. It reads as follows:
There should be provisions for transfer
of inmates suffering from a mental disorder,
but not certifiable, from a custodial insti-
tution to a hospital, or other suitable place
of treatment.
And then more to the point, on page 201 :
It is no more logical to examine persons
suspected of being mentally ill in a jail
3626
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
than it would be to examine persons sus-
pected of having a tumor in a jail. Those
who are sick, or appear to be sick, should
go to a hospital, whether the sickness in
question is physical or mental.
Jails are literally safe and comfortable
places for ordinary purposes, but they lack
such facilities as padded rooms and restrain-
ing jackets tliat are necessary to ensure the
safety of one who may be mentally ill.
There is also considerable question as to
whether they are comfortable for mental
patients from the medical and psychiatric
points of view.
Just to elaborate on this vote further. The
member for Lakeshore and I went down to
see where these suspected mentally-ill prison-
ers were kept. Then there was a great dis-
cussion in this House as to how long they were
kept there, and frankly it does not matter,
because— let me tell you— that any person who
is on the verge, who is mentally upset, if
kept in those surroundings would be pushed
over the edge. This I can assure you.
Mr. Lawlor: That is right. Dreadful place.
Mr. Shulman: Let me tell you what the
surroundings are for this particular-
Mr. Lawlor: They are all in together.
Mr. Shulman: The surroundings for these
suspected mentally-ill people are one large
cell. When we visited the cell, there were
no guards present, but outside there was a
gentleman. He was a convicted drunk and his
function was that, if anything went wrong,
if one of the prisoners were to attack another,
he was to call and a guard would nm in.
The fact that nurses are on duty in other
parts of the institution, really is quite irrele-
vant. These people we saw were lying there,
or sitting on the chair, there was no reading
material inside this one communal cell. There
was a movie some years ago called The
Snakepit and this is a parody of that movie.
What a terrible way to treat people who
may be mentally ill. The ones who are men-
tally healthy will survive it. The ones who
are mentally ill, who are on the verge of
becoming mentally ill, will not survive it. And
what is worse mistakes are made. I know of
one case, where I am convinced an error was
made, and surely this is the boy Mario who I
went to visit in the Burtch reformatory. This
was a lad who— I will tell this story, because
this typifies the horrible thing that can hap-
pen.
This was a mental defective who had never
been in trouble. Did not have the competence
to be in trouble. One day an older individual
gave him a drink of alcohol, and said: "Do
you want some more? Throw a brick through
that window, and climb in and get those
cases of liquor." He pointed to the hquor
store, and this boy threw a brick through the
window, cHmbed inside, took out two cases
of alcohol, and got away with it strangely
enough. He took it to this man who had
asked him to do this, and went home to bed.
Later that night, the police picked up the
man who was holding the alcohol, and they
said: "Where did you get it? We know that
a store was broken into." He said: "Well, I
didn't do it." They said: "Well, if you will
tell us who broke into the store, we will let
you go." This is the deal that was made.
They laid no charges against this man. They
let him go. But they came and they picked
up Mario at his home and they laid charges
of breaking and entering.
It was obvious to the magistrate, it is ob-
vious to everyone, that the boy was mentally
defective. He can hardly talk, and when he
does get out his words they are slow and
stilted and often irrelevant. So the magistrate
referred the boy to the Don jail for a mental
examination. The doctor said he was mentally
competent to stand trial.
The lawyer who was involved was upset
and he asked to have a psychiatrist see tlie
boy. The psychiatrist appeared and gave evi-
dence that tlie boy was mentally defective,
but the boy was sentenced. He was sentenced,
I believe, to 7 months definite and 6 months
indefinite, and he was sent to Guelph.
At Guelph they have a system of taking out
the boys who presumably are trainable to be
sent to other institutions to learn a trade, and
somehow, goodness knows how, he was
picked out as one of the boys who could be
trained. He was sent to Burtch. This already
raises another question: how they do the
selecting. But anyway, he got down to
Burtch, and I visited him at Burtch, and I
spoke to a very fine man who was in charge
there. What they did, they put him in what
they thought was the easiest thing to learn,
which was the carpentry class. The only
trouble was, he could not learn.
So I said: "Well, does he not hold up the
rest of the class?" They said: "We do the
best we can with him. We are kind to him
and we try to give him individual attention,
and try and bring him along."
So what happened was— here is a boy in a
carpentry class, who has no chance whatso-
ever of learning carpentry. He just does not
have the mental ability. So he was holding up
MAY 29, 1968
3627
the other ten in the carpentry class, in a place
where he is not receiving the care he should
be receiving, because Burtch is not set up for
that purpose. Ultimately he received his
parole after some months, and got out and
went back to where he should have gone,
which was to his parents' home, where he
was receiving care, or to a proper institution.
The whole system went wrong, because in
the first place, you have a method of examin-
ing suspected mentally ill, which is not a suit-
able system. These doctors are not competent
to make final diagnoses in these cases, and for
goodness sakes, if you do nothing else, Mr.
Minister, get a psychiatrist at that jail. If you
cannot get a psychiatrist, refer these persons
to the Ontario hospitals for their examina-
tion.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
thought I made it quite clear to the hon.
member that there is a psychiatrist available
for consultation.
Mr. Shulman: But he is not doing the ex-
amination.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, you
cannot. Where are you going to get enough
psychiatrists to do all of the examinations?
Mr. Shulman: One examination a day, one
a day—
i Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if one a day is
needed, if one examination a day is needed
in view of the medical practitioners, the two
of them are at the Don jail. One psychiatrist
is available. He will come to the Don jail.
Mr. Shulman: Is it being done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the view of the
medical practitioners, apparently, those cases
have not needed it.
|; As a matter of fact, the hon. member has
talked about how mistakes can be made. He
has made a mistake. He has given opinion
about this Mario case. Now we follow this
through. The hon. member asked this ques-
tion on April 23. We answered this question,
and he disagreed as to the competence of the
Don jail doctors to judge this particular case.
Then tonight he was reading from— I think
it was Dr. Turner from the Clark institute of
psychiatry. Was it Dr. Turner? Well, let me
point out to the hon. member what Dr.
Turner has said about this case. He agrees
wholeheartedly with the decision made by
[the medical practitioners at the Don jail.
Mr. Shulman: Is Dr. Turner the psychia-
trist who gave evidence in court?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No he is not.
Mr. Shulman: Why do you not beheve the
psychiatrist—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, do you want me
to beheve the letter? Does the hon. member
want me to believe the letter he read from
Dr. Turner as being authentic?
Mr. Shulman: Please read the letter.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will read the letter
from the Clark institute of psychiatry in
respect of this. He was the psychiatrist, was
he not the psychiatrist who examined him, I
think for the defence?
Dr. Turner states, under date of May 17:
"No certificate of mental defect was provided
in this case, although the psychological test
indicated mental deficiency in the moron
range— intonation code 325.2."
Mr. Shulman: What more do you need?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, if the
hon. member will hold his horses, we will
follow it through. We did not recommend
hospitalization for retardation. Now further
on, Dr. Howie, associate psychiatrist at the
Clark institute of psychiatry— I think this is
the gentleman who appeared for the defence.
This is the psychiatrist who appeared for this
man, in his defence. Amongst other things,
he says: "It is my opinion that Mr. A is not
suffering from a certifiable form of mental
illness."
Mr. Shulman: Did he not say also that he
was mentally defective?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, there
is no evidence of any basically anti-social
tendencies in the accused's personality.
Mr. Shulman: Exactly.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To continue:
Similarly, there is no evidence of psycho-
sis. The dominant impression is that of a
mentally defective, immature personality.
The patient's intellectual defect can ad-
versely affect his judgment of a social situ-
ation. It will therefore impair his ability
to maintain himself independently in so-
ciety. However, with sympathetic help he
could probably manage fairly adequately if
it were not for his speech defect, and his
lack of special education to facihtate learn-
ing an appropriate skill.
With careful training, most persons of
the patient's intellectual level are able to
maintain themselves in the community with
some help. He is capable of maintaining
3628
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
himself in the community with continued
supervision and guidance which would be
necessary for a child of nine years, three
months of age.
There does not appear to be any indica-
tion for psychiatric treatment for the
accused. Rather what he requires is to
refrain from the use of alcohol, since even
small amounts of alcohol appreciably re-
duce the already deficient judgment and
controls of a mentally defective person,
and debilitate him. It would certainly
seem worthwhile to investigate the possi-
bility for special work training for him at
one of such places as the progress training
centre at 78 Industry Street, Toronto, a
sheltered workshop for adults 190 Beverley
Street, Toronto, or at the adult occupa-
tional centre at Edger terminal. This is a
living-in training situation for the mentally
retarded, run by the department with the
help of the province. We trust that this
report will be of some assistance to you.
Yours sincerely,
D. Howie, M.D., associate in psychiatry.
Mr. Shulman: And you sent him to Guelph,
after all that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment-
Mr. Shulman: This is hopeless, Mr. Chair-
man.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is exactly what
the doctor at the Don jail said-
Mr. Martel: Oh, three-year olds.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is exactly what
the doctor at the Don jail said in his medical
report. That is precisely what he said.
Now, we are faced with a man sent to us
by the courts. The doctor has to give an
honest appraisal of what he thinks of this
person. He gave the same appraisal as the
psychiatrist who handled the case for the
defence. He therefore was sent by the judge,
who took all of this into consideration, and
the judge stated, if I recall, that in his view,
Burtch was the place for this man. The judge
then sentenced—
Mr. Shulman: The judge sent him to Guelph
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He recommended
Burtch, I remember—
Mr. Shulman: Burtch is not the place for
him.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Novi^, Burtch is, as a
matter of fact, precisely the place for him.
Mr. Shulman: Burtch does not think so.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is for mentally
retarded. I read from the transcript of the
evidence:
Question: One final question, in your
examination of the accused, would you say
he is certifiable to an institution or not?
this is Dr. Howie:
Answer: I would think that he would
be certifiably defective, yes.
Question: But not insane?
Answer: No, not insane, no. As a mentally
defective, not as a mentally insane person.
The court: Well, of course, we are
always concerned with the rehabilitation
of the offender here, but in this case the
protection of society must be paramount,
and the sentence I propose to mete out to
the accused will, I hope, result in his being
sent to the Burtch training centre, where
he will get precisely the kind of training,
even an education that the doctor has told
us about.
Mr. Shulman: What an indictment of a
system you are giving.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, this is precisely
what the court stated, and he sentenced him
to our institutions with the recommendation
that he goes to Burtch, because he knows
this is the kind of training that we give at
Burtch. Now what were we faced with? We
were faced with precisely these facts, that
we had a case in which the judge said, after
having listened to the psychiatrist, Burtch was
the best place for him. He was released on
parole, from Burtch, on May 17, to reside at
the home of his parents, in Toronto. Prior-
Mr. Shulman: That is where he should have
been in the first place.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, prior
to his release— and I mentioned this to the
House the other day. The director of rehabili-
tion services, of The Department of Social
and Family Services was contacted with a
view to placement in a sheltered workshop
facility for training. An appointment was
made for an interview on Wednesday, May
22, 1968. Our rehabilitation officer, Mr. P. D.
Park, took Mr. A to the director's office on
May 22, 1968, for the interview.
Arrangements were completed for Mr. A
to be interviewed by the progress training
centre. Industry Road, Toronto. They agreed
to accept him, and he started at the centre
on May 28, 1968. The progress training centre
I
MAY 29, 1968
3629
is a sheltered-workshop type of faciUty where
trainees are taught acceptable work habits
and engage in assembly work, and work
activities. The trainee is assessed after a
sfx-week period, periodically thereafter, and
eventually the training centre will attempt
to place him in a suitable, competitive em-
ployment situation.
I do not know what else could be expected,
even though, in my view, all the jails of the
province require a great deal of attention, as
well as Don jail. Even though I say this, I
do not know what else we would have done
had the Don jail been under our complete
control, at that time, than what was done.
The doctor at the jail prescribed in exactly
the same fashion as did the psychiatrist for
the defence. He gave exactly the same
decision, as to his mental stability. The court
listened to the psychiatrist for the defence.
The court said the best place for this man
is Burtch. We have no control over that.
The court then sends him to us, with the
recommendation we send him to Burtch.
Burtch is for the mentally retarded. We do
what we can with him then, put him out on
parole when it is deemed advisable, and he
goes to the progress training centre. What
else is the correctional system supposed to do?
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman, first
of all to get the facts correct, I trust the
Minister has the transcript of the evidence
in front of him. I do not unfortunately.
But the reason the psychiatrist was called in
was because the lawyer was so outraged—
and this was a legal aid lawyer— he was so
outraged by the comments of the doctor from
the Don jail, and to suggest that the doctor
from the Don jail said the same as the
psychiatrist is just ridiculous. But the impor-
tant-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just read what they
said.
Mr. Shulman: Yes, but you did not read
what the doctor from the Don jail said.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Read it from the transcript,
not in the letter you have there now. What
he says in the letter may be a little different
from what he says in the transcript.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have the medical
practitioner's certificate at the Don jail.
Mr. Shulman: Read what he said in the
court, that is what matters. We find the
Minister defending the indefensible. The
whole system is wrong. He stated here that
this mental defective of the mental age of
nine years was sent to Guelph reformatory,
and from there to Burtch. The results on
that poor boy were incalculable. At Guelph
he became the butt of physical and verbal
abuse, until he begged to l)e taken out of
there. At Burtch, he was again the butt of
the other boys, which was natural. Boys are
cruel at that age, and here they have a
mental defective in their midst, who, in
addition, can barely talk. And to defend this
system as the Minister does is shocking. What
you should be doing, is getting up and say-
ing, "It is wrong, of course it is wrong, we
are going to improve it, we are going to
change it." How can you defend a system
like this? Incompetent people making mental
examinations, sending mental defectives to
reformatories, and then in May, six months
later, they finally go into the proper
training—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We did not send the
man to a refonnatory, a judge sent the man
to a reformatory.
Mr. Shulman: Tupper Bigelow sent him,
and there is another indictment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, then, that is
something else again, let us keep to the
facts.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The judge sent him
to a reformatory, we did not. The question
that the hon. member started to talk about
was the competence of the medical staff' at
Don jail, and I pointed out to him, the hon.
member, that the Don jail physician's opinion
of this man was almost word for word what
the psychiatrist for the defence had said.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would like to say a
word or two on this matter. The hon.
member for Parkdale is not exactly—
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He is not
from Parkdale.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: My apologies, the hon.
member for High Park, has not been com-
pletely frank, or professionally frank in his
statements. First of all, let me state, as I
am quite sure the hon, member knows, if
he is willing and fair enough to admit it
that Doctor Hill has long experience as a
general practitioner who has dealt for many,
many years with the type of person where
I would suggest, sir, he has probably learned
3630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at first hand, and on a practical basis, more
psychiatry than a great number of those who
are certificated-
Mr. Lawlor: You do not know how many
mistakes—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Chairman, may I
have the floor please?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —and/or have a fellow-
ship in psychiatry. The hon. member also
knows quite clearly that the great majority of
mentally ill people or mentally disordered
people are first seen and first screened by
family physicians. They are then referred to
psychiatrists, and I would agree with them
that perhaps had— and indeed I am quite sure,
knowing Doctor Hill— had he believed that in
his professional judgment this lad needed
psychiatric consultation, he would have ord-
ered it because this is available to him. Not
only, sir, is it available through Clarke insti-
tute, it is available through any psychiatrist
in Toronto because he has the right to call
him. I am quite sure, if I recall anything
about The Department of Reform Institutions,
the department would pay for a consultation
if, in the judgment of the jail surgeon, it is
necessary. This apart, the fault, sir, does not
lie with The Department of Reform Institu-
tions, I respectfully submit to you. The fault
lies— and I think there is a very glaring fault
here which I hope the Attorney General
would pay attention to because, in his depart-
ment he might be able to do something about
it. The fault, I submit, sir, lies with the pre-
siding magistrate who ignored the recom-
mendations of a psychiatrist— a recogniezd
psychiatrist— Vv^ho pointed out that this lad
was mentally retarded and was of the age of
nine years. He did not, so far as I can glean
from either of the letters read, question
whether or not in the view of the psychiatrist
this lad knew the nature of or enormity of the
seriousness of his acts. And instead of saying,
"It has been recommended that this boy be
put in certain specified places," which, in the
judgment of the psychiatrist, were capable of
deahng with such a case, he elected to send
him to The Department of Reform Institu-
tions, which of course, the hon. Minister
pointed out, had nothing to say. My point,
sir, is not to—
Mr. Singer: The Attorney General is not
going to like that—
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —not to defend the
department at all, but to point out that the
fault lay with the magistrate in that he
neglected to follow the advice and recom-
mendation of a psychiatrist who was trained
to judge these tilings.
Mr. Singer: Who was the magistrate?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to get back to the Don jail situation, so
we will not go off into the Tupper Bigelow
problem which would take another night.
Regarding the situation at the Don jail,
the hon. Minister has defended the system of
Dr. Hill in examining these patients. I just
want you to know what Dr. Hill does at the
Don jail, so you will realize just how im-
possible it would be for him to make a proper
mental examination.
He examines some 80 patients per day,
incoming patients. It is his job to do a super-
ficial examination or superficial interview of
each patient— of each inmate that comes into
the jail. He does not have a secretary. He
fills out the forms of each patient. It is also
his job to do a physical examination and fill
out a form for every sentenced person who
is being transferred out of the jail.
It is also his job to examine and treat any
person who takes ill in this jail's population.
Then, in his spare time, he does mental
examinations.
Let me suggest to the Minister that no
doctor, were he to have all the experience that
Dr. Hill has had, all the training the best
psychiatrists in the world have had could do
his work competently. He could not possibly
do the work he has even without the mental
examination. And he has not even got a girl
to fill out the forms. Now to defend this, to
have the Minister of Health get up and de-
fend this, and the Minister of Reform Insti-
tutions get up and say he is competent, he
does not have the time— if he were competent
and he is not competent— to make the diag-
noses.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, neither
I— nor did I hear the Minister of Health— sug-
gest that we were defending incompetence.
What we were saying— I was saying, and I
am sure the hon. Minister of Health was say-
ing, was you really had no right to talk about
the competence of Dr. Hill as a medical man.
The hon. member in the first place should
know that Dr. Hill does get some help.
Now if the hon. member had got up in the
first place and said: "Do you not think that
Dr. Hill is overworked?" I would have said
what I—
MAY 29, 1968
3631
Mr. Shulman: That is not the point.
Hon. Mr. Grosssman: I would have said
what I said a number of weeks ago— that he
is overworked.
Mr. Shulman: That is not the point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But to say, to express
himself in the manner in which he is accus-
tomed to doing, which in effect smears the
doctor by saying he is not competent, it is an
entirely different thing.
An hon. member: The same old story—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All he had to do was
to say the man is overworked and I would
have agreed with him as I agreed with him
a number of weeks ago. This will be
changed. But why should we have to get
up and defend the competence of a doctor
who has been doing such a tremendous job
over so many years?
Mr. Shulman: Because a general practi-
tioner is not fit to make the final decision
in these cases.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then you are
arguing about something else and I disagree
with you and so does the Minister of Health.
Mr. Lawlor: No, he disagrees with you.
Mr. Shulman: Then I would like to ask
the Minister— what is his view of the accom-
modations given to these poor people?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not as good as it
should be.
Mr. Shulman: What are you going to do
about it; and when?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are going to
correct it.
Mr. Shulman: When?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As soon as we can.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ghairman: Order.
On provincial jails: the member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: On provincial jails.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, the first ques-
tion is— what has become of the Wentworth
jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is still there.
Mr. Deans: What has become of the new
one, the one that we were supposed to be
going to get?
What is going to happen? Are we going
to get rid of that monstrosity on Barton Street
in Hamilton?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
we have mentioned this two or three times.
There is a task force out examining all of the
jails. There will be a priority list set up. I
cannot tell you now as to which place in
the priority list the Wentworth jail will take.
We shall have that report very soon and wc
will then announce it publicly.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on the
provincial jails programme? The member for
Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: I just want to pass a few com-
ments on the conditions of the jail at Milton.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is bad, you do not
have to tell me.
Mr. Deans: I realize I should not have to
but obviously I do. You do not require a task
force to tell you it is bad.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, I did not say I
require a task force to tell me it is bad.
Mr. Deans: The juries have been going
through these jails for years and every year
they have been recommending that it should
be replaced.
Mr. Singer: Not as bad as the Don jail.
Mr. Sopha: The one up in London is worse.
Mr. Deans: Well, so the hon. member
says—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Every year we recom-
mend that the municipalities replace them.
Mr. Deans: Well now we are recommend-
ing that you replace them—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You do not have to;
we are going to. I mentioned it to the House
here that we have a programme to replace
them over a period of 12 years.
Mr. Deans: The big problem with your
programmes is that I do not believe them.
They are all very nice on paper. Twelve
years from now, if I have the misfortune still
to be here on this side of the House, I will
still be asking the same question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.
3632
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, per-
haps this would make the hon. member
happy; I have a report here that as of
December, 1967, the Treasury board had
approved proceeding with preHminary plans
for this project to be located at either Carle-
ton, Middlesex or Wentworth counties. Now
we have to make a decision which ones will
come first.
Mr. Singer: Is not London in the county of
Middlesex?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is right; that is
the one right there— the larger jails.
Mr. Singer: Which is going to win?
Mr. Chairman: On provincial jails. The
member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: I am a little disturbed, Mr.
Chairman, about the treatment in the Don jail
of prisoners or perhaps in other jails of
prisoners, once they attempt suicide. I am
referring to a Mr. Don H.— sorry, Mr. Richard
H.— who was a suicide risk and actually
attempted suicide several times in the jail.
He was held for a very lengthly time in the
cell for the suspected mentally ill which we
have gone into before, for many weeks.
And when I complained about this matter,
instead of him being transferred to a mental
hospital, he was transferred to Kingston peni-
tentiary. I find this absolutely incomprehen-
sible and I wonder if there is some explanation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know why
the hon. member finds that incomprehensible,
Mr. Chairman. The man was sentenced to
Kingston penitentiary and all we can do is
to send him to Kingston penitentiary. We
have no other authority. The judge sends a
committal order and says this man is ordered
to go to Kingston penitentiary and we send
him to Kingston penitentiary.
Presumably, at Kingston, if they find this
man should be certified they will do this. I
mean, there is nothing else we can do.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, here is a
man, who in jail, attempted suicide several
times. We presume if someone attempts
suicide several times they are mentally ill.
I do not think this requires too much diffi-
culty in diagnosis. But nowhere along the
line did the jail authorities or did the jail
doctors feels that this man was mentally ill,
nor did they make any attempt to transfer
liim to a mental hospital. There is something
wrong here.
Mr. Chairman: I believe that the Minister '
has indicated to the committee at various !
times that there is a shortage of psychiatrists, |
that they take as many as they can get. He
has explained to the member for High Park \
and the committee the situation that existed !
at the Don jail. The member for High Park <
is exhaustively putting questions to the Min- j
ister about the Don jail about one specific
case and now he is introducing another
specific case. ^
The Minister has replied aud I would ]
respectfully ask the member for High Park j
to confine further remarks to the provincial
jail programme in these estimates.
Mr. Shulman: Very well, sir. I would like
for the moment to leave the Don jail and go i
to the Simcoe jail and I would like to ask
the hon. Minister why it is that visitors who |
visit relatives in the Simcoe jail— although :
they may speak to the relatives— cannot see
them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot recall this \
particular jail. I think that I have visited
every jail in the province with the exception ;
of one or two. I do not know what the
situation is there. Do they have a very thick l
screen?
Mr. Shulman: It is a combination of double j
screening and double glass and when you
visit the prisoner— j
Mr. Chairman: There are two members on ;
the floor at this point, and only one member ;<
can have the floor at one time. 1
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, when a
prisoner is visited in the Simcoe jail in Nor- \
folk county, you can tell that you are talking ]
to a prisoner in there, but you cannot tell ;
who it is. All you can see is a shadow, because '
this has been made so thick and with so }
many layers that the family cannot even see ^
the person that they are visiting. 1
This is very disturbing for relatives who i
have come, many of them from a very long
distance— because there are prisoners there
from long distances away— and surely it would \
not be impossible while we were waiting for
this 12-year programme to evolve to put in a j
sheet of glass, rather than this very strange -i
system that you have at the present time. |
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I |
think that we could really save a lot of time j
of the House if we remembered that the j
policy of the department when they take J
over the jails, which we have not yet done, |
MAY 29, 1968
3633
legally— we will then be in a position— after
having received a report from the task force
which I have mentioned on numerous occa-
sions—to decide also on a matter of priorities
as to renovations. These are the things that
we will look at. It seems to me that this is
one of those things in a jail that can be
changed with a reasonable amount of expense.
There is no use bringing up these individual
situations in each one of the 35 county and
two city jails because they are not ours yet.
We are examining them all, and will do
what we can to renovate those which are not
slated for rebuilding in the immediate future.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the estimates
for this department cover this year's expendi-
tures. It is quite proper for us to bring up
these matters, because they are matters that
should be brought to the attention of the
Minister, for changes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
agreeing in advance with anything that any-
one says about the physical condition of any
of the jails. I do not think that there is any
point in wasting the time of the House on
this.
Mr. Shulman: Very well. I would like to
come back to the Don jail. The member for
Downsview has some-
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that there has been considerable
extensive discussion on the Don jail; not only
by the member for High Park, but last eve-
ning by the member for Downsview. The
Minister has replied to all the questions put
to him, and this can only be repetition.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, you have
not yet found me being repetitious. The mat-
ters I spoke on, before, had to do with the
condition of the treatment of suspected
mentally ill prisoners. I now wish to bring
up the matter of the ordinary prisoners, and
this has not as yet been brought out by
any other members,
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that the Minister of Reform Institu-
tion has on numerous occasions pointed out
to the House and the member that he realizes
the circumstances in many of these jails; and
he has intimated to the committee that he is
going to do something about it. He has told
the committee what tlie programme is. He
is taking over jails, for which he has had
no responsibility in the past, but will have
in the future. It seems to me that this type
of question is entirely out of order.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, it cannot be
out of order. If we have the largest jail in
this province in this largest city of Ontario,
which has disgraceful conditions, I do not
see how you can possibly think of cutting oft
discussion on any aspect of those conditions.
The fact that the Minister has promised to
clear it up in due time is certainly not
sufficient.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. member tell me
how else I could answer that? Shall I say
tomorrow, next week, yesterday? How could
I answer that?
Mr. Shulman: Yes I would be delighted to
hear that. Your priority should come first of
all to the jail that is housing these people in
the hundreds and the thousands, not the jail
that is housing 12, or 24, or 36 at a time.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
discussed this last night.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, this whole question has
been covered quite thoroughly by the Min-
ister.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the remarks
that I was about to make will continue unless
you are ruling I may not do so.
Mr. Chairman: The discussion on the Don
jail has been completed.
Mr. Shulman: You will not allow me to
make these comments?
Mr. Chairman: No more discussion on the
Don jail. This subject has been thoroughly
covered.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. I would like to
say to you, with some regret, that I do not
believe that it is the role of the Chairman
in this committee to speak for Ministers in
discussion of an estimate. I believe that this
is what you did in ruhng that the member
for High Park could not speak further on the
matter that he intended to talk about in con-
nection with the Don jail. His remarks, as he
explained them to you, Mr. Chairman, pointed
out a new topic of discussion. You ruled him
out of order as being repetitive, and you
ruled him out of order in a manner which I
feel was putting yourself in the place of the
Minister.
3634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Well, with respect to the
member-
Interjections l)y hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Chairman is
putting himself in my place, how could I
rule him out of order?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to comment on what is going
on. I was interested, and rather encouraged
to hear the hon. member for High Park, at
least by strong inference, indicate that he
did not believe in the proposition of repeti-
tion. I just make that point because it was
out of his words, and I think that that is a
healthy situation. I am sure that from now
on, and in the days to come, there will be no
undue repetition. There is bound to be some,
but we are here to get the estimates through.
I would be concerned about one point, and in
this moment, I speak as a private member.
I would like to point out that we are talk-
ing about a situation where society is pro-
tected by statutes of the criminal code, and
the judicial system. That is the number one
point.
Thereafter, when charges are laid by the
police or other authority, it goes to the
courts to deal with the matter. So the first
instance of a man's trial is there. Parole sys-
tems and treatments, and other situations
and conditions then follow and are subse-
([uent to the action taken by the courts, which
is designed to protect society. This is the
general public. Speaking as a private member,
what would have appeared to have been said
here tonight is that the punishment must be
with gold blankets and other remedial things
which we all agree with, but they come in
sequence.
Mr. MacDonald: That voice from the Vic-
torian era once again.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is no Victorian
era at all. According to some of the voices
expressed in the debates and the views
tonight, we should open the jails and let
everybody out. I just make this for the record
because this is exactly what is being said.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee do rise and report progress, and ask
for leave to sit again.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. Was that motion made by a private
meml^er or the House leader?
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, before the orders of the day, we
would like to turn to the order paper and
deal with third readings and such other mat-
ters and the House in committee. I do not
think it would be long before we proceed
with the estimates of this department.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 100
ONTARIO
iLegisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 30, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourahle Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Tarliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 30, 1968
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3637
Second report, standing committee on legal bills and mwiicipal aflFairs, Mr. Kerr 3637
Consumer Protection Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Rowntree, first reading 3637
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3637
Financial Admim'stration Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3638
Department of Revenue, bill to establish, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3638
Public Service Act, 1961, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3638
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 3638
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 3638
Statement re appointment of Mr. D. M. Coolican as chairman for the regional council
of Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Robarts 3642
Question to Mr. Bales re the UAW and Massey-Ferguson negotiations, Mr. Nixon 3643
Question to Mr. Gomme re construction on Highway 401, Mr. Nixon 3643
Question to Mr. Gomme re the Penage Road, Mr. Martel 3643
Question to Mr. Gomme re underpass at La Cloche Island, Mr. Martel 3643
Questions to Mr. Stewart re grants for farm bridges, Mr. Ruston 3644
Questions to Mr. Gomme re Walpole Island bridge, Mr. Bullbrook 3645
Statement re irregularities in the Timmins area, Mr. Gomme 3645
Third readings 3645
Royal assent to certain bills, the Lieutenant-Governor 3646
Pharmacy Act, bill to amend, reported 3647
Medical Act, bill to amend, reported 3647
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3647
Recess, 6 o'clock 3677
3637
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon in the east
gallery we have pupils from St. Augustine
separate school in Sarnia and Martin Street
public school in Milton; in the west gallery
from St. Raymond's separate school in
Toronto. Later this afternoon in the west
gallery we will be joined by students from
St. Mary's school, Lindsay, and Minto-Clifford
central school in Harriston.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
begs leave to present to the House the annual
report of the teachers* superaimuation com-
mission for the year ending October 31, 1967.
Mr. G. A. Kerr from the standing committee
on legal bills and municipal afiFairs, presented
the committee's second report which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the following
bills without amendment:
Bill 59, An Act to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act.
Bill 60, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Your committee begs to report the following
bill with certain amendments:
Bill 50, An Act to amend The Securities
Act, 1966.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that, until further order, this House will meet
from 9:30 o'clock, a.m. until 2:00 o'clock,
p.m. each Friday.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of bills.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT, 1966
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs) moves first reading of
Thursday, May 30, 1968
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Consumer
Protection Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, with
reference to this proposed bill: at the present
time itinerant sellers regulated are those sell-
ing from door to door or credit. There is an
amendment to extend the Act and control to
all door to door sales.
There is an amendment requiring an item-
ized breakdown of the price of goods or
services in an executory contract. While it
may be said that most contracts deal with a
specific item which is identifiable and the
information readily understood, particularly
with respect to food purchasing contracts
where a multiplicity of many items are in-
cluded, this requirement, we think, is desir-
able.
At the present time, the two-day cooling off
period applies only to contracts with itinerant
sellers where credit is extended. We asked
for an amendment to extend this to all execu-
tory contracts with itinerant sellers. Now I
think that one major item has to do with the
situation where a seller is liable to pay the
costs of returning the goods after the buyer
rescinds the contract.
The am.endment that we ask for confines
the liability of the seller to the cost of return-
ing the goods from the place to which he
originally delivered them.
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer) moves first reading of bill intituled.
An Act to amend The Income Tax Act, 1961-
1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of tlie bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, this
amendment provides that the tax payable by
individuals for the 1969 taxation year, shall
be 28 per cent of the tax payable under the
federal Act for that taxation year.
3638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves first reading
of bill intituled. An Act to amend The Finan-
cial Administration Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of" the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, this
bill, together with the one that I shall intro-
duce immediately following, makes provision
for the changing of The Department of
Treasury to The Department of Treasury and
Economics, and provides for the transfer of
certain department functions in The Depart-
ment of Treasury to the new Department of
Revenue.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Hon, Mr. MacNaughton moves first reading
of bill intituled, An Act to establish The
Department of Revenue.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, this
bill together with the bill just previously intro-
duced implements the recommendation of the
Ontario committee on taxation that the gov-
ernment of Ontario establish a Department
of Revenue responsible for the administration
of all revenue statutes now administered by
The Treasury Department.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, 1961
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves first read-
ing of bill intituled. An Act to amend the
Pubhc Service Act, 196L
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the
amendments in this bill limit the responsi-
bility for salary recommendations by the civil
service commission to classes not suljject to
negotiation and to new classes, and is comp-
lementary to an amendment of The Financial
Administration Act. Section 2 makes pro-
vision that will be complementary to an
amendment of The Financial Administration
Act that I have just introduced concerning
the appointment of persons to the official side
of the joint council, and section 3 amendment
is complementary to the amendment in sec-
ion 1.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Schools Administration Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it
is important that tliere be a somewhat com-
plete explanation, not only of the legislation,
but perhaps the background leading up to
the introduction of these bills on this occasion.
The legislation which I have the honour
of introducing today, Mr. Speaker, can be
truly termed historic, not only for this prov-
ince but also, I believe, for Canada. It sets
out the legal provisions for the establish-
ment of French-language schools at both the
elementary and secondary school levels. No
specific statutory guarantee has ever before
been made for French-language schools in
Ontario. Before dealing generally with the
contents of the legislation, I should like to
trace briefly the background leading up to
the creation of the special Ministerial com-
mittee on French-language secondary schools
and the work of that committee.
In August of last year, the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) speaking to the association
Canadienne des educateurs de la lengue-
francaise stated:
We believe that Canadians of French
origin must be guaranteed certain basic
rights and privileges. We recognize, and are
in sympathy with, your desire as Frencli-
speaking people in Canada to preserve your
language, customs and culture as an inte-
gral part of Canadian life.
Although language is not the only means to
preserving a culture, it is the most central
and obvious means. In the first volume of
the final report of the Royal commission
on bilingualism and biculturalism, entitled
"The Official Language," the relationship
between language and culture is succintly
put:
Language is in the first place an essen-
tial expression of a culture in the full
sense of the word; from the intellectual
MAY 30, 1968
3639
standpoint, language is certainly the most
typical expression of culture. As a means
of communication, language is the natural
vehicle for a host of other elements of
culture. It fulfills this function in many
ways. Not only does it convey the notions
and modes of expression which are part
of a culture, it is also the means by which
a cultural group discovers and assimilates
I new elements originating outside it.
It is in this context that the French-speaking
community in Ontario has always looked upon
education as one of the most important, if
not the most important, force for survival as
a cultural group. Education in his mother
tongue permits the Franco-Ontarian to receive
the values of his society and his way of life
in the same way an English-speaking On-
tarian does in schools where English is the
language of instruction and communication.
Both for himself and his children the Franco-
Ontarian wants to preserve his linguistic and
cutural heritage.
I This natural desire is not an attempt to
draw a curtain around, or to shut out, the
overwhelming presence of English-speaking
North America. On the contrary, the desire
of the Franco-Ontarian to live in a French
milieu is perfectly harmonious with the equal
desire to contribute fully to the cultural,
economic and technical progress of his prov-
ince and of his country. It is with these
considerations in mind, and the very basic
consideration of the provision of equality
of educational opportunity, that the govern-
ment approached the question of French-lan-
guage education in this province.
It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that
French as a language of instruction in On-
tario schools can be traced to the early
French settlements. The use of French, then,
as a language of instruction is not something
new in this province.
I Today we find that there is a well-estab-
lished system of education in which instruc-
tion may be given in the French language
to the end of grade 8 and, in some cases,
to the end of grade 10. This latter arrange-
ment evolved at the end of the last century
when many elementary schools also provided
grades 9 and 10 because the nearest secon-
dary school was too far away. It must be
clearly understood then, that historically the
principle of bilingual education for the
French-speaking people of Ontario has been
recognized. By compromise and agreement
this principle has gradually been extended
until today the availability of French-lan-
guage education at the elementary level is
quite substantial.
In September 1967 there were 89,483
French-speaking pupils attending elementary
schools in which French was a language
of instruction. Of these 87,024 attended 372
French-language separate schools and the
remaining 2,459 attended 13 French-language
public schools.
At the secondary level there are, at the
present time, schools in some 40 communities
offering an instructional programme in
French in at least one or more of the follow-
ing subjects: history, geography, Latin and,
of course Franc^ais. As of September 1967,
there were 10,541 pupils registered in the
schools offering one or more of these courses.
In addition 5,121 French-speaking pupils
were attending the grades 9 and 10 of the
separate schools and 3,000 pupils were in
private Franco-Ontarian institutions.
Several years ago, negotiations took place
whereby the University of Ottawa became
eligible for full participation in provincial
government grants along with the other uni-
versities of the province. Both Laurentian
University and the University of Ottawa
receive grants in excess of the pattern for
other institutions to assist them to meet the
costs inherent in carrying on programmes
in both English and French.
In the area of teacher education, there are
two bilingual teachers' colleges operated by
the province. One is in Ottawa and a second
bilingual teachers' college was established
three years ago at Sudbury in accommoda-
tion provided at Laurentian University.
The major problem which has faced a great
many of the French-speaking graduates of the
elementary schools is that, apart from the
four courses previously mentioned, all secon-
dary education is given in English. This has
placed a severe handicap on the French-
speaking student who moves from a school in
which most of his subjects are taught in
French, to one in which practically all the
instruction is in English. The result has been
a high rate of dropouts among the young
people of the Franco-Ontarian community.
In effect three choices have, in the past
few years, presented themselves to the
Franco-Ontarian student at the end of ele-
mentary school:
(a) If his parents had enough money he
could go to a denominational private school
where French was the language of instruc-
tion. However, these institutions did not
3640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
offer the wide range of courses found in the
other secondary schools of the province. They
offered basically the five year academic
course but not the technical and vocational
programmes of the public school system.
(b) In certain public secondary schools
History, Geography, Latin and Frangais were
offered in French but no technical or voca-
tional courses were given in that language.
(c) Finally the Franco-Ontarian student
had the option of attending the English-
language composite secondary school in his
community. Yet it is difficult, after four or
five years, for the student to retain anything
but a tenuous connection with the French
language and culture.
This then, Mr. Speaker, was the problem.
At the secondary level, steps had to be taken
to extend the availability of instruction in the
language of the Franco-Ontarian community.
It was with these thoughts in mind that the
Prime Minister, last August, stated that the
government of Ontario would aim to provide,
within the public school system of Ontario,
secondary schools in which the language of
instmction was French. This decision was but
the logical extension of the programme of
French-language instruction at the elementary
level, and complemented the present bilingual
university programme.
The Prime Minister announced, on that
occasion, that:
The government of Ontario will direct
The Department of Education to proceed
with the establishment of a committee
whose terms of reference will be to advise
the government as to the procedures re-
quired to provide adequate opportunities
in the pubHc education system for those
who are primarily French-speaking.
It was very clearly stated that it was not
prepared to develop another system of second-
ary schools parallel to the existing framework.
Rather, within the present system, the fullest
possible range of programmes and options in
the French language would be offered. He
emphasized that the province was not creating
an exclusively French-language system of edu-
cation. Special attention would have to be
paid to the teaching of English in the new
schools so that the graduates of the French-
language secondary schools would be able to
compete with their English-speaking compat-
riots on the labour market and participate
fully in the life of this province, and of this
country. As the new schools would be part
of the existing public system, they would
receive the same financial support as other
secondary schools.
In November, 1967, I announced the crea-
tion of a committee on French-language
secondary schools. The chairman of the com-
mittee is Mr. Roland Beriault of The Depart-
ment of Education's policy and development
council. The members of the committee are:
Mr. Blanchard, assistant director, teacher edu-
cation branch; Mr. Thomas Campbell, execu-
tive assistant to the Deputy Minister; Mr.
Cyr, assistant superintendent, curriculiun sec-
tion; Dr. L. Desjarlais, dean of the Univer-
sity of Ottawa's faculty of education; Brother
Omer Deslauriers, president of the Franco-
Ontarian private schools association; Mr. Vin-
cent Gauthier, the administrator of the
Ontario bilingual school trustees association;
Mrs. Elise Grossberg, a member of the
Toronto board of education and chairman
of the Ontario school trustees council; Brother
Maurice Lapointe, principal of La Salle
academy in Ottawa and 2nd vice-president
of the Ontario teachers' federation; Mr.
Jacques Leduc, vice-president of I'association
Canadienne-frangaise d'education d'Ontario;
and Mr. A. H. McKague, the superintendent
of the supervision section. The secretary of
the committee is Mr. Charles Beer from
The Treasury Department.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the membership of
the committee reflects not only the French-
and English-speaking people of the province,
but also the various groups and associations
concerned with education in Ontario. In this
way the government ensured it would receive
the best possible advice. The 12 committee
members have met for two days every two
weeks since early December to suggest the
ways and means by which the government
could implement the policy enunciated by
the Prime Minister. I should like to take this
occasion, Mr. Speaker, in that the members
are in the Speaker's gallery on this occasion,
to commend them publicly for their work.
The first and most immediate task of the
committee was to study the legal and pro-
cedural requirements needed to provide the
guarantees necessary for the establishment
of the French-language secondary schools
wherexer the numbers could provide a viable
unit. It was soon evident that this question
of French-language instruction at the sec-
ondary level could not be viewed in isolation.
It had to be examined in the light of practices
at the elementary level. For this reason the
committee also prepared legislation concern-
ing French-language elementary schools.
I shall touch briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the
legislation itself. The legislation proposed by
the government involves amendments to three
MAY 30, 1968
3641
Acts: The Department of Education Act;
The Schools Administration Act, which I
have introduced today; and The Secondary
Schools and Boards oJF Education Act, which
will also be introduced on this occasion.
The amendment to The Department of
Education Act, which will be considered as
part of the general amendment to that bill,
will give the Minister of Education the
power to make regulations prescribing the
language of instruction which may be used
in the elementary and secondary schools of
the province.
The amendment to The Schools Administra-
tion Act. These amendments cover the legal
provision for establishing French-language
elementary schools or classes; and the lan-
guage of instruction and communication used
by teachers in the schools and classes them-
selves.
The amendment that I have introduced to
The Secondary Schools and Boards of Educa-
tion Act will add a new part to the Act to
establish French-language secondary schools
and classes.
At the secondary level, the ideal situation
—in our view— would be the establishment
of French-language composite schools pro-
viding all options and programmes. Such a
situation, we believe, can be achieved in
some areas, but the government recognizes
that due to a shortage of pupils this cannot
be done everywhere. It has, therefore, pro-
posed legislation to cover a variety of cases.
Three basic situations have to be provided
for: 1. Classes for Frangais and other sub-
jects; 2. French-language branches or sections
within a secondary school; and 3. French-
language composite schools.
In some areas it may only be possible to
provide one class of Frangais and perhaps
one or two other subjects in French. In other
areas a complete arts and science programme
and some commercial subjects could be
started. The intent of the legislation is, how-
ever, that a divisional board will provide the
fullest programme possible.
The requirements for establishing a French-
language composite school will be the same
as those used to create English-language com-
posite schools. At the present time such
schools are built for a student population
of 1,000, although inherent in all the policies
of The Department of Education this is not
always rigidly adhered to. In some instances
composite schools have been set up for less
than this number, if the situation warranted.
The policy of The Department of Education
is to project secondary school enrolment on
a five-year basis using 40 to 45 per cent of
the pupil population in the elementary schools
as a base. In this way plans will be made for
the construction of French-language com-
posite schools using fundamentally the same
criteria.
To represent the views of the Franco-
Ontarian community to the divisional board,
a special committee is being created within
each divisional area. The name given this
committee is the Franch language committee.
The French language committee will be
composed of seven members, four of whom
will be elected by the French-speaking rate-
payers of a division. The remaining three
members would be trustees appointed by the
board.
The procedure required to create a French
language committee will be as follows: (a) if
ten or more French-speaking ratepayers of a
school division apply in writing to the divi-
sional board for French-language instruction;
or (b) if the board introduces or plans to
introduce a programme of French-language
instruction; or (c) if the board extends an
existing French-language programme.
These stipulations would cover all situa-
tions and permit the Franco-Ontarians to
make recommendations on the whole question
of French-language instruction at the
secondary level, whether it be a composite
school, a branch or section within a secondary
school or classes within a secondary school,
or classes themselves.
The method of electing the four French-
speaking ratepayers to the French-language
committee will be for the divisional board to
call a general meeting of all French-speaking
ratepayers within the divisional area. Once
elected the names of the four members will
be forwarded to the board.
The most important function of the French
language committee will be to make recom-
mendations to meet the educational and cul-
tural needs of the French-speaking pupils.
Yet it must be kept clearly in mind that
the final decision and the final responsibihty
for the French-language secondary schools
will rest with the divisional board elected by
all the people of the divisional area. The
French language committee will report at
each regular meeting of the board and will
act in a way similar to that of an advisory
committee. We are not creating another
school board.
3642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The legislation also provides that English
shall he an ohligatory daily subject of instruc-
tion for all pupils of grades 9 to 12. In
addition to acquiring a complete command
of the French language and culture, the
Franco-Ontarian student will need a comple-
mentary and adequate knowledge of English.
A great deal of work has been done within
The Department of Education to prepare
special English courses for French-speaking
pupils.
The legislation concerning the French-
language elementary schools parallels that for
the secondary schools. Provisions for French-
language classes and schools are set out.
English, as a subject of instruction, for
French-speaking pupils is made obligatory
from grade 5 on.
Finally it should be emphasized that this
legislation does not encroach upon the rights
of the members of the English-speaking com-
munity to have their own classes or schools,
wherever feasible. The establishment of
English-language elementary and secondary
schools and classes is provided for. And
provisions are also made by which an Eng-
lish-speaking pupil will be permitted to take
his courses in the French-language schools.
These then are the major aspects and his-
tory of the legislation. With the creation of
French-language schools at the secondary
level, there will be assured to every French-
speaking student in the province the op-
portunity to receive his education from
kindergarten through university, graduate
school and teacher education in the language
of his choice.
There is one last point, Mr. Speaker, which
I believe cannot be underestimated. Since
the Prime Minister's speech of last August
local school boards have proceeded with the
implementation of the government's policy on
French-language education for French-speak-
ing pupils. This has been especially encourag-
ing for it means that French-language schools
and classes will begin in several centres this
coming September although the legislation
itself is tied in with the divisional boards of
January, 1969. It indicates that the divisional
boards and the French language committees
already have a precedent for working to-
gether harmoniously and effectively.
The legislation presented today provides
the framework for the new schools. Its
implementation will allow French-speaking
Canadians in this province to maintain their
rich heritage and to contribute a positive
influence in this province and in this country.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that in the next
few years French-language instruction in
this province will be the equal of that given
anywhere in the country.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I would
like to ask the Minister if he is going to
table the report of the committee that he
was referring to, the committee on French
language instruction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee dealing with the question of French
language instruction prepared what really
amounts to an interim report dealing with
legislation only. They are continuing their
meetings and they will be preparing, shall
we say, a final report which I hope to have
available early in the fall. It is my intention,
at the moment, to make this available.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps we would benefit by
seeing the interim report on legislation since
we are going to be discussing the legislation.
Would it be possible to have a look at that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure whether this would be possible but
because this legislation will be going to the
education committee, I think it would be
appropriate if we were to invite the chair-
man and some members of the committee
to meet with the education committee to
discuss it. I think this would be the best
way to deal with it.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I take
great pleasure in infonning the House of the
government's intention of appointing the first
chairman for the regional council of Ottawa-
Carleton, in the person of Mr. Denis Murray
Coolican. Mr. Coolican is a native of Ottawa
and a graduate of the local separate and
public school systems, having attended La
Salle academy, Ottawa University high school
and Glebe collegiate. He graduated from
McGill University in chemical engineering in
1933 and attained a Bachelor of Science de-
gree from the University of Ottawa in 1937.
As a member of the Royal Canadian navy
from 1940 to 1945, Mr. Coolican served on
minesweepers and convoy escort vessels, with
the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. He be-
came a member of the staff of the Canadian
Bank Note Company in 1945, and served as
president from 1952 to 1966, when he became
vice-president, administration, of Brazilian
Light and Power Company Limited.
Mr. Coolican has already distinguished him-
self in public life, having been a member of
MAY 30, 1968
3643
the Northwest Territories council from 1961-
1964, reeve of the village of Rockcliffe Park
from 1956-1966, and warden of the county
of Carleton for the year 1960, In these latter
positions, Mr. Coolican sat as a member of
the Carelton county council, actively partici-
pating in the discussions of city-county plan-
ning which preceded the establishment of
the Ottawa, Eastview and Carleton county
local government review. This experience has
provided Mr. Coolican with a deep apprecia-
tion of the importance of sound inter-
municipal relationships upon which the
effective operation of regional government
depends.
It is generally recognized tliat the quality
of leadership that will inspire co-operation
in others remains the first and primary re-
quisite for the implementation of municipal
reforms. We are most fortunate in having in
Mr. Dennis M. Coolican a man who is willing,
prepared and well qualified to devote his
energies to this very challenging undertaking.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister
in a position to report any progress from the
meetings between the UAW and Massey-
Ferguson?
Hon. D. A. Bales ( Minister of Labour ) :
Mr. Speaker, I think at this time, I would
not want to say more than that the meetings
are continuing.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Highways, dated yester-
day.
1. What company has the contract for the
constmction of the portion of Highway 401
between Yonge Street and Bayview?
2. What is the new completion deadline?
3. How long was the construction held up
by strikes?
4. Have any penalties been imposed on the
company for not meeting the original com-
pletion date? If not, why?
5. Has the Minister any plans to see tliat
the section is completed on an urgent
schedule?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, in the question I have
there is no part five. I will answer the four
parts as asked.
1. Standard Paving Limited, Toronto.
2. The expected completion date is now
July 31, 1968.
3. This contract was affected by strikes
between May 19, 1967 and November 14,
1967.
4. The contract contains liquidated damage
clauses. If there are damages assessed against
this contract they will not be assessed until
completion of the work.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the question is
initialled by your office.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
let me ask the Minister if his copy is
numbered on the right hand corner "604"
with initials "WF" in red?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: It is marked "question
604," Mr. Speaker, no initials.
Mr. Speaker: Because the original copy
which should have gone to the Minister's
office would have been so numbered and
initialled and has question number 5 on it.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I was going to rise and say
that mine has all the marks that your oflBcc
put on it, including the approval of question
number 5.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister would
then take number 5 as notice, for tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, a question for the Minister of High-
ways.
Who did the road work on the Penage
Road in the Sudbury area? Were tenders
called for that road work, and was this road
work given out under the authorization of
the provincial government?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to part (a) the reconstruction of Highway 549,
Penage Road, was carried out by The Depart-
ment of Highways under day-labour-construc-
tion programme.
(b) Tenders were called for the rental of
such equipment as compressors, bulldozers,
and so on. In addition to the reconstruction,
contracts were recently called for the appli-
cation of prime dust layer and a supply of
fresh gravel. These are considered normal
maintenance items for gravel.
(c) The answer is "yes".
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, another question
to the Minister of Highways. Did the Mini-
ster's department contribute financially to tlie
construction of an underpass under the high-
way on La Cloche Island, ManitouUn Island?
If so, how much and whj'?
3644
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, "under-
pass" is an accepted terminology for a struc-
ture which carries a highway under an
intersecting road. The only highway bridge
structure on La Cloche Island is over the
Goat Island channel. Although this is a water
crossing and would not, normally, be termed
an underpass possibly, this is the structure
the hon. member has in mind. It was built in
1938, it was subjected to minor repair in-
cluding waterproofing and paving under the
recent road reconstruction contract for which
my department bore full financial responsi-
bility. The cost of the work on the bridge
itself was $5,300. The work on tlie structure
was done to restore it to an adequate condi-
tion for future service. My department paid
for the work because the structure is an
integral component of a King's highway.
Mr. Mattel: Mr. Speaker, I have questions
of the Attorney General. Will the Attorney
General conduct an investigation into the
complaints of local 6500, united steelworkers
of America, to Dr. H. B. Cotnam on May
24, 1968, that investigations of fatalities are
conducted by police ofiicers of the town of
Copper Cliff who also serve as security guards
to INCO and may therefore have a built-in
bias in their investigation?
If so, when will such an investigation com-
mence?
Will the Attorney General instruct the chief
coroner that only non-INCO employees may
be used to investigate fatalities in the various
INCO plants and underground operations to
assure complete impartiality?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I will take these questions as notice
and give an answer very shortly.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I might as well,
then, just ask the remaining questions and
leave them with the Attorney General because
they all deal along the same line.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, the member will please
ask the Attorney General.
Mr. Martel: In order that all parties have
all questions which they consider important
and relevant at a coroner's inquest, asked of
various witnesses, without any diflficulties and
asked in the manner intended, would the
Attorney General advise coroners that direct
questioning by all interested parties or their
representatives be permitted?
One final question: Is it the duty of a
coroner to obtain all information available to
him when an inquest is held, to avoid repeti-
tion of similar accidents or fatalities?
Would the Attorney General investigate
why Dr. Pidutti, a coroner in the Sudbury
district, refused to accept evidence in the
recent Stacknick inquest, a fatality at Creigh-
ton Mines, from the oflScers of the united
steelworkers of America?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will answer the ques-
tions, Mr. Speaker, all at once.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Food. Would the hon. Minis-
ter give consideration to enlarging the capital
grants programme to include farm bridges,
that are not now covered under The Munici-
pal Drainage Act?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture
and Food): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could
ask my hon. friend what type of such struc-
tures would not be included for grant pur-
poses under The Municipal Drainage Act
presently?
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, that would be
bridges that would be normally running
through a centre of a farm, ditches that
would be normally running through a
centre of a farm. There seem to be some
problems with regard to engineers' reports
and who is really responsible for these.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to belabour this but it would seem to
me with respect to my colleague, the Minister
of Municipal Affairs, that such a structure
should normally be a cost of the drain, if
indeed— and I know I have this experience
on my own farm— where a municipal drain
goes through a man's farm and it severs part
of the farm. Then the engineer who was do-
ing the survey in this particular case con-
sidered that the farmers so afiFected were
entitled to one structure to connect the farm,
and it would seem to me that they would
then qualify under the costs of the drain.
The member knows that the province of
Ontario pays one third of the cost of that
drain and now under ARDA, retroactive to
April 1, 1967, we pay an additional one third,
so that two thirds of the cost of that drain
is paid for now; and that structure should be
a cost to the drain, as far as I am concerned
the farmer should qualify for the two thirds
subsidy.
Mr. Ruston: A supplementary question, Mr.
Speaker: I had looked into this matter as the
MAY 30, 1968
3645
Minister mentioned, with the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs, and I had spoken to some
people in the department, and there seems to
be a little problem as to who is responsible.
Their legal department has been looking into
it, but it has been some time now and we
have not been able to get a comprehensive-
Mr. Speaker: Have you a supplementary
question?
Mr. Ruston: No, Mr. Speaker, I think he-
Mr. Speaker: Just a point of clarification?
Mr. Ruston: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Highways has
the floor.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, I have the
answer to a question asked of me by the
hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) last
Tuesday: question No. 601.
The Department of Highways subsidy on
this project amounts to 80 per cent of the
cost of the bridge and 50 per cent of the
cost of the approach roads and lands neces-
sary for its construction. The member should
realize that tenders for this work are not
called by The Department of Highways.
I am advised that all tendering procedures
in this particular instance were carried out
by the department of Indian affairs, Canada.
I have, however, established that on April
15 the advertisement for tenders was placed
in the Sarnia paper as well as a paper of
general circulation in the construction indus-
try, and the closing date for those tenders
was May 27.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a statement which
I promised to give to the House re some
irregularities in our department in the
Timmins area. As a result of recent investi-
gations in the Timmins area, David Reginald
Edwards, patrol supervisor for The Depart-
ment of Highways, was charged in respect of
two incidents in which he corruptly demanded
and received payments from the owner of
equipment being rented to the department,
contrary to section 368 of the criminal code,
and in respect of two incidents involving theft
of sand and gravel valued in excess of $50,
contrary to section 280 of the criminal code.
Mr. Edwards, upon appearing before
Magistrate Goddard in Timmins, pleaded
guilty to the six charges involved and was
sentenced on May 29, 1968, to a total of
13 months in jail as follows: six months, plus
six months concurrent in respect of two
charges involving the corrupt demanding of
payments; six months consecutive and six
months concurrent in respect of two charges
involving the corrupt receipt of payments;
one month consecutive and one month con-
current in respect of two charges involving
theft in excess of $50.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ings upon motion:
Bill 74, An Act to amend The Jurors Act.
Bill 75, An Act to amend The Crown Wit-
nesses Act.
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Bill 77, An Act to amend The Justices
of the Peace Act.
Bill 78, An Act to amend The Land Titles
Act.
Bill 79, An Act to amend The Partnerships
Registration Act.
Bill 80, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Bill 81, An Act to amend The Probation
Act.
Bill 82, An Act to amend The Sheriffs Act.
Bill 83, An Act to amend The Fire Mar-
shals Act.
Bill 84, An Act to amend The Registry
Act.
Bill 119, An Act to amend The Highway
Traffic Act.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission I will ask His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to join us
and give assent to certain bills.
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
of Ontario entered the chamber of the
legislative assembly and took his seat upon
the Throne.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Lieutenant-Governor):
Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province, at
the present sitting thereof passed certain
bills, to which, in the name and on behalf
of the said assembly, I respectfully request
Your Honour's assent.
3646
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Clerk Assistant: The following are the
titles to the bills to which Your Honour's
assent is prayed:
Bill 7, An Act to amend The Private
Investigators and Security Guards Act, 1965.
Bill 36, The Conservation Authorities Act,
1968.
Bill 41, An Act to amend The Lord's Day
(Ontario) Act, 1960-1961.
Bill 45, An Act to amend The Age Dis-
crimination Act, 1966.
Bill 51, An Act to establish the Ontario
economic council.
Bill 57, An Act to amend The Blind
Workmen's Compensation Act.
Bill 61, An Act to amend The Charitable
Institutions Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 62, An Act to amend The Homes for
Retarded Persons Act, 1966.
Bill 63, An Act to amend The Children's
Institutions Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 64, An Act to provide for provincial
courts and judges.
Bill 65, An Act to amend The Centennial
Centre of Science and Technology Act, 1965.
Bill 66, An Act to amend The Public
Commercial Vehicles Act.
Bill 67, An Act to amend Tlie Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 69, An Act to provide for the admin-
istration of justice.
Bill 70, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Bill 71, An Act to amend The County
Courts Act.
Bill 72, An Act to amend The County
Judges Act.
Bill 73, An Act to amend The Crown
Attorneys Act.
Bill 74, An Act to amend The Jurors Act.
Bill 75, An Act to amend The Crown
Witnesses Act.
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act.
Bill 77, An Act to amend The Justices of
the Peace Act.
Bill 78, An Act to amend TJie Land Titles
Act.
Bill 79, An Act to amend 'I'he Partnerships
Registration Act.
Bill 80, An Act to amend The Judicature
Act.
Bill 81, An Act to amend The Probation
Act.
Bill 82, An Act to amend The Sheriffs Act.
Bill 83, An Act to amend The Fire Marshals
Act.
Bill 84, An Act to amend The Registry Act.
Bill 85, An Act to amend The Homes for
the Aged and Rest Homes Act.
Bill 88, An Act respecting motorized snow
N-ehicles.
Bill 92, An Act to amend The Public Hos-
pitals Act.
Bill 93, An Act to amend The Private Hos-
pitals Act.
Bill 94, An Act to amend The Medical
Services Insurance Act, 1965.
Bill 95, An Act to provide foj the control
of forest tree pests.
Bill 96, An Act respecting the northerly
boundary of lot 19, Concession XIV, in the
township of Tay.
Rill 97, An Act respecting forest fires
prevention.
Bill 98, An Act to amend The Provincial
l^^-ks Act.
Bill 99, An Act to provide for the estab-
lishment and functions of the Ontario geo-
graphic names board.
Bill 100, An Act to amend The Crown
Timbc r Act.
Bill 101, An Act to amend The Railway
I'^ire Charge Act.
Bill 102, An Act to amend The Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Food Act.
Bill 104, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safet>' Act, 1964.
Bill 106, An Act to amend The Line Fences
Act.
Bill 108, An Act to amend The Highway
Improvement Act.
Bill 109, An Act to amend The Local
Roads Boards Act, 1964.
Bill 114, An Act to amend The Surveys
Act.
Bill 115, An Act to amend The Public
Lands Act.
Bill 116, An Act to ameml The Dog Tax
and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act.
Bill 119, An Act to amend The Highway
Traffic Act.
To these Acts, the Royal assent was an-
nounc'wl by the Clerk of the legislative
assembly in the following words:
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor doth
assent to these bills.
MAY 30, 1968
3647
The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor
was pleased to retire from the chamber.
Clerk of the House: The 17th order, the
committee of the whole House; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
THE PHARMACY ACT
House in committee on Bill 122, An Act
Act to amend The Pharmacy Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill 122 reported.
THE MEDICAL ACT
House in committee on Bill 123, An Act
to amend The Medical Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 123 reported.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs) moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
two bills without amendment and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report two
bills without amendment and asks for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Clerk of the House: Tlie 28th order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. Renter in the
chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(Continued)
On votes 1903 and 1904:
Mr. Chairman: May I say to the com-
nnttee that when the committee completed
their deliberations last evening the Chairman
had made a ruling pertaining to continued
debate in this particular vote regarding the
Don jail. Several members had risen on
points of order and the Chairman would ask
if there are any further points of order in
connection with the ruling.
The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, I just wish to point out that the remarks
I wish to make and which you presumed
were repetitious before I had made them,
were not going to be repetitious. TJie remarks
I intended to make have not been made
either by myself or any other member in
this House and I respectfully request your
pennission to make my comments.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, there is a point I would like to
add. If you will recall the night before last
the hon. member for Downs-view (Mr. Singer)
intervened on what was finally accepted—
whether enthusiastically or reluctantly is not
for me to say— that we were debating ten
per cent of the estimates of Don jail and
the other 90 per cent would come later. I
presume that we have that 90 per cent to
deal with now.
Mr. Chairman: Well I would say to the—
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, before
you make any further statement— I understand
you have made a ruling on this matter and
while I personally believe the matter per-
taining to the Don jail has been very care-
fully scrutinized on both the occasions, it is,
in my view, too previous to rule that the
hon. member's remarks were going to be
repetitious. It may very well be that there
would be some irrelevance in them if we
concern ourselves with what the Minister has
already said, that he is taking over respon-
sibility for that institution sometime in the
future. Nevertheless, under the circumstances
as I understand them, I believe that the
Chairman is in error in making the ruling
that he made; and I say that with some regret
because I believe the Chairman is making
an excellent job of operating the committee
of the House under these circumstances.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman would say to
the points of order that have been raised that
the member for Downsview has debated and
discussed the Don jail matter quite exten-
sively in generahties. The member for High
Park has also dwelt on some generalities, and
he dwelt on certain specific cases.
Many questions had been directed to the
Minister and the questions had been
answered. The estimates before us in votes
1903 and 1904 deal with the amount of money
to be voted under these estimates for the
department's future control and operation of
provincial jails.
3648
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is the Chairman's opinion that further
debate specifically in connection with any
particular details pertaining to Don jail are
irrelevant to the vote. In addition, the Chair-
man had earlier ruled that the remarks v^^ere
becoming repetitious.
The Chairman would therefore confirm his
ruling that further remarks on the Don jail
aspect of the provincial jails would be out of
order.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, with regret,
I must appeal your ruling.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order,
I just want to make it quite clear that as far
as I am concerned it does not make any
difference which way you have ruled. The
manner in which I am going to vote is that
I believe in upholding the ruling of the chair
under practically any circumstances.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the
Chairman's ruling?
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the ayes
are 52, the nays 30.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the Chairman's
ruling upheld. We will proceed with debate
on the matter of provincial jails. The member
for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, in reference
to jails in St. Catharines, I would like to ask
the hon. Minister if this jail has been given
special priority in hght of suggestions by the
Ontario Supreme Court jury which toured the
jails in St. Catharines.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I stated yesterday,
Mr. Chairman, there is no point in my pre-
judging the report of the task force which
is working on all these jails now. When I
have the complete report the department will
go over it and we will then made a decision
as to priorities and what we will do in any
particular jails.
Mr. Shulman: When will the report be
ready; do you have any idea?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know; it
should not be too long.
Mr. Shulman: Did the jury suggest any
immediate changes while you are waiting for
a replacement?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not have the jury's report before me. All I
can say is that there are very few jails in this
province that have not had jury reports con-
demning certain aspects of the facilities. All
of this will be taken into consideration.
Mr. Shulman: Has the Minister looked into
the charges made by one Wayne Douglas
Hart who was confined in the Lincoln county
jail for a period of some months, and who
made some rather alarming charges about
the jail and the treatment of prisoners in that
jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
not in a position to answer this question-
just hold on a minute, there may be something
here. No, we do not have anything here on
this particular inmate.
Mr. Shulman: You do not have anything?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, they do not seem
to have anything here on this particular in-
mate.
Mr. Shulman: Could the Minister look into
this matter for me?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we look
into all complaints.
Mr. Shulman: Has this particular complaint
been investigated?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I have advised the
member, the name is not familiar. It may
very well have been that tliis is one of many
complaints which we have investigated; on
the other hand it may be something which
has not yet come to my attention. I cannot
answer that.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister report back
at his convenience on this particular matter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
wishes me to go into this particular complaint,
if there is such a complaint, and report back,
I will be glad to do that. However, he must
remember that if he is going to keep asking
me about all the complaints made by all the
inmates we could be here for an awfully long
time.
Mr. Shulman: We will not keep the Minis-
ter here longer than necessary; but, yes, I
would like that answer for the simple reason
that this involves a rather serious charge-
including a fire at the jail, just to refresh the
Minister's memory.
So if you would report back, I would be
very pleased.
MAY 30, 1968
3649
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman. The
hon. member seems to be bringing up once
again many of the questions he has asked in
this chamber before, and for which he has
had answers. He is now referring to the
charges of fire at the jail and that sort of
thing. It seems to me that this was answered
on April 22.
Mr. Shulman: Only a very small aspect
of it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will look this up,
Mr. Chairman, and see if there is anything
further to report.
Mr. Chairman: May we continue on pro-
vincial jails? The member for Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, does this include reformatories?
Mr. Chairman: No, just provincial jails;
which is on page 119 of the estimates.
If there is nothing further on provincial
jails we will move to the estimates of votes
1903 and 1904 on page 117-adult institu-
tions and industrial operations. If it is the
pleasure of the committee we can deal with
the institutions in the same order as listed
in the estimates book. Would this be agree-
able to the committee, and to the Minister?
The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man do you recall that the other day I asked
for a boon? It was the opportunity to talk,
in general, about the industrial operations,
to examine the overall picture before launch-
ing into specific or individual institutions. If
I may, I would ask you to permit me to do
that now.
Mr. Chairman: I believe the member for
Lakeshore would be quite within his rights
to proceed on this basis.
Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The institutions of this province have under
their various headings and under their various
locations— in reformatories, industrial farms
and whatnot— a wide diversity in the voca-
tional tasks that they are performing.
I will not attempt to run through all these
vocational courses and the types of training
done at the various institutions. It goes from
sheet metal working, to barbering, to elec-
trical work; horticultural work, work in for-
estries, abattoirs, looking after and tending
cattle, and so on. I have a list here of about
37 different occupations, which cover the
spectrum pretty well.
So far so good.
Looking at page 93 of the Minister's report
for this year I notice that the total income
derived from all industrial production is the
sum of $2,630,000 odd, and the farm recov-
eries are $480,000.
In discussing this matter it may be just as
well to take out one example, that would be
Guelph, which is tlie largest in the schedule.
Guelph reformatory brought in $1.5 million
to the coffers of the province in this past year
from work done by the inmates of that in-
stitution, and helps in this regard to reduce
the overall load of maintaining reform and
other institutions.
My complaint about this matter is that in
a visitation to Guelph, for instance, and in
other places too, in an overall way this
tends to be an abuse. In other words, what
has happened in this province is that these
institutions of penal reform have become
sidetracked from the purposes and oppor-
tunities of reform, into self-servicing units
which are to a great extent dedicated wholly
to keeping interservice of a governmental
kind.
In the tailor shops around the province
they are making their own uniforms, pajamas
and whatnots— not only for the inmates of
the other institutions throughout the prov-
ince, each being allocated little tasks to do
to keep the rest of the thing working, but
for Ontario Hospitals and various other pro-
vincial institutions.
This is an abuse, to the extent that most
of the time, the emphasis at least, if not the
direction, is completely wrong.
This business of taking in each others's
washing neglect the custodial, remedial, re-
habilitative services which should be your
prime intent, and which you have indicated
in this House on numerous occasions, and no
more than the last few days, is the thing that
is uppermost in your mind and the driving
force of your department.
Your department is being jeopardized,
braked, held back and retrograded as a
result of the emphasis in production.
You have all kinds of inmates out looking
after cows. You have numerous inmates rais-
ing various types of crop. You have inmates
in tailor shops— and most of the inmates hate
the tailor shops; their position on the tailor
shops is this is women's work. Some, per-
haps, among the homosexual prisoners in
some institutions rather like it, but they are
few and far between.
This whole business, in this regard is one
of prostituting the intent of your department.
3650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It has grown up I suspect half a century
now, and you have become involved, you
are committed, on a production schedule.
You are in business, and you are in business
in order to provide for other institutions in
a gainful way.
You are taking it out on the prisoners
because they are paid, as we all know, neg-
ligible, absurdly low amounts of money. They
are put to desultory tasks which are not use-
ful to their own purposes, but simply useful
for the government of this province in keep-
ing costs down at the expense of these
prisoners.
I must recognize that there are numerous
prisoners, with some selectivity, who do not
offer themselves for academic training. Di-
rected toward remedial work in the motor
trades or for various vocations in the dif-
ferent types of trades, many who would not
otherwise become welders or motor me-
chanics or electricians and who would go
out of tliat institution, take gainful employ-
ment and never come back again. This is
all in the cards.
And of course for some of these prisoners
it is better to have them employed and doing
something other than hanging around all day,
as happens at tlie county jails, doing abso-
lutely nothing and stultifying in their own
juices, dreaming up other possibilities for
mischief.
But a certain proportion of prisoners would
be better in academic courses; you, how-
ever, have the overwhelming proportion of
your prisoners involved in this particular
kind of thing. Very few of the numerous
inmates at Guelph undergo any academic
training at all.
You have some teachers who may say
that they do not make themselves amenable
to this kind of training. I think with a little
more cultivation, with greater remedial care,
these people could be very well brought into
it. Your own report indicates that with your
therapeutic techniques, you are now inducing
more and more people to involve them-
selves in what are positive beneficial pro-
grammes which will ultimately be of great
value to the service of this province.
I would ask the hon. Minister through you,
Mr. Chairman, to get rid of the subterfuge
as it stands, of all the talk of remedial care
and to make it a living reality. In process
of doing so, I am afraid you are going to
have to cut down on the number of trays
or the number of redi-rolls or the number of
toques that you are turning out of some
of these institutions.
I want to launch further into what is
perhaps somewhat a speculative venture as
to what might be done in the province in this
regard. I have not thought it through to its
possible conclusion; but why not, you free
enterprisers over there, why not have the
prisoners paid regular wages like regular
working men doing regular work within the
confines of these institutions?
I mean as a long-term objective, why not
have them participate in industry? Why not
make them do positive tasks, not just digging
holes and filling them up again, a thing
which is degrading and which empties them
of any purpose; and which again afflicts
them so you will not get people restored to
the community.
Why not do these things? You may say the
trade unions might object, well I say not;
as long as you allow them to form a closed
shop, which they are already, and as long
as the union rates are observed. I see no
reason why this cannot take place.
I tell you who will object; industry might
very well object.
Why should they? It is to their overall
interest. These people would then accumu-
late savings in advance. They would come
out of these institutions not with $20 or $50
—usually $20 in your institutions— in their
pocket with which to enter a new life; which
they spend on the first night of their freedom
in order to wash away in soap and suds of
various kinds all those months of repression
and being forced into a tight comer.
Why can they not work in a regular process
in jobs, be trained for those jobs, and work
within the manpower situation, work within
your educational-vocational systems of The
Department of Education of this province?
Why can all these things not be thought
about and motivated? Then they would come
out knowing something, they would come out
as men equipped to do some positive job,
with work habits established and able to
make a positive contribution.
Also, incidentally, they would pay income
tax, and be able in part to support themselves
making money, and the welfare rolls of this
province would be vastly relieved in terms of
the wives deriving constant income; then also
the children would be placed in a better
position, from the point of view of care and
maintenance, and the food they would get.
Why cannot all these things be done? I see
no overriding objection to doing so, rather
MAY 30. 1968
3651
than this make-work— or at least if it is not
make-work business, the business of a very
tight, enforced type of utihty which benefits
you, benefits the custodians of the institution
and does very httie, if anything, in your
tanneries and your pickle factories and your
jam jar institutions, to rectify or bring any
degree of goodwill out of all these men.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The member
must have read our critic's speech, he said all
this two days ago.
Mr. Lawlor: My only comment to that,
Mr. Chairman, is that I very regretfully
missed it, if such was the case, which I
rather doubt. I have not noticed any great
imaginative impact proceeding from the
Liberal side over there.
But they say, when you complain, say,
to the man in charge at Guelph, "Well, now,
listen, you have got these boys working for
you and not for themselves". He says, "Yes,
but we are teaching them proper working
habits; in other words, many of these people
have never in their lives got up at a proper
hour and gone to a particular task, been
punctual, and got into the way of regularizing
their lives, and this is what we are teaching
them. And whether they are out prodding
cows in the pasture or whether they are in
the tailor shop or the cannery does not
matter too much, the fact is that they are
doing something on a regularized basis." I
say, balderdash-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is that
parliamentary?
An hon. member: That is pretty strong
language.
Mr. Lawlor: —that effect is not true.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lawlor: Poppycock, I said.
Mr. Singer: "Poppycock" is worse.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, if I were not
in the Legislature, I oculd express myself
properly. But in this regard, the business
of saying they are teaching good work habits
just does not go far enough. It is again a
subterfuge with which to hide the internal
operations. I feel that these matters and this
approach to these sorts of problems and not
the reliance upon the income that you get
—which incidentally seems to be dropping
somewhat at least in certain categories, which
I might or might not mention subsequently.
That income is not your overpowering, your
overriding or your primary consideration, not
even a tertiary consideration so far as reform
institutions are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, in this wide area, a third
matter to which I want to address myself is
training or what is done to the inmates of
the institutions academically. You know that
in this province people have been to our
reform institutions— recidivists— time after
time, and they remain ilhterate. I have before
me a report from the Oshawa Times of April
27, in which a story of a 30-year-old Ottawa
bachelor who has never spent a day of his
life in school, was revealed in Oshawa magis-
trate's court Friday, during the pre-sentencing
examination of the man's background by
Magistrate Donald Dodds and Crown attorney
Bruce Alfred. This man was arrested for
filching goods from automobiles, and the
magistrate says:
It is an indictment of our society that
in this day and age this can happen. This
man by his very circumstances is almost
doomed to a life of crime. This is a lonely
desperate kind of existence for a man to
lead.
Now, Chapman, who has an extensive record
dating back to 1959 for offences in Ottawa,
Oshawa, Pembroke and Brantford, was offered
his choice of penitentiary or Ontario reform-
atory. He chose the reformatory, saying he
did not want a federal record which a peni-
tentiary would give him. The magistrate
decided to sentence him to two years less a
day and sent him to a reformatory. He finally
ended up by saying as the man left the
court, "It is a personal tragedy."
I believe, looking through the Minister's
records— I have not checked this year's but
last year he had 117 illiterate people in the
institutions. Surely something could be done
about the academic facilities at least to give
them a modicum of education. How can they
work, how can they come out and get any
type of job? Certainly, sitting around in those
institutions for the long hours and months
they spend, they should be directed into—
and why are there so many of them?— directed
into some kind of instruction where they
can learn a little of the language?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, are
there any more comments on this particular
subject?
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Indus-
trial, Burwash.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think perhaps, Mr.
Chairman, in view of the nature of the
3652
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
comments of the hon. member for Lakeshore,
I might deal with that.
In the first place, his overall philosophy
in respect of pay for work and that sort of
thing, I wholeheartedly agree with. This is
what we are working toward, and have been.
That is one reason why we have appointed
a trades and industry advisory committee,
which has been working now, I think, about
a year and a half. They are studying the
whole gambit of vocational training and
industry and so forth, so as to bring to us
a recommendation as to whether it is neces-
sary to scrap something— if there is anything
that should be scrapped— whether any of our
courses are not up to date, and what will
be more meaningful in respect of teaching
those of our inmates vocations which would
lead to a greater opportunity on the outside.
In other words, is our programme up to date
and in keeping with tlie requirements of
industry on the outside?
Unfortunately, the hon. member used the
expression that there is an "emphasis on
industry to turn out production." I disagree
with him. This may be the impression that
he got there, but this is not our goal and this
is not what we are stressing. The fact
remains that going into Guelph— if the hon.
member would like to hear my answer to
him, I hope that he will give me his undivided
attention. Going into Guelph and saying that
most of those in Guelph are in industry and
in that way giving the impression, or deciding
from the impression that he sees there, that
this is what is happening to most of our
inmates across tlie whole reformatory system
would be tantamount to my saying, after I go
into the Brampton training centre, where we
skim the cream of the crop from the classi-
fication at Guelph, and saying, "It looks like
we rehabilitate more than 66 per cent." That
is true at Brampton. But taking the whole
system by and large, I am sure that our suc-
cess ratio is not anywhere that good.
The fact remains tliat about 50 per cent
of the inmates in the reformatories are in
training centres. They would not be in indus-
tries that the hon. member is referring to.
They are in training centres getting some
trade training. Most of those who are in
industry have either refused to take vocational
training, or have refused to take academic
training in many instances, and have proven
tliemselves not motivted towards learning
anything in particular. We put them to work
in the industry which in itself is a rehabili-
tative measure. The idea that because some-
one is working on some mass-production
machine, is not rehabilitative is entirely
wrong. This teaches inmates good working
habits which, by and large, many of tliem,
or most of them, have never had. They do not
know what it is hke, many of them, to get up
in the morning in time to have breakfast and
get to work, do a half day's work, have some
lunch, go back to work, and after tliat,
go home for dinner and to have a couple
of hours of relaxation. They do not know
that kind of life, and so part of their rehabili-
tation is getting them adjusted to this kind
of routine. It is a disciplinary routine, if you
like, but it is some kind of routine in their
lives so that they know, by and large, that this
is the way society lives. From this point of
view, it has a rehabilitative factor to it.
And the fact that they turn out some
product that can be used to reduce the cost
to the taxpayer, is something I am sure the
hon. member would have no objection to at
all. Now, he made some comment about it
being better to do something useful than to
"dig holes and then fill them up again." I
am sure that he never saw anything like that
at our institutions. If there is any instance
where he has seen— in our provincial system-
anyone doing useless work, I wish that he
would call that to our attention.
Mr. Lawlor: Millbrook.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, I do not know
how he can say that about Millbrook, because
they are doing something useful there too.
One of the factors in rehabilitation is that, in
order to have the inmates recapture some of
their dignity and self respect, you have them
do something useful.
He also suggested that he is sure that if we
put in a "pay-for-work" programme, we would
have no objections from the unions. No doubt
—as he put it— we would have objections from
industry. Of course, this is going back to the
dogmatic doctrinaire approach of the social-
ists, who are always looking for a rampart to
storm.
The fact remains that the objection comes
from both industry and unions. We have had
trouble with this. They have had trouble with
this in every jurisdiction in the world. I
v/ould like to qualify that because I have not
seen every jurisdiction in the world. In most
of the jurisdictions in the world— and I have
seen many— this is the problem that they have,
even in socialist countries. They have a great
nimiber of problems. The hon. member can
have an example right here in Ontario. We
have a great deal of objection at the Lake-
head. I have correspondence. I think that
MAY 30. 1968
3653
the last time we had an objection was last
year or two years ago. I am sure that it was
at the Lakehead. We were going to have
some of the men do work such as building a
training centre. We were having our own
inmates as part of the programme of teaching
them something useful rather than to "dig
holes".
We had objections from the union which
was at the Lakehead, and we had to aban-
done it when we went to Fort William. We
were building a training centre there as part
of the programme. The hon. member will
please keep in mind we are training these
people who seem to have some interest in
learning a vocation. We were teaching them
carpentry and we were having them do the
carpentry work in building the training centre.
We had a tremendous objection from the
labour union.
Mr. Lawlor: On your terms, yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, well the hon.
member is suggesting that we should pay
them union wages and, of course, that is an
ideal which no one-
There is only one place in the world where
I have found this in operation and that is in
Helsinki in Finland. There they are able to
work this out, and they use it for short term
offenders— usually those people who are con-
victed of drunk driving. You find many
businessmen there serving short sentences, of
60 days, 90 days and so on.
When I was there they were building an
airport in conjunction with private industry
and they were being paid. They even had a
system of currency within the penal system
and it was a very good system. I look for-
ward to someday having something like that
here. But it also had its problems. I am not
suggesting that it is not a good idea, but if
the hon. member thinks that they do not have
problems now, and did not originally, with
some of the unions and private industry there,
he is mistaken. They are having trouble all
over with this particular problem. I think
that a conversation that the hon. member for
Lakeshore had with the hon. member for
High Park when they were visiting Guelph,
is a perfect example of the diflSculties that
we have in trying to arrive at some policy
which might be acceptable to the community.
It is not easy, but this is what the trade unions
and industry advisory board is working on.
As a matter of fact, I have a report here
from the assistant superintendent at Guelph
—the result of the hon. member's visit to
Guelph— and he states here:
Dr. Shulman, later after learning that
the products which are produced in our
industry are sold to other departments in
the government circle, such as picnic tables,
blankets, suits, socks, hand goods, meat,
and so on, immediately suggested that pro-
duction in these particular areas should be
increased and further suggested that these
products be made available on the com-
mercial market. Mr. Lawlor immediately
interjected and pointed out to Dr. Shulman
that it would be highly improper for the
government to start competing with outside
industry, and certainly made it quite clear
to Dr. Shulman that this would have many
political repercussions. At this point there
was an immediate abandonment of the sub-
ject under discussion.
I hope that this is an accurate description of
their discussion. I do not repeat this out of
malice, but in this discussion there was
exemplified the dilemma that all correctional
jurisdictions have all over the world.
Mr. Lawlor: These difficulties, with a little
good will, could be overcome.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have our prob-
lems there along the same line as was men-
tioned by the hon. member. Of course we
have.
The hon. member said something about
some of the releasees from our institutions
being illiterate. There are some, of course,
go through our system time and time again
and they still remain, many of them— some
of them, I should not say many of them—
some of them, by and large, illiterate.
But what would the hon. member do about
that? Would he strap them into a chair and
whip the education into them? Some of these
people refuse to take academic training. They
just refuse and you cannot knock education
into the head of an adult. Now you might
try it with a child, which is also most difficult.
The fact remains, that some of these people
will not take academic training. May I read
for the hon. member some of the reports
that we have from the inspectors of educa-
tion—our department. This is from the
director of education of the department:
There are 108 full-time qualified teachers
and 36 full-time instructors in our depart-
ment at present. A number of part-time
teachers, including 34 already appointed
for this summer, also assist. All teachers
work on a 10-month contract basis, with
3654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
salary benefits coinmensiirate with eom-
munity schools. Our contract plan follows
the pattern of progressive school boards in
paying a $500 special allowance to attract
and hold teachers with the abilities and
(lualifications necessary for teaching special
classes. We have added new teachers and
upgraded the facilities where possible.
Plans have been made for other improve-
ments and existing facilities. Education
will play a significant role in the various
new facihties presently being planned.
The teachers, according to the inspection
reports of The Department of Education,
are working at a very higli level.
I will refer to that in a moment.
Many teachers have qualified as teachers
of special education and guidance. We have
just completed our teacher recruitment
for 1968-69 and we are very pleased with
the response to our advertisements and
with the teachers that have come with us.
Our teacher turn-over—
and I think I mentioned this in my opening
remarks.
—our teacher turn-over is considerably less
than most schools. We are continuing with
various experimental programmes. Many
teachers in community schools have become
interested in some of these projects. We
have developed a full fledged educational
system of which we can be proud.
Just to read some of the reports, I have four
or five pages here, some of the reports from
the inspectors who inspect the education that
is going on in our institutions.
Mr. Steele, the regional superintendent
at Fort William, in writing about the
Ontario training centre there says, and I
quote:
Visiting inspectors were generally im-
pressed by the professional ability, staff
rapport, sympathetic attitude and spirit of
the teaching staff.
The following is from a report from Mr.
Martin after having inspected the Ontario
training centre at Bramtix)n:
The school is well organized and the
prcgramme carefully planned. Mr. Scott,
head teacher of the school, shows a keen
insight into the needs of the students and
works conscientiously to provide the pro-
gramme that will successfully meet these
needs. Special programmes and devices
such as the team-teaching experiment are
indicative of the progressive planning that
goes into tlie programme of the school.
His relationship with his staff is excellent
and the teachers on the staff of the school
appear to l>e well oriented to the teaching
situation that exists in the school. They
have a good relationship with the students.
They plan their programmes and lessons
to suit tlie needs of the class and involve
the students in the lessons quite success-
fully. The student participation was sm--
prisingly good.
Mr. Chairman, I have, as I say, four or five
pages of this. I will not trouble the hon.
members with them but I think, that to give
the impression we are not expending every
posible effort to give academic training where
academic training is indicated and accepted,
would be to give the wrong impression.
The ones the hon. member is referring to
are those who have refused to accept aca-
demic training or have proven in the past
that they pay no attention or will not attend
the classes as they should, to learn what is
possible to normally teach them.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to pursue this matter before we go on to
specific institutions.
I am not completely satisfied, as you
might expect, by the Minister's reply and
the reason I am not satisfied is that the mem-
ber for Lakeshore and I have been to a
number of institutions, have interviewed a
number of men and I never would have
thcnight of repeating tlie superintendent's
comments at the time because I thought our
comments at that time were confidential; but
since the Minister has set the precedent, I
now have no hesitation in repeating them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. I think that that comes ill
from the mouth of the hon. member. This
hon. member has repeated conversations he
has had with superintendents and staff of
our institutions right on the floor of this
House.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, anything I
repeated on the floor of this House, the
person who I first spoke to is well aware
that it is going to be repeated. If the Min-
ister is referring to tlie matters from Mercer
reformatory, I made it very clear at the time,
at Mercer, to the lady superintendent, that
I wished to copy the material to bring up
in the House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me make it quite
clear, Mr. Chairman, that we made it quite
MAY 30, 1968
3655
clear to the assistant superintendent that we Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
were going to report the hon. member's would like to have the hon. member quote
■" such a letter to me.
emarks to this House.
Mr. Shulman: Fine, then may I continue,
Mr. Chairman?
At the time we visited the institution, we
questioned a number of men as to why they
were doing the various menial tasks which
they had been assigned to, and why tliey
were not taking some training and these were
men who had no— these were lx)ys really—
who had no training, no skills, no jobs to
go out to; and invariably, the same answer
was given— they were not given the oppor-
tunity to take these classes because the
classes were filled.
We questioned the superintendent about
this and it was quite true. There was a very
limited capacity, something under 15 per cent
of the number of prisoners at tlie reforma-
tory were able to take these classes and, as
a result, they were put ojff into industries;
and the question I asked the deputy superin-
tendent at that time, was "for goodness sakes
why do you not ask for more capacity in
your training classes?" His reply was— and
the member for Lakeshore was there— we
need the men for the industry.
Mr. Lawlor: That is right.
Mr. Shulman: And this is why we were
so upset with this situation. He needs the
men for the industry. This is where the
emphasis is. This is not where the emphasis
should be. The emphasis should be put on
rehabilitation and on training, not on your
industry, and all the Minister's fine words
are not going to change that situation be-
cause man after man goes in there. If they
are not fortunate enough to be taken off in
the cream and sent down to Brampton or to
Burtch, they are in Guelph, and they do not,
unless they are in a very small minority,
get proper training. This is not satisfactory.
I would like to ask the Minister a question.
I was quite amazed when I visited, last week-
end, to one of the institutions, to find that a
letter had been sent to this institution and,
presumably, to the others under the control
of this Minister, stating tliat if members of
this House visited and questioned prisoners,
that the guards were to listen and to write
down what the members of this House had
asked the prisoners and were to report it
back to the department.
I would like to ask the Minister: What is
the purpose of this particular survellance?
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister denying
there is such a letter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to see
the letter. I said that—
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister denying
there is such a letter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, how
can I deny something, the existence of which
I do not know? I do not know whether it
exists or not. I would like to know if such
a letter exists.
Mr. Shulman: I can assure the Minister
there is such a letter.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not take that
assurance. I would like to have it read by
the hon. member. Does the hon. member not
have that letter?
Mr. Shulman: I do not have that letter—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then I would sug-
gest-
Mr. Shulman: I have a copy of that letter,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would doubt very
much if such a letter exists.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister denying such
a letter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
not going to give me a Shulmanism. I did
not say I denied it. I said I would doubt if
such a letter exists. May I answer the other
statement at the same time?
In the first case, the hon. member usually
makes his visits on a Saturday, and Saturday
there is very little— I suppose there is no-
academic training going on on a Saturday. If
there was a member of our staff who made
such a statement to the hon, member, which
I again doubt, then that man had no right
making such a statement. It is not the pohcy
of the department. And may I suggest to
the hon. member, as I mentioned earlier, in
the first place, if it was a person suitable for
real good academic training, he would not be
at that place. He would probably be getting
academic training in anotlier institution. He
probably would have been in a training centre,
that is where that person would usually be.
Now to take the word of some inmate in
respect to what he tliinks— what he thinks is
3656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the policy of the department— well, you can
get all sorts of opinions of this nature.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, it was the
deputy superintendent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I—
Mr. Shulman: The hon. member for Lake-
shore was present.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The deputy superin-
tendent at which institution?
Mr. Shulman: At Guelph, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will ask the deputy
superintendent.
Mr. Shulman: You may do so and for-
tunately, there was a witness who will back
it up.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Shulman: But the point really is, Mr.
Chairman, that they do skim off the cream but
the cream is too small. There are hundreds of
inmates left at this particular institution. I do
not wish to go off into details of tliat now
but I will present tliem when we get to that
particular institution, which is Guelph. I want
to speak about the general problem.
Now to carry on on general matters.
Mr. Bullbrook: Why do you speak about
Guelph now, when we want to talk about the
general problem?
Mr. Lawlor: You are not in the chair.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to ask the Min-
ister what is the pohcy of the department
in relation to visits or tours of institutions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: By whom?
Mr. Shulman: Is there a policy?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: You have a policy that
certain persons may tour it and others may
not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, not every-
one who comes to an institution can visit,
it is still a penal institution. Of course, all
the hon. members are free to visit the in-
stitutions.
Mr. Shulman: What about the press?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The press, by arrange-
ment with the head office, can visit institu-
tions and have done so on numerous
occasions, although I should say the press do
not have to use the subterfuge which was
used by the hon. member to get the press
into one of our jails last week. This is a
very reprehensible practice and I want to
say right here and now—
Mr. Shulman: What is the Minister refer-
ring to?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give you the
details. Which jail was that? Hamilton jail.
The hon. member went in with—
Mr. Shulman: We did not go into that jail
witli anyone. We visited a prisoner, let that
be quite clear. We were asked to tour the
jail and we refused, so let there be no doubt
in the Minister's mind.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the hon. mem-
ber not go into tlie Hamilton jail to visit
a prisoner? He went in with the hon. mem-
ber for Lakeshore, and he went in with
another man, who was described as an assis-
tant-
Mr. Shulman: Wrong. Who described him
in this way? You only have to look at the
book of visitors.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is exactly what
is written in the book of visitors— "as an
assistant".
Mr. Shulmen: I would suggest that you
check that, sir.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was listed as an
assistant. The reporter, whoever he was, did
not need to go to that subterfuge, all he
had to do was ask permission from the
department and he will usually get permis-
sion to go in. Now the hon. member-
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I rise
on a point of order? The Minister is again
misleading the House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —the hon. member
tried to go in—
Mr. Shulman: I must rise on a point of
order here, Mr. Chairman. The Minister is
misleading the House. What I asked the
Minister about was touring the institutions.
In the case he is referring to there was no
tour of the institution. Two other gentlemen
and I, one of whom is in the House, visited
a prisoner. We did not go into the institution
although we were so invited. We refused to
tour the institution for the very reason that
MAY 30. 1968
3657
one of the people with us was not a mem-
ber, and let that be quite clear.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon, member
trying to tell me that his intention was not
to go in with tlie other man?
Mr. Shulman: My intention was to visit a
prisoner, not to tour the institution.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not to tour the in-
stitution?
Mr. Shulman: Do not throw another red
herring across the path.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will see who
throws the red herring. The press has been
in and out of our institutions on many occa-
sions, on many occasions-
Mr. MacDonald: Well, what are you
arguing about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just arguing
about the method employed by the hon.
member. There was no need for this. I do
not know why some newspaper men seem
to think that they cannot visit our institu-
tions.
Mr. Shulman: They want to visit yoiu:
institutions and see all the facts.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, just a moment,
the hon. member has asked me about the
policy concerning visiting institutions, and I
am telling the hon. member. The reforma-
tories have always welcomed the press, pro-
viding arrangements are made in advance,
obviously. And we also have to make sure
that the visits are spaced far enough apart
so that the inmates do not feel they are
constantly on display. Obviously, if there had
been a newspaper man in today and another
comes along tomorrow and wants to go
through, we cannot permit that. We will
allow a gap to intervene before someone
else goes through.
There has been no interdiction against the
press. There are, I think, at the last report
—the report I gave to this House last year—
if I can recall, I pointed out that, in addi-
tion to family visits, there were some 3,000
visits to our institutions by students from the
school of social work, by other people inter-
ested in sociology, by service organizations,
by community organizations who go in and
out of our institutions. I gave this figure again
at that time, which I sem to have to do every
year, to lay that canard to rest, if it is
possible to do so: that no one can go into
our institutions to see what is going on.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much. Xhen
you would say that it would be incorrect to
say that tours of institutions by persons other
than tliose having a clearly established and
formally identified interest or involvement in
work with the prisoners are allowed— that it
would be incorrect to say that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the hon. mem-
ber repeat that?
Mr. Shulman: I will not put you on the
spot; I was just about to get you—
Hon. Mr. Grosman: Oh, I am sure you do
not want to put me on the spot-
Mr. Shulman: I will make it easy for you.
Mr. Chairman: Order, pleasel Will the
members please address their remarks
through the chair.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I have a
letter here signed by H. C. Hutchison, Ph.D,
administrator, adult male institutions, dated
January 26, 1968, which says:
Please be advised that we have discon-
tinued tours of institutions by persons other
than those having a clearly established and
formally identified interest or involvement
in work with prisoners.
This gentleman, is, I believe, a man of some
importance in the institution, and I find it
difficult to understand how the Minister
decides who goes in and who does not go in.
The department has a policy which seems to
affect some people sometimes and other
people at other times.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To whom was such a
letter sent?
Mr. Shu!man: I must keep this man's name
confidential. I have the letter here. I will
be glad to give you a photostat of the letter
if you so wish.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber must appreciate the fact that there are
certain people who would be undesirable-
Mr. Shulman: Agreed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —to go into institu-
tions for various reasons— now, how else can
I answer that?
Mr. Shulman: I am not asking about vari-
ous people. I am asking whether this is the
policy which is written down here.
3658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Please be advised that we have discon-
tinued tours of institutions by persons
other than those having a clearly estab-
lished and formally identified interest or
involvement in work with prisoners.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That would be our
general policy, yes.
Mr. Shulman: How in the world do you
explain that certain people like certain mem-
bers of the radio world are allowed to go
in? It would seem that this sentence would
definitely exclude these people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are certain
people of the radio world who are members
of the news media— certainly aside from tele-
vision; and the reason for that is so that
they will not identify inmates' faces. This is
a purposeful visit is it not, to inform the
public what is going on in our institutions?
Why would you not allow the press-
Mr. Shulman: I am not arguing that. What
I am saying is that your sentence is quite
different. Let me ask you one more question
here— Mr. Hutchison's sentence is quite dif-
ferent—when the—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is his name?
Mr. Shulman: Hutchison— H. C. Hutchison,
Ph.D, administrator, adult male institutions,
yon may have heard his name before, Mr.
Chairman. What I would like to ask the
Minister is: Are individual reporters allowed
to tour the jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
leferring to reformatories or the jails?
Mr. Shulman: Reformatories.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Reformatories- yes.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Then I would like again to go on in this
letter. He mentions certain groups of people
who are allowed to go through and it says:
In such cases we prefer to arrange
for groups to be given a tour of the ins-
titutions.
This is also backed up by press people
who, I understand, have been invited to go
through the institutions in groups, I am again
wondering why specific exceptions have been
made for one or two people to tour the jail
individually, particularly when it seems to be
in direct contradiction to the policies ex-
pressed by Mr. H. C. Hutchison.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I fail
to see where there is any contradiction. I do
not know why the impression is that the
press has to go in in special tours. The press
has been in and out of our institutions. They
have written all sorts of articles about what
goes on in the institutions, some good, some
bad, some indifferent, so I do not know what
point the hon. member is making. The facts
speak for themselves, the press have gone in
and out.
Mr. Shulman: The point I was asking, Mr.
Chairman, was not whether the press was
allowed in; we have already had that ans-
wer. The point I was asking is: Are they al-
lowed to go in individually and the reason—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is yes.
Mr. Shulman: Fine, thank you, that is all
I wanted to know— for the future—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have been going
individually— there is no change in policy in
that respect.
Mr. Shulman: Well, this letter is incorrect.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think it is
incorrect, I think it is the way the hon. mem-
ber interprets it. Is that a letter to a member
of the press or from a member of the press?
Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, as I said before,
I have to protect the person who received it.
I would be glad to give you— look up your
own files, I gave you the date of it.
An hon. member: If you cannot bare the
name, keep quiet-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chainnan, I wish to
point out in reply to the interjection that
when I have mentioned names in the past-
Mr. Chairman: The member need not reply
to the interjection; the interjection is entirely
out of order.
Mr. Shulman: I know the interjection is
out of order, but it goes on the record and
I wish to reply to it. In the past, when I
have mentioned names the hon. Minister has
castigated me for that, and when I do not
mention names the backbenchers join in;
so I just wish to make that quite clear. That
is all for the moment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia.
Mr. Bullbrook: In this connection I would
like to address myself to the actual estimates
themselves. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I
am wondering if the Minister would advise
MAY 30, 1968
3659
whether there is any computer or data pro-
cessing education or anything of that sort
available?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is presently at
Mercer reformatory, but I do not know
whether you would refer to this as a data
processing. I think that, to a point, there are
some of the comphcated calculating machines
which they are teaching the inmates at
Mercer to operate. I think that beyond that
you could hardly call it a complex IBM
system.
Mr. BuIIbrook: Mr. Chairman, if I might,
reading from page 45 of the Minister's report,
it reads as follows:
Education programmes to fit inmates'
needs, individually, and work and training
programmes geared to the present require-
ments of industry, must constantly be re-
viewed. Highly-trained and experienced
professional staff work with inmates on
both individual and group basis.
Now, I must say, and I say it most respect-
fully to the Minister, that as I read that I
come to a conclusion as I look at the statistics
of your training programme— it is unduly self-
serving and self-aggrandizing. Perhaps I am
wrong, but as I look on page 81, of your
statistical review, you talk about auto
mechanics, sewing, laundry, hookery, nurses'
aid, hairdressing. I just cannot for the life
of me accept this as a training for the present
day requirements of industry.
I do not wish to associate myself entirely
v/ith the comments made by my friend from
Lakeshore, general as they may be. But there
was some kernel of truth in what he said.
There is an obvious attempt here to gear the
industrial training programme to the needs
of the department and the other departments
of the government. Mr. Chairman, I convey
to the Minister, through you, that perhaps
having regard to the highly-automated state of
our industry— and I come from an area whose
industry is highly automated— and having re-
gard to the great growi:h in the computer
field. The Department of Reform Institutions
might well consider establishment and de-
velopment of computer programming training.
I would refer you, sir, to the Christian
Science Monitor of May 18, 1968. An article
by Richard C. Halverson talks about Massa-
chussetts state penitentiary at Walpole,
Massachussetts, where they have undertaken
this type of training through the Honejrwell
Electronics Corp. If I might, I would read
this to you:
The prisoners view computer training as
the first genuine rehabilitation training that
they have seen. They say that, too often,
vocational training is a farce— all promise
and no delivery. The prisoners stressed the
hope that the programme has given them.
They say that they are not apt to slip back
to their old ways and waste their new-
found opportunity. Mr. Smith— who is the
director of the programme— maintains that
some companies will have to hire them
despite their prison records. Their skill is
simply too valuable, even though some
firms might slam the door in their faces.
Computer training, Mr. Smith adds, gives ex-
convicts plenty of doors to knock on. He talks
about the fact that in the state of Massa-
chussetts alone, there are approximately
30,000 places available to their comparable
Department of Reform Institutions for ex-
convicts when they come out of the reform
institution trained in this type of effort and
initiative. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman,
that what is being done here— and here I
associate myself entirely with the remarks of
my friend from Lakeshore— is not training
people for the needs of modem-day industry,
but a vehicle of self-service for your depart-
ment and the other departments of govern-
ment.
You cannot by any stretch of the imagina-
tion, Mr. Chairman, conceive hairdressing,
auto mechanics, barbering and plumbing, as
serving the needs of modem industry. I ask
you, sir, are you serving the needs of some
industry, but not really modem industry? The
plumbing industry . has been with us for
centuries, thank heaven. I ask you to look at
the needs of modern industry through this
type of effort and initiative. Perhaps you
might comment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
was a misunderstanding about what length of
time we have many of these people. Some
of them are in there for such a short period
of time that there is really no possibility of
really teaching them any kind of trade. There
is nothing wrong, certainly, with keeping
someone who is there for a short length of
time working at the laundry.
As a matter of fact, it may be the kind of
person who could not get a job anyway out-
side of a laundry or something like that.
Now, surely the hon. member will know that
the sewing is done by girls. Nothing wrong
with teaching a girl how to sew. Most of
3660
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tliese people have never done any of these
things. Certainly the hon. member is not
suggesting that there is anything wrong with
teaching girls cookery or nurses' aid?
Mr. Bullbrook: I do not for one moment
say that there is anything wrong with this. I
referred you to page 45 of your own report.
We need cooks, we need plumbers and we
need hairdressers. I am saying that you are
conveying to us, as members of this House,
through your report, that your programme
was geared to the present-day requirements
of industry.
I would ask you to direct your comments
to me, not to the necessity of training people
in connection with cookery and laundry and
things like that. You made a valid point, I
suggest, in connection with the limitation of
time. I accept that as a valid point. The
majority of your inmates are there less than
one year, I would think. But I would ask you
to consider directing yourself to the possibility
of training for these modern-day needs. I
accept that we need these other training
programmes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
precisely the purpose of having set up that
trades and industry advisory committee. This
is their purpose, to go into our institutions
and go through the system and tell us what
we are doing that is redundant, and what is
going to be useless, and what we are doing
that is beneficial, what can be improved upon,
and if our machinery is old fashioned— in
other words, putting everything into tune with
modern-day requirements. This is precisely
what they are designed to do, and we would
like to get it as up-to-date as we possibly can
—as soon as possible.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, in the case
of the gratuity or honorarium, or whatever it
is called, to the prisoners in reformatory— I
would like to discuss this briefly with the
Minister. At the present time, it is six and
a fraction cents a day. I would like to suggest
to the Minister that waiting for a non-
existent federal government to pass a non-
existent federal bill, which may not pass if
the Minister's fond hopes are realized, and a
Liberal government is not returned.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then the Conserva-
tives will.
Mr. Shulman: The Conservative govern-
ment, in all the years that they were in
power, never suggested bringing such a bill
in, Mr. Chairman. I would like to suggest.
Mr. Chairman, that there is no need for the
people of the province of Ontario to have to
wait for the federal government to pass
such a bill.
This is within the realm of this particular
department, and I would like to commend
to the Minister the Wall Street Journal of
Tuesday, April 9, 1968, which had a lengthy
article on problems in American prisons. They
pointed out, referring to the prisons down
there— specifically to San Quentin— that the
men are paid 2 to 16 cents an hour, depend-
ing on the work they do and on their experi-
ence. I would like to suggest to the Minister
that this would be a progressive step that
need not depend on the federal government.
The men would have a feeling of achieve-
ment, and leave the prison with a backlog of
more funds than they get at the present time.
This would lead to far less recidivism and
would give a man a far better chance to start
out. May I suggest to the Minister that if this
bill is not brought in by the federal govern-
ment, then he take steps to make such
changes here on a provincial level.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, again
this is one of the purposes of the trade and
industries advisory committee. There is no
use in establishing a system of pay for work
until you decide what is going to be the kind
of productive work that should be done. On
the other hand, it is rather interesting to find
the hon. member suggesting on the one hand
that we can go into this sort of thing in comr
petitive work and pay up to 16 cents per
hour, and on the other hand, a few moments
ago, I was told that the only real acceptable
method of paying these people would be to
pay them the going wage. Now, do I take it
then that I will have the support of the
NDP if, as, and when we bring in pay for
work— even though it is not tlie going wage?
Do I take it that they will support that work,
they will support the marketing of those
products and the paying of the prisoners this
particular wage?
Mr. Shulman: It is amazing to me, Mr.
Chairman, how the Minister always manages
to confuse two items. What I am discussing
here, and the Minister knows it very well—
at least I hope he knows it very well— is the
rate of pay given to the workmen doing the
work they do at the present time. The Min-
ister, not too cleverly, has managed to con-
fuse the other issue, which was brought up
by the member for Lakeshore, of the selling
to industry of the materials produced in the
reformatories. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman,
MAY 30, 1968
3661
that if the Minister does not understand the
diflPerence between the two problems, he will
get together with his deputy and get some
instruction.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
on the Ontario reformatories? Agreed to.
The next item in the listing on page 119,
industrial farms. Is there anything further on
industrial farms? Perhaps I might suggest to
the committee that in tlie same manner in
which we have completed provincial jails, we
completed the Ontario reformatories, we
move-
Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman,
you have skipped Guelph.
Mr. Chairman: No, no, may I point out the
Chairman asked if there was anything further
on Ontario reformatories.
Mr. Shulman: We were talking in general-
Mr. Chairman: This is exactly what the
ChaiiTnan asked— Is there anything further
on Ontario reformatories?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, there is quite a bit—
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): No, it is carried.
Mr. Shulman: Nothing is carried. The
motion has not been put.
Mr. Chairman: Order! There is no specific
vote on reformatories and the Chairman must
say that it is not possible to "carry" Ontario
reformatories. I asked if there was further
discussion. And this is the only manner where-
by we can handle this.
If there is further discussion— may I put it
this way? Is there any further general discus-
sion on Ontario reformatories? If not, we can
proceed with them item by item, Guelph,
Mimico, and so on.
Mr. Shulman: Are we now on Guelph?
Mr. Chairman: Guelph.
Mr. Shulman: Mr, Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister if he would care to inform
the House as to the contents of the report
submitted to him by Mr. Sanderson at Guelph
refomiatory in relation to the disturbance
which took place in that reformatory on May
9?
Mr. Chairman: I do not see how specific
instances or specific details relate generally to
the estimates before us.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I point
out there is some $5.3 miUion—
Mr. Chairman: I do not care if it is $30
million.
Mr. Shulman: I care, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman does not
care if it is a third or $30 million. The dis-
cussion should be general in connection with
Guelph.
Mr. Shulman: May I suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, that a part of the problem at Guelph has
to do with administration of that institution,
which ultimately resulted in a disturbance
and eruption which occurred at that institu-
tion.
Mr. Chairman: All right, perhaps we can
keep it general.
Mr. Shulman: At the time that this was
brought up, I believe the Minister said the
proper place to discuss it is in the estimates.
We are now in the estimates and I am going
to ask the Minister through you, sir, if he
would care to inform us what was the cause of
the difficulties at Guelph reformatory?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me we answered this as an answer
to four questions which the hon. member
asked on May 14. I thought I gave him the
answer to that then.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister is quite right,
he did give the answers to those questions and
it was very disturbing to us to find the
answers were not correct. For example, he
said there were no personal injuries in that
disturbance. We subsequently found that at
least three prisoners were treated by tlie doc-
tor at Guelph, and other prisoners elsewhere.
Now perhaps the Minister would care to give
us a truthful answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member
mean the other answer was not truthful?
Mr. Shulman: That is exactly what I mean.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member
has intimated to the committee that the Minis-
ter will not provide the truthful answer. I
must remind the member of a similar situa-
tion two days back and I am going to ask
the member to withdraw his allegation.
Mr. Shulman: With pleasure, Mr. Chair-
man, I will use the words of the hon. Minis-
ter of Social and Family Services (Mr.
Yaremko ) : The answer was not correct but
3662
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
inasmuch as the rules of the House do not
allow me to call the Minister a liar, I with-
draw my comment, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
very generous of the hon. member to withdraw
his words because the niles do not permit
him to call me a liar, I must say that I would
feel completely alone in this world if the hon.
member had not called me a liar at some stage
—he has called everyone in this House at some
stage or other. We all know he is the—
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I could not hear the
member's point of order.
Mr. Shulman: My point of order, Mr. Chair-
man, I am sure the Minister would not like
to mislead the House and has done so inad-
vertently. I wish to point out this is the first
time and to my greatest regret that I have
called anyone a liar in this House and I would
like to point that out to the Minister. He is
the first.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, how much
longer do we have to sit here and listen to
this guff?
An hon. member: That is a good point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I still
think I answered this question. If I have to
do it the way I have to do it, at some great
length, the hon. member will have to take the
responsibihty for it. I think it was answered in
this House, insofar as he said I had answered
that no one received any injuries.
Because I said that and he has discovered
since that there were three who had some
minor injuries, this makes, as usual, a liar out
of me. I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman,
as soon as I got a report from the institution
that one man had two stitches in his head—
which I am sure every hockey player gets
about every three days— and that two were
treated for minor concussions, I told my staff
that this is another reason why one should
take notice from the hon. member for High
Park at least a week in advance before answer-
ing his questions. Instead of having said "no
serious injuries," I sued the words "no
injuries". This, of course, in the eyes of the
hon. member, means that I have misinformed
the House.
The fact remains that tlie injuries were of
such a minor nature, that they were appar-
ently of not enough importance to be reported
to me, and no one knows even how they were
caused. If this is what he calls misinforming
the House, I think it is a perfect example of
why one has to be careful before one answers
the hon. member without notice.
Mr. Chairman: May the Chairman make
some comments on the Minister's remarks
before the meml)er for High Park raises his
point of order?
I would like to say that the Minister pointed
out that the question had been asked during
the question period before the orders of the
day on a previous date, that he provided the
answers at that time. The member for High
Park intimated that they were not truthful
answers and he has now withdrawn the alle-
gation that they were not truthful answers.
Therefore, the Minister has answered the
question.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, just to make
this quite clear before going to the point of
order, I wish to say that what I withdrew
was that the Minister was a liar. Someone
could give him incorrect answers inadvertently
and I would like to believe that this is the
situation here.
It was not just the matter of the injuries,
one of the other questions was on discipline
—I do not recall exactly— punishment or disci-
pline given to the prisoners. There was
nothing mentioned about running a gauntlet.
There has now been in the press statements
by some si:: prisoners that they had to run
the gavmtlet. I would like the Minister in as
much detail as he wishes to explain what
happened at Guelph.
Mr. Chairman: I do not think at this point
in dealing with the estimates that the matter
of investigating any specific incident at any
institution should be discussed or that the
Minister should be required to give full de-
tails of any investigation. I repeat that we
should deal with these estimates in generali-
ties. I put it up to the Minister whetlier or
not he wants to give any further answer to
the question already asked.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
the only way to clear this up is to read every-
thing there is to read on this thing, because
the hon. member will only go to the press and
issue a release or something. I might as well
read and give the background of the Guelph
reformatory .system. This is what the hon.
MAY 30, 1968
3663
member is asking for— how they carry on their
disciphne. And with your permission, sir, I
will read it.
Mr. Chairman: Well, if I may just state to
the committee that I want it clearly under-
stood as was alleged by one member of the
New Democratic Party last evening, that the
Chairman is not influenced by the opinions
of any member on the government side. How-
ever, if the Minister wishes to read the state-
ment, he may go ahead.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, Guelph
reformatory admits all offenders under 18
years of age, from the south of the province.
Other offenders at Guelph— it is important to
know this so we can know the type of in-
mates we are dealing with at Guelph— other
offenders at Guelph over the age of 18 years
are all serving their first imprisonment. On
admission to the reformatory, those under the
age of 25 without extension records arc
placed in the reception wing where they are
given a battery of psychological and aptitude
tests. They then appear before a classifica-
tion committee, where those with the ability
to benefit from a training centre programme
are selected and go to either Brampton or
Burtch.
Obviously the better motivated inmates
are taken out of the reformatory, leaving the
more difficult inmates at Guelph. Some of
these inmates below the age of 25 form the
core of instigators of major incidents in the
Guelph reformatory. Some show patterns of
disruptive behaviour, they have histories of
disturbances amongst themselves, and in their
defiance of authority frequently involve other
inmates against their better judgment.
Of the 1,313 inmates under the age of 25
that went to Guelph last year, classification
boards selected and transferred 308 inmates
to the Brampton training centre, 74 to the
Burtch training centre, and 185 to Camp
Hendrie— leaving at Guelph 746 who showed
little motivation, who had very short sen-
tences, or who were custodial risks of Ix)-
haviour problems.
Last year out of a total of 1,614 inmates
under 25, in addition to those recorded above
as having been selected for training pro-
grammes at Brampton, Burtch and Camp
Hendrie, 84 inmates were initially classified
into Fort William training centre, 117 into
Monteith training centre, and 100 into Rideau
training centre. Thus, from the total of 1,614
inmates in the under 25 age group, there was
a selection of the Ijetter motivated, better Ix?-
haved offenders, leaving at Guelph 746 of
this age group, 46 per cent of the total, who
in general represent the most unmanageable,
most disruptive, and least motivated of the
inmates of their age group.
Can I just explain, sir, something alx)ut the
previous criminal history of this age group?
Many of these inmates, even under the age
of 25, have a distinct pattern of criminal be-
haviour, of disregard for public property,
public safety, and public well being.
Between them, these 1,313 inmates under
the age of 25 admitted to Guelph last year
had served 810 terms on probation, had been
given 147 suspended sentences, paid 748
fines, served 567 short terms in jail. Only 87
out of a total of 1,313 had previously been
in the reformatory. When it is considered
that the most difficult 50 per cent of this
group are retained at Guelph, I believe,
sir, it is a credit to the staff that there arc
not more incidents of friction.
The behaviour of some of these men in
the institution is often atrocious. Details of
the overall behaviour cannot easily be
gathered, but select behaviour patterns can
be read out.
May I just give you one example, and it
is by no means an isolated one. It is a
record typical of the type to which I am re-
ferring:
March 4, 1967, insolence and causing a
disturbance; March 14, 1967, admitted to
Guelph from Ontario training centre at Ri-
deau as a behaviour problem; March 30,
1967, unsatisfactory conduct and work;
April 13, 1967, unsatisfactory conduct,
gambling in the tailor shop; April 26, 1967,
unsatisfactory work and insolence; April 27,
1967, destroying government property; May
13, 1967, continuous poor conduct; June 5,
1967, intimidation of another inmate; June
26, 1967, insolence and stealing food; August
10, 1967, unnecessary visit to the hospital;
August 19, 1967, causing a disturbance after
the hghts out, being in an unauthorized
place; August 21, 1967, unsatisfactory con-
duct in confinement cells; August 30, 1967,
misuse of tobacco, insolence, threatening an
officer, using obscene language; September
7, 1967, possession of contraband, instigating
misconduct, use of profane language; Decem-
ber 4, 1967, unsatisfactory conduct in dining
hall; January 30, 1968, disobeying a direct
order; February 17, 1968, unsatisfactory
work; March 27, 1968, leaving workgang
without authority, (2) insolence, (3) possession
3664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of indecent drawings; April 13, 1968, un-
satisfactory conduct in the cellblock (2) in-
solence.
It goes on and on this way, Mr. Chairman,
I could read at some length.
In spite of this difficult group, many in-
mates at Guelph do make considerable prog-
ress in amademic training, vocational training,
industrial training, group therapy, farming
and gardening. We realize that Guelph is
too large. We have said this on numerous
occasions, although of course over the years
we have reduced its population considerably.
This is why we announced some little time
ago our plans to construct a perimeter
security training centre for about 200 young
people.
Now, with respect to this recent incident
of the inmates' allegations of brutality
against correctional officers, I can only em-
phasize that we do not in our institutions, in
any way, condone the use of force except
where it is necessary to maintain order. This
was one instance where a little bit of force
was required to stop a tremendous amount
of damage.
We have all read of riots getting beyond
control, and apart from untold property dam-
age the danger to lives that results from
this. This was an instance where the staff,
working under extreme pressure, did only
what was necessary. Our staff do work under
great pressure. They have seen examples of
members of our staff who have been discip-
lined for using force even though it may
have been greatly provoked. I would like
to read, in part, the directive issued by the
Deputy Minister on this point. This is dated
November 29, 1965:
You are directed to inform all em-
ployees of your institution that assaults on
inmates involving the improper use of
physical force— example, slapping, striking
or punching— will not be tolerated. Where
it has been established that such action
has taken place the offending employee
will be dismissed from the service.
There are, of course, occasions when
it is necessary for employees to use some
form of physical force in order to control
the behaviour of certain wards or inmates.
Some may become disturbed, agitated or
rebellious to the point where it is neces-
sary to restrain by physical force; but only
sufficient force should be used in order to
accomplish the restraint.
In adult institutions an inmate may be-
come agitated and attack an employee or
another inmate. This can also happen in
training schools, particularly in the case
of older wards. Certainly restraining force
should be used and an employee or in-
mate has every right to defend himself
and others against physical attack.
However, in every instance where physi-
cal force is used, a complete report, a
written report of the incident, will be made
and submitted through the usual channels
to the superintendent or governor.
I realize that such instructions are not
necessary for the great majority of your
staff who would not entertain the practice
of this form of assault in any case. How-
ever, so that no one can be in any doubt
about the consequences, you are to repro-
duce this letter and have every employee
read and sign a copy. Signed copies can
be placed on his or her file. Future em-
ployees should be required to sign a copy
as part of the induction routine.
L. R. Hackle, Deputy Minister.
I think under these circumstances, Mr. Chair-
man, hon. members will appreciate that it is
not our policy to use or permit force; but
equally, it is our policy not to let disturbances
get to such proportions that they become
uncontrollable.
I am very proud of the loyal, dedicated
staff employed in my department, as most
hon. members are aware. The adult male
institutions are all under the direction of Dr.
Harry Hutchison. Surely no one would sug-
gest that he would condone brutality in any
form.
I feel that is most unfortunate that severe
criticism is being levelled at my staff on the
basis of statements made by a few dis-
gruntled inmates. If such unwarranted criti-
cisms continue, we shall be unable, undoubt-
edly unable, to attract professional people;
and I feel certain that many of our present
people will simply not remain in a setting
where they are subjected to such unwar-
ranted and abusive criticisms.
Mr. Chairman, there is more here that I
could give you, but I have just received the
following letter and I think it is my duty to
read it into the record.
MAY 30, 1968
3665
I have a letter here, signed by Mr. Harold
Borne, the general manager of civil services
association, Ontario.
This letter is dated today.
Dear Mr. Grossman:
I have just received the following tele-
gram:
Guelph, Ontario.
We, the members of branch No. 11,
civil service association of Ontario, em-
ployees of the Ontario reformatory, Guelph,
are greatly concerned with the unfavour-
able publicity caused by Dr. M. Shulman's
insinuations of brutality. We unanimously
pledge our support to Mr. Charles Sander-
son, superintendent, Ontario reformatory
Guelph, in his actions of May 9, and we
also demand all necessary action be taken
to have these defamatory insinuations
cease immediately.
(Signed) F. Hitwood,
President of branch No. 11,
civil service association.
It is unfortunate that we seem to have to
periodically suffer pubHcity which could
only reflect on the employees of your
department. I may say that we do not hesi-
tate when such rumours are circulated, to
indulge in our own investigations, and I
can say with assurance that by and large,
the employees, particularly the correctional
officers, should be the recipients of praise,
rather than the butt of accusations.
Generally speaking, the law officers— and
I include the allied employees— exhibit a
great deal of interest in the progress and
welfare of the inmate. We concur witli the
Toronto Telegram.
I believe that you will recall that on
past occasions of this nature, we have also
indicated our general support for the gen-
eral policies and procedures of the depart-
ment, particularly for the continuing
improvements designed to more speedily
and effectively rehabilitate the inmate.
Your sincerely,
(Signed) Harold Wahn,
General Manager,
The civil service association
of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I think that speaks for itself,
and that is all I intend to say on the subject.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I was quiet
while the Minister read his long, long speech,
but he has not answered my question. I asked
him very specifically what happened in Guelph
on May 9, and he comes up with "nothing
happened." I ask you specifically, if I must
ask you, were 54 inmates forced to run the
gauntlet? And if so, why?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The report from my
inspector is that they were not forced to run
the gauntlet, as the hon. member refers to it.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, now I can pro-
ceed, Mr. Chairman.
I have done some research into this matter
myself. I have visited a number of jails and
I have spoken to nine prisoners in separate
jails who have had no opportunity to cook
up a story.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Reformatories or
jails?
Mr. Shulman: These were prisoners that
were in Guelph reformatory.
Mr. Chairman: We are speaking on refor-
matories.
Mr. Shulman: These were nine prisoners in
Guelph reformatory who have now been
scattered about the province. These nine
prisoners gave the names of other prisoners.
All the prisoners that I spoke to— let me
stress again that these prisoners were spoken
to individually and in different parts of the
province at different times. All of them gave
this story, and I find it very difficult to equate
it with the Minister's answer.
This story is— and let me preface this by
saying that these 54 prisoners undoubtedly
contained some very difficult characters. I
do not question this whatsoever, and I do
not question that the people at Guelph have
difficult people to deal with and disciplinary
measures are called for. However, the situ-
ation is not helped by the Minister trying to
hide the facts.
I am convinced after speaking to these nine
prisoners— and let me say again that there was
no opportunity for these prisoners to consult
together to produce a story for me. They all
gave the same story, that they were involved
in a sit-down strike in Guelph on May 9,
some 250 prisoners were involved there; 200
prisoners went back to work when so re-
quested and 54 were sitting in a corner. They
were the hard core, presumably, and were
not requested to return to work. After the
other 200 had gone out, the 54 were in-
structed to line up, which they then did,
because they felt that if they did not do so
they would be moved out in any case, vio-
lently.
3666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sanderson, who is the superintendent,
and who was present in tliis room, promised
that there would be no violence. I believe
that this is also what Mr. Sanderson said. The
men lined up and they were then told that
they were going to be moved out four at a
time.
At this point let me say that they were
already under control. They were then moved
out four at a time through a long corridor.
As they entered the corridor, there was one
of the guards who stood at the head of the
corridor. Let me say, this man, whose name
I know, a Mr. C, did not strike them at all.
He just tapped them and said, "All right,
boys, away you go", and they were to run
down the corridor, which was lined with
some 45 guards— and let me stress, these
guards were not from Guelph, and I think
that this is very significant. These guards
were from the training school, who subse-
quently were, or are to be scattered all over
the province. And what a training they have
taken with them, these 45 guards! Each of
these prisoners in turn said that they were
struck as they ran down the corridor by these
men with billies, many receiving up to 20 or
25 blows. Three of the men, as a result of
this, were taken to the doctor in the Guelph
reformatory, and at least two others were
treated by a doctor elsewhere. One of the
men, I am told, received two or three stitches.
I was told three, and the Minister says two,
and the doctor said that the man said that
he got them as a result of falling down the
stairs after being struck. In find it very
serious for the Minister to deny that this
occurred. How did these men get their in-
juries? It is ludicrous for the Minister to
try to pretend that this did not occur and
that it is going to go away.
For goodness sake, Mr. Sanderson gave a
report. Read the report and tell us what
happened.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
of course, the hon. memlier is really saying
that we have sadistic correctional officers.
Mr. Shulman: I am not saying that at all.
Stop playing games.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr Chairman, may I
give an answer to this? I will state— the hon.
member has told it in his way, and I will tell
it in mine. The hon. member has in fact
stated that they "ran the gauntlet", and that
someone was beating them when "they ran
the gauntlet". Now, if that is not a charge
of sadism, on the part of stafi^, what is? For
what other purpose would they be doing this?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, since the
Minister has asked I will tell you. I believe
that this was done as a disciplinary measure.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a charge that the
staff is sadistic.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, I have made no charge of sadism. The
Minister would like this to go out. This is not
true. I am thoroughly convinced that they
did this on orders, and this was done as a
straight disciplinary measure to show the
prisoners that it does not pay to act this way
around there. I do not beheve that there was
any sadism involved and the Minister's mind
certainly moves in very strange ways.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mine is going in
strange ways, Mr. Chairman? I am at a loss
to understand how the hon. member feels his
mind is not going in strange ways. He sug-
gests that these inmates were required to run
the gauntlet, that people beat them over the
head or wherever they beat them, and they
are not sadistic— but they did beat them. They
did not deserve it. If he will shut up, I will
answer it.
Mr. Shulman: We have been waiting for
over an hour for your answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will be quiet, Mr. Chairman, I will answer it.
Mr. Shulman: We are waiting.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: So he in fact describes
actions which are sadistic, on the part of staff,
which he says are not charges of sadism.
Mr. Shulman: He is not answering the
question, Mr. Chairman; he is merely trying
to confuse the issue.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the meml^ers
who have directed questions to the Minister
to recall the rules of Parliamentary procedure
and please observe them if they want to get
anywhere in these deliberations.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, ask the Min-
ister to answer the question.
Mr. Chairman: Shut up, will you?
An hon. member: Hit him harder, hit him
harder!
MAY 30, 1968
3667
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, for you to
tell a member to shut up is not parliamentary.
I must protest!
Mr. Chairman: I used it and the member
knows exactly what I mean. He knows the
niles quite well, and that he should observe
them and allow the Minister to reply. I ask
him to remain seated and silent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, when
I suggest that this charge means that these
people are sadistic, the hon. member says, "I
do not say they are sadistic, they were merely
carrying out orders". Well, in fact, he is say-
ing that they acted in a sadistic fashion or
were carrying out someone's orders, someone
who is obviously sadistic. If he means Mr.
Sanderson, I think that he is going to have a
diflBcult time attempting to make that stick,
because people in correctional circles know
Mr. Sanderson too well. Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, I stated that it was very clear that Mr.
Saiiderson was not present.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, may I
proceed? Mr. Chairman, the allegations con-
tained in the Toronto Daily Star of May 28,
which to a large extent was the work of the
hon. member for High Park— - •
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, that is a Tie.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, that is two
lies.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member to
v/ithdraw the allegation that the Minister lied.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I say
that I was not responsible in large part for
the story in the Toronto Daily Star as stated
by the hon. Minister. However, if the rules
of the House say that I must withdraw, I
shall withdraw.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, may I
save you the trouble? Any time the hon.
member calls me a liar, do not bother asking
him to withdraw, it does not make any dif-
ference to me. I do not think that it makes
any difference to anybody in Ontario whom
this hon. member calls a liar. If the hon.
member-
Mr. MacDonald: Why do you not deal
with the issue?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
not letting me deal witli the issue. You just
got here and you do not Icnow what the dis-
cussion has been about. May I proceed, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Please do.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The allegations arc
attributed to disruptive and hostile inmates
who are among the hard-core offenders who
took part in a sit-down strike and were trans-
ferred to jails from the reformatory. Now,
incidentally in that respect, the hon. member
said that, because he got the same story from
six different inmates— . ,
Mr. Shulman: Nine; nine inriiates.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, nine different—
I aril a liar again— nine different inmates from
the different jails. Their stories jelled, and
because they were, by and large, the same
it must be the truth. He forgets, of course,
to point out and emphasize something he sort
of glanced over. That the 54 spent the night
together before they were transferred. Now,
they could have very well, if they wanted to,
cooked up such a story, and it has not been
unknown tliat they do this sort of thing.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Did they?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know, I was
not there. The implication, Mr. Chairman, is
that inmates suffered serious injury during
this incident.
Interjections by hon. members;
Hon. Mr. Grossman: One inmate is quoted
as saying, "They"— meaning the correctional
ofiRcers— "were hitting us with sticks on the
back, the head, I got hit about 25 times". I
might point out that this same inmate was
given an examination on admission to a jail
on May 10, the day following the incident.
This examination was carried out by Dr. T. C.
Gibson, who attends the jail daily. Perhaps
the hon. member will call Dr. Gibson a liar
and he will join the rest of us.
A member of my staff spoke to Dr. Gibson
on Tuesday of this week. Dr. Gibson reports
that:
If this young man was struck on the
head and shoulders 25 times it must have
been with a fairy's wand. I detected no
marks of violence on his head or shoulders
and he made no complaints to me about
any injuries.
It is incredible, Mr. Chairman, that a man
can claim to have been struck 25 times, pre-
suming he counted the blows, and not have
sustained any visible injuries or any injuries
serious enough that he would not mention
3668
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them to a medical doctor. This is typical of
the allegations being made.
Mr. Shulman: What about the stitches?
Did he get those from a fairy wand too?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because this depart-
ment, Mr. Chairman, is responsible for the
custody of offenders against society, I am not
at liberty, of course, to reveal for security
reasons all the plans and precautionary meas-
ures taken by the staff to prevent very serious
incidents. To do so would be to make public,
for inmate use, a handbook on how to carry
on a successful riot.
However, when some 250 inmates collec-
tively refuse instruction given to them by
correctional personnel and subsequently be-
come hostile, a potentially very explosive
situation arises. This requires sound judg-
ment, clear thinking and quick action.
At the Guelph reformatory on May 9 such
a situation arose. Due to the sound judgment
and courageous actions of the superintendent
and the deputy superintendent, the crisis was
met and overcome. The superintendent, Mr.
Sanderson, and the deputy superintendent,
Mr. Harlaw, were informed that men had
refused to work. They subsequently went to
the area where these men were seated, where
they were subjcted to loud verbal abuse and
where they were in danger of suffering
physical violence.
However, they remained calm and walked
amongst the men, ordering them to leave
the area. A group of just over 50 defiant and
hostile men remained. Subsequently these
men were informed that they must move to
another area or they would be removed
forcibly.
It was essential at this point that these
men be removed quickly to avoid the incident
spreading to other areas of the institution,
leading to extensive property damage, serious
injury to staff and inmates, or possibly lead-
ing to a death. The correctional officers were
placed at strategic points along the corridors
to keep the inmates moving quickly. The
officers were equipped with billies.
In this tense situation and in the confusion
and excitement of the moment, some inmates
may have been prodded with the night sticks,
I would not doubt that they were. The fact
is that after the movement was completed
only two inmates were required to have an
examination by tlie medical officer. One of
these men received two sutures.
I think that members of this Legislature
will agree that when some 250 hostile inmates
are moved and controlled without damage to
property or serious injury to any inmate or
correctional officer, in such a potentially ex-
plosive situation and when the tensions are
running high, the staff should be applauded
for their sound judgment and for their self
control under extremely dijfficult circum-
stances.
I would again emphasize to this Legisla-
ture, Mr. Chairman, that brutal behaviour on
the part of correctional staff is not condoned
by this department or any official of this
department. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
A Deputy Minister's directive which I quoted
earlier made it very clear that a correctional
officer faces dismissal if he strikes an inmate.
As a matter of fact it brings me to mind
that on at least one occasion very recently it
was reported to us that there was some brutal
action on the part of some staff and a local
jailer. Our inspectors went out on an investi-
gation and because there was prima facie
evidence that such a thing did occur, laid the
information with the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart). A charge was laid by the Attorney
General, they were charged with this oflFence.
They were cleared of it by the courts, but in
the meantime they stand suspended, and I
think they are presently grieving.
This is indicative of the action this depart-
ment takes if there is any evidence of this.
Another occasion occurs to me, about two
years ago, when a supervisor, and some other
employee of one of our training schools vol-
untarily advised us that in a fit of temper he
had struck a child; I think it was a 14- or a
15-year-old. This is against the rules. He
was dismissed, he grieved, and quite frankly
he won the grievance. I must admit I was
somewhat unliappy about that incident be-
cause he was an employee of long standing.
He lost his temper once. But in a case like
this there are rules, tliis is the policy laid
down and we have to carry it out. He went
to grievance and won his grievance.
Those are examples of what we do when
there is any substantial evidence, any evi-
dence at all, that there has been unnecessary
force on the part of any of our staff.
I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Ghainnan, that
the dedicated staff in our institutions must
constantly be subjected to allegations by dis-
gruntled, behaviour problem inmates who
have no responsibility for the allegations they
make; and the unfortunate fact is that there
are politicians who always want to make
headlines on these allegations.
MAY 30. 1968
3669
Finally, to put this into its proper perspec-
tive, the hon. member went to Guelph and at
the request of numerous inmates, who were
transferred to jails, asked the superintendent
to take these inmates back into Guelph.
Mr. Shulman: One inmate, one inmate onlyl
I Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well one inmate. Is
this the reaction of an inmate who suffered
brutality, he wants to return to the same
place?
I Personally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say it
does not help the correctional system of this
province to have a member of this Legisla-
ture put himself on the side of inmates
as against the administration. We cannot get
the proper attitude in our institutions, we
cannot carry out a rehabilitative programme,
when someone is going into the institution
and in fact making the inmates hostile to the
administration when we are spending so
much time and money and effort to establish
rapport with the inmates so that they can
be rehabilitated.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
There has been quite sufficient discussion,
full and free discussion, regarding this specific
incident at the Guelph reformatory. The
Chairman hereby rules that any further dis-
cussion on this incident at the Guelph reform-
atory, or any other reformatory, will be out of
order.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: The member on a point of
order; what is the point of order?
Mr. Shulman: I would like to say, sir, that
you have heard in some great detail the
versions of the incidents presented by the
Minister, which contain some facts that are
liot quite correct.
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
rMr. Shulman: That the Minister has inad-
, vertently misled the House and I would hke
f to set out the other version of the facts, sir.
May I finish please?
nSilr. Chairman: The Chairman has ruled
that further discussion on this is entirely out
of order.
Mr. Shulman: May I finish before you cut
me off, sir?
The point of order is: If you do not allow
the other full explanation to be given you
are being unfair, allowing only one side of
the story to be presented.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman's ruling
stands. There will be no further discussion on
this incident at the Guelph reformatory or of
any similar specific incidents at any other
reformatory.
Anything further in connection with—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, is that for
the whole of the estimate, or what?
Mr. Chairman: Any specific incidents at any
of the reformatories.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I sub-
mit to you that this is the most extraordinary
ruling that has ever been made in this House.
Mr. Chairman: They are irrelevant to the
estimates.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Well that is certainly
agreeable.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if there
were half as much effort directed to the
interjections from the other side of the House
I would not have the feeling that I expressed
yesterday that there is an uneven application
of the rules. Now I know your position is
almost an impossible one, but the vigour and
the anger should not always be directed at
this side of the House. However, let me get
back to the point at issue.
The proposition that the Chairman, as my
colleague from Windsor said last night,
gratuitously intervenes and say he is going
to cut off debate on something when the
debate is not finished in the view of the
members of the House is a completely new
approach to the consideration of the estimates
in this House.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Not these
members!
Mr. Chairman: I would say in reply-
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, if you will permit me, I must agree
with the leader of the NDP in this regard.
The discussion on this matter may be related
to personalities. We have found that the hon.
member for High Park has been using a good
deal of the time of the House in this particular
part of the estimates, and frankly I wish we
could get on to some other business. But
when you, sir, would rule that further dis-
cussion on this matter is out of order, I am
3670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
afraid that I cannot support you in this. As
much as I wish we could get on with further
business, I do not beUeve, sir, that it is your
responsibihty to cut off tlie debate as you are
doing in this particular instance.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to tlie members
of the committee that in the opinion of the
Chairman, we are dealing with certain esti-
mates to conduct the affairs of the Ontario
reformatories, as clearly set forth in votes
1903 and 1904. I had said previously that
general discussion and policy matters should
properly be discussed under these votes, but
in the opinion of the chair, to bring up and
rehash in the supply committee tlie details of
any incident that happened at any one of these
reformatories is irrelevant and immaterial to
votes before us.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chainnan, can I address
myself to tlie point of order? Technically the
estimates relate only to the expenditures from
the period starting on March 1 of this year
and running to March 31 of next year. How-
ever, it is certainly traditional in this House
and traditional in all legislative bodies that
are conducted imder the British system, that
when the Minister brings his estimates before
the House, he is called upon to answer, or
at least to face, the questions that members
of the House wish to put to him in regard to
the conduct of his department during the
period since his department was last reviewed.
He is not compelled to answer. He can sit
and not answer if he wants, but in any event,
the custom in this House in the time tliat I
have been here is that the whole policy of
that particular department is before the House
for review. Opposition members in particular,
any member, can put questions to the Minis-
ter as long as they want to, regarding the
operation of that department.
It is within the Minster's competence and
it is his prerogative as to whether or not he
wants to answer, and I would agree with
the remarks that have been made by my
leader that it is not your prerogative, sir, with
great respect, to say that is the end. It is
the right of every member to come here and
to talk on these estiauates, sir, insofar as the
operation of a particular department is con-
cerned. Whether or not the Minister wants to
answer, is the Minister's prerogative, but there
are no time limits. This debate can go on
until the votes are carried. That is the custom
and that is the rule of this House, and I
say, sir, that if you are going to rule to the
contrary you are establishing a new set of
procedures which you have no right to do.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York South ]
has the floor. i
\
Mr. MacDonald: May I draw your attention ]
to the fact that what you are now stating ]
is a contradiction of what you stated at one \
point yesterday?
At one point yesterday, I believe, it was the \
House leader who rose and objected to some- ;
body going on here; and your comment was ]
that there had been no official ruling as to :
exactly what was done in the estimate. What '
the hon. gentleman was talking about was
something in relation to a specific estimate,
and, I submit allegations which have to be
sorted out. This is the only place we can sort
them oi;t with regard to alleged brutality j
and conduct in the institutions are fit topics for \
discussion during the estimates. You yourself,
in dealing with some objections on the other •
side of the House, said that there were no
rules laid down, and until rules were laid
down, you were not going to cut the debate
off. I suggest, sir, that you are now getting
yourself into an untenable position of creating |
new rules and cutting the debate off.
Mr. Chairman: May I say in reply to the
member for York South that the Chairman is ]
guided by rule 18, which specifically rules out
irrelevancies. In my opinion the continued
inquisition and the series of questions in con- \
nection with a specific incident happening at
any reformatory is irrelevant to the vote. j
Mr. MacDonald: No sir, it is not irrelevant
to this House.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to make it quite clear that as far as I
am concerned it makes no difFerence to me.
We can go on for three months. I just want i
to make it clear that I have nothing to do, .
nor do I care whatever the ruling is. I will
buy whatever your ruling is.
Mr. MacDonald: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, J
your position is even more untenable. If you
personally are changing the rules of this
House and cutting off debates on a matter ;
which comes within the estimates, and the ■
Minister says he does not care which way \
it is, I submit to you that he has highlighted
the fact that what you are doing is in effect,
rewriting the rules of this House by saying
that it is an irrelevancy. ^
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order.
The hon. member should not put words in
my mouth. I made no such suggestion that
MAY 30, 1968
3671
your ruling was irrelevant, or anything of
that nature. I just said that I was prepared-
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order, I did not say— the hon. Minister has
put words in my mouth.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor.
The member for York South may rise on the
point after the Minister has finished.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I only want to repeat
that there was nothing that I said which
could be construed in my view, as saying
that your ruling will be irrelevant if you rule
against any further discussion on this matter.
I merely said that I was unconcerned one
way or the other. And I would abide by your
ruling whatever it was.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this is
precisely the reason why these estimates are
going on. This Minister has one of the best
developed capacities for twisting the situa-
tion and being provocative, while contending
that the provocation is coming from this side
of the House.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay. Now, Mr. Chair-
man, just for one moment.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Is the member going
to speak to the—
Mr. MacDonald: I did not say that the
Minister said it was irrelevant. What I said
was that the Minister said he had no objec-
tion to answering, he could go on for three
months; and his observation underlined the
fact that the responsibility was with you and
that you were creating new rules. It was you
who said it was irrelevant. I did not attribute
it to the Minister at all, and he was deliber-
ately twisting the thing to try to create that
kind of provocation and argument across the
floor of the House. He accuses us of being
provocative. Nobody is more provocative in
here than he. However, Mr. Chairman, let me
get back to the important issue. You are
creating new rules that are out of keeping
with the traditions of this House, and I sug-
gest to you it is not your right to do that.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts), who
has privately and publicly threatened-is that
too harsh a word— suggested that if we do
not get through the estimates a little bit
more quickly then he is going to set up an
estimates committee, and he is going to set
a time limit and so on— that is his prerogative
if he wants to cut it down. We will deal with
that issue at the appropriate time. It is not
your right at this point to cut the debate
down and change the traditions of the House
in dealing with estimates.
Mr. Chairman: I say to the member for
York South that the basis for the Chairman's
ruling may be found in rule 18, and in the
opinion of the Chairman the type of debate
that has been going on in connection with
these estimates, where specific cases are pur-
sued at considerable length in an attempt to
bring out all details, is irrelevant to the esti-
mates, and the Chairman maintains his
ruling,
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, can I add an-
other word to this point of order? Surely
the relevancy relates to bringing the argu-
ment, whatever it is, to the particular esti-
mate that is under question. I thought that
there was a different point of issue earlier
this afternoon in connection with the Don
jail. It was relevant to two separate votes,
and I would have thought that it would have
made more sense had the ruling been that it
had been debated once, and it should not be
debated again, because it cannot be relevant
on more than one. However, be that one as
it may, it is my assumption that the conduct
of certain people, or the alleged conduct of
certain people in the institution at Guelph is
relevant to this vote.
If a particular member chooses to talk
about it ad nauseam, chooses to talk about it
incorrectly, chooses to make charges that he
cannot substantiate, that is the prerogative of
the particular member. And he sticks his neck
out every time he does it. And there are a
lot of gentlemen and ladies who sit in the
press gallery up there who have a responsi-
bihty to their employers and die public to
report it. If the particular Minister wants to
answer in a difficult way, or not answer, or
to contradict and so on, that again is a part
of what we are sent here to do, sir, and it is
up to the particular Minister to decide.
But the question of relevancy is not repe-
tition. It relates a particular question to a
particular vote. And I say, sir, the rule in my
full time in this House has been that, when
any Minister brings his estimates before this
House for debate, not only is the question
of the exact figure that he has put before
us relevant, but the question of the conduct
of that phase of his department for tiie last
year is relevant. And I would say, sir, tiiat if
a member wants to ask bad questions or good
ones, that is his perogative. And if the Minis-
ter wants to give good answers or bad ans-
wers, or no answer, that is his perogative.
3672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But I say, sir, certainly it is my very strong
conviction that you have no right to rule as
irrelevant a topic that comes within the par-
ticular vote that is before this House.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I have been very
interested in listening to the comments of the
various members of this House and the Chair-
man is prepared to say that he is not a stub-
born man. Perhaps I have been enlightened
and I will withdraw the ruling.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I am going
to be very brief in any case.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: You see— that is the kind
of interruption, that is the kind of attitude,
if you want to get the House into the kind
of mood which has been created.
Mr. Shulman: I just wish to say first of all,
Mr. Chairman, that the ages of the nine boys
interviewed by me varied from 16 to 19—
the average was 17.5. I interviewed them
some ten days ago, some two weeks after this
incident occurred. Might I suggest to you,
sir, that to suggest that these boys— on the
day that this incident occurred they were
together— that 54 of them cooked up this story
is almost unbehevable. I would also like to
point out to you, sir, that somehow in the
course of this incident, three of these boys
were treated immediately by the jail doctor.
I would like to suggest, sir, that at no time
did I suggest there was sadism or brutality—
my own interpretation after having spoken
to the superintendent and the deputy super-
intendent was that in a very difficult situation
someone panicked and did something which
they regretted later on. Certainly from our
travels about the province there has been no
suggestion of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why did you bring it
up?
Mr. Shulman: Because it is wrong and it
should not occur and 54 prisoners were made
to run the gauntlet— that is why; and you
should understand it. If you do not under-
stand it, it is too bad.
Let me say this— to finish off this particular
portion of the discussion, in our experience
about the province nowhere in any other
institution was there any sign of brutality. I
am not convinced that that is the situation
in Guelph. I think that perhaps, because of
previous unfortunate incidents there, they
are somewhat hasty to make decisions.
I am personally convinced after speaking
to these prisoners that this incident occurred.
The Minister's denials are not convincing. I
think personally that he knows that this actu-
ally did occur. I would suggest to him and
to the mem.bers opposite me that a visit to
Guelph might be very advisable. Let them
question the people— the guards and the
prisoners there— and let me say again it was
not the Guelph guards involved, it was the
guards brought in from the training school.
Now, to come on to another matter— unless
the Minister wishes to make some further
comment on this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just want to say
this, Mr. Chairman, it is very nice for the
hon. member to get up and say he is con-
vinced that the inmates did not cook up the
story and that it is unbelievable— I think the
term he used was that if the inmates cooked
up the story it is unbehevable. But appar-
ently the hon. member believes that it is not
unbelievable that the staff cooked up the
story they have told me. I was not there, I
am getting the report from my staff, and the
hon. member in fact is saying the inmates
told the truth and my staff did not.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, let me say
again I spoke to the inmates. I wonder
whether the Minister has spoken to the staff?
The Minister has a report from one man who
himself admittedly was not present. I ques-
tioned him and he admitted he was not
present. This is what the Minister relies on.
He will not rely on the eye-witness reports of
nine people who were present.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am relying, Mr.
Chairman, on the eye-witness reports of the
staff who were present at the time. I did not
get a report from one man; I got a report
from my inspection staff, who are well quali-
fied to do this sort of work, and I take their
word as against the word of those inmates
involved.
Mr. Shulman: May I ask the Minister if he
would be willing to have representatives of
the three parties question the guards— and I
am not talking about the prisoners— the guards
v/ho were present at the time of this injury?
Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discus-
sion on Guelph?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would
now like to speak about Guelph in a general
way and I would like again to refer to the
book: Society Behind Bars which was writ-
MAY 30, 1968
3673
ten by the ex-chaplain of Guelph. I referred
to this the other day briefly and I mentioned
the Rev. West, who had written the intro-
duction to this book. The hon. Minister sug-
gested I should have called Rev. West, so I
did call Rev. West, and the Minister is mis-
informed again.
The Rev. West did not write this introduc-
tion eight years ago. He wrote the introduc-
tion three years ago and the Rev. West said
the situation was exactly correct at the time
he wrote it three years ago, but he did quahfy
this by saying it had improved in the past
three years. However, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now let us get that
story straight. I did not say that Mr. West
had given this introductory eight years ago.
I merely said that the Rev. Mr. West had
stated that had he been asked to write that
introduction today he woul dnot have done so.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): You mentioned
eight years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what I said.
I said the book was written eight years ago.
Hansard will tell that.
Mr. Shulman: Hansard does not tell that,
do not waste our time. The hon. Minister
said it referred to conditions eight years
ago. The Rev. West informs me it referred
to conditions three years ago.
Mr. Chairman: Well I think that is enough.
Perhaps the member would now proceed with
the remarks he wishes to make.
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I wish to read four
brief quotations from this book in reference
to the general situation at Guelph as it was
three years ago and may I say that many of
the matters that have apphed then— at least
the ones that I have been able to see on my
two visits there— many of the matters still
apply.
Let me say the first thing that strikes you
when you visit Guelph is the beautiful sur-
roundings. It is a most striking approach with
waterways and greenery, and to the amaze-
ment of the member for Lakeshore and my-
self when we arrived there was a wedding
party on the premises. I quote from the book:
Perhaps the decisive facet of the opera-
tion of the reformatory in 1967 is that it is
still a large, authoritarian institution with
a heavy custodial emphasis. Apart from the
fact that the custodial group is still under
the same management in 1961, men accus-
tomed to operating a pvmitive, authoritarian
institution, the ver>' size of the inmate
population in 1967-about 700-pretty well
precludes anything but an authoritarian
approach to the inmates.
Unless the institution has facilities per-
mitting considerable decentralization in in-
formal types of controls, the sheer numbers
of men to supervise, organize, and keep
from escaping, will necessitate a rigid
authoritarian approach. An authoritarian,
regimented and custodial emphasis on the
part of guards and administration leads to
the development of a hostile inmate sub-
culture with all its attendant pressures to
buck the system and support delinquent
codes and attitudes.
He goes on— I am leaving out a portion:
All these and similar indices of changes
in the public's interest have yet to produce
significant adjustment at the level of depart-
mental directive and institutional empha-
sis. Budgets have been increased. For in-
stance the expenditures of the Ontario
department rose from $11 million in 1958
to $17 million in 1964-5.
I will interject, of course, $40 million this
year.
Stafi^ at headquarters and in custodial
jobs has jumped in numbers. A few new
centres have been opened for small num-
bers of inmates— usually 40 persons. But in
heavily populated southern Ontario, a sub-
stantial majority of adult male offenders
are still— after years of talk— kept at Guelph,
Millbrook, or Burwash, all of which follmv
a punitive, authoritarian system, little
changed from the mid-fifties.
In connection with the punitive practices at
Guelph, Mr. Mann states, and I quote again:
Certain not-so-obvious social conse-
quences associated with the adoption of
punitive and custodial practices are worth
noting. A policy of ineffectual, vocational
training at Guelph and many such institu-
tions maintain prisoners at, or close to, the
unskilled labour category and inadvertently
proAides a school of cheap labour. At the
same time, a custodial operation of pris-
oners provides steady employment for the
thousands of semi-skilled men, thus shghtly
reducing the unemployment rate. It fum-
ished politicians, too, with a ready source
of job handouts when they are besieged
by party hacks on behalf of persons with
little technical or personal competence. It
can also be argued that aggressively cus-
todial policies increase inter-class hatreds,
3674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
distrust and suspicion; help to harden class
lines, and by intensifying the anti-social
acts of the lower classes, indirectly support
the segregationists in authoritarian beliefs
that concern the political parties and their
supporters.
And finally, to finish, and this is the summao'
of the book, which boils the whole thing
down:
Fundamental improvement at Guelph
may be slowed down by virtue of certain
characteristics of its official structure, few
of which can easily be altered. These may
be itemized as follows:
1. The military and autocratic character
of administrative structure. This means the
inmates have no voice in their own govern-
ment and yet are expected to go out better
citizens in our democracy.
2. The institutionalization of key staff
and administrative personnel. This means
in brief that as inmates get accommodated
to a punitive prison routine and adapt, so
over the years do top personnel. Whereas
at Guelph the top personnel— like the super-
intendent, the chief psychologist and the
two doctors— have occupied these posts for
over ten years, it is easy to understand
psychologically their reluctance to accept
substantial change and their strong prefer-
ence in handling prisoners and problems.
3. The degree to which administration
at such an institution is necessarily a series
of compromises. This is because Guelph
is supposed to both punish and reform,
discipline and teach self-reliance, operate
in terms of impersonal routine and yet
teach men individual initiative.
4. Norms hindering the dismissal of in-
efficient members of the staff owing to their
membership in the provincial civil service.
5. Well established patterns of resistance
, to significant changes on the part of a
majority of employees, including any impor-
tant increasing or changing of the daily
workload.
6. Basic differences in class, occupation
and outlook between custodial and thera-
peutic staff which, combined with specific
economic and other disadvantages faced by
the latter, tend to discourage recruitment
of more competent professional personnel,
including doctors, psychologists, psychiat-
rists, clergy and teachers.
7. Bureaucratic norms virtually demand-
ing the higher staff positions be filled from
the lower ranks, a requirement which tends
to promote not only men of inadequate or
no professional qualifications in penology,
but persons often weekly committed to
basic institutional changes in direction of
rehabilitation, and including personnel with
a latent or overt mistrust of professionals,
both penological or therapeutic.
Now Mr. Chairman, I would hke to point
out tliat the basic problem in Guelph is that
it is too big. The Minister admits this, every-
body admits it, we all know this. There are
700 prisoners there, the Minister has said on
numerous occasions that a reformatory, an
institution cannot be properly run with more
than 200 inmates. To look off into the distant
future, 12 or more years away, and say, "Some
time we will be able to do something", really
is not good enough, because they are going
to have trouble at Guelph. Outside of the
chronic trouble that people are not being
reformed there.
Of this I am convinced. The situation in
Guelph does anything but reform. The hole,
for example, the punishment hole is worse
than any I have seen in any other prison,
including Millbrook, which is supposedly for |
the toughest prisoners. The training of the ;
prisoners is in industries which they are not \
going to be able to use when they get out, in
folding cloth, tailoring, things that are useless.
This type of institution is an anachronism i
from tlie 19th century, it should have dis- j
appeared 20 years ago.
I agree the Minister for years has been say-
ing it is going to go, but that really is not
very satisfactory. We would like to hear the
Minister say, "We are going to take $50 mil-
lion out of the highway budget next year.
We are going to get the money; we are going
to make essential improvements in things like
the Don jail which has been discussed here, !
things in numerous jails across the province, \
things like Guelph reformatory which should I
not have 700 prisoners. Places like Millbrook, ;
which was built by mistake for hard-core i
prisoners and could not be filled."
These are not things that can be passed off |
by saying, "We have a task force looking into j
it, everybody knows what the problems are". '
The specific problem vdth Guelph is that the
whole institution just cannot work because i
of the way it is built. With the best personnel i
in the world and 25 psychiatrists, you could \
not make it work. There are 700 prisoners \
and you cannot work with that number. For
goodness sake, appropriate the money, build a J
new prison, do what you have to do. ^
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I dealt at ?
some great length last night— this is repetition; \
MAY 30, 1968
3675
this in my view would have been something
properly to have called the member out of
order on, because we went into this yesterday.
We had some discussion on it. I dealt witli
the credibility of this book last night and I do
not think there is any need to go into it to any
great length. The hon. member is referring
to a book which was written about conditions,
as I mentioned yesterday, seven or eight years
ago. The writer of this book hated tlie idea of
throwing all this material away, he put the
book together and from time to time in the
book he has notes. You get to the back, to
the note and he makes some statement here:
"Well, things have changed a little since
then" and "there have been otiier changes
made here" and you go to other pages and it
says, "Well, they are not quite the same
now", and so on, but the book went to print
just the same.
Mr. Lawlor: He refers to many first rate
criminologists.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
member's leader was talking about interrup-
tions. I gave some examples yesterday about
the partisan bias of this book. A man who
claims to be a sociologist writes a book and
in every third or fourth chapter talks about
"There will not be a change in this until the
Conservative government in Ontario is thrown
out of office". What a great, unbiased, scien-
tific piece of research this is.
All that has happened in this book really,
all this man has done, he has bemoaned the
fact, which all sociologists and all correctional
people have bemoaned for 100 years, and that
is that there has to be such a thing as a
prison. This is in fact all he is doing. He talks
about the subculture of a prison. Now, there
is a subculture wherever you get groups
of people together, and of course, there is a
subculture in the prison, and this is the sub-
culture you are constantly trying to break
down. I have stated that our desire is to break
tliis down and the way to do it is precisely
what all sociologists say: "Reduce the size of
your institution."
I never said that it would take 12 years to
reduce the size of the population at Guelph.
The hon. member is confusing this with the
programme we have for the replacement of
the county jail system. This is what we
referred to from the standpoint of 12 years.
We have done a tremendous job of reducing
the size of the population at Guelph. Just a
little over three years ago, I think it was, the
population was over 1,000, and now it is
about 700. And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman,
we are one of the few jurisdictions in the
whole world which has this policy of coming
down to 200. Most of the jurisdictions in
the world, including those which are con-
sidered among the most progressive, Cali-
fornia, Scandinavia, are now building
institutions for 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 people.
And we are going in the other direction.
Mr. Shulman: Not for first offenders.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are coming down
to an ideal of 200. When it will be reached,
I cannot guarantee. But certainly we are
attacking it with a great deal of aggressive-
ness. To bring down the population 300 in
one institution in a matter of three years is no
easy task.
Mr. Shulman: They are up this year from
last year.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, as far
as this book is concerned, and drawing from
it anything authentic— I will just read one
little paragraph from this book, which, in
fact, is blaming society. This author says in
fact:
There is no use blaming the inmates, put
society and their parents behind bars.
Now this is a great philosophy. Let me quote:
In sum, this is to take seriously the
sociologically established notion that the
community and certain agents of it, that is,
parents, share responsibility for deviate
behaviour.
What a very profound observation that is,
what a profound observation.
If the criminal code were changed so
that the parents and others were so
chargeable, people and groups would be
faced with their social responsibilities and
there would eventually emerge much more
understanding of the social and communal
basis for crime and anti-social behaviour.
Well, is this not wonderful? Now how do we
help? How does this help? We put the
parents and society behind bars, and that
will teach them and they will not bring up
children who will become offenders. What
utter rot.
Mr. Martel: They considered that in Wash-
ington last year.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, just a word on
Guelph. If what he alleged did happen at
that institution— that over 50 prisoners were
forced to run a gauntlet; if the prisoners
were taken out of tliis room, four at a time,
3676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
along a corridor, with guards with billies;
and we understand— I will not push this too
hard, I cannot back it up at the moment— that
these were not the regular guards, that the
regular guards are people who would prob-
ably refuse to do this, that these were people
in training— and as my colleague has indicated,
what training it would be if such were the
case, that they permitted these people to be
treated— and I will use the word— in this bar-
baric way. Whether it is sadistic I do not
know; that is a psychological condition, but
certainly in this day and age, and after the
incidents of 1958 at Guelph, and so on, I
thought all this sort of thing had been ruled
out.
Now, if you think that you are going to
rehabilitate prisoners by treating them in
this fashion, if this occurred— and I have as
much reason to believe it did as not. I spoke
to a prisoner who seemed to me completely
open, I do not believe I am any more
gullible than you, I think that they ought to
be taken at face value. This totally defensive
attitude on everything we introduce, the
utter unwillingness to be open to the con-
victions of others, the refusal to take things
under investigation in a totally defensive
stand, does you no credit.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further in con-
nection with Guelph? The Mimico institution?
Anything in connection with the Brampton
reformatory? Millbrook?
The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, in the case of
Millbrook. In the 1966 report of the Minister
he says at page 35 that the offenders in this
institution are typically impulsive, violent
individuals who offer severe threats to the
wellbeing of their fellow inmates, and who
have engaged in repeated acts which have
disrupted the security and order of other
institutions. And now of recent date there
was some sort of fracas or refusal on the
part of some of these prisoners— and it has
come up in this House. Exactly what the
details are only the Minister will know, and
the Minister will not tell us, but in any event
they were moved out. A number of these
inmates were then taken from this maximum
security place. This place it what I call— I
call it "Basher's bumble". He erected this
institution as a sort of Alcatraz, and ap-
parently, as you approach the thing on the
top of the hill it does look a little like
Alcatraz, which has been abandoned in the
United States.
In any event, this is maximum security.
Why on earth would you be moving people
out of a place like this to county jails? You
said the other day these were maximum
security too. But the fact is this: This has
the triple-A rating, so to speak, and no county
jail could insulate them in the same way. I
mean, these county court jails are far looser.
Mr. Singer: What is a county jail?
Mr. Lawlor: The county jails in this
province.
Mr. Singer: Ah, I thought that you had
invented a new kind.
Mr. Lawlor: These county jails, ancient
things that they are, certainly could not segre-
gate prisoners and bring them under the same
kind of compulsion as this institution. And I
would like the Minister to comment on the
reason for moving prisoners in tills matter.
A second thing I do not understand. The
Minister keeps on warning us over here, that
we ought not to mention to where they have
been moved. I can see reasons, if we knew
ahead of time that they were being moved,
not to do so. For the life of me, I cannot
see why moving them to a certain jail which
I could name, in this case, and which I will
not, after they are moved and after they are
incarcerated— what difference does it make
that they are there or somewhere else? Does
he fear some Mafia in Ontario will break in
and rescue their fellow criminals or some-
thing?
The second question I have, rises out of
the nature of the institution itself. It is a
peculiar place. Since you are unable, since
Basher was unable to fill it up witli these
totally recalcitrant types, he decided to
diversify the institution in the manner of con-
temporary industry. And he has five groups
in there. He has what he calls the rebels;
and the second group are the escapees from
other institutions. Then he has drug addicts,
the sexual offenders throughout the province
and the arsonists. And the arsonists go into
the yard together with the sexual offenders,
and the hard-core go into the yard with the
escapees. There is a kind of a selective
system operating up there at Millbrook. Very
discriminatory system, that is true.
We know that there is some kind of sexual
relationship between people lighting fires if
they are confirmed arsonists, and so on. But
my problem is tliat at the moment this is a
place where sexual offenders are sent— pedo-
philes and others— they serve the bulk of
tlieir sentence. In the case of the drug ad-
MAY 30, 1968
3677
diets, I believe, they are sent for the last
six months of their sentence down to Mimico,
to the Brown, and in the case of the sexual
offenders, particularly pedophiles, they are
sent down for three months at the end of
their sentence. But they are given, I suggest
to you, sir, very little psychiatric care, if
at all. There is a part-time psychiatrist who
apparently comes in from Peterborough in
the environs. But really, what care are these
people who have been put away in this
institution— how are they exposed— what
remedial measures have you got to restore
them through psychiatric care at that par-
ticular institution?
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister have any
response to the comments?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, appar-
ently the hon. member did not find my open-
ing remarks on these estimates very
interesting, because I explained at that time
that the Millbrook structure was not going
to contain all of these groups after we had
put our new system into efiFect. That the
pedophiles, for example, were going to be
moved. All those suffering from addictions
would be moved to the clinics at Mimico
as well. So, in fact, we will have, by and
large, behavioural problems at Milllarook,
escapists and arsonists.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on Mill-
brook?
Mr. Lawlor: The Minister is again fortu-
nate, in the case of Millbrook, of having a
highly dedicated man run this institution. We
find this in a good many cases. The whole
system would fall apart were it not for the
individuals that have put their lives to the
cause and bolster an otherwise shaky struc-
ture. But they ought not to have to rely
upon that sort of thing to keep your institu-
tions going. However, I want to give him
some credit. What I want to come to at this
stage is the automobile hcence plates. That
is where you make these licence plates. I do
not know, being a new member of this
House, whether this has been spoken about
before, but certainly I am going to make
mention of it very briefly, and that is: What
is the point of making these auto licence
plates time and after time? Is this not part
of that grinding toil, and stupid business?
Why cannot the same automobile licence
plates be used year after year? Some of the
plates changed, and so on? Why do they have
to be poured out in the millions year after
year? Why is a whole segment of this insti-
tution dedicated, with large machinery, to
turning them out? Why are most of the in-
mates in that institution involved in this
particular form of purposeless toil? This only
goes to point that, instead of being rehabili-
tated, the whole thing is kind of lunatic.
H^n. Mr. Grossman: If there is any ex-
ample of the need for having some sort of
programme to teach good work habits, the
plate plant is an example of it. This is not
useless work. The iimiates know that they
are going this for a purpose, that you need
licence plates. Now, they are not going to
learn a trade from it, except what they can
learn from operating a punch press, which
may be of some help. But, by and large, the
hon. member must keep in mind that we
have behavioural problems there, and we try
to keep them busy and to keep them in an
industrial operation, which is also, as I men-
tioned earlier, rehabilitative from the stand-
point that they learn good work habits. May
I repeat that you get up in the morning, you
do a day's work, and after doing a day's
work you get a couple of hours to yourself.
Be it time, you go to bed, you get up to-
morrow and you do five days' work like this.
Because when they get out of the institution
they are not going to get jobs as professors,
writing books on sociology or anything of that
nature. They are going to go into a plant.
Mr. Martel: Busy work will never teach
anybody anything.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well now, is the hon.
member telling me that there are not hun-
dreds of thousands of good law-abiding
citizens today— now let me finish— working in
plants or working on assembly lines doing
one operation? Of course there are, you get
them in all the automobile plants. They are
doing one operation day in and day out, day
in and day out, and this is the sort of work
hopefully some of these people will be able
to get a job at.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is just as diflBcult,
it is just as difiBcult and it takes just as much
intelligence to make a licence plate on a
punch press as it does to make a piece of
a car or some other piece of machinery.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
on Millbrook? Order please. Is there anything
further on Millbrook? If there is something
further on Millbrook, we will-
It being 6 of the clock, p.m. the House took
recess.
No. 101
ONTARIO
l^egiglature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, May 30, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 30, 1968
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, concluded 3681
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Haskett 3694
Motion to adjoiun, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3711
3681
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT
OF REFORM INSTITUTIONS
( Concluded )
On votes 1903 and 1904:
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I believe
that we were on Millbrook, is tliat right, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Well I am not going to
- restrict it. The member can continue to talk
I about Ontario reformatories.
Mr. Shulman: We are going to continue to
talk about them in order, are we?
Mr. Chairman: If the member wishes.
I Mr. Shulman: I would just like to talk
briefly about the Millbrook situation. I under-
stand that this was the last major institution
to be completed in the programme. I believe
that it was in 1958, although I believe that
there are others under construction at the
present time. I understand that Millbrook
was constructed as a maximum security
prison.
I would hke to ask the Minister if the exist-
ence of stern types of prisons such as Mill-
brook was made to give the law-breaking
fraternity cause to think, or to cause them
to conclude that Ontario had become an
undesirable place to continue their depreda-
tions? Was this the reason for constructing
Millbrook?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Millbrook was constructed seven
or eight years ago, or was it ten years ago?
And the purpose was to be able to reduce
I the security at other institutions by having
f one institution which will hold all the be-
haviour risks who cannot be trusted in any
other institution, thereby being able to main-
tain at other institutions, less security, medium
or minimum security.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Was one of the reasons for constructing it to
frighten the lawbreaker by this place to which
Thursday, May 30, 1968
they could be sent? A stem place to which
they could be sent?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume that it was
built because you have to have a more
secure place— if you are going to have institu-
tions which are relatively open. You have to
have one place which is completely maximum
security, so that those people who will not
behave in other institutions can be placed
in that particular institution. I might say that
probably it also came about as a result of that
same select committee which the hon. mem-
ber referred to yesterday where they sug-
gested that we put a great number, I think
75 or 80 per cent, in a place like Burwash,
and I presume that was the institution.
If we had to build it today, as far as I am
concerned, it would not be under the present
policy of the department. We would not
build in the place where it is today.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Well then I am wrong. It was
not built to intimidate the prisoner?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
wants to quibble about words, I suppose if I
were an inmate of another institution, and if
I did not behave myself, and all of the sanc-
tions had been applied unsuccessfully to make
me behave myself, presumably, a place like
Millbrook, which is completely maximum
security— the existence might have some effect
upon my behaviour. And I might say in such
a situation: "Well, I do not want to go to
Millbrook, so I will behave myself. If you
want to call that intimidation, then I suppose
it might be.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much. No,
the reason that I am asking is because I have
a speech here by the House leader, the Min-
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs
(Mr. Rowntree), and I am sorry that he is not
here. He said that the reason for the con-
struction of Millbrook was to give these
people cause to think and conclude that
Ontario has become an undesirable place in
which to continue their depredations against
society, and I was just curious to see if this
was the actual reason.
3682
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What I am interested in really, Mr. Chair-
man, through you to the Minister, is what is
going to be done with Millbrook. I under-
stand that earlier today, you stated in your
initial speech that all the sex addicts and
tliose other than hard core are to be treated
elsewhere. This is going to leave a tremen-
dous capacity in Millbrook. What are you
going to do witli it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I have already
explained that a portion of it will be sepa-
rated and renovated in such a fashion that
part of it, completely separate from the rest
of it, will be used as a regional detention
area for the area.
Mr. Shulman: That is the point that I am
coming to, Mr. Chairman. It is a very unsuit-
able place for a regional detention centre for
tlie reason that it is very hard to get to.
There is no public transportation. You liter-
ally must have a car. Now, this also applies
to other institutioiLS which we will come to
later in this series, but it particularly applies
to Millbrook.
I was out to Millbrook, with the member
for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), two or three
weeks ago. We found extreme difficulty in
getting there. We were informed that if
wislied to go there to visit a relative you
must first go to Peterborough and then take
a taxi from Peterborough. This can be a very
expensixe process. It is not close to Peter-
borough, it is a very expensive process for
people who cannot afford a taxi for such a
long distance and it cuts down on the visit-
ing that many of these people— who are not
hard-core criminals, may I say— some of the
sex deviants there are anything but hard
core, if I may use the expression.
I would suggest that if you are going to
build regional detention centres, they should
be reasonably accessible or at the time you
are setting them up as regional detention
centres, you should make arrangements for
pubhc transportation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
that if we considered Millbrook as being that
inaccessible, we would be in difficulty attempt-
ing to build regional detention centres right
across this province. I would think that Mill-
brook is reasonably accessible, more than
reasonably accessible. Even the location it
is now in, 17 miles from Peterborough, is
right near a main highway. I do not see any
problems other than that.
Mr. Shulman: The problem is there is no
bus senice and there is no train service.
>ou must take a taxi for 17 miles. All right,
I will not labour this if the Minister does
not think tliat is important.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the Conserva-
tive backbencher has made a recommenda-
tion—yes, I would recommend that regional
detention centres be set up where there is
public transportation, whether it be a train,
or a bus or otlier service. It is unfair to the
family and the prisoner. You are getting rid
of the sm.all jails, you are setting up regional
detention centres, which is going to cut
down the number of jails tremendously. You
are going to have a lot of people brought
from a lot of areas into a place Uke Millbrook.
It is extremely unfair— not for the lawyers,
they have cars and can travel there, even
though it is an extra time loss. But it is
extremely difficult for many families.
We have the Conservative backbenchers
here and they laugh at us. They do not think
it is important, but it is important to the
people who are involved. They deserve more
consideration than the government is pre-
pared to give them.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): What would
you suggest that we give them?
Mr. Shulman: Any place where there is a
l>us line, and this covers many, many areas,
10 miles, 15 miles closer to Peterborough.
There is a suggestion.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What is wrong with
Peterborough?
Mr. Shulman: Nothing is wrong with it,
if you have a site, but you should not put it
out somewhere where people cannot get at it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There are people in
Peterborough.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, might
I say to the hon. member, of course, he is
correct. When we are building regional de-
tention centres we would build them at a
place where transportation is somewhat better
than it is going to be and is at Millbrook.
The fact remains that we have a very costly
building there and, by putting the regional
detention centre there, we are able to save
the taxpayers about $3 million and we do
not want to have this wasted. Generally
speaking, the regional dentention centres will
be in areas where transportation is some-
what better and more available than it is at
MAY 30, 1968
3683
Millbrook. But the $3 million is also of some
consequence.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, sir, I agree with
you. May I then make a suggestion, in con-
nection with Millbrook? It is obvious you
cannot just junk Millbrook, with this $3
million building. Would it be unreasonable
to set up a jail bus to go out, just Ix^fore
visiting hours, from Peterborough to the jail
and take relatives back immediately after
visiting hours to Peterborough?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, all this
is being taken into consideration for all of the
jails in all of the regional detention centres.
Some transportation facilities are going to
have to be made available in some other
regional detention centres as well.
Mr. Shulman: At the moment that has not
been done at Millbrook. When will this be
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, I hate to fall
back on this, but it is the only logical answer
I can give— that this will all come about
as a result of the task force investigation.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish
to belabor this, but surely it does not need a
task force to do something this simple.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on Ontario
reformatories? Tlie member for Parkdale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
when will the official closing day be for the
building on King Street, known as Mercer
reformatory? What day are you closing it
out?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is a
very good question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously we cannot
close it until the new one is open.
Mr. Singer: That is not what he asked you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
asked me when it is going to be closed. As
soon as the new one is open.
Mr. Singer: Well, on what date?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is being built now
and, if the hon. member will take a trip out
there some weekend when he has an oppor-
tunity, he will find it is about three-quarters
to four-fifths completed. We expect, as I
said in my opening comments, that it will
be occupied before this year is over. That
means the other place will be closing.
Mr. Trotter: So you expect to close the
building on King Street by tlie end of the
year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not a question of
closing it, I do not care if it is closed or open.
It will not be used for The Department of
Reform Institutions purposes. The Vanicr
institute for women, we expect, will be occu-
pied before this year is over.
Mr. Trotter: Have you any idea what the
property on King Street will be used for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not the slight-
est idea. That is in the hands of The Depart-
ment of Public Works.
Mr. Chairman: Ontario reformatories. We
will move then from Ontario reformatories to
industrial farms; page 118. Anything further
on industrial farms?
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East, on industrial farms.
Mr. Martel: Burwash— that is right, I took
the time to visit. If you people got ofiF the
farm once in a while and visited something
it might help.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how
understaffed this department is in Burwash.
This is a series of short questions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised it would
be in the neighbourhood of, perhaps, 20 or 25.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister could advise us as to why there is
so much difficulty in keeping people in Bur-
wash—and I do not mean the inmates; I am
talking about the staff. There seems to be a
difficulty there as well— the staff— there seems
to be a great deal of concern. I spoke to the
officials there last week, and I spoke to some
of the guards, and no one seems anxious to
go to Burwash.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that is— well,
I am fairly certain that the reason for tliat is
because of its location. It is so many miles
from Sudbury. It means that they have to
live in Burwash village, which is not really as
full a community as, say, Sudbury is, and
there is also limited accommodation at Bur-
wash. I do not know, I suppose that some of
them have to come all the way from Sudbury.
Quite frankly, if we had to do it today, we
would never, I think, arrange to have a village
set up specially for this purpose. On the other
3684
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hand, I suppose, for the purposes for which
it was opened at that time, the location
appeared to be an appropriate one. As a
matter of fact, perhaps having regard for the
number of escapees, perhaps it is an appropri-
ate one.
This is one of the reasons why it is difficult
to get staff there, because of this location.
Mr. Martel: I wonder if the Minister would
consider setting up some type of facilities for
the residents of that community?
They have one old barrack that they use,
but what about such things as a bowling
alley, and so on? Would this not be helpful
in keeping the desired number of staff there,
and keep the morale of the men and their
families up considerably?
They have one old barrack there that
leaks like a sieve, and this is the only area of
recreation in the municipality. I think if we
could provide something for these people it
would be a little easier to attract and keep
custodial people in Burwash.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, all I
can say is the idea is a good one. I think it
has a great deal of merit. On the other hand
I think most of them have cars, not all of
them. If they go into Sudbury, it would be a
good thing to have more recreational facilities
for staff in there. Again, I suppose it is a mat-
ter of priority. There is other work to be done
in Burwash as well, which we would like to
see done. I by no means rule out the idea of
having more recreational facilities for staff.
Mr. Martel: Sir, I believe there was some-
where in the neighbourhood of 50,000 hours
of overtime worked in Burwash. If there
were tliis number of hours worked in Burwash
because they cannot attract people there, then
I do not think money is the real object,
because diey are going to pay it out in over-
time anyway. If you were to provide the facili-
ties, you would have the people coming there
to work and you would be able to keep
people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The problem then
again is that we would have difficulty in
respect of housing a great many more staff.
This is also a problem.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further on
industrial farms?
Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to know what a young single man is sup-
posed to do in Burwash. The point I am
trying to drive at, is that a married man can
take a botde of Hquor or a case of beer back
to his home. And yet a young single man can- ■
not bring a bottle of liquor, or a case of beer ;
to his bunkhouse. I do not think it is fair, i
because where can he go? Under the laws of
Ontario, he cannot go anywhere with his j
bottle of liquor or case of beer; he is breaking
the regulations all the way around if he
purchases it. j
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Oh, no, no. =
Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. i
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on indus- |
trial farms? |
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, this is very ]
important, I am not finished. No, is it illegal? j
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised, Mr. ;
Chairman, that one of the problems there is \
that the inmates look after the quarters of the ]
single men, having access to those quarters. |
It is felt it is a somewhat dangerous situation, \
to have Hquor available to them. Liquor is I
allowed in married quarters. I am not too sure
that I am satisfied with tliat answer myself. ^
Mr. Martel: Can you increase it there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I think it bears j
looking into. Perhaps some special arrange-
ments can be made. At the moment I do not i
want to give an opinion off the top of my
head but I think this is worthwhile looking 1
into. I do not like the idea that some have '
these privileges and some do not. Perhaps '
the liquor can be kept in some locked canteen i
or something of that nature. I will look into '
that. j
Mr. Martel: This is the point I am driving \
at; these people— they cannot legally take a j
bottle of liquor into someone else's home.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, they can. I
Mr. Martel: Not legally, I do not think,
under the liquor laws of Ontario. They can-
not take a bottle of liquor anywhere.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is legal today for !
the hon. member to present someone else )
with a bottle of liquor. If I wanted a drink j
in his home and I wanted to provide the ^
liquor I am allowed to bring liquor to the i
hon. member's home and he can— \
Interjections by hon. members. I
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, let us not ^
talk about the laws— I do not think this is
the answer anyway. I think what the hon.
member is driving at is worth considering.
MAY 30, 1968
3685
Mr. Martel: I have some concern over a
Mr. Minett, a custodial guard who was
severely beaten and I am trying to find out
whether he is receiving compensation for the
beating he took some time ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite frankly that is
an interesting question. It would be nice to
hear someone get up in the House once in a
while and speak on behalf of some of the
stafiF who have been beaten by inmates from
time to time.
Mr. Trotter: We have often asked you to
raise their pay.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, raising their pay
is not going to stop them from being beaten.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know how
raising their pay is going to keep them from
being beaten.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Answer
the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will answer it in my
way, the same as the hon. member for York
South answers questions in his way.
An hon. member: The Minister does not
know the answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have asked for the
information— if the hon. member has any
further questions?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I think what I would like
to talk about now is the fact that the guards,
apparently, the custodial officers, the correc-
tional ofiicers, do not know, or are not
advised, of the mental staljihty of the
prisoners they are guarding.
As a result I do not know how we can ex-
pect these custodian people to know who is
behind them. They do not know if behind
them there is an oddball. If they are throwing
somebody into the maximum security area
all the time for opposing them, that there
might be something wrong with them psy-
chologically. Should these people not be
informed of the mental stability of the people
they are guarding, or watching over, so that
they can be aware of who is behind them
and know the tendencies of the various
people they are working with?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that this
occurrence happened at the Portage Lake
camp and that the correctional officer has
available to him a card on the history of the
inmate. There is no psychiatric file available
to him, of course, because it is confidential.
It is a psychiatric file and psychiatric files
are not available to correctional officers, ex-
cept where it is deemed advisable to tell
them that they are dealing with a dangerous
person. I am advised by Dr. Hutchison that
in this case there was no history of dangerous
activity on the part of this man, or any
reason to believe that he was dangerous.
Otherwise the correctional officer would have
been advised.
Mr. Martel: Are you talking about the
incident last week?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The one the hon.
member just referred to.
Mr. Martel: No, I am just talking in gen-
eralities, Mr. Chairman. I am going to come
to this but I am talking generalities now—
I cannot see how the guards can be aware,
or know how to deal with the prisoners in
their block, if they are not aware of the
peculiarities of each of these prisoners. They
might be throwing some man into the
security hole on three or four occasions be-
cause they are not aware that he has a
certain tendency. They might be judging
this as insubordination when really it is not.
And they keep punishing this one individual
or charging him. Unless the men who are
watching over these prisoners in, let us say,
a given area, know their makeup, I think that
there is a tendency to misjudge what some of
the prisoners might be doing, and I think
that it would only be fair that the custodial
people should know the people under their
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to correct the impression the hon. mem-
ber has that the correctional officer himself
has the right to put an inmate into detention.
Mr. Martel: No, he has the right to make
a charge.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The superintendent
does this. It is done under the superinten-
dent's authority only. And I am also advised
that the correctional officer has a general
knowledge of the problems he should expect
to contend with, in respect of a particular
inmate. They are usually sorted out as to
corridor as to the type of problem, and so on.
Now if there is any evidence that there
should be more information given to the
correctional officer which can be given to
him, if the hon. member has a specific in-
stance in mind, I would very much hke to
have it.
3686
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Martel: There are two things. I
understand that there was a bit of a
schemozzle in Burwash last weekend.
Mr. Singer: A bit of a what?
Mr. Martel: Schemozzle. You spell it. But
I also understand that the Mr. Wilson who
killed a woman in Estaire last year was
twice recommended for the maximum security
prison in Penetanguishene, and none of the
guards, outside of a few from whom I got my
information, were aware of this. This type of
tendency in a patient, is one that they are quite
disturbed about. The problem that occurred
last week apparently involved an epileptic. And
the guards were again not aware or alerted
to watch for this sort of thing. I think it
puts the officers at a tremendous disadvantage
if they are not alerted to watching for it.
And I know, in talking to approximately 25
custodial officers, they are not aware. They
do not know the psychological make-up of the
prisoners they are handling. I think it is a
serious problem.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that the hon.
member should know that this man he was
referring to is presvimably the man who
escaped. There was a man who escaped
from Eurwiish and he is being charged with
murder. And now he is in the jail. He is
not in the reformatory, because obviously
when he is under a charge for an offence,
he is in the jail awaiting trial, so the cor-
rectional officers in Burwash really have no
contact with this man now.
Mr. Martel: No, the man I am talking
about, the one who killed the woman last
summer, has been tried, has he not? He is in
Penetanguishene now. A Mr. Wilson, and he
killed an elderly old lady at Estaire last year.
I am told that he had been twice recom-
mended for the maximiun security prison at
Penetangiiishcn?'.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know how he
could be rccommf>nd(H].
Mr. Marlel: B\ thc> psychiatrist.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well Penetanguishene
does not come under our jurisdiction. It is a
mental hospital. It comes under The Depart-
ment of Hea!tli.
Mr. Martel: Right!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yet, if he was certi-
fiable—I do not know what the hon. member
means by being "recommended"— if they had
certified him, he would have gone to Pene-
tanguishene, presumably. So I cannot see
how the hon. member can feel that the man
was recommended. I do not know what he
means by that.
Mr. Martel: Well, the psychiatrist appar-
ently indicated that he should have been in
Penetanguishene because he had these homi-
cidal tendencies.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, is the hon, mem-
ber referring to a psychiatrist who was con-
sulted by the Burwa.sh officials?
Mr. M?rtel: You have a psychiatrist who
goes in, do you not, to Burwash?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the psychiatrist felt
this way, he should have certified the man.
Mr. Martel: Apparently it was twice indi-
cated he should have been in Penetangui-
shene.
H(m. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
what that means. He should have certified
him. I will look this up for the hon. member
and give him as much information as I can
(m it.
Mr. Marlel: The other aise I am talking
abont is last Sunday. There was apparently
(luite a rhubarb in Burwash last Sunday, and
they had to, I understand, telephone Queen's
Park for permission to use gas to quell this
disturbance. And apparently the man respon-
sible for it all was an epileptic who quite
freciuently has to be tamed down physically.
And this is the point I am trying to make, if
we have got these types of prisoners in places
like Burwash, I think it is only fair that the
guards know who they are dealing with.
Mr. Shulman: I am glad I did not visit
Bui-wash or the Minister would say I was
responsible.
Mr. Singer: Have your task force look
into it.
Intejections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told that this
particular inmate, because of his epileptic
cmchtion, was being fed pheno-barb. and
ther;' is a possibih'ty or suspicion that the
amount of pheno-barl). h- h;icl been treated
with ( aused him to go b scrk, and carry out
this action the hon. member refers to. I do
not know wl\at the hon. member feels our
people sliould have done on an occasion like
this. We have other epileptics, I suppose, in
institutions from time to time.
MAY 30. 1968
3687
Mr. Martel: I have no objections or any
cninment on what should have been done.
The only thing I am rc^commendin^, on behalf
of the JT^eat number of men I talk to, is that
they would like to know the type of people
who are under their care, their psychological
make-up, so they would have some fore-
knowledge of what they can expect from each
individual prisoner. I think it is only fair that
these men know who they are handling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. member has made a very valid point.
I am going to look into this, I think there
is certain information which the correctional
officers should have and I think he is quite
right. Now, whether there is sufficient infor-
mation on that part or not, at this moment,
I am unable to ascertain.
There seems to be some doubt about
whether this kind of information is put on
the card which is available to the correctional
officers, and I will certainly look into that.
If it is not, I tliink it is worthwhile consider-
ing putting it on the card.
I am glad the hon. member brought it to
my attention. This is an area which I will
investigate thoroughly.
Mr. Martel: Thank you. I have only a
couple of minor points more. Dealing with
the training available to prisoners in Burwash,
apparently in Burwash there is only one
course that is of any value and this is an
oil-burner course set up by the prisoners
themselves. Apparently the rest of the courses
are virtually useless. Ihave talked to the
people in charge, I have talked to the guards,
I have talked to some of the prisoners. And
there is really no programme outside of this
oil-burner programme set up by the inmates
that is of any value. I am wondering if the
Minister could give me any information on
this.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have before me a list
of the occupations available as of May 14
this year. There are seven inmates engaged
at the piggery. I think that is of some use for
someone who might be of some use on a
farm. There are 15 in the barns, persumably
that is for fanning, too. There are 22 acting
as teamsters, three as groundsmen— do not ask
me what that is. There are 20 working in
the roothouse and as gardeners. There are ten
operating the village supply, that is, delivery
to and from the village.
There are 12 engaged as recreational pro-
gramme assistants. There are 16 engaged in
construction; 38 at a saw-mill; 12 as car-
penters; 16 as bricklayers; four as electricians;
five as plumbers; three as blacksmiths; 20
in the oil-burner course; 23 as engineers;
ten as painters; 19 in the laundry; four in
irhstitutional stores; 22 on heavy work in the
main work party; one in the quarry; eight on
maintenance; 42 cleaners; two barbers; 81
in the kitchen; 14 in the garage; seven as
village school janitors; 37 as messengers and
clerks; 5 as hospital orderlies; 20 in the
tailor shop; 41 in the academic school; 10
in the trade school, sheetmetal and machine
shop; 8 in the lands and forests branch
tree-planting; 32 were on sick parade that
day; 11 had been excused from duty; 7
were in reception; 11 were on medical— in
segregation for medical or for their own
protection; 4 were in detention. That is a
pretty good rimdown of what happened that
day.
If the hon. member wants to make the
point tliat many of these things are not really
vocational, I would agree with him, but we
are building a new vocational shop up in
Burwash at the present time.
I presume that the classification committee
and the work committee has found that this
is the place where these people will fit in, this
is the place where they are prepared to work.
I presume there is not much point in telling
a man he should go in and learn sheetmetal
work if he does not want to. This is the
answer.
Mr. Martel: The problem seems to be, Mr.
Chairman, not so much with the variety that
is there, but with the calibre of people head-
ing them up. As I say, I have talked to the
people in charge who are watching the pris-
oners, and they maintain that the courses
really do not teach the men anything. I
talked about the bricklaying course and the
guards laughed about it and said that it was
a farce. We have got to—
An hon. member: It is a good business!
Mr. Martel: Certainly it is a good business,
provided that they are learning something
from it. But if they are learning nothing
other than to play around with a little mor-
tar, unless they can come out of prison, and
get a job in these fields; in other words, un-
less these are good solid courses, they have
not got a hope of rehabilitation once they
come out. They will never last in a job if
they have not got a good basic training, and
apparently this is lacking. The courses are
there, but there is not real meat in them.
3688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
suggesting that the inmates are putting up
the building by themselves.
Mr. Martel: Yes, they are. I was there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: When I was there,
they were doing all the bricklaying for one
of the buildings. And then in the winter
they do the inside work. Surely, doing all the
bricklaying for a building is the best kind of
teaching that they could possibly get in brick-
laying? As a matter of fact, I recall at the
time, I forget when it was, that one of the
inmates who was working told me about a
friend of his who had been working on that
job and was now working on bricklaying on
the outside, I think that he said that he was
making three dollars and sixty-five cents an
hour or some such amount.
Mr. Martel: Well, that is one case. I am
saying that the guards, even, Mr. Chairman,
are not convinced that most of these courses
really serve a purpose, that most prisoners
cannot get a job from this training once they
get out and I would just ask the Minister if
he would check on it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will check on it. As
a matter of fact, I am surprised that any of
our correctional officers would have that atti-
tude, because attitudes in respect of our
correctional officers is something that con-
cerns us. If they feel that way, they should
express it to the superintendent, who would
hopefully express it to us so that we would
know.
It may be that the hon. member has re-
ceived an opinion from a very small number
of correctional officers, or he may have re-
ceived an opinion from some correctional
officers who may be disgruntled, which we
have, of course, among our extensive staff.
But I would be amazed that they would
take this view. As I say, when I was there,
and this was one thing that remained in my
mind— when you visit so many of the institu-
tions one begins to meld into the other in
your mind. I recall the inmates were very
proud of the amount of work that they had
done on this bricklaying around this building
and I am rather surprised that this would be
the attitude of the correctional officers. I
guess that I had better make another visit
there shortly myself.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
know if it is usual for the prisoners to load
the trucks of the people that come in, and
get the wood that comes from Burwash. I
understand that a million board feet come
out of Burwash per year and I am wondering
if it is usual for prisoners to load the trucks
for these free enterprisers? Apparently, the
prisoners are used for loading the trucks.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that we
sold some lumber by tender. The only ques-
tion that is involved here, I suppose, is: Was
it part of the deal that they would do the
loading or that we would provide that for
them, I will look into that for the hon.
member.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): In Burwash,
you have about 450 inmates. How many
psychiatrists are there in Burwash?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is only one
part-time psychiatrist.
Mr. Sargent: Only one part-time man for
450 inmates? And these are your long-term
inmates in this institution?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
doubt whether the general population has
that kind of psychiatric service, one to 450,
I would doubt it. I mean you do not need a
psychiatrist on hand at all times. But when
a psychiatrist is needed, he is brought in.
This is what happens with the general popu-
lation.
If the hon, member wants to make the
point that we should have more psychiatrists,
I think that I have repeated on numerous
occasions that we could use more psychia-
trists, more social workers, and more psyr
chologists. In every department of every
government, all across the world, they could
use them,
Mr. Sargent: I appreciate tliat you are try-
ing to say that you cannot cope. In industry
if they need these people, they go out and
get til em,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sometimes they are
able and sometimes not.
Mr. Sargent: Well, there is no doubt, in-
dustry could not go if it did not have these
people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
telling me that industry could not function
without psychiatrists.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about technicians
and personnel to make an industry go. They
go out and get them.
MAY 30, 1968
3689
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber would know that there are certain pro-
fessions where there is greater supply than
in others? There is a very great shortage of
psychiatrists and psychologists, and all this
kind of personnel at the present.
Mr. Sargent: I am trying to make a point
that this is one of the most poorly run
operations. Your department is one of the
most poorly run setups here in Ontario, and
this is the largest-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: I would say you are second,
but this is the largest you have is it not,
in Ontario? Burwash is the largest, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Guelph has over 700
inmates.
Mr. Sargent: But you have a full-time psy-
chiatrist at Don jail, do you not?
Mr. Shulman: No.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Sargent: Well I have been down to
Don jail and I have met with him, and I
understand that he is there full time.
Mr. Shulman: Dr. Hills is there full time,
but he is not a psychiatrist.
Mr. Sargent: But the thing is that this is
the institution where you have your long-term
prisoners, at Burwash, and you do not have
a full-time psychiatrist. You talk about reci-
divism—I cannot say the word properly— but
you talk about your inability; you have such
a poor experience in Ontario. This is one
of the focal points where you are in trouble
and you say that you cannot get staff, so it
just shows that you cannot handle the
operation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What do you suggest
that we do about psychiatrists? Where do we
get them?
Mr. Sargent: Train them hke you train
doctors and everything else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We carmot train
psychiatrists. The hon. member must realize
that The Department of Reform Institutions
cannot train psychiatrists.
Mr. Sargent: You are paying them $25,000
a year. The most important factor you must
have in determining this is that you cannot
get the staflF.
Mr. Ghairman: Anything further on this?
The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: I would just like to briefly
pursue the matter brought up by the mem-
ber for Sudbury East. Perhaps I misheard.
Was gas used because an epileptic went
berserk?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, gas was used.
The man had armed himself with a knife,
and the only way to subdue him, apparently,
was by the use of gas, which was harmless.
This was used, and I do not see anything
wrong with it.
Mr. Shulman: Neither do I. Was this tear
gas?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tear gas, yes.
Mr. Shulman: And it was just on the one
prisoner?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to enquire about the Burtch industrial farm.
Oh, I am sorry, just before I go into Burtch,
there is one thing disturbing me. Why did
the superintendent have to phone to Queen's
Park to get permission if a man was running
amok with a knife. I should not think that
you would take time to phone over to
Queen's Park to decide what to do.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did someone say he
had to phone Queen's Park?
Mr. Shulman: The question was asked of
you and you did not deny it— and I gathered
that you had replied yes. Is that not correct?
Did the superintendent phone Queen's Park
and get permission to use the gas.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not hear the
reference to gas at all, until the hon. member
got up to speak. What I was referring to
earlier, and perhaps the hon. member mis-
took what I had said there, I said that the
correctional officer could not put anyone in
detention without permission of the super-
intendent. The superintendent decides this.
This is the first reference I have heard of
gas. Perhaps it was mentioned by the hon.
member when I was trying to get an answer
to a previous question.
Mr. Shulman: To settle this confusion. Did
the superintendent phone for permission be-
fore he used this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is no.
3690
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: My colleague's suggestion
may be an error. However, we will go on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He phoned and ad-
vised head office, that he had used gas.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now let us go to the problem at Burtch, and
this is a very serious problem. I am referring
now to the industrial farm, and not the train-
ing school, under this particular section.
This particular institution was condemned
in 1953 by the committee and the dangers at
Burtch, Mr. Chairman, are far more serious
than those at the Don jail, and beheve me,
I am not playing down the problems at the
Don Jail, which unfortunately I did not get
a chance to talk about earlier today.
The situation at Burtch can be a very
lethal one, for the simple reason that the
buildings are made of frame— one match and
away they go. There is no chance of the
men inside getting out. Let me stress again,
so there will be no confusion. I am not talk-
ing of the training school, because there is a
new building under construction for the train-
ing school. There are no new buildings under
construction for the industrial farm, even
though way back 15 years ago they were
condemned. These buildings were originally
received from the air force, I believe.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, may 1
ask the member a question? May I ask him
whether this is the question he asked two or
three weeks ago and which I answered at
that time?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, and a little detail now,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What sort of a detail?
You know what I am concerned with at the
moment. We have admitted what there is to
admit, and a great deal of discussion about
this in the press does not help out at the
institution. We have some pretty disturbed
people there. I have already answered the
question, when the hon. member asked it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I intend to
elaborate on this problem at some length.
And believe me, getting it in the press, or
the people at Burtch finding out about the
situation, should not be the problem in the
Minister's mind. The problem in the Min-
ister's mind should be getting tiiose men out
of there, because they are sitting in a very
dangerous situation. On a matter of comfort,
the buildings are heated by a strange old
system tliat was set up during the war as an
emergency measure, so that in winter the
heat comes in through a vent, so that the
men in the top bunks are roasting, and
the men in the bottom bunks are freezing.
The reason there are double bunks is be-
cause the buildings are overcrowded.
There is approximately one and a half to
two times the number of men in each building
as the air force had in these buildings. The
overcrowding besides being uncomfortable,
particularly in the winter, is a very dangerous
matter. As a first step, enough men should be
taken out of there so that the buildings are
down to the number that should be in each
room.
I believe there are up to 32 inmates in the
bunk beds in each cabin— I guess that is the
word to describe them. They use space heat-
ers from a central heating, and because of the
situation a guard sits inside each cabin all
night long to guard against the danger of fire.
If a fire was started from the outside you are
going to have a very dangerous situation and,
I am quite certain, ending with deaths.
For goodness sakes, as in the preliminary
step, get the men out of there and transferred
into other institutions that are not over-
crowded. Bring it at least down to the num-
ber that the air force used to keep in these
rooms. And then as an emergency measure,
and this should come ahead of all priority
and task forces, start building a brick build-
ing or a concrete building up there just as
you have done for the training school. If you
do not, there is going to be a very serious
disaster sooner or later at Burtch.
I have another matter about Burtch, unless
the Minister wishes to make any comments.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have none.
Mr. Shulman: Well, the only other matter
I wivh to mention about Burtch is the same
as I did on Millbrook, its absolute and com-
plete inaccessibility. Once again, there is no
public transportation. Visitors to the prisoners,
and this apphes both to the prisoners in the
industrial farm and the prisoners in the train-
ing school, must come by taxi, both ways,
from Brantford, which is an extremely exi)en-
sive matter, particularly to the parents of
children in the training school. As a result
many of the prisoners have not been receiving
visitors, and I would suggest to the Minister
that once again he should put in a bus
service to leave at a regular time and come
back at a regular time for the convenience of
the families.
I would just like to make one other com-
MAY 30, 1968
3691
ment about Burtch, and it is in connection
with the superintendent of Burtch. I wish to
say that this is a very dedicated, magnificent
man, and I would like to pay tribute to him,
for in spite of these horrible, horrible sur-
roundings, he is doing a magnificent job in
that place.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on indus-
trial fanns? We will then move to juvenile
institutions. Anj^hing on juvenile institu-
tions? The member for Halton West.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Just a few
words. We have heard a great deal regarding
institutions, and the sad conditions. I would
like to refer to one in particular, I had the
privilege of attending along with the hon.
members for Hamilton West (Mrs. Pritchard),
and Halton East (Mr. Snow), at Sprucedale
school in White Oaks village, at Hagersville,
this year. We were at this institution for
about a half a day, and we had the oppor-
tunity of going through every building— all
the classrooms, sliops and whatever recreation
facilities were there. We talked with most of
the members of the staff, and many of the
young men at this institution.
We were impressed first of all with the
staff, the training of the staff, the facilities,
and the programme in which these boys are
involved, and above all we were impressed
with the attitude of the young people there.
There seemed to be a lack of unnecessary
institutional restraint, at least on the surface.
The general efforts to rehabilitate, educate,
and make these young people better citizens,
or future productive citizens, in my opinion
is being done to the best of the ability of
those people there.
I am siu^e, Mr. Chairman, it was in many
ways like visiting a conventional board school,
with an almost tutor student relationship, as
part of their curriculum. There seemed to
be Httle or no resentment on the part of the
young people there; there was no tension. I
would suggest that there was no great desire
on the part of any of these boys to leave.
Naturally, they probably were homesick,
and realized they were required to stay
there, but I think tliey also appreciated the
fact that somebody was trying to do some-
thing for them.
They were getting the training that they
wanted to get, whetlier it was academic or
vocational, or a form of technical training,
and above all they had a great deal of
respect and admiration for the members of
the staff. 1 would like to commend the depart-
ment for the work being done there in
Hagersville, and I hope that most of the
other members, whenever possible, can make
a tour such as this.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further
on juvenile institutions? The member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: We are hearing a lot about
the task force. Where are you going to locate
these area jails? When are we going to have
a report on the task force?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be glad to
answer it again, except it is out of order.
We have gone through all the votes on
jails, and I did answer that I could not tell
the hon. members when the task force would
finish the job. I think it will be very shortly.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on juve-
nile institutions? The member for High Park?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, in line with
one of the matters brought up by the mem-
ber for Grey-Bruce, I would like to pursue
it, in connection with Brookside school in
Cobourg.
As I mentioned a day or two ago in the
estimates, the rate of return is quite high
at that particular place, and I think I know
the reason for this. It is very simple actually.
This is a school for disturbed boys, and when
I say disturbed I do not mean mentally in-
competent or mentally defective; I mean boys
who have got into trouble at a very young
age and as such, if they ever needed psychia-
tric help, this is the type of place it should
be given.
And yet at this school, which has 175
boys, the psychiatrist visits only two days
per week. As a result, he does not see the
vast majority of the boys; somewhere over
90 per cent of them receive no therapy what-
soever. I am convinced that this is one of the
reasons for tlie very high rate of recidivism
at Brookside and at similar institutions.
The Minister has asked how do we get
more psychiatrists in a situation like Cobourg,
where a psychiatrist, a full-time psychiatrist is
essential with these 175 disturbed boys. You
can get them and it is very simple, by paying
more money, and $25,000, although it sounds
like a huge sum of money, is not in this
particular field, because you are competing
against the other areas who are bidding for
a psychiatrist. You are going to have to pay
more because the very youngest psychiatrist,
in his first year in practice, can earn that
much and more.
3692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to suggest to the Minister that
he has acknowledged the problems. There are
places like the Don jail, which obviously
should have one; there are places like Brook-
side that must have one. Go out and pay
more, if you have to. This is the place where
it really would pay off.
If you have to pay $35,000 a year, pay
$35,000 a year, but buy them away from the
other places where they are not as essential.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that
this is the answer. If he is willing to pay more
money, he will get his psychiatrists.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The psychiatrist who
spends half his time at this school and is on
call all the rest of the time— this is not really
sufficient for the school?
Mr. Shulman: I am suggesting that you can
hire full-time psychiatrists.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There really is no
point in hiring full-time psychiatrists, no mat-
ter what money the hon. member suggests,
unless this is necessary.
Does the hon. member, as a medical man,
suggest, for a school of 175 youngsters, that
a psychiatrist's spending half his time there
and being on call the otiier half is not really
sufficient?
Mr. Shulman: For a school of 175 it is suffi-
cient, but this is not a school of 175— this is
175 disturbed youngsters.
If that psychiatrist works eight hours a day,
he is only going to see eight youngsters that
day; he is going to see 40 youngsters in a
week. He is going to see each boy something
less than once a month and they should be
seen a great deal more than once a month.
Of course you need a full-time psychiatrist
there.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on this point.
This may not have too much intelligence to it,
but there are a lot of brains in universities
and in high schools that are unemployed in
the summer time. I think that you could give
these university students summer employment
by letting tliem loose on our institutions. May-
be they could do a job of social work and
psychiatry for these people who need help.
I have a daughter who is interested in this
career. She would like to have had the chance
to go into a reform institution to talk to
these people for the summer, but there are no
openings for them.
I think that there is a great area of poten-
tial people here that could do a job. Univer-
sity students are crying for income and work
during the summer months, and there might
be a great area of potential here which you
could tap, to supplement tliis field.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can save the hon.
member too much talk. We employ quite a
few of them for the summer.
If the hon. member knows any competent
young lady who has interest in this sort of
work, we would love to have her for the
summer. We would love to have her full time.
We would certainly take her on for the sum-
mer. We do this every summer.
Mr. Sargent: I think we are getting some-
place now. If there is interest in your depart-
ment—if there is an area of interest in your
department, I think an offering of the Min-
ister to the public, to the university students,
who have a concern in this area to come
forth and say here is an opening.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have already dojie
this— every university knows this.
Mr. Sargent: I do not know about it, and
who else knows about it? You know about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All the universities
who have students who are interested in
this sort of work, or alHed work.
Mr. Sargent: You are keeping it a good
secret.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have a comple-
ment for summer help and, if the hon.
member has anyone else, we will be very
glad to help him.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) : I
do not know about this programme— if you
have such a programme. Because I have had
letters from university students, requesting
work in social work.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: From the school of
social work? From which university?
Mr. B. Newman: University of Windsor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman. I will look into that,
because we are much surprised to find that
out.
Mr. B. Newman: I referred that to The
Department of Social and Family Services;
had I known of that I would have referred it
to your department.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will look into that,
Mr. Chairman.
MAY 30, 1968
3693
Mr. Shulman: Just to pursue this one more
moment, Mr. Chairman. How many full-time
psychologists are there in Brookside?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do not have any
at this time.
Mr. Shulman: Are there any part time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not at Brookside.
Mr. Shulman: I am almost speechless, Mr.
Chairman. Here we have 175—
An hon. member: That is the most ridicu-
lous thing I have heard yet.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Sometime in these estimates,
why could we not lock those two fellows in a
room together and let them discuss this thing
for a week and we could get something done
here?
Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): It would
not take a week.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister agree to
this— to making a public statement that—
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please! The
member rose on a point of order.
Mr. Sargent: Well I do not want to lose the
point.
Mr. Chairman: This is no point of order,
you made the point of order. The member for
High Park.
Mr. Shulman: May I suggest, through you,
Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that he has
just revealed a rather shocking fact. With
these disturbed boys, if you are unprepared
to spend the money and hire a psychiatrist, for
goodness sake get in some full-time psy-
chologists. Because, although they are cer-
tainly not as well qualified as a psychiatrist,
they can do at least some of the good a
psychiatrist would do if he were there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the hon.
member would like to answer where to get
those psychologists.
Mr. Shu!man: Am I to understand the
Minister is not able to hire psychologists
throughout the province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right.
Mr. Shulman: Then may I ask the Minister,
through you, sir, what is the salary schedule
that is set out for psychologists, beginning
and ending?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give you that
in a moment.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister is going to
provide an answer to a question from the
member for High Park. I doubt if there is
going to be time in between—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would ask him to
ask the question again.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister then go
so far as to make a public statement that he
has an interest in finding people who would
make themselves available in the summer
months? University trained people?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not want the
hon. member to get the impression we are
going to take anybody on. Our people, our
director of social work, is in constant touch
with the schools of social work, asking for
their students.
One of the hon. members has told me that
at the university he refers to he thinks there
is no such contact. I am going to find this
out. Because we are constantly on the alert
for potential workers in our field.
Mr. Sargent: All right, you have said you
are on the alert for these students.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is there anything
more public than getting up in the legislature
and making an announcement?
As of October 1, 1967, the salary range for
psychologists was from $11,558 to $13,801.
As of October 1, 1968, starting at $11,923 to
a range of $14,349— these are the starting sal-
aries. And they run up to a category from
$12,692 to $15,445.
Mr. Shulman: How many psychologists
are you short in the system?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While we are waiting,
may I say this: When I used the term
"director of social work," I meant the director
of psychology.
Perhaps I can get that figure, Mr. Chair-
man, for the hon. member and let him know
directly.
Mr. Shulman: Is it a substantial number?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Probably 10 or 12.
Mr. Shulman: Is the problem, Mr. Chair-
man, that the salaries schedule is too low?
Because certainly a lot of psychologists have
been graduating every year from a number
of universities in this province, and I am a
3694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little mystified why there is a shortage of
psychologists in the service.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a shortage of
psychologists generally in the province. I
understand there are only about 500 in the
whole province.
I might tell the hon. member tliat, in ad-
dition, practically everyone in the field—
everyone in every jurisdiction, everyone that
requires psychologists, every kind of agency,
any government agency or private agency,
which requires psychologists— generally find
that they are in short supply. They cannot
get sufficient of them, and corrections is not
the most glamorous.
This is one of the problems correctional
jurisdictions suffer from all over the world.
Corrections is not the most glamorous, be-
cause, as I mentioned earlier, in correctional
work your failures are obvious, your suc-
cesses are not. People do not like to be
constantly harped at as not being able to
show some success in their work. They gen-
erally want to be in fields where they can
say: "Here, we had so many patients and
we cured so many."
It is most difficult, if not impossible, in cor-
rections to say: "Here we had so many
hundreds of people in our institutions and so
many hundreds have been cured"; because
they do not write you letters of endorsation,
but the failures are always there to come
back.
I might add— and the member can take
it personally if he likes or not— it is the kind
of criticism, the type of criticism that is
directed at correctional departments in North
America especially, that makes it even more
difficult to attract good professional staff".
They just say: "Why do I want to come with
your department and put up with all that
abuse. I can go to some other department, be
it The Department of Health or some other
place— a private agency— where I do not have
to put up with this sort abuse"; because tliey
pick up the paper some day and they find
out, all of a sudden, they are in the head-
lines.
Somebody has said they "allowed brutal
conditions" to go on in institutions, that
"they allowed this, they are getting no place."
It is most difficult, in addition to the shortage
in other words of professional staff, it is
more difficult for correctional agencies to
get them than it is for any otlier agency.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, just to finish
off, I would just like to suggest to the Min-
ister that when we come to tliese estimates
next year I hope that he will not have the
same shortage that he has now and I may
suggest the answer is very simple. It is to
speak to his Cabinet colleagues and get a
little more money and pay more for his
psychiatrists and his psychologists. He should
get what he needs from outside this province
if necessary, so that when we come back
next year we will not have this same high
rate of recidivism, and if the Minister takes
this personally, I hope he does.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anjthing further
on juvenile institutions?
Votes 1903 and 1904 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates
for The Department of Refomi Institutions.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
The estimates of The Department of Trans-
port I now submit for tlie fiscal year 1968-
69, have more than usual significance. They
symbolize the tenth anniversary of this
department as a separate unit of government.
Tlie estimates of ten years ago, for 1958-59,
launched the first full year of operation of
the fledgling department that had been set
up in 1957.
Today I shall forego any lengthy examina-
tion of what the estimates represent. That
look at the details will come later, in the
item-by-item consideration. Let me now
simply and briefly note a few of the high-
lights of the department's development and
plans in order to establish a perpective for
considering our submission for 1968-69.
Events of the past ten years have con-
firmed the concerns that led to the creation
of this department. Those concerns could be
summed up as a recognition of the enormous
significance, implications and complications
of the motor vehicle in our modem society
along with a recognition of the challenge
posed by continuing rapid increases in the
number of vehicles on the road.
The number of motor vehicles registered
in Ontario has increased by one million in
that period. For the licence year 1957 the
number of vehicles was just under 1.8 mil-
lion. For the current licence year it will
exceed 2.8 million. All other statistics on
vehicles and drivers, and on traffic collisions,
have likewise increased.
MAY 30. 1968
3695
The Department of Transport has co-
ordinated the government's functions in regard
to motor vehicles and drivers. The depart-
ment's task has been to keep pace with the
increases and to seek new and improved
methods of service in the interests of drivers
and pedestrians, and also in the interests of
our population and economy as a whole.
The highlights of the department's develop-
ment in these ten years would include—
For drivers: a uniform and realistic system
of driver examination; drixer instruction in
secondary schools; a comprehensive pro-
gramme of driver control, including the
demerit point system; the introduction of
three-year drivers' Hcences.
For vehicles: controls on vehicle safety
through negotiations with manufacturers and
through legislation; co-ordination with i>olice
in an effective audit system of compulsor>'
vehicle examination, making use of both per-
manent check lanes and the fleet of pioneer-
ing mobile units that go to all parts of the
province.
For the users of the road: an orderly evolu-
tion of laws and regulations in the interests
of safety, the efficiency of traffic movement,
and the convenience of users of the road;
and a ver>' fine and diversified programme of
safety education for people of all ages— from
nursery school children to senior citizens.
For the total population and economy: the
services, controls and facilities that have
made it possible for people in all parts of the
province to take full advantage of tlie motor
vehicle.
A further responsibility of this department
is to share in the collection of revenues that
contribute to the "tax mix" for support of
the overall programmes of the government.
It is interesting to note that the expanding
role of the department has resulted in an
increase of expenditures from $6,742,620 for
1958-59, our first full fiscal year of operation,
to the estimates for the year now beginning
of $19,506,000. In tliis same ten-year period,
the annual revenues collected by the depart-
ment have more than doubled, from $60,766,-
000 in 1958-59 to the estimated figure for
this fiscal year of $134,882,000.
Another step forward, which deserves a
place in any summary of the department's
progress in the past decade, is the establish-
ment of an effective working partnership
among all provinces in motor vehicle admin-
istration.
This was accomplished through the con-
ferences of Ministers responsible for motor
vehicle administration in every province. It
was my privilege to convene the first such
conference in 1966, resulting from the sug-
gestion by the Premiers' conference which
was held in Toronto that year. At our first
conference of Ministers here, and at the
second conference held in Quebec City in
1967, the provinces reached agreement on our
major objectives, and we set in motion a
strong continuing liaison that is obtaining
across Canada a greater degree of uniformity
than ever before in this field.
During the past year my department con-
tinued to work for the maximum effective-
ness in our programmes, particularly those
relating to safety. Three of the highlights
were the road safety workshops held in To-
ronto; a further advance in driver instruction
in secondary schools; and another important
step in the development of the department's
organizational structure.
The workshops in Toronto brought together
close to 1,000 delegates— a cross-section of
citizens from this region sharing a common
concern for trafiic safety. The conference
demonstrated the participation, the sense of
involvement, that is necessary for the achieve-
ment of a substantial improvement in the
level of safety on our streets and highways.
Instruction in good driving is being given
to teenagers in secondary schools across the
province. Last year 215 secondary schools
offered this extra-curricular course which is
endorsed by The Department of Education,
and supported and promoted by The Depart-
ment of Transport. In the current school
year, the number of schools offering the
course has risen to 303— more than half of the
secondary schools in Ontario— and in Sep-
tember, there will be a further increase to
well over 350.
The organizational structure of the depart-
ment is under constant review. During the
past year, a re-grouping of functions was put
into effect so that all matters relating to
drivers were brought together under the new
"drivers branch", and all matters related to
vehicles became the responsibility of the
"vehicles branch". This re-grouping was not
as simple as it sounds, but it is proving effec-
tive in enhanced administrative efficiency,
and smoother service to the motoring pubhc.
This change in structures clearly evidenced
in the arrangement of the estimates that are
now before you. It is rarely possible, sir, to
take a progressive step of this kind without
3696
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
involving some dislocation or inconvenience.
Accordingly, tlie hon. members may encounter
some difficulties in relating these estimates
to the form of the public accounts followed
heretofore. I will endeavour to help, in any
way I can, to make the relationship clear for
the members, particularly during considera-
tion of the votes on the drivers branch and
the vehicles branch.
Further progress in the current services of
the department is illustrated by the legislation
that it has been my privilege to bring before
the House in the past few weeks.
The amendments to The Highway Traffic
Act propose several major changes in regard
to drivers and vehicles. Amendments to The
Public Commercial Vehicles Act and The
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act are con-
cerned with two of our important specialized
responsibilities. The Motorized Snow Vehicle
Act introduced new controls for a new need;
and The Airport Act was a further innovation
that demonstrates the department's expanding
scope within the larger field of transportation.
This legislation underlines a significant
trend. The original functions of The Depart-
ment of Transport related exclusively to
motor vehicles, and the drivers of those
vehicles. In the past few years, the depart-
ment's functions have in fact been broadened
to cover transportation in a more general
way. I am pleased to announce today tliat
the department's expanded role is advancing
a step further by the creation of a transpor-
tation planning division.
As Minister of Transport, it has been my
honour to be chairman of the Metropolitan
Toronto and region transportation study, a
project that has added new dimensions to
transportation planning. This study will
establish guidelines for other jurisdictions in
the modern comprehensive approach to many
aspects of transportation.
The work of the transportation study con-
cluded this spring. The wealth of valuable
data collected has progressed through the
final stages of analysis and collation. The
final report is even now being printed and it
is my plan to table it in this House and re-
lease it to the public on June 13. I am confi-
dent that the work of the study will form a
strong foundation for efficient transportation
planning in the region covered, and will pro-
vide invaluable guidelines for further trans-
portation planning in urban areas in all other
parts of the province.
Even as this planning is concluded, another
kind of transportation planning has taken on
new significance for my department. The
Airport Act, 1968, received Royal assent on
April 11. Our primary aim is to provide all-
weather airstrips for wheeled aircraft in
northern Ontario, especially in those areas
where no other form of transportation is
available. Investigations of possible sites
began last summer. These investigations are
continuing, and it is our hope that it may be
feasible to construct airstrips at some loca-
tions this summer. The matter of navigational
beacons also is being examined.
Among its other responsibilities, the new
transportation planning division of my depart-
ment will direct the provincial government's
growing role in connection with the possible
abandonment of railway lines, keeping in
mind the economic health of the communities
affected.
The traditional functions of the department
in regard to both motor vehicles and drivers
in their ever-growing magnitude will be
handled by our motor vehicle division under
the new structure. These functions, of course,
continue to be of great importance and we
will continue to devote to them our close
attention.
The re-structuring of the department into
two divisions is a further advance in the evo-
lution of our work which carries out the
original objectives of 10 years ago, and
expands them in order to serve, in the fullest
way, the transportation needs of the people
of Ontario.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, as I rise
to take part in the debate on The Depart-
ment of Transport, may I at the outset offer
my congratulations to the Minister on his
presentation. He took exactly ten minutes.
And it is very nice to see a Minister of the
government here complete his introductory
remarks in such a short period of time. I may
not be as short as that, but I will not be much
longer.
I would like to extend my thanks to the
many members of his department for the
courtesies extended to me in my attempts to
get answers for many constituent problems
that I have presented to them.
May I ask rhetorically at the outset, why
a Department of Transport? Why can this
not be put into its proper place, and that
being a division or arm of The Department
of Highways. We have gone through this in
the past, and it still holds true.
Mr. Chairman, our highway safety record
leaves little room for comfort. Even though
MAY 30. 1968
3697
there may have been a reduction of 23 per
cent in the number of fatahties during Janu-
ary and February of this year, and the num-
ber of fatal accidents also dropped by 26
per cent at the same time, the rate of fatali-
ties per number of miles driven was higher.
The number of people killed on the highways
in 1967 was 1,719, an increase of 123 over
the 1966 figures, or an increase of 7.7 per
cent.
By the way, car vehicle registrations only
went up 3.5 per cent. The number injured
was 67,280, an increase of about 2,000, and
the number of accidents was 145,000, an in-
crease of more than 5,000.
It is true that in the first two months of
this year the accident rate was substantially
down. And it is the hope of every hon. mem-
ber of this House that such progress would
continue. However, Mr. Chairman, the credit
for this decrease is probably due in main to
the fact that there was relatively good driv-
ing weather during this January and
February.
Budgetary allowances, with very minor in-
crease, are an indication of no substantial
change or improvement in our highway safety
efforts. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you wonder if
there will ever be substantial change or
improvement in our highway safety efforts
as long as this government under the present
Minister will not both face and present in
their critical reality the stark facts concern-
ing our accidents.
Comparative statistics for 1966 and 1967
show startling increases over and above the
increase in motor vehicle registration. The
budget of the department under discussion
has risen from $11 million in 1967/68 to
$13 million an increase of some $2 million
or a percentage increase of 18 per cent.
At the same time the most important
branch of this department, the highway safety
co-ordination and promotion branch has not
received a proportionate increase of 18 per
cent, but merely of 10 per cent, clearly
indicating that this government's interest in
safety is being downgraded.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to show the com-
plete disinterest or lack of awareness of the
importance of the highway safety co-ordina-
tion and promotion by this Minister. The
hon. Minister may state that in other votes
for items in his overall estimates there are
funds expended in various fields of safety.
That may be so, but it is not always so.
However, in looking back over the estimates,
may I prove to you and the hon. members
of this House, the point that I was making
when I said that there was apathy in the
field of safety by this Minister in this de-
partment.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. B. Newman: Referring to the esti-
mates back to 1963/64, the amount allocated
for safety was $475,000 out of a budget of
$6,727,000. In all of these figures, I am
eliminating the statutory amounts of funds
requested by the department. The amount
expended on highway safety was 7 per cent
of the budget. In 1964/65, the amount de-
creased to a little more than 6 per cent. In
1965/66 it was a little more than 5 per cent
of the budget.
In 1966/67 it was only 5 per cent; in
1967/68 is was 5 per cent; in 1968/69 it was
$606,000 out of a $13 million budget, or only
4.6 per cent.
So, Mr. Chairman, you can see where the
moneys allocated to safety have decreased
from a total of 7 per cent of the budget in
1963/64 to 4.6 per cent of the budget today.
This is conclusive proof of that safety has be-
come a diminishing concern in this depart-
ment. What is being done is apparently not
as effective as it might be. There must be
a complete reappraisal as to our methods
and approach to this whole problem.
Mr. Chairman, may I read from an edi-
torial in the Windsor Daily Star, dated April
10, 1968. I will only quote a few paragraphs
from this editorial titled "Highway Hippy
Gang":
Ontario's Transport Minister Irwin Has-
kett in discussing highway safety says lack
of driver courtesy is the main cause of acci-
dents. Mr. Haskett is right but apparently
he doesn't believe he is right enough to
do anything about it, for you don't hear
or see any effort from Mr. Haskett or the
provincial government for more courtesy
in driving other than the occasional preach-
ment. Impolite drivers are the hippies of
our highways and preaching to them won't
even make them scratch their heads. To
clean them up calls for some force, strong
enforcement of our driving laws and
strong campaigning to let them know that
their habits are bad and won't be tolerated.
But our highways hippies are a menace
to all of us. They should be a matter of
great concern. They are, as Mr. Haskett
said, the greatest danger of the road, so
much so that the Minister should do some-
thing, something really big, about curbing
3698
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
them. There has been too much compla-
cency and piety about highway safety.
This ends the editorial. Mr. Chairman, only
0.6 per cent of this year's revenue of over
$100 milhon, collected by The Department
of Transport, was spent on highway safety co-
ordination and promotion, less than nine cents
per capita— a real shame. How can you pro-
mote and sell safety in the transportation
field with such a mini-budget? This depart-
ment is like the liquor control board and the
liquor licence board, willing to collect but
not willing to help lessen the problems
created by the commodity or article that they
tax.
Mr. Chairman, the progressive balanced
economic growth of the province is depen-
dent upon a realistic transportation policy,
a policy that must take in all modes of trans-
portation, all commodities that require move-
ment from one location to another. Recent
studies undertaken by this department led to
the establishment of commuter services, but
this only took care of the needs or part of
the needs of the Metro area.
In the examination of the estimates, I find
no provision for an extension of such studies
in any area other than assistance for airstrip
development. If the demand for transporta-
tion continues to match Ontario's economic
growth, it will double by 1980 and double
again by the year 2000. If we do not set a
policy today, think of the crisis we will be
confronted with by the year 1980 or by the
year 2000.
Rapid urbanization has vastly complicated
both transportation problems and their solu-
tions. Urbanization is a global phenomena.
Soon more than half of the world's popula-
tion will live in crowded cities, but nowhere
is it more vivid than in Ontario, which is
amidst the sometimes painful process of jam-
ming 85 per cent of its population into 2
per cent of its land, a most amazing change
for a province not so long ago considered
rural.
Auto population has tripled in 20 years
and is now growing almost as fast as human
population. Residents of Ontario have
sprawled into suburban fringes where they
are so dispersed that public transportation is
ineffective.
Housewives have become chauflFeurs for
their children and husbands. Inevitably, as
transit services decline and road improve,
more autos not only clog the roads to town,
but block the streets as well. Freeway tieups
have multiplied to the point where air-borne
traffic spotters now broadcast on how to
dodge them.
It has been found in the United States that
frequently a new freeway, built to carry
thousands of cars a day no sooner opens up,
than it is inundated by twice that many.
Besides, one mile of freeway takes 40 acres
of what would otherwise be taxpaying prop-
erty, and a simple interchange often eats
up 80 acres.
Just as Metro studies have shown the
possible solution to the worsening problem of
getting people in and out of town with dis-
patch, efiiciently and safely, so a revival of
mass transit is necessary, be it rail or bus.
We should strive towards a balanced trans-
portation system, feeding passengers swiftly
and smoothly from one mode of travel to
another. As it is now, there are practically
no links between systems. Until these link-
ups actually occur, no truly efficient trans-
portation system will be possible. We will
either solve the problem or find our down-
towns strangled.
Surely, this is the department that should
be more than just a computerized, fee-
collecting, licence-issuing department, but a
department concerned with transportation
problems. I would suggest to the Minister
that he undertake a transportation study of
some Ontario city with a population of from
100,000 to 200,000. I would suggest that,
just as he has commuter trains here in Metro,
he experiment with commuter buses in some
Ontario city for a given period of time.
I would suggest that he consider the rebate
of provincial fuel tax on buses used in some
suburban transit systems, or if not the rebate,
the dropping of the fuel tax completely.
Try this for a given period of time. Maybe
in London, and see if such an experiment is
part of the answer to our transportation prob-
lem. See if such suggestions would not ease
the pressure for more highways. Mr. Chair-
man, may I once again bring to the attention
of the Minister a suggestion that I made a
year ago, that we give consideration to a
pilot project that would provide free public
transit in some Ontario city for a given period
of time. There may be substantial merit and
savings in both money and Hves in such sug-
gestions. Mr. Chairman, I could make men-
tion of airstrip development, hover craft,
helicopters and vertical take-off aircraft as
methods of transport. But I will leave this to
my colleagues when we speak on the later
votes.
Mr. Chairman, the case for compulsory
MAY 30. 1968
3699
vehicle inspection was more than well dis-
cussed recently in one of the members' hours
iind was agreed to by all members of the
House, and the case was well documented.
You have admitted the merit of it, by starting
some classes of dump trucks. May I ask you
now, to stop playing with the lives of the
people and become serious in tlie need for
such a safety measure.
Many states now, have such a requisite,
and several provinces likewise. I would like
to simply read several sentences from an
article of May 11, 1968, and this is concern-
ing a check lane held in the city of Windsor.
More than 700 cars had been directed
through the lane and, of tliese, 125 were
ordered off the road because of serious mech-
anical faults. Constable Robinson, who had
something to do with the whole procedure,
makes this comment:
There is no doubt that many persons
with older, possibly imsafe cars are leaving
them at home until the safety lane is over.
So having that tj'pe of programme is not
sufficient, you must have compulsory vehicle
inspection. I know that it would be difficult
to have all vehicles inspected annually at this
time, but, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to
the Minister that in adidtion to having mech-
anical fitness, or the vehicle inspection, tliat
is now required on the sale of vehicles, that
in 1968 he require all vehicles, cars, trucks
and buses of 1960 or earlier vintage, plus all
vehicles regardless of year, whose odometer
records at least 75,000 miles, be required to
present a certificate of mechanical fitness be-
fore a new 1969 licence plate be issued.
Next year, 1969, all vehicles of 1961, 1962
and 1963 vintage and older, plus all vehicles
having an odometer reading of over 75,000
miles likewise be required to present certifi-
cates of mechanical fitness. Two years from
now, in the year 1970, all vehicles from 1964,
1965 and 1966 and older; in 1971-1967,
1968, 1969 and older; in 1972-1970 and
1971 vehicles; so that within five years, Mr.
Chairman, all vehicles would have to present
certificates of mechanical fitness.
Mr. Chairman, one of the complaints about
stricter laws for drinking drivers has always
been there has been no proof that the new
laws will have the desired effect. Experience
in Britain, Mr. Chairman, seems now to have
refuted this argument. Compulsory breatli-
ahzer tests for suspected drunk drivers have
had such marked effect on the driving and
drinking habits of the British that I must,
for the record, state that the Minister of
Transport reported that road deaths were
down 579, or 23 per cent, for the first three
months after the new law came into effect
in October, 1967.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the results of the
first breathalizer Christmas for the five fes-
tive days in 1967 compared with the same
period in 1966 showed 60 fewer deaths on
the roads, 497 fewer seriously injured, 1,367
fewer slightly injured, for a total of 1,921
fewer total casualties. Is not this dramatic
and convincing proof that Britain's strict new
regulations have had their effect, and that
similar regulations in Ontario would also have
a similar effect?
The Department of Transport's 1967 acci-
dent facts book states that the condition of
the driver involved in fatal accidents in 22
per cent of 448 cases was that the driver had
been drinking or was classed as "ability im-
paired". If Britain's decrease in road deaths
were just as applicable to Ontario's situation,
this would have meant 23 per cent of the
448 persons, or about 100 fewer deaths. How
about it? Why not follow Britain, seeing that
you are not concerned enough to show lead-
ership in this one more important way of
curtailing the hazards of the mixture of
alcohol with gasoline?
Other members of my group, Mr. Chair-
man, will make comments in the appropriate
vote on this topic. I would just like to make a
few suggestions to the Minister.
First, I would once again make a plea that
he consider the reflectorization of licence
plates. In other years we have had quite a
lengthy debate on this. It has been proven
meritorious in many jurisdictions and I think
it is time now that the Minister stop kidding
us and become serious. If he fails to follow
this, I would suggest that he require the
signs of cars, trucks, buses, trains, freight cars
—all types of roUing stock— to contain certain
amounts of reflectorized material.
I would also suggest to the Minister that
bulbs of greater intensity be compulsory on
motor vehicles. It was all right to have a
light seen from 500 feet away when the
traffic speeds were 30 and 40 miles an hour.
But today, with vehicles travelling at prac-
tically any speed on the highway, it is needed
for them to be recognized much sooner; 500
feet is insufficient. So I would suggest that a
bulb of greater intensity would be that much
greater a warning to the approaching driver.
I would suggest, hkewise, that standard
bumper heights be compulsory in the prov-
ince. You will notice that the latest fad is
3700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for some of the jet set to jack up the back of
their car and raise it up to the point where
the rear bumper is practically two feet oflE the
ground— even much higher than tliat— and we
know the hazard that would be in a rear end
collision.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): That is the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food's car you have been looking
at.
Mr. B. Newman: May I also suggest that
the Minister press the manufacturer for a
bumper completely around the car and that
not only that that bumper be completely
around the car, but that it be the part of the
car that projects the farthest. In this way we
would be copying the dodgem cars that we
find at fairs. We know these cars used at
fairs do not smash up and do not become
damaged as easily as if vehicles did not have
that type of protection. This would also cut
repair costs and, in turn, decrease our insur-
ance premiums, so I am suggesting a bumper
completely around the car— at a standard
height— and that it project farther than any
otiier part of the vehicle.
I would suggest to the Minister that splash-
guards on all sides of all vehicles be com-
pulsory and that the splashguards be low
enough so that they would prevent the splash-
ing, especially in inclement weather. We all
know the hazards in attempting to pass a
vehicle when it is raining.
I would likewise suggest to the Minister
that he consider a special coloured licence
plate for uninsured drivers. Anyone that does
not present a card shov^ing that he has insur-
ance on his vehicle be provided with a spe-
cial type and a special coloured licence plate,
so that the public could easily identify him
and treat him with caution.
I would suggest, also, a permanent licence
plate, rather than an annual plate. And, if
you cannot see your way clear to having a
permanent plate, I would suggest that the
present plate be vahd for a longer period of
time than one year. I suggest tliat they need
not be renewed at the same period of time
in a year, but that they could be renewed—
or that you could buy a new plate— at several
times in the year.
You could very easily work this out by
different colours in the plates. For example,
one half of the plate could be blue and the
other half be white in one year; the next year
one half of the plate could be white and the
other could be red; and the second year the
one half of the plate could be red and the
other could be green, or any other colour. But
you could, by a combination of colours, if you
do not intend, or do not wish, to have a
permanent licence plate, have a licence plate
issued at various times of the year using
colour coding.
I would likewise suggest to the Minister
that tires should be plainly marked. They
should not be marked in codes, but on the
tire should be marked the mileage that the
tire should give the individual under normal
use.
I would suggest, likewise, a special tag or
a plate be attached to a car whenever it is
being driven by a learner. A type of tag that
would be required to be put on the license
plate and removed when someone other than
the learner is actually using the car. I under-
stand such a scheme is being used in some
European countries.
I would likewise suggest to the Minister
that he consider some way of identifying
drivers that have nine to twelve demerit
points, and that is some way on the licence
plate. We have attempted to talk to these
people concerning safety on the road. They
apparently do not want to listen when it
comes to the communication. So, if we can-
not speak to them, let us identify them on
the road.
I would require the manufacturers to paint
the inside cover of the trunk a bright fluores-
cent orange, or some colour, or even reflector-
ize it, so that a vehicle in trouble on the
highway simply has to raise the trunk. There
is a method by which you could warn
approaching vehicles.
These are but a few of tlie suggestions that
I could make but for the sake of time I am
curtailing them. I do ask the Minister to
press for greater safety in the manufacture
of automobiles. I would ask that he insist
that the manufacturers inform his department
of the number of vehicles recalled and the
reason for recall.
Mr. Chairman, I have just two other com-
ments I would like to make and one is that
tlie Smith report— I could go into a discussion
on the Smith report, but I will leave that for
someone else for the sake of time. Likewise,
I could make comment on automobile insur-
ance, but I know there will be members
from my group who will cover that fairly
well. I could likewise make mention of the
brief presented by a Mr. Dave Elliott of
local 880 of the teamsters on the urgent need
for liighway safety measures— quite a worth-
MAY 30, 1968
3701
y/hile brief. I could likewise make mention
of fume control and exhaust devices, but for
the sake of time I will bypass all of that.
I would like to ask the Minister to seriously
consider greater driver control— more strin-
gent driver examination, a greater stress on
driver improvement, stricter enforcement,
stiffer penalties. And let us get on with the
driver education programme in the schools in
a much faster fashion; we are not increasing
it quickly enough. The young driver is the
one that has the greatest incidence of acci-
dents of it is absolutely necessary that he be
taught the proper way to drive. In fact, I
might even think of making it sort of, in some
instances, a compulsory subject in secondary
school.
I would like to ask for a review of the
point system and, in this instance, I would
like to make mention of a law passed in
the state of Virginia on April 4 of this year.
This Virginia measure I am quoting now:
Under the terms of the Virginia law, a
person convicted of being a habitual offen-
der will be deprived of his driving licence
for life and a mandatory jail term of from
one to five years will be imposed if he
continues to drive after his permit is
revoked. To be convicted as a habitual
offender, a person must be found guilty
and convicted of committing three serious
offences during a ten-year period or 12
lesser offences for which a court of law is
authorized or the division of motor vehicles
is required to suspend the x>ermit for 30
days.
The nine serious offences are manslaugh-
ter, drunk driving, impaired driving, driv-
ing on a revoked or suspended permit,
driving without a permit having been
issued, perjury or making a false affidavit
when obtaining a driving licence, a com-
mission of a felony while using a motor
vehicle, hit and run involving property
damage in excess of $250, hit and run
involving personal injury or any combina-
tion of these offences totalling three in a
ten-year period.
Mr. Chairman, I could make mention of a lot
of other things concerning this department
but I will take them up as the individual
votes come up.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
I too was very pleased with the brevity of the
Minister's statement and congratulate the
member for Windsor-Walkerville on the sug-
gestions he has made.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to
express the views of the New Democratic
Party with regard to the function and the
operation of The Department of Transport.
I want to make it clear at the outset as I
talk of the department I am not talking neces-
sarily about those people involved in the day-
to-day operations. I am referring more to
the operations themselves as they are laid
out in the structure of the department.
The Department of Transport of this par-
ticular government functions extremely well
as a repository of historical data; but as a
driving force in the development of this
province, it ranks alongside bathtub gin and
raccoon coats. It is a kind of an amusing
relic of the past and while it is only ten
years old, it really does not serve what I
would consider to be a very u<=eful function
towards fviture expansion of this province.
In reviewing the actions taken by this
department during the course of the year, I
would have to say that its efforts are those
of a department which appears to be obsessed
with maintaining the status quo, and I will go
into that a little later perhaps. The department
seems reluctant to undertake any revolution-
ary change, and if Hansard of the past accur-
ately indicates the things that have been
suggested in this House, I would be inclined
to believe that those few things we have seen
over the past years are actually enactments
of suggestions that have been made over
the years from this side of the House.
If the department is to function properly
even in the present conditions, the depart-
ment as it now is would have to make quite
a number of changes. I will name two or
three of them for the moment and as the
estimates progress we may get into more of
them.
The Highway Traffic Act, the administra-
tion of which is one of the main functions
of the department, should be completely re-
written in my opinion. The Minister intro-
duced his changes earlier this year and I
was hoping it was an indication of more
radical change within the department. But,
alas, it was not that at all; it was typical
housekeeping type of change we have seen
so many times in so many otlier departments
within die government.
Instead of introducing compulsory inspec-
tion of all automobiles licenced in Ontario,
the Minister undertook to inspect just a few.
He decided, for some reason or other beyond
my comprehension, that an automobile that
is being sold is more of a menace than one
3702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that has been on the highway for a number
of years. Now, it seems plain to me that any
automobile that has been driven numbers of
times over these highways for many, many
years, has as much chance of being in poor
mechanical condition as one that just hap-
pens to be being sold.
I think this sort of hesitant step in the
direction of compulsory inspection is not
nearly enough at this time. If we are going
to cut down on the number of automobile
accidents, if we are going to insure safety
on the highways, then we must surely go
immediately into compulsory inspection.
The member who spoke ahead of me men-
tioned a plan that would take some years to
reach fruition, and it is not a bad plan at all,
perhaps a httle long in my opinion. I hope
that we might be able to reach this objective
in a lesser period of time. I would hate to
think that over the next five years many ac-
cidents would have occurred due to mechani-
cal failures that could have been avoided had
we taken tlie steps now.
The motor vehicle accident claims fimd
should be abolished. It should be replaced
by legislation making auto insurance com-
pulsory in this province, and providing in-
demnity without fault. I would say that if
past experience with the auto insurance com-
panies is borne out after the legislation
making auto insurance compulsory, then it
might be necessary for the province to enter
into this field in a very real way. I would be
reluctant to leave such a captive market in
the hands of the present auto insurance
companies.
The committee on transport and highways,
of which I am a member, does not appear
to serve any useful purpose. I sat there dur-
ing the discussion on Bill 66. This House
asked that the bill be referred to committee
in order that the various persons interested
in the content of the bill would be given
the opportunity to present their views. They
were given the opportunity but I am of the
opinion that many, many members on the
government side arrived there determined in
advance on how they were going to vote.
I am still convinced, as I was at tlie time
of the hearing, tliat the case put forward by
the truckers of this province who were repre-
sented was a much better documented case,
a case with much more substance than the
case put forward by the Minister. If this is
going to be tlie function of this particular
section of the department or rather, the
function of this committee, it is not serving
a useful function.
Let us get it out of here, let us not pretend
any longer that it is there for the purpose
of hearing the people's views with an eye to
influencing government, because this is not
the case. And these are a very few things that
I diink we could begin by doing. There are
many, many more but I do not want to dwell
on the function of the department as it is
at present. They are small changes and they
would not, in my view, bring about the kind
of Department of Transport we ought to
have.
The Departments of Highways and Trans-
port as they are presently constituted should
be molded together to form a whole new
department. I realize that ten years ago they
were, and I think that the move at that time
to separate them was an unwise move.
I am of the opinion there should be a
whole new department set-up— a branch of
which would be The Department of Trans-
port as it presently exists, and another
branch, the one that now exists as The De-
partment of Highways. By so doing, we would
not only save money by the administration
but it would eliminate this overlap of serv-
ices. In some cases we would get rid of this
lack of communication that appears to exist.
We would correlate the services and we
would eliminate the kind of thing that oc-
curred in Welland just recently, where there
was a lack of cominunication between our-
selves and the federal government, a lack
of communication between The Department
of Transport who ought to have some say
or some control over planning and The De-
partment of Highways.
The problem that arose at Welland is just
a wasting of $750,000; to build an overpass
at that cost and then to scrap it within five
years indicates that there is a certain lack
of communication somewhere along the way.
So I have some suggestions to make for
this department. They must have a complete
change, complete rebuilding— complete re-
structuring of the department.
It must have complete and full jurisdiction
over all of the transportation media of this
province. It must have, under its control,
not only The Department of Highways; not
only those administrative functions that pres-
ently fall within The Department of Trans-
port; not only the licensing and the fee
setting structure; but it must have jurisdiction
over all means of moving product and mate-
MAY 30, 1968
3703
rial, over all means of moving people in this
province.
I would view this new department along
the following lines. I see it as being a very,
very large department, not only in numbers
of people involved, but also in the scope of
its jurisdiction. Perhaips even a senior Min-
istry somewhere along the way. A depart-
ment that would play a very, very important
role in the planning of the economy of this
province.
The Department of Highways operation
would be within this new department. A
department dealing with the new methods
of transportation, pipelines and the various
methods that are not presently being used to
the full extent. It would have jurisdiction
over the railroads, over airways and water-
ways. It would have a branch of planning
and research and I heard tlie Minister men-
tion, in his opening remarks, that we were
going to have just such a thing.
I would hope that the outcome of the sug-
gested department will be something like
what I am going to suggest. When the new
department is initially set up, if it ever is,
the planning and research branch would dele-
gate to the five branches that I mentioned,
the responsibility of stocktaking. We have to
be able to determine what we have in this
province in the way of transportation media.
We would have to know exactly what is
available to every area of the province in
order that we can determine what we need
and, at the present time, I do not see this.
I see it being done in local areas but I do
not see it in an overall plan of any kind. It
would be in close communication with The
Department of Municipal AflFairs, The Depart-
ment of Trade and Development, The Treas-
ury Board, The Department of Energy and
Resources Management, The Department of
Agriculture and Food and perhaps others.
But those particular departments.
And it would be in this close communica-
tion in order to determine where the eco-
nomic growth of this province was likely to
take place and where the planning of these
departments was likely to bring about addi-
tional economic growth.
The entire future of this province rests
upon the type of transportation system we
evolve. There is no purpose in casting aside
the urban sprawl in favour of the satellite
city if we are going to have to tear down
half of the existing city to provide the super
highways to bring the people from the dormi-
tory communities to the place where they
must earn their living.
There is no purpose in talking alx>ut the
development of the north unless we are pre-
pared to provide the necessary transportation
media, not only to take out of the north those
things that have been taken out before, but
to put back into the north the opportunity of
establishing the secondary industry so very
necessary for its growth.
This planning branch would take a very
close look at the possibility of enlarging this
mass media transportation that we have. We
would, whenever necessary, build the mono-
rail systems required to move people into the
cities and out of the cities. We would pro-
vide the subway systems that would Ix? re-
quired for the same purposes.
The big problem in this province has been
that we have never sat down and seriously
considered whether the highways that are
available now are tlie best and most economic
means of moving the materials and the people
from one portion of the province to another.
We have never decided whether we are
making best use of the railways.
The Minister mentions, or someone men-
tioned the fact, that we might be thinking of
doing away with tlie railways. What we
perhaps ought to be doing is thinking of
enlarging the railways and improving and
modernizing them in order that we get the
very best and the lowest cost transportation of
goods and materials.
The northern Ontario railroad does not per-
form a very meaningful function at this time.
It is not properly used and it could be
improved on immeasurably.
We have made very little use of air trans-
portation in the province. The Minister talks
of the new Act— The Airport Act— but The
Airport Act is still paper and unless a very
serious appraisal of the needs of the province
is undertaken before tlie estabhshment of
these air strips or landing strips in the north,
it will, like all other Acts, serve a very useless
purpose.
We must consider the use of moving solids
by pipehne. It can be done and it can be done
in this province of opportimity if we so desire.
I am sure that one can see in retrospect
the massive job that would have to be done
by such a department. It would require a
Minister with great foresight and ability. It
would require the complete restructuring of
the things that presently are, into the tilings
that must be, for future growth. As I said
previously, this department would play a very
3704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
important function in the development of
tliis province. It would play a major role.
The scope available to it would only be
dictated by the foresight of the people in
charge. A government determined to develop
this province, determined to give the kind of
equality of opportunity so often referred to
in political speeches, should have been able to
see the need for such a department long ago
and let me say, heaven knows, they have
been prompted often enough. It has been
suggested by many people prior to my coming
here and will probably still be getting sug-
gested long after I have gone.
It should not be up to me, at this time,
to be making these suggestions in order that
we provide for the people of this province,
the kind of economic growth the kind of
future that I see.
In review, let me say that the department,
as it presently functions, functions fairly well.
The job it does is totally inadequate though,
but it does it with some degree of efficiency.
It handles licences well, issues fees well,
administers the Act without changing it but
administers it well; and the review boards it
has, the administrative functions, the statis-
tical centre, could almost all be replaced with
an adequate computerized system.
Its handling of The Traffic Act, as I said,
is unimaginative; the new legislation of the
department, what little there has been of it,
is sort of stopgap; and the only modern func-
tion in transportation in this province has
been performed without the jurisdiction of
The Department of Transport— the very place
where it ought to have been the government
did not see fit to place it— and this is Go
Transit.
I would hope that the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Transport would take
heed of what is being suggested to him, here
tonight by both opposition parties; that you
would consider very seriously undertaking
these things; that you would have the fore-
sight and imagination to recognize the poten-
tial of this province; but that this potential
will only be realized if the transportation
system is adequate to carry the people and
the materials from where they are to where
they must be.
I ask you to take some steps, in this direc-
tion, now. Do the things that have been
suggested to you. Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, it has
been rather a rewarding evening for me and
I think for members, to introduce our esti-
mates in this way, and to be the recipient of
two such well prepared, and well delivered
addresses on behalf of the Opposition speakers.
I looked forward with some anticipation to
hearing from the member for Windsor-Walker-
ville, because of his long known interest in,
and familiarity with, the motor vehicle admin-
istration business, coming as he does from
the motor centre of the province. He has not
disappointed, but he has, as was expected,
come forward with some very useful com-
ments, and suggestions.
There are a number of the suggestions that
have been put forward by both the speakers
thus far, that I think could perhaps be better
and more adequately dealt with when we
reach the individual items.
As I said in introducing them, we have
restructured the set-up of the estimates for
this department this year in a manner that
I think the House will find very convenient,
and useful.
When we come to it, Mr. Chairman, it
maybe that when we get to vote 2201, and
come to vote 2202 on drivers, vote 2203 on
vehicles, vote 2204 on common carriers and
such, these votes have, under them, been
broken down into the several programmes
that are covered by them, and I think, as we
look at those programmes, we will find they
include all the subjects we want to discuss in
detail.
As I look at the comments I have already
been offered, I find that a number of them
will fit very properly into fuller discussion
later. I would like to suggest at this time, Mr.
Chairman, that the members look at those
votes, and the arrangement of them, and
ascertain which of the subjects they want
to discuss, and which fall within the clearly
noted programmes under votes 2202, 2203,
2204, and speak to them, if it please the
House, under programmes, rather than under
items that seem to me to be rather meaning-
less.
That being so, I would suggest that if there
are any items the members want to discuss
that fall within the purview of my depart-
ment, that do not seem to properly fit within
the votes or within those designated pro-
grammes within the votes, rather than the
items numbered, that they raise them under
vote 401. And if tliey do fall within the pur-
view of my department, and are not other-
wise covered, we can deal with them in
2201, so that all may be satisfied with a full
and adequate discussion of matters that come
under this department's surveyance.
MAY 30, 1968
3705
Mr. MacDonald: Research as such has done
a disappearing act in this department It
used to be a separate branch. Last year it
was a separate estimate under the first vote,
and now it is not identifiable as such. Where
does one appropriately raise it?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
research as it was referred to in last year's
estimates had to do largely with the amount
of work associated with Metropolitan Toronto
regional transportation study and related
research. We do not do pure research of
any kind in our department— MTRTS came
under that vote, and in the absence of research
occurring under any other vote, I think it will
quite properly come up in vote 2201, main
ofiBce.
That is where I am suggesting, Mr. Chair-
man, that if members find there is any appar-
ent absence of a topic for a subject they
want to raise, it can be brought up in 2201.
It will provide a catch-all of anything that is
not otherwise indicated in the estimates.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, since you are straightening
out some of these matters, there are one or
two recommendations from the Smith report
having to do with licensing fees, particularly
associated with PCV and PV responsibilities;
would you prefer those under the main ofiice,
or under common carrier.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, if they
were to appertain particularly to the licensing
of common carriers, or the licensing fees of
common carriers, they could come there. It
was more general; I think there were three
portions in the Smith report concerning our
department. You can raise them under vote
2201 if they were of a general nature, but if
they were specific to common carriers I
think that would be the more appropriate
place to raise them.
Mr. Chairman: I believe the Minister made
reference to the Metropolitan Toronto and
regional transportation study. Do I under-
stand him correctly to say that this should
not come under vote 2201; possibly it is
another vote?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No. I would think it
would seem to fall under transportation
planning by the name of it, but it is a pro-
gramme that is over, and I have intimated
to the House that our work is completed, and
I am hoping to be able to table the report
in this House on June 13, if the printers do
not fail us.
Having straightened out the means by
which we can follow the estimates in an
orderly way, I think there are some matters
that were brought up by the hon. members
that might not reappear when we are dis-
cussing votes and the items. I make reference
to a suggestion from both the speakers of
the Opposition parties with regard to a more
comprehensive programme for transportation,
and I think that this is an indication of lift-
ing our sights.
We appreciate the suggestion that trans-
port could comprehend highways and rails
and air and pipelines, and so. We understand
the division that we follow today is one of
convenience, that transport was separated out
of highways, as the job of highway building
became such a large operation, and the ad-
ministration of motor vehicles, which trans-
port was primarily in those days, was a good
separation. In my opening remarks I sought
to emphasize the desirability of that separa-
tion of work and the establishment of this
department 10 years ago, and the work we
have done as justifying it.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate the thought-
ful expressions of both members in respect
to the broader operation of transport. It is
known that air transport is primarily a func-
tion of the federal government, and so is
rail transportation in its interprovincial and
international operation, and pipelines as well.
We have no desire to tangle with the federal
authorites, but our move into the airport
work, and particularly the projected plans
to open up some of the north with airstrips
so that wheeled aircraft can move it, in all-
weather service, is an indication of our recog-
nition of that need.
At the same time we have appreciation of
the fact that airports are primarily a federal
responsibility. But in these areas where we
can meet situations that are not being cov-
ered by the federal operation, without offend-
ing or impinging on federal authority, and
we can do it in a way that is co-operative
and useful, we will be doing it under the
powers given us by the new Airports Act that
received its Royal assent just before Easter.
A number of matters were raised by the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that
come specifically under other votes. Highway
safety can be dealt with largely under vote
2205. But let us not fall into the error that
the hon. member was leading us into when
he was suggesting that because the one
particular vote, 2205 highway safety co-
ordination and promotion, had not increased.
3706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that our work had not increased. We must
not assume that that one vote comprehends
our entire programme of highway safety. He
will be one of the first to recognize, sir, that
a large measure of highway safety is being
cared for in our driver examination, training,
control, and vehicle inspection programmes.
The amount that is represented under vote
2205 is only a part of the moneys being spent
and the work being done related to highway
safety. These various aspects of highway
safety can be discussed under their respective
headings. Both members spoke on mechnical
fitness and vehicle inspection. We will deal
with those when we come to them in subse-
quent votes where a better opportunity is
afforded to specialize on just those items. I
do not know if you will want to bring up
the breatlialyzer test in any particular section,
and it is a very important factor in highway
safety. We all recognize it as such.
The so-called accident facts clearly indi-
cate the problems related to highway safety.
The experience in Great Britain this last year
has been a very encouraging one and it was
with regret, though, that we saw the federal
government dissolve and leave the bill deal-
ing with this matter, the amendment to the
criminal code, standing on the order paper.
It is to be hoped that when the government
of Canada comes back to Parliament this next
session that it will revive that bill and carry
through its proposal to make unlawful being
in control of a motor vehicle with an alcohol
content in the blood of more tlian a specified
amount. I think that I would share with
members, the hope that the federal govern-
ment might see fit to amend its section
respecting the impairment level. It was setting
the level at 0.1 per cent in the blood, when
its own standing committee on justice and
legal bills, the Canadian medical association,
the Canadian bar association, the British
white paper, and many other responsible
authorities had urged that the figure be set
at .08. I strongly support tliat figure and hope
that we will see the offence established in
the criminal code.
We can deal with licence plates where they
come up under motor vehicle registration,
and I will be happy to speak on it there.
There were all kinds of items respecting
motor vehicle equipment raised by the
member for Windsor-Walkerville, with his
particular knowledge of automobiles and auto-
mobile manufacture. At the time he was
speaking on car safety construction, and
recalls. Whether that would come particularly
imder registration of vehicles or vehicle safety
inspection or enforcement, I do not know.
But I would like to say to the House at this
time that I think that we have pursued a very
diligent, and forceful, and forthright, and
successful course in the matter of vehicle
safety from the time that we first initiated
action in this province, even before it was
taken in the United States.
In dealing directly with the motor car
manufacturers— and I conferred with tlie
presidents of all the companies engaged in
car manufacture in Canada— we came to
agreements with respect to the installation of
safety equipment. I would like to say this in
tribute to the car manufacturers: That the
undertakings given have been carried out with
honesty and in full intent. I have arranged
with the m.anufacturers— and I did this before
recall programmes were mandated in the
United States— that they would keep me in-
formed, and I released in Canada before they
it was released in the United States, the story
on recalls in Canada.
Recalls are just a part of the process. The
recall information alone is not sufficient. I
get recall information from all the reporting
companies manufacturing cars in this country
in advance of it being made public, but that
is not enough. I have checked out and fol-
lowed through with the manufacturers on
their service departments the process of the
servicing of the cars whose owners have been
notified. I find that there is a certain diffi-
culty there and it is with regard to the lapse
time that occurs, from the time that the re-
call programme is announced and the recall
notices go out to owners who have been
invited to bring back cars for a recheck, until
the time that the reports on rechecks come
back to the motor vehicle manufacturers and
they report to me. There is a lapse there,
which I find is of some concern.
The entire programme of recalls I have
available, and if anyone was collecting them
from the newspaper he could have them all.
But if the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-
ville would like, my department would be
happy to supply him with the total story on
the recalls from the time they began, the
notification of the recall on every item, and
each and every recall for servicing.
The member for Wentworth indicated that
there seemed to be a reluctance on the part
of our department to make revolutionary
changes. I think that both he and the
previous speaker from Windsor-Walkerville
suggested that the good things that we had
been doing were adopted from suggestions
MAY 30, 1968
a707
from the Opposition. Gentlemen, I am not
going to argue about that. I do not care who
gets the credit, as long as we do a good job.
Mr. MacDonald: The problem is you have
to be prodded so long before you do the job.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That may be, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to refer to the reason
that we do not make too many revolutionary
changes in this field and it is a very reason-
able one. It is that we cannot move alone,
for example, with regard to rear end lights,
and someone may want to bring up the tail
hght signalling system.
Because of the mobility of motor vehicles
and because of the freedom with which they
move from this jurisdiction to others, between
provinces, and across international borders,
we are just about hog tied. We are limited
in what we can do without getting broad
acceptance and uniform action from other
jurisdictions.
This is the thing that our friend from
Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) will appreciate, as
it was one of the bugbears of the railway
business across America. Because of the
inter-changeability of equipment, they were
prevented from making the changes and
advances that they might have desired. Well,
I find tliat this is one of the frustrating things
in this business. We cannot unilaterally
change a lighting system. We could not get
a company to unilaterally change some factor
in its structure without making it common
across the industry.
Because of the fact that we have mandated
certain equipment for cars and we are now
accepting regulations that the United States
is laying down for mandating equipment— we
are following that in measure for the present,
in some respects. As we have foreign cars
coming in here, I called the first conference
a few months ago of all the importers of
cars manufactured overseas. Those people
are confronted with the great problem of
trying to meet requirements in the United
Kingdom and other European and Asiatic
countries and the United States, and here. We
are trying to iron out the thing in a sensible
way, so that we can get uniformity as far as
is possible, and not send the economically
important motor vehicle industry into a tizzy.
1 hat is what we have to worry about.
We had people come all the way from
Japan specifically for tliat meeting and since
then I had the director general of the British
motor vehicle industry come to Canada to
see me. He wants to know what we can do
to help tliem meet our requirements in a
reasonable way. His chief concern was not
that we would not lay down requirements,
nor how they could avoid or evade our
requirements, but how we could liaise to the
end that, not only the manufacturer, but, back
of him, his component suppliers, could learn,
a reasonable length of time in advance of the
time that the item would be mandated, so
that they could follow orderly procurement
and manufacturing procedures.
I mention these things that you may under-
stand why we are not able to bring in, as
freely as we would like, radical changes in
the automobile and in our practices. It is a
problem; we try to work it out as best we
can; we try to be progressive, and we try to
do a good job on behalf of administering
motor vehicles.
I leave it at that, sir, and move on into the
further work of examining our estimates. I
undertake to give what help I can in
answering questions. If the members ask me
things I cannot answer, we will try to get
the answers. I will do my best to be helpful.
On Vote 2201.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: I wonder if I could ask the
Minister a question with regard to the Act
establishing airports. How much-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I believe
that would come under vote 2207.
Mr. Deans: I am sorry. He mentioned it;
I was just going to ask him a qti»stion with
regard to what he said.
Mr. Chairman: I think perhaps we had
better stick with the votes. We can deal
with that under vote 2207.
Mr. Deans: Transportation— fine!
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the three mat-
ters in the Smith report that concern the
Minister do not all come under the common
carriers vote and he might be prepared to
indicate to the House under the first vote
where general policy should be considered
and just what the reaction of his department
is to the recommendations made by the
Royal commission on taxation.
The most important one, I suppose, does
have to do with Tlie Public Commercial
Vehicles Act and The Public Vehicles Act
3708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
because the commissioners feel that the sta-
tute presently is extracting about four times
too much money from those people who re-
quire the licences associated with those two
Acts. If the Minister is going to continue the
policy of using those statutes as revenue
statutes, rather than just servicing the licences
and policing the licences, perhaps this would
be a time when he could express the main-
tenance of the old policy, or a change to the
recommendations that come from the Smith
report.
The other two refer to buses and transfer
fees and so on, and are of lesser importance
I believe but this one is of some considerable
interest.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
recommendations of the Smith report are
really three in number as I recall them—
those which propose that municipalities and
other bodies which presently pay token regis-
tration fees as a form of subsidy should be
required to pay normal fees, and then receive
a direct subsidy in compensation; recom-
mendations which relate to the adjustment of
existing fees to a level which will cover the
administering of other associated costs in-
volved; and recommendations, I think it was
30:10, which would appreciably increase the
revenue accruing from the registration of
passenger and dual-purpose vehicles and light
trucks, and balance them with lighter tax on
the PCVs.
I would think it would be reasonable for
me to say to the House, sir, that this Smith
report has hit us as it has hit many other
departments. It requires some very consider-
able analyzing and consideration, and it will
doubtless affect what recommendations I
might care to put before the Provincial Treas-
urer (Mr. MacNaughton). We have been
coming increasingly closer to the meeting of
that second recommendation, that insofar as
services are concerned, we are trying to make
revenue cover the costs of services in the
normal operation of—
Mr. Nixon: The second recommendation,
you mean the one having to do with PCVs?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No; the one having to
do with various services such as issuing certi-
ficates and that kind of thing. The first one
dealt with withdrawing from municipalities
the special licence fees they now enjoy, which
are disproportionate in some cases, and charg-
ing all municipal vehicles and public transit
vehicles the normal fee and then making ad-
justment by way of grants or subsidies, as an
offset in part.
In that connection, it was mentioned by
one of the speakers earlier that we should be
subsidizing public transit. We have been
accused of unfairly charging public transit
fees, I think of our own Ottawa transporta-
tion commission, something like $450,000 a
year in taxes. The municipal government
charges them something like $90,000 a year
in taxes, and the federal government about
$190,000. Leaving out what the city and
what the federal government charge them,
we have been collecting in licence fees, and
in fuel tax, about $450,000 a year from the
Ottawa transportation commission, which is
a municipally-owned system.
But a year ago, hon. members will remem-
ber that the Provincial Treasurer in his Bud-
get announced that there would be an
increase in the unconditional grant to munici-
palities of $1.50 per capita; he underlines it,
and it was underlined in the printed copy
that it could assist municipalities in roads and
transportation. Unconditionally, because some
municipalities would not want it for that pur-
pose—but for those that had need for assist-
ance for roads and transportation, there was
available to them— this additional grant of
$1.50 per capita.
With Ottawa's 300,000 population, that
grant amounted to exactly $450,000 in round
figures which was precisely the amount the
public transit system was paying in fees to
the province. In other words, we were,
through what was designated unconditional
grant, but nevertheless, returning it to
Ottawa— and it is able now to make payment
to the municipal transport system if it wants,
that amount of money which was exactly
what it was paying in registration fees and
fuel taxes.
Mr. B. Newman: It just happened to work
out that way.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is what I am
saying.
Mr. B. Newman: It was not done inten-
tionally to relieve the bus system in the city
of the payment of these additional taxes or
these taxes on fuel.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: But it did just work out
that way. The hon. leader of the Opposition
asked me about the Smith tax. I am not
prepared at this time to say how much of the
recommendations of Smith we will be seeing
implemented. On the other hand, I am not
sure I completely agree with the suggestion
that we should be raising the registration fee
on passenger, dual-purpose vehicles and small
MAY 30, 1968
3709
trucks, and reducing the others. I think we
have to think of the economic value and
the revenue-producing possibihties of these
charges. And I think it is a practical matter.
We have the Smith report and we have to
study it; we also have to think of road-users
as providing revenue, at least that has been
our approach to it.
Mr. Nixon: So that you really do reject the
attitude taken by the commissioners that it
should not be revenue-producing, other than
meeting tlie expense of enforcement and
policing the statute itself.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think that would be
a fair appraisal of my original thought. But
I do not think I have given tlie Smith
report as much thought as we may have to
do in the days ahead.
Mr. B. Newman: May I suggest to the
hon. Minister that he does put in a vote
specifically with his estimates on research,
because there are so many topics that we
could discuss under research that I think
there should be one included and I would
suggest that it be either the last vote or one
of the early votes. Before I ask a question,
I wish to commend the Minister and his
department on the book that they did put
out because it made it very easy to become a
critic of this department simply by following
the book. I thought it was well set-out and
very easy to follow.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I was
happy to have the report of the department
and also "Accident Facts" in the hands of
the hon. members well in advance of my
estimates so that if they want they can now
throw the book at me. With respect to the
research branch, it is a very small branch in
our operation. We do, as I say, little pure
research; we made studies a year ago on a
number of items and, actually, the budget is
under the main office administration research
section.
Mr. B. Newman: Maintenance?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is not.
Mr. B. Newman: Under the main office,
Mr. Chairman, I notice that the maintenance
vote has gone up approximately one-half
million dollars, and I was just wondering
whether that was part of the research.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That would hardly be
fair because we do not have anything like
that in research, Mr. Chairman. This is the
kind of thing that I intimated to the House
earlier would undoubtedly cause members
some confusion, because there have been
operations that have been moved in under the
main vote that probably were not collected
there before. But in the restructuring of the
estimates by programmes, they have been
put into that larger vote.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, under main
office, relating this year to last year, there is
a 19.4 per cent increase in the amount of
money requested this year as opposed to last.
Now I wonder if the Minister could explain
where this almost 20 per cent increase comes
in?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is a difficulty I am
sure that the House is going to have and
there is—
Mr. Deans: Submit a breakdown.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There is just no other
way we could avoid it. Increases or decreases?
These will be found under the various votes.
Under vote 2201, the total increase— and I
will break any vote down into items that the
member may wish— the total increase was
$283,000. The total increase in the drivers
branch is $804,000. The total increase in the
vehicles branch is $448,000; under the com-
mon carriers $63,000; under highway safety
co-ordination and promotion, which is the
printing, a $4,000 increase. Under the motor
vehicles accident claims branch an increase
of $196,000; under transportation planning
an increase of $77,000; for a total increase
of $1,877,000.
Now if there are any of those totals that
the member would like broken down, I will
endeavour to give such figures to him.
Mr. Deans: I noticed that the total increase
for the entire department is almost 16 per
cent this year. I will come back to that in a
moment.
I would like to just take the next two
minutes to say something about changing the
structure of the department. I realize it is
something that the Minister may not have
complete jurisdiction over. Perhaps the
Prime Minister is the one who ought to be
requested to answer this but since he is not
available for your estimates, you will have to
do it for him.
Now I know a number of people in this
government have suggested the very changes
3710
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that I suggest, and that is the bringing about
of a department which is completely respon-
sible for transportation. It was suggested by
the Minister of Mines. It was suggested by
both of the leaders of the Opposition parties
and it was also suggested by the Prime Min-
ister himself, some time ago.
Now do you foresee this happening in the
near future, when you are going to have jur-
isdiction over all of the transportation policies
of this province?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think that this is rather
a speculation, Mr. Chairman. I can quite
conceive of The Department of Transport
being responsible for transport per se but I
would think the likelihood of it including the
planning, engineering, construction and main-
tenance of highways would be unlikely to be
in the present thinking of our government
because that, in itself, is a pretty specialized
operation and a very large one.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, may I carry on with the point on the
Smith report? The Smith report attempts to
relate the road user charges to the road bene-
fits each user receives; this is the guiding
principle in their analysis and recommenda-
tions. They also note that it is necessary to
divide the beneficiaries of road services into
two groups, the road users and others.
The question I would like to ask the Min-
ister is whether or not he considers the dis-
advantages—or cause of certain things that
happen on the roads— as something which
should be charged off against the revenue
from the users?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Svich as?
Mr. T. Reid: Well, a simple example is the
question of air pollution and noise pollution
of the air. In other words, you are using
these roads, there are vehicles on them, and
they are contributing to air pollution in cer-
tain areas. The big 10-ton Macks, in particu-
lar, are contributing to noise pollution. It is
a very simple argument. These are so-called
external diseconomies of the highways to
people who do not necessarily use those high-
ways.
My question is this, in two parts: Do you
consider that some of the revenue you receive
from people who do use motor vehicles, that
contribute to these disadvantages to other
members of society, should be charged an
amount for that, so that research could be
done by your department or research grants
made by your department in even greater
amounts, if you are now making them, to
ways of combating this type of noise polhi-
tion and air pollution?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that is a very reasonable approach to it. I
mentioned in my opening remarks that the
revenue collected by this department goes
into the general mix of taxes and out of that
could be drawn moneys to deal with the un-
wanted by-products, if I can call them that,
of motoring, namely, noise and air pollution.
But the House will realize, sir, that air pollu-
tion is the problem of my colleague, the Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond), and so he
could be drawing out of the general revenue
for work he was doing in combating air
pollution.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to follow this up
briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be
h(>lpful, Mr. Chairman, through you to the
Minister, if The Department of Transport
made it known that they were concerned
with, as the Minister correctly called them,
"the undesirable by-products of the use of
motor vehicles" and if the Minister actually
stated, as a matter of policy, that he con-
siders this to be one of the costs to society
of operating highways with motor vehicles
on them, if the Minister could stand up on a
public platform and say, "Our highway
systems give us advantages, they do not just
open up Ontario, but they also carry disad-
vantages to them." Surely the first priority in
the revenue from the highways would be to
cure the disadvantages, the waste if you like,
the nasty by-products of this type of progress
through our highways.
I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the
Minister might be another voice in the area
of public policy-making to draw this to the
attention of the public; to let them know they
are not getting their highways for nothing;
that there are these wasteful, inhumane by-
products, if you like, of technological prog-
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member is very right about this, and Smith
recognized that these are charges that really
are laid at the door of the motor vehicle and
the user of the road. On the other hand, he
recognized the difficulty of assessment.
But this is why I spoke of the revenues
collected by our department as going into the
general mix and the work that is being done
in this connection would be done at the ex-
pense of— in measure— revenue from The De-
partment of Transport. But I would agree
with the hon. member that we can talk about
this and I will not hesitate on occasions to
MAY 30, 1968
3711
speak about the disadvantages and the dislo-
cation of our hfe and the changes that the
motor vehicle has brought, for they are not
all good.
Mr. T. Reid: A concluding point, Mr.
Chairman. May I ask the Minister if he be-
lieves that within his department there is the
authority to establish decibel levels on certain
types of motor vehicles?
What I am really trying to say is, can the
Minister, in his department, make laws which
will control the noise level, to some extent,
effectively? Now, air pollution is a difficult
one, but noise level is the thing that is
driving people up the walls and sending them
down the lakes.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: People and us, because,
Mr. Chairman, the noise factor is one of our
very real worries. We have laws on noise
making and the authorities have tried to
enforce them and it just does not seem to
work. Yet, in some municipalities, they have
had a type of enforcement that did clamp
down on the noise makers— those who ride
sports cars and motorcycles and such, not as
vehicles, but for the noise they make.
Nevertheless, I have to confess that we do
not have a good measuring device for noise
emission by motor vehicles that is useful in
enforcement. The national research council
in Ottawa has had the problem on its door-
step for about two years and if it can come
up with anything, bless them. We would be
happy to see if we could work it into our
legislation.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report certain resolu-
tions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with some of
the items on the order paper and return to
these estimates and, of course, the private
members' hour will be at 1 o'clock, p.m.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us
what estimates will follow the estimates of
this department?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know what
order we will take the two departments that
follow.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Pre-
sumably we can get clarification of that.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:10 o'clock, p.m.
No. 102
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, May 31, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, May 31, 1968
Motion to appoint select committee to study the report of the Ontario committee on
taxation, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3715
Regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, bill to establish, reported 3717
Employment Standards Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Bales, second reading 3735
Wages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, second reading 3741
Industrial Safety Act, 1964, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, second reading 3741
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Haskett, continued 3741
Air Pollution Control Act, 1968, bill intituled, on second reading, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Ben,
Mr. Jessiman, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Bukator 3749
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3760
3715
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 9:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This morning we are going
to have some sort of a record in the House
with no less than nine schools being repre-
sented by pupils visiting us. The early birds
who are with us this morning are: In the east
gallery, Gladstone Ave. senior public school,
Toronto; and in the west gallery, Hodgson
senior public school, Toronto, hosting students
from Chapleau pubhc school, Chapleau; and
students from Our Lady of Peace school,
Islington. Later, we will be having students
from Clarke public school, Samia; E. J. James
pubhc school, Oakville; L. G. Lorriman public
school, Welland; King Edward pubhc school,
Toronto; and Ajax high school, Ajax. I am
sure we welcome these young people who
were up so early this morning to be here with
us.
May I also express to the members who
have begun the new regime my appreciation
for them being here in time to allow the
House to get under way, and also to the staff,
because the early opening made quite a differ-
ence to the work that had to be done this
morning. I am sure that it is a good omen
for the accomplishment of business in the
Fridays ahead.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I move,
seconded by the hon. leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Nixon) that a select committee of this
House be appointed to conduct an examina-
tion of the recommendations of the report of
the Ontario committee on taxation:
To review briefs and submissions that have
been made to the government from munici-
palities, organizations and individuals with
respect to the recommendations contained in
that report;
To conduct hearings for the purpose of
receiving further representations from muni-
cipalities, organizations and individuals, with
Friday, May 31, 1968
respect to the recommendations contained in
that report;
And to report not later than September 17,
1968;
And that the select committee shall consist
of 13 members and shall have authority to
sit during the interval between sessions and
have full power and authority to appoint or
employ counsel and secretary and such other
personnel as may be deemed advisable and
to call for persons, papers and things and to
examine witnesses under oath, and the
assembly doth command and compel attend-
ances before the said select committee of such
persons and the production of such papers
and things as the committee may deem neces-
sary for any of its proceedings and delibera-
tions, for which purpose the hon. Speaker
may issue his warrant or warrants;
The membership of the committee to be
as follows: chairman, Mr. White; Messrs.
Breithaupt, Deacon, Demers, Jessiman,
Kennedy, Lawlor, Lawrence (Carleton East),
Meen, Newman (Ontario South), Pilkey, Snow,
Trotter.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House
that the motion be put as read by the mover,
the Prime Minister? Is it the pleasure of the
House that the motion carry?
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, if you will just permit me a
word or two on—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps then we would have
the mover and seconder speak.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
just say that the terms of reference are so
drawn that the intent and purpose of
this committee is not to re-do the work of
the Smith committee. It really is to take
the recommendations from the results of the
Smith committee and to examine the com-
ments made about those recommendations by
the various individuals and organizations
in the province who will be most affected by
the implementation of these recommendations
when that time comes.
We have a task force of civil servants who
have been working on the recommendations
of the Smith committee report since last
3716
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
August and it is our intent that this committee
will work very closely with that civil service
committee. Then, it seems to me, the joint
results of these two bodies should put the
committee in a position to make recommenda-
tions concerning legislation.
The September 17 deadline which is in the
motion, I feel to be necessary if we are to
anticipate any action that might be taken in
the next session of the Legislature. I do not
underestimate for a moment what this com-
mittee will have to do between now and
September 17, it is going to be a very tight
timetable indeed. On the other hand, if we
do not put in a deadline of this type, and if
the committee goes on for six or seven
months, then it will be 1970 before we would
be able to bring forward in legislative form
some of the recommendations we think are
necessary.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just a comment
or two. I agree that the deadline is necessary
since all sides of the House agree that the
work of the reform of the tax system must
proceed as expeditiously as possible. The
deadhne is going to give a very heavy burden
of work to those members who have accepted
the responsibihty of sitting on the committee.
It has been said that the members of this
committee, when their work is completed, will
be tax experts, because they will not only have
to work with the task force that the Premier
has mentioned already this morning, but will
have the advantage of hearing and discussing
the views of a good many experts across the
province.
So that this is not only a heavy responsi-
bility for the members who have committed
themselves to do it, but a real opportunity to
get into the front lines in the position of
experts on an evolving tax situation in On-
tario and Canada. In 1968, as you well
know, sir, we have the responsiblity of
renegotiating our fiscal agreement with the
government of Canada, so this is going to
be a very important year for our province
and our taxpayers.
I am delighted to have the honour of
seconding the motion establishing this com-
mittee and I believe it is one of the most
important ones that has been established in
the House for some time.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment briefly.
Quite frankly, my reaction to the setting up
of this committee has been a bit of a mixed
one for reasons which I would like to
elaborate briefly.
On the one hand I appreciate an oppor-
tunity for members of the Opposition to be
involved in the detailed discussion of a report
as important as the Smith report, prior to
what I presume is going to be the formula-
tion of government policy whether or not
that formulation of pohcy involves the writ-
ing of a white paper. To often in the past,
I think, important policies like this tend to
have been created on the government side
on the basis of studies, and the Opposition
is a bit in the dark. We are going to be
involved and therefore I am grateful for that
opportunity.
On the other hand, I was fearful that
having set forth a pattern of all these
representations in March and April and May
for the purpose of the white paper, the gov-
ernment's interjection of this committee in
effect was going to postpone the schedule,
and that, I think, would be highly undesir-
able, because we have postponed tax reforms
for too long. So I note the fact we have
September 17 as a deadline. It is going to
be an almost impossible task to do the job
and bring it back by then, but quite frankly
I agree that the deadhne must be put in.
And I assume, Mr. Speaker, that when
this House adjourns in July or some time,
that deadline is there and they are stuck with
it, becavise they have to come back to the
House to get an amendment to the motion.
It is all very well for me, as a person who
is not going to be on the committee, to point
to the excruciating tasks and time limits that
have been placed on it, but I think these are
necessary if we are going to avoid the delay
that I was fearful was going to be part of
this new procedure.
Mr. Speaker, those are the comments that
I would like to make.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
just one more comment. The reason I wanted
to appoint this committee today whfle the
House is still sitting is that it is now formally
created. There is a lot of background work.
I suppose the first task that every member
of the committee perforce must have is to
read the Smith committee report from start
to finish. There is a good deal that can
be done between now and the time the
proceedings of this House will be over for
the summer, so that was the reason for
appointing it now, so the committee could
start to work right away and then perhaps
its public hearings can be held when the
House is not in session.
MAY 31, 1968
3717
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in this regard, I think it is important to
the taxpayers of Ontario that we have
more equity in our assessment picture, and
we have repeatedly pointed out the great
inequities there are in The Department of
Municipal Affairs now. This report states
that assessing the government's taxation
policy, the committee on taxation found a
conspicuous lack of any consistent policy
with respect to assessment collection in these
new procedures.
We have, as a matter of record, a great
amount of work to be done in the reviewing
of the assessment now in the department
here. Now we are to go another year without
these inequities being corrected, with literally
thousands of people not being assessed and
not on the tax rolls, with complete chaos
in this department, do I understand that
nothing is going to be done then in review-
ing the assessment mess now? I think the
Prime Minister should tell us what is going to
happen—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I can only say the
member is completely out of order.
Mr. Sargent: And the department is out
of order too. A complete mess in assess-
ment.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Get the punch line in there.
Mr. Sargent: It is early.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, there is one part
remaining from my question of the Min-
ister of Highways yesterday that he might
be prepared to answer at this time.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of High-
ways): I am not prepared this morning, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 7th order; com-
mittee of the whole House, Mr. A. E. Router
in the chair.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
recommends the following:
Resolved:
That the chairman of the council of the
regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
shall be paid out of the consolidated
revenue fund such revenue as the Lieu-
tenant-Governor in council may determine,
and that the expenditures of the regional
municipahty of Ottawa-Carleton, as ap-
proved by The Department of Municipal
Affairs, during the year 1968, shall be pay-
able out of the consolidated revenue fund,
as provided in Bill 112, An Act to establish
the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
Resolution concurred in.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
OTTAWA-CARLETON
House in committee on Bill 112, An Act
to establish the regional municipality of
Ottawa-Carleton.
Hon. W. D. McKeough ( Minister of Muni-
cipal AJBFairs ) : Mr. Chairman, I think it is
in order for me to move that the reprinted
bill be considered. There are a number of
technical changes and it is the reprinted
version which I think will be more helpful.
Motion agreed to.
On section 1:
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Chairman, could I ask the Minister if this is
the proper section under which to discuss
the question of the relationship of the new
regional municipality with the national capital
commission and with the islands between
Ottawa and Hull?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think, Mr.
Chairman, we might more appropriately con-
sider that under the planning sections, which
are farther on.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Hon. Mr. McKeough:
view of the fact that
through and tomorrow is
section 2, subsection 1,
be changed to "the 15th
than— I do not have it in
legislative council has it-
"the 15th day of June,
line, at any rate.
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended.
Section 3 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, in
the Act is not yet
June 1, I move that
the date herein, to
day of June" rather
writing, I think the
-the date should be
1968" in the first
agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr, Chairman, in section 4,
under 4 (1) (a) relating to the members
3718
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the regional council, I was wondering if
the Minister had considered extending the
same type of ex-oflBcio membership to the
head of the national capital commission and
perhaps even to the national housing corpora-
tion. In my opinion, I think these two bodies
have a great deal to do with the develop-
ment of the region, in the area of planning.
The Minister will get into this in a separate
section— but in the area of planning the
regional council has to consult with tliese
people in any event.
Therefore, I was wondering whether the
Minister had considered, or whether he would
now consider, including representation from
tliese two bodies, which are instrumental to
the development of the area.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would not, and I
vdll go into this more under the planning
sections. This is an elected council other than
the chairman, and tlie bill states that in four
years, of course, the chairman will be elected.
I do not think it would be appropriate to
put on the council non-elected people.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman,
section 4, subsection 2 should also be amended
to read "the 15th day of June".
Mr. Chairman: May I pass section 3 first?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, all right.
Mr. Chairman: Section 3 agreed to?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are on 4, I think.
Mr. Chairman: All right, section 4(1) (a)
—and the Minister does have an amendment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: My amendment is
on 4 (2).
Mr. Chairman: All right; section 4 as it
stands.
Mr. T. Reid: Could the Minister outline
briefly why he is opposed to having a very
small number, perhaps just two, non-elected
persons on this regional council? It is not as
though there would be a great many of them,
there would just be two of them. They would
be very helpful in the decision-making process
in the planning of the area.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think I would be
opposed, Mr. Chairman, to having non-elected
people in any deliberative body, any demo-
cratic body. I would be opposed to having
someone here who was ex-olEcio whether
they are one, two or tliree who were not
elected.
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister then draws a
parallel between this House and the type of
regional body that is being planned in this
area?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Minister would
now like to put his amendment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. Section 4, sub-
section 2, should read the "15th day of June"
as well, Mr. Chairman. I would so move.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister moves that
section 4, subsection 2, on the second line
read "the 15th day of June". Shall the
amendment carry?
Section 4 (2), as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on section 14,
it says:
The regional council may from time to
time establish such standing or other com-
mittees and assign to them such duties as it
deems expedient.
Again I would like to refer the Minister to
the question of representation by the national
capital commission and central mortgage and
housing corporation.
T>vo questions.
1. Is there anything specifically in this bill
which would exclude these people from being
appointed to standing or other committees?
2. Would the Minister himself think it
would be wise to include representatives
from these two bodies on standing commit-
tees or other special committees?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not know about
central mortgage and housing; I do not see
the difference betweeen Ottawa-Carleton and
any other municipality in that respect as to
whether there should be a representative
specifically from central mortgage. I do not
think a standing committee is usually com-
posed of members of the body itself and I
do not think there would be power for the
regional council or any elected body to make
a person who is not a member of that coun-
cil a full member of a standing committee.
There is?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): There
is no magistrate.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. However, there
is nothing to prevent the regional council,
and we get into this in the planning area
MAY 31, 1968
3719
in particular. There is nothing to prevent
them from appointing an advisory technical
committee or whatever kind of committee
they want to have. I will get into this on the
planning; I am not trying to put it ofiF, but I
think that is particularly where the national
capital commission representation problem
comes in.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, I was
just going to speak on this point. I think,
perhaps, what is bothering the hon. member
is the plans that have been advanced for the
future development of a truly national capital
for Canada. As you are aware, there was a
committee set up some months ago composed
of representatives of the federal government,
the province of Quebec and this province to
devise ways and means of promoting tlie
development of what would be the truly
national capital.
We will ensure that the work of that
committee, what it was doing and the plans
that it had, will proceed. The precise form
which it will take will be dealt with by the
Minister when he gets to the planning aspect
of this bill. The problem really is, of course,
that there was a planning board there for a
good many years upon which were repre-
sented directly, people from CMHC and
people from the national capital commission.
That was the Ottawa area planning board,
I believe it was called.
That body has disappeared in this and
the planning function under this bill has been
given to this council as a whole. But I would
reassure you, Mr. Chairman, and the mem-
bers of the House, that this change in form
does not in any way change the intent we
had and the work we were doing in co-opera-
tion with the province of Quebec and the
federal government. As this organization
develops we will have to find a method by
which this problem can be dealt with, but
here we now have one government repre-
senting all these municipalities.
In fact, in the final analysis it will be an
easier task with this organization to do what
we were planning previously. But perhaps the
Minister can deal with the detail of how it
will be done when we reach the planning
section. My point is simply to assure the
House that nothing in this legislation will
ajffect the work we were doing prior to the
establishment of this body.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, I am afraid I let section 4, subsection 2,
go by without commenting on it. But I think
I can make my comments relevant under
section 14 (2) which deals with salaries of
chairmen of committees and obliquely refers
to the salary of the chairman of the whole
organization. I saw a report in the news-
paper this morning that the chairman is
going to be paid $30,000 which will be deter-
mined by order in council. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is correct.
Mr. Singer: I wonder if the Minister could
tell us something about his ideas of salaries
to be paid to these people. That salary is
somewhat higher than that now being paid
to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto
council. It is certainly substantially higher
than that being paid to any other municipal
official in the province of Ontario; substan-
tially higher than is being paid to the mem-
bers of this legislative assembly.
I think it is higher than the leader of
the Opposition gets, than Cabinet Ministers
get, and so on. I wonder how you can justify
a salary of $30,000 for this job, as important
as it may be, in relation to other salaries for
important service in the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In two ways, Mr.
Chairman. One is that we did relate it to
other salaries— perhaps not to the members
of the assembly, which is another problem,
I suppose. We related it to what some senior
civil servants receive, such as Deputy Min-
isters, chairmen of some of the commissions
and so on.
We did that on the one hand and we are
certainly cognizant of what goes on on the
outside in terms of directors of education and
some of the boroughs and the city of Toronto,
and so on. Perhaps the job can be considered
comparable in that regard. We also related
it to what several of the senior public ser-
vants in the Ottawa-Carleton area are receiv-
ing and two or three of them are receiving
close to $28,000.
More importantly, however, we related this
to the fact that it is a contractual arrange-
ment with Mr. Coohcan for four and one half
years. There is of course no permanency, and
no guarantee that this would go on. I have
no idea if he would be a candidate at the
end of the four and half years. All we could
talk about is that four and one half year
period, and I think that on that basis, the
approach had to be somewhat different. I do
not say that we were seeking to have a con-
sultant for that four and one half years, but
3720
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I put it in my own mind more in that cate-
gory than something permanent.
Section 14 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 32:
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Will the
Minister advise the pattern of assessment to
be followed in section 32?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I do
not know whether section 32 would be an
appropriate section to speak on this. How-
ever, the region will be responsible for all
assessment. Presently it is being done by
the county and the city, the combined assess-
ment of the region, with a commissioner to
look after the regional municipality. Assess-
ment is the sole responsibility of the regional
municipality.
Mr. Sargent: In other words, there will be
complete uniformity across the whole area.
Is Mr. Gumming working on this passage?
Mr. Lome Gumming?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dr. Gumming? Yes
he has.
Sections 32 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 39:
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Gentre): Mr.
Ghairman, I would appreciate hearing the
views of the Minister with regard to future
establishment of a public utilities commission
for the region. Is that something where the
province is the deciding body, the province
itself? Is it planned not to have any utilities
commission at all? Is there a policy of ehm-
inating public utilities commissions in the
area, and making it the direct responsibility
of the area council?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps I should ex-
plain: The amendment here is different from
the original draft, Mr. Ghairman. Originally,
water, like sewage, was to be divided into a
regional level and a local level. During the
course of printing the bill and during further
discussion, the municipalities themselves said,
"Let us put water on one regional level."
This, perhaps arises from the fact that
Ottawa has, in fact, run the waterworks— the
city of Ottawa— for a number of years, and
sold water to the municipalities around Ot-
tawa. So rather than setting up a two-tier
waterworks system, it was agreed, I think by
all, that all waterworks facilities, both reg-
ional and local, would be at the regional level.
Now there has been, as far as I know, no
public utilities commission for water. It was
never, I think, a part of the discussion at
any time, that there might be a public utili-
ties commission, I am not sure whether there
is a government policy on it or not.
Frankly, I feel that where it is working
well without a commission in water, then I
do not see the need to set one up. I would
assume that the references probably mean
that they would have to come to us to set
one up, and I would not be too enthusiastic
about doing it.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Ghairman, it would ap-
pear to ine that it was logical to include
sewage in the same type of system, or body.
It would seem logical for sewage and water
to be under the same commission. Then the
cost of the sewage operations would be de-
rived in the same way as in many munici-
palities, where, when they buy the water, it
automatically means that they are paying for
sewage treatment at the same time.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Ghairman, I
think that we may arrive at that point in
time. I do not know. You are quite correct
in that the regional sewage work is in fact
a two-tier system, as set up in the bill.
Everyone has to have water in a house,
somewhere or other. Whether or not you
are actually connected to sanitary sewers or
not is more a local problem. There are many
sections of the area close to the city of
Ottawa where septic tanks are in use, and
they will be on septic tanks 30 or 40 years
from now.
This is more of a local problem, whereas
the trunk sewers and collector sewers are, in
fact, a regional problem, as are the treatment
plants. Having said that, I think that there
is considerable logic in saying that the treat-
ment of water and sewage should be fol-
lowed as a similar pattern. That is the way
that the original bill was drawn, with agree-
ment.
Then out of the blue, there came the con-
census that water should all be put into one
package, which we agreed to. We did not
explore fully the possibility of combining the
sewage and water control; there just was no
time. I think that this will be a development
which will happen, but I do not know.
Section 39 agreed to.
On section 40:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Ghairman, on section
40, I would like to have a number of points
clarified by the Minister, if at all possible.
MAY 31, 1968
3721
Would this particular regional council be
responsible for the industrial wastes of Eddy
Match Company? That is one specific ques-
tion. I guess it is Eddy Paper Company now.
Secondly would, or could, the regional
government expropriate the Rideau canal for
sewage purposes? You know, if you wanted
a new trunk line, could you actually expro-
priate parts of the Rideau canal for that
purpose?
Related to that, of course: Is the muni-
cipality responsible for the pollution of the
Rideau canal? Would the regional govern-
ment be responsible for the pollution of the
canal, or is that a federal matter?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, are the islands
lying between the city of Ottawa bank of
the Ottawa river and the Hull side of the
river part of the plan of development of the
national capital commission; do they lie
under Hull, or do they lie under Ottawa;
or is it some sort of co-ordinating body?
So, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Min-
ister a number of specific questions. Who is
responsible for the industrial wastes of the
Eddy Paper Company, when it flows across
both sides of the river? Secondly, could this
regional government actually expropriate the
Rideau canal or is that impossible under the
existing laws of this country? Thirdly, who
is responsible for the pollution of the Rideau
canal? And, finally, who is responsible for
the planning and development of the islands
lying between the two cities?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, the
Eddy Match Company, to begin with, is on
both sides of the river, in both Ottawa and
Hull, as I understand it. The local people
certainly have a responsibility under the
prodding, supervision and urging of the
Ontario water resources commission. That is,
I suppose, where the prime responsibility
rests to clean up all pollution in the province,
insofar as it is on our side of the river.
There are arrangements— perhaps my col-
league the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management (Mr. Simonett), may wish to
speak to this— but there are arrangements
between Quebec and Ontario, or there is very
close co-operation between Quebec and On-
tario. Because there is httle point, of course,
in our taking great steps on our side of any
river without corresponding steps being taken
on the other side of the river, and the reverse
is true as well.
As far as the Rideau canal is concerned,
the Rideau canal is a federal canal— I guess
under The Department of Transport. Re-
sponsibility, I suppose, is vested in the Crown,
in the right of Pubhc Works of Canada, or
Transport, and neither we nor Ottawa-
Carleton would have the power to ex-
propriate that canal from the federal
government.
About the pollution, I think I have
answered.
Now, those islands. I think a couple of
them are in Hull and a couple of them are
in Ottawa, and the responsibility would be
corresponding. If they are in Ottawa, then
the responsibility is Ottawa-Carleton's, as far
as pollution is concerned, with the Ontario
water resources commission. I am not clear
in my own mind just where the local responsi-
bility leaves off and the water resources com-
mission comes in, and I may not be answering
the question as well as I should. I think
that should be explored with the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management during
his estimates, I am not entirely clear on that.
Mr. T. Reid: The point I am trying to get
clarified here is this: We set up a new
regional development, it is a good move,
there is no question about that; we are going
to try out some new ideas, a new adminis-
trative structure. All that is great, but I am
concerned again with possible gaps in this.
I am trying to look ahead to see what these
gaps might be.
Just to let the Minister know my concern,
it is the question again of the pollution of
the Rideau canal— from seepage, I understand,
to some extent— and the question of pollution
in the Ottawa river too, because it forms the
borders, really, of the region. I am just
wondering whether the Minister has gone as
far as he could have gone in giving this new
regional government, the powers necessary
to combat this type of jurisdictional pollution
problem,
I recommend that this is an area which
must be looked into. The Minister must
bring his colleagues along with him if we are
to have meaningful regional government to
meet issues like pollution.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Of course, there is
no way my colleagues or I, or anybody in
this House can deal with the Rideau canal,
which is a federal responsibility. However,
the ultimate responsibility is with the water
resources commission because it can order
this municipality, or any other municipality,
to clean up a particular pollution problem or
all their pollution problems. That right is
vested in tlie commission and it would apply
here.
3722
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The member did ask one other question
about the plans of the national capital com-
mission and I frankly do not know those for
the islands in the Ottawa river.
Mr. T. Reid: Again on this, the Rideau
canal symbolizes, I think, the probable split
jurisdiction for regional government in On-
tario. It is a peculiar problem because it is
Ottawa; it is the capital of Canada, and I
just come back to this point again. I hope
the Minister will give me some fuller answers
—not that I have asked him to give any
fuller answers than he already has given—
with respect to the integration of the interests
of the federal government of Canada as a
whole and Ontario and Quebec, in really
making this a national capital. We can only
do that with the fullest co-operation instituted
in the administrative an-angements.
Sections 40 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 48:
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, on section 48,
subsection 2, does the regional corporatior
under subsection 2 have the legal right to
make a contract with a municipality outside
of the province of Ontario? For example,
Hull?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would not think so.
Perhaps my advisors could get the answer to
that. The question is, as I understand it,
whether, in the terms of sewage treatment
works, the regional corporation would have
the authority to enter into an agreement with
the municipahty outside its particular area,
and in this case particularly Hull, which
would be outside the province as well. Per-
haps my advisors could check that point and
we could come back to it.
Sections 48 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 58:
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in connection
with section 58, I was wondering why it was
worded under clause 9 that all roads would
revert, except those that the regional council
took over after they had reverted back to
the original municipalities? Why did they not
just assume all the county roads directly?
What roads are affected by this? Are they
very extensive?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the purpose
of this particular section is that all roads have
to end up somewhere because the county
ceases to be. So they either have to become
a regional road or revert back to the muni-
cipality and I think that is the particular
intent of this section, to do that. Yes, the
road problems are large, there are extensive
considerations, county roads, suburban roads
and the Queen sway, which is an expressway
agreement. All these things, I think, are going
to be a matter of extensive negotiation be-
tween the regional corporation and The
Department of Highways.
I think these sections are drawn as broadly
as possible to give them both freedom of
movement and which roads will revert either
to the township or stay in the regional road
system, or which other roads will come in,
frankly I do not know. We have not explored
that because we think the best people to do
that will be the regional corporation itself.
But this section gives lots of room for negotia-
ting.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, what concerns
me here is the fact that they just did not
assume all the county roads and suburban
roads directly and then negotiate afterwards.
As it is now drawn, it could leave room for
plenty of haggling between the members of
the council as they decide who is going to
have roads taken over by the region and who
is not. It seems to me the easiest way would
have been just directly transfer them to the
region, and I wondered why this was not
done.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suppose this is the
biggest reason for the allotment of time be-
tween now and January 1, six months. I
expect a good part of the time of the next
six months is going to be devoted to roads.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, again I would
appreciate the Minister replying. Why did
the region not just directly assume all the
county roads?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because I think we
did not want to start off on that basis. There
was to be flexibility on both sides. There have
been need studies done in Carleton, and, I
think, one or two traffic studies done in
Ottawa, and I think, hopefully, these will be
put together and a better road system is
going to come out of it.
Sections 58 to 75, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 76:
Mr. T. Reid: Ju.st a small point on section
76, subsection 1. The regional corporation
passes bylaws prohibiting or regulating the
construction or use of any private road
entrance and so forth, as to means of access
to regional controlled access roads. What
MAY 31, 1968
3723
about the Prime Minister's house on Sussex
Drive? Suppose he decided he wanted a
bigger driveway, and Sussex Drive, I think,
is or could well be a regional road. What
happens in that event?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think this section
comes right out of the Metro Act, so I
suppose the same thing is true as to a univer-
sity on a metro road. I guess it is, I guess
we are under—
Mr. Sargent: Depends on whose Prime
Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Sargent: It depends on whose Prime
Minister.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That would be true,
yes. I am not just sure, we are into a pretty
tricky area; that is federal property and the
right of the Crown is involved and I would
suspect that they can do what they want to
do in the same way, I guess, that we can do
what we want here with this building, these
properties. Now, we do not, we negotiate
with the city of Toronto and obey their rules.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): On
the contrary, we are just doing nothing.
Mr. Sargent: Like everything else.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right! We do nothing
without consultation; we do not play it by
ear. That is right!
Sections 76 to 81, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 82:
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, on section 82,
this is quite an interesting development, the
elimination of planning boards, as such. It is
something where the Act varies considerably
from The Metropolitan Toronto Act, and I
would appreciate hearing from the Minister
his thoughts on this aspect of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Without reverting
back to the priniciple of the bill, Mr. Chair-
man, but commenting generally on this sec-
tion, my friend is right. We have departed
here from what has been done in other
municipalities, and in particular relation to
Metro, although I see no reason why perhaps
the same tiling cannot at some point be done
in Metro.
We started off, I think it is safe to say, by
thinking about what would be the best form
of planning organization for this region, bear-
ing in mind always that it was the nation's
capital, but starting off to try and devise
the best planning legislation we could. We
came to the conclusion that, in this instance,
the regional coundl could well be the
plaiming board and be vested with tlie powers
of the planning board.
What we were trying to do, of course, is
not impose another tier or tiers lx;tween local
planning boards, local councils, regional plan-
ning boards, regional councils, The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs, the Onta'io
municipal board— how many steps is that?
Conceivably, I guess, six, plus building per-
mits, and so on. Now we are trying to reduce
that somewhat.
What we have done is to charge the—
another interesting part of this particular sec-
tion—I think this is the first piece of legisla-
tion which says that a council shall appoint
a planning director. In line with that, we
have said that, on or before December 31,
1972, they shall prepare a regional plan-
that is the four-and-a-half year period; it
coincided roughly, five years— they should pre-
pare a regional plan. And then I suppose
subsection 83, or at least section 83, subsec-
tion 10, indicates it is a notice of intent
more than anything else at this point. I think
the regional plan and subsection 10 tie in
together.
When the regional plan is developed, then
it would be my hope that many of the
responsibilities of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs would be transferred to the regional
council. I think the two things tie in to-
gether; regional plan first, and then presiun-
ably you would start off by giving them the
power to approve minor variances and prog-
ress up from there— ehminate 801 Bay Street
is the way I would like to put it. Eliminate
801 Bay Street from the pictiure entirely,
with two exceptions. Not, of course, eliminat-
ing the Ontario municipal board, because
there would be some right of appeal for the
citizen himself. But eliminating 801 with
two exceptions.
First, the matter of the region itself and
how the region ties in with otlier regions—
the neighbours next door. Second, not
eliminating this completely because this re-
gion is always going to be of special signifi-
cance because it is the national capital.
We, as a province, I suppose, will always
have more interest in it, more inclination to
put our nose into what might be regarded
as their local business, because it is the
nation's capital. We will always have that
kind of protective interest and, I suppose,
3724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
extra financial interest in that area, because
it is the capital of our country.
Now we come back to the point of my
friend from Scarborough East, about the na-
tional capital commission. The Prime Minister
has said that the existing Ottawa and area
planning board included someone from the
national capital commission and you are quite
right, I believe it is somebody from central
mortgage. I do not think he was there as
much because of his office, but because he
was as a person involved— I am not sure of
that— he sat on that Ottawa area planning
board.
We come back to the point that we are
trying to set up something which would be
good for Ottawa-Carleton; how it would best
work. We have come to this conclusion— and
we are by no means certain of this— that the
planning function and the governmental func-
tion should be one and the same.
We can think of many instances across the
province where non-elected planning boards
have worked very well, and I think we can
all think of instances where they have not
worked too terribly well, or how effective
they have been. In this case, it is a departure
from what we have been doing, and, I sup-
pose, in some ways it is a bit of an experi-
ment. We are looking forward to seeing how
it will work.
We have said that the regional council
can appoint an advisory planning committee
or a technical committee. Presumably, at that
point, either technicians, or members of the
national capital commission, or any other
agency, could give their advice to the re-
gional council at those levels. It also— retreat-
ing just a little bit— it says that the council,
of course, could appoint a planning commit-
tee of council, and we expect this is probably
what they would do; they would be made
up entirely of members of the council itself.
They, in turn, could have an advisory com-
mittee on which members of the national
capital commission or their staff might sit
We actually see the whole thing as the other
way.
The Prime Minister indicated that there
have been discussions going on between the
federal government and the province of Que-
bec and the province of Ontario— they are
called the tripartite group. My department
has been represented, as far as the province
of Ontario is concerned, in those discussions.
No one knows just what is going to come
out of this— let us call it the national capital
commission, for lack of a better name, at this
point. It would be our thought that in that new
national capital commission, when it is set
up, it would be our thought that either the
province would be asked to appoint a mem-
ber, or members, to it, or perhaps Ottawa-
Carleton will be asked directly. I do not think
it matters. We would say then, automatically,
the chairman, or someone from the regional
council, would be a member of the national
capital commission. We want the liaison
upped, rather than reduced.
I do not know how clear I am making
myself, but we certainly intend that there
should be the fullest co-operation, whatever
form the discussions take or lead to, between
the three governments. But we want a strong,
viable unit in the region of planning pur-
poses and for governmental purposes which,
in turn, will represent its own best interests,
if I can put it that way, together with the
interests of the province.
There may have to be two appointments.
Let us say that the provinces decided that
they should have two representatives. Then I
would think it would be, perhaps, some mem-
ber from outside the Ottawa area represent-
ing the interests of the province as a whole on
the national capital commission.
Mr. Sargent: You could not have picked a
tougher guinea pig, could you?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is an interesting
one. It is an interesting one and it— you are
sidetracking me, but it is interesting.
I do not think it is that tough, really; it is
also that much more important. It becomes
terribly important because of the sort of tilings
which the Prime Minister and member for
Scarborough East were talking about. We see
this liaison up, rather than down.
We think it is terribly important that what-
ever the two— I tliink you are aware now
the national capital commission is appointed
by the federal government. Ontario and Que-
bec have really very little to say about it.
They have usually appointed the mayor of
Ottawa.
The thought is to involve, not only Ottawa,
and Hull, and the federal government, it is
also to involve the two provinces, and rightly
so. We would feel that this new group called
the national capital commission are going to
be in a much better position to make Ottawa
the kind of capital which it is becoming, and
which we all want to see it become, even
more so, if they deal with one government
rather than with 15. We would hope that
the chairman, and expect that the chairman
of the regional council, or somebody else from
MAY 31, 1968
3725
the regional council, would at least be one
of the members of the national capital com-
mission or whatever takes its place and that is
the way the liaison would be, rather than
down.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I want to con-
gratulate the Minister for such a fantastic
plan but I cannot see why he would pick
such an area where there are so many compli-
cations—the three areas of government that are
concerned.
What was the motivation for this area?
Being aware, sir, that Ottawa has gone
through extensive annexation plans in the past
two years and they have a myriad of planning
set up, you are stacking your plan on top of
that, and this would supersede everything
else. Is that right?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there will be a
regional plan developed by December 31,
1972. In the meantime, the local plans, of
course, are there; they have been approved
and are there and are guides. They will have
to fit in to the regional plan when it is
evolved. It is the first truly regional plan in
the province. It is not a stacking process. It is
looking at something bigger and when we
have something bigger— that is regional plan-
then the local plans will fit into that regional
plan.
Mr. Sargent: This may be a bit wide on
this subsection here, but how many people
are involved in this population area? Secondly,
this is possibly not on the vote but are there
any moneys in the province being used for
this programme to subsidize the whole pack-
age of putting this together? Any provincial
moneys?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we are way off
this section on the principle-
Mr. Sargent: I realize that—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The population is
about 500,000. There are no special moneys
other than those we are paying in the very
last section of the bill. We agree to pay the
expenses up until January 1, because they do
not have any collections machinery until
January 1. It is a relatively small amount and
beyond this year, for the first four years, we
—the province— pay the salary of the chair-
man but there are no special moneys.
It may well be, and this comes back to my
friend from Scarborough East's point, that
in the development of a truly national capital,
moneys over and above what would normally
be necessary may well be needed. Some of
this, we hope, is going to come from federal
level. I think probably some of it is going
to come from us. That will be developed.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, does the
official plan in subsection 6 refer also to the
plan of the national capital commission?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Which section, I am
sorry?
Mr. T. Reid: Sorry, subsection 6 of section
82, which says nothing in subsections 3 and
4 that affects any official plan in effect in any
part of the regional area.
My concern here is, do the lawyers of The
Municipal Affairs Department, Mr. Chairman,
interpret that as meaning the official plan
under federal-provincial jurisdiction, or does
it just simply mean the municipal plans
within the area?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, those are just
official plans under The Planning Act which
are not disturbed because of this section.
I do not think they would refer to any plans
of the national capital commission which, I
doubt, have any official status, and this again
has been part of their problem. They have
done some wonderful work, some very
imaginative work.
I see that they and Mr. Mcllraith, federal
Minister of Public Works, are having a little
bit of a tiff at the present time but there is
no question that the national capital commis-
sion, in my mind, has done wonderful work
but they have done it really without any
great authority. Really when there is a mesh-
ing of the regional plan and perhaps a
regional plan across the border with some
sort of an NCC thinking, then there will be
the planning, tools to carry some of these
things out.
Mr. T. Reid: Now if I understand this
correctly, Mr. Chairman, whether the plans
of the NCC have a legal status or not, they
are still plans. The NCC owns property and
has expropriated, I believe, massive property
within the area here and also, of course, up
the Gatineau and around Riviere LaPeche
and so forth. But just what happens to the
areas that they are planning now under The
Planning Act?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is the point
really. The work that they have been able
to do is in areas which they have either
bought or expropriated, and I think they
3726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have been frustrated in doing anything
beyond what they do not own. There was a
great argument about the green belt and this
lias been part of the problem— what they
have done has largely been on federal land
or land owned by the NCC.
Mr. F. Young (York view): Mr. Chairman,
it seems we are now on section 83 as well
as 82; the discussion seems to range across
the two of them.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we are con-
sidering the four or five sections together,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young: The (luestion I would like to
ask of the Minister is in connection witli
section 83, subsection 2, which has already
been referred to.
Mr. Chairman: —pass 82 and tlien, if neces-
sary and the members wish to refer to 82,
it will be all right if they are going to discuss
any other sections. I think we should try to
keep it in order.
Mr. Young: Will I leave this until—
Mr. Chairman: It is acceptable now, we
will not restrict you from discussing it.
Mr. Young: Right. Well, in connection
with the planning of the area, Mr. Chair-
man, tlie experience of Metropolitan Toronto
has been that while a Metropolitan Toronto
plan has been prepared, it has not been
adopted and there are real problems there
because of the pressures from a dozen dif-
ferent directions to prevent the adoption of
that official plan.
The legislation here proposes that the plan
shall be prepared by 1972 but there is noth-
ing about it being adopted. It seems to me
that unless there is something in the legisla-
tion which says that there is necessity, an
urgency here, we may have a repetition
of the Metropolitan Toronto experience.
The plan may be prepared but because of
certain factors within the area, that plan
may be delayed indefinitely and so I would
expect here that the Minister ought to insert,
"it shall prepare and adopt". In other words,
the region is given notice that unless it has
the plan prepared and legislated by this dead-
line, that the Minister's own department may
well step in and impose the plan.
Now I do not think it would have to
happen if that legislation were here, but if
we come to this deadline and there is no
adoption of the official plan for the region
then wliat happens? Does the Minister simply
say well, it is too bad, we are going to have
a repetition of Metropolitan Toronto? What
does happen in a case like tliis, I would like
to ask the Minister?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The same thing that
happens in any other municipality in the
province. We say municipalities should draw
up, prepare, adopt and hopefully have
approved by the department, oflRcial plans.
If they do not, they do not. There is no
penalty for not doing it. However, I think in
this particular instance, as I said, subsection
2 ties in with subsection 10, and if tliey
want subsection 10, I think it is implied they
get on with subsection 2.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I wish you
would take tliis same inflexible attitude to-
wards the Hardy report.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Subsection 10 is the
carrot really, to get 2 done.
Mr. Young: So the Minister feels that 10
is adequate to get the job done.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, it might not l)e
within a year. This is going to be an Act,
wiiich, like the Metro Act, is amended many
many times, it may be that it has to be
strengthened. I think both of those sections
now, as much as anything, are a statement
of the government's intention. I do not know
how much legal value they have. I think
legislative counsel might well tell us that we
were cluttering up an Act. I want to vote
those things in the Act, so that there is a
clear statement of the government's intention.
Just while I am on my feet, a question
about sewers or treatment works. Apparently,
there would Ix' no authority for this munici-
pality, this new regional municipality, or any
other municipality to enter into an agreement
outside the province. It would have to b<;
the province— I guess under the constitution
—who would do this itself.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, if I might just
pursue this point a bit further. I think there
is a very great difference between this par-
ticular legislation, and the legislation that
applies to the average municipality in the
province, because yoii art> entering into a
real experiment here. We are hoping that
this will be the kind of legislation which will
point the way for other regions.
And since the regional government itself
is going to be the planning authority, and the
others have left, it is different for Metro, in
the sense that Metro boroughs still do the
MAY 31, 1968
3727
planning, and while the overall Metro plan
may fail of implementation, the boroughs
still plan, and their plans are implemented,
and moved forward. So that even though
Metro may not plan as we would like to see
it planned in respect to the implementation
of its official plan, tlie planning is still done.
In this case, I would hope that the plan-
ning may not just l)e on paper, without any
force. This is where the danger comes, as
I see it, and so I would hope that if tlie time
tx)mes near when the plan should be imple-
mented, that the Minister will look at it
very very carefully, and will see to it the
whole district is not left without any kind of
oflBcial guidance.
Mr. Deacon: I am very interested in what
tlie Minister had to say at the begirming of
the discussion of this section concerning the
hope for the eventual elimination of 801 Bay
Street, except to the extent that region is
dealing outside with adjacent municipalities,
or areas, or regions.
This is a principle that I think is fine to
pursue, and especially when municipalities
have master plans adopted, not just designed
and prepared, but adopted. In this way con-
siderable delay will be eliminated on the part
of tliose seeking to develop areas. It is also
an incentive for regions to get their master
plans into operation.
The one aspect of this bill that does bother
me, though, is that there is no provision that
when the municipality so wishes, it can ap-
point a planning board. I believe, and I
may be incorrect, that the legislation gener-
ally provides that municipalities must appoint
planning boards. That is the general provin-
cial legislation in this regard.
It seems to me this should be changed to
where it is within the power of the munici-
pality to appoint or to eliminate planning
boards, because if they can use them and if
they so wish, they can bring in volunteers
who do an awful lot of the day-to-day work
of balancing the expert and professional
views of the planning directors. They do not
take up the time of council in this work,
and assist council in giving judgment, cer-
tainly prehminary judgment, as to the merits
of plans that are developed l>y the profes-
sional staflF.
It also enables councils to 1-ring in on a
regular basis, and a continuing basis, these
volunteers and experts who are citizens of
the community that the council feel can
bring sound judgment to these plans. There-
fore, I would ask the Minister what his views
would l)e to bringing into this section the
provision whereby the region may appoint a
planning board, if it so wishes.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps it is a mat-
ter of wording; subsection 4 of section 83
says they can appoint planning committees.
These may well be people outside the reg-
ional council, and I do not know whether
they will do this or not. I would be opposed
to them appointing a planning board per se
because this is what we are trying to get
away from.
If they want to have an advisory commit-
tee composed of experts or interested citizens,
that is fine. But the whole intent of this
section, and I do not think you can have it
lx)th ways, is to try and eliminate that one
set— I do not want to say that one barrier-
but perhaps that one set of an actual plan-
ning board. Because this board is defined as
the planning board, this council is defined
as tlie plaiming board. But I think really
what you are getting at is covered by 4 of 83.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, as far as the
elimination of planning boards as such is
concerned, it seems to me that if it is up
to the council; when they may do this, it is
really not an extra tier of responsibility. I
think the elimination of the approval of The
Department of Municipal Affairs is the great-
est step. That is presently probably the
greatest delay in plans. After all, what we
are wanting to do is bring in local judgment
to plans, a regional judgment rather than the
provincial judgment, unless the plans have
eflFect beyond that local area's jurisdiction.
Therefore, it seems to me you have already
eliminated in your hope to reduce the involve-
ment of the department, the major delay to
the approval of the plans. I still say I would
like to see in this the provision whereby a
planning board may be appointed if the
council finds it is better to have it set up in
the same way that we have had in Metro-
politan Toronto.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If they do that, they
would come for an amendment to the Act.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I want to
comment on subsection 1 of 83. The sub-
section states that the regional council shall
investigate and survey the physical, social and
economic conditions in relation to the de-
velopment of the Ottawa-Carleton planning
area, and so forth.
I am interested, and pleased, of course, at
the word "social" there. I was wondering if
the Minister could give us some idea what he
3728
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
thinks this word means? Would it mean, for
example, studies to show how the develop-
ment of the area is affecting the relationships
between the—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that language
is right out of tlie Metro Act. Is it? Right
out of The Planning Act.
Mr. T. Reid: That is fine, but perhaps we
could have a fresher interpretation with a
fresh new Minister. Would it include, for
example, studies of the impact on the social
relationships in the English-speaking com-
munity and the French-speaking community
in the area? Do you see the regional council,
which is also the planning council in the
real sense, being concerned with the issues of
the relationships in the French-speaking com-
munity in the area, and the English-speaking
community in the area? I feel very strongly
about this, because I was brought up in
Ottawa.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not know
whether or not they will directly concern
themselves with this in the planning sense. I
think that is a matter for them to determine
themselves, rather than for us to suggest to
them that they should or should not. I would
suspect that they would.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the three words
"physical, social, economic", may have come
from some neanderthal Act in the past, but
that does not bear on the point here today.
Why was not the word "historical" also put
in there? We are talking about the nation's
capital, Mr. Chairman, and here the Minister's
advisors just seem to plunk something from
an outdated planning Act into something
which is rather unique— into an area of
Canada which is the nation's capital.
Why have they not simply inserted the
word "historical"? Surely Ottawa has some
history; we should do what we can to preserve
that history. Surely the regional council which
the department which it is now setting up
should be concerned with giving the regional
council power to investigate and survey the
historical impact of their planning?
If they are going to smash a road through
some historical building, surely they should
have some surveys to make sure that what
happens in Ottawa is not the same thing that
has happened in this city too often where an
old historical building is knocked down before
anybody found out that it was of some
historical value to the citizens of this country.
Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further in
section 82? Might the Chairman direct a
question to the Minister? I am wondering if
subsection 4—
Mr. T. Reid: I had a comment to make on
subsection 3 of section 83.
Mr. Chairman: If the member would not
mind, I was in the middle— but go ahead if
you have something.
Mr. T. Reid: I thought you were moving
Mr. Chairman: No, I was directing a ques-
tion to the Minister. I was wondering if the
date in subsection 4 of section 82 and sub-
section 8 of section 83 would not be the same
as the amended dates in sections 2 and 4?
Hon. Mr.
dates again?
McKeough: What were those
Mr. Chairman: The amended dates in the
first two sections, 2 and 4, were amended to
June 15. Should these two dates not also be
amended?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I see the staff saying
that it is not important. Subsection 4, I think,
should be changed. I do not think that it is
too important, but for the sake of uniformity
let us revert to section 82 and change June 1
to read June 15.
Mr. Chairman: And subsection 8 of section
83 as well, as we are discussing the votes
together?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, perhaps that
should be done in both instances.
Mr. Sargent: He is in a liberal mood!
Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Scar-
borough East have some further comment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that section
82, subsection 4, and section 83, subsection 8
be amended to read "June 15, 1968" and not
"June 1, 1968."
Mr. T. Reid: On subsection 3 of section 83,
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister
might comment on the context. The subsec-
tion states, "The regional council shall appoint
a planning director and such otlier staff as may
be deemed necessary." So the regional coun-
cil needs a planning director, looking back
to sub-subsection (b) of subsection 1 of sec-
tion 83, referring to the regional council hold-
ing public meetings in the area. Ottawa in
particular is made up of two linguistic groups,
and what I would like to have is an opinion
from the Minister on this: If the chairman of
the regional council cannot speak French, and
MAY 31, 1968
3729
if then the regional council appoints a plan-
ning director who is also unilingual in English,
how in heaven's name can public meetings
be held in areas which are predominantly
French speaking and not necessarily bilingual?
In other words, is the Minister concerned
with this problem of French-English relations
in the area of Ottawa proper itself, and would
he include a provision in here that either the
chairman or the vice-chairman or just simply
the planning director should at least be bi-
hngual in order to communicate with two-
thirds, I believe, of the population of Ottawa,
of which French is its mother tongue? In
other words, how in the heck can they hold
public meetings if they cannot speak French?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would assume, Mr.
Chairman, in exactly the same way that the
Ottawa area planning board have been hold-
ing public meetings for years without any
specific reference and Act to do it. I gather
that there is communication. The Ottawa area
planning board have worked very well. They
have held a number of public meetings
which have come to my attention, and I
assume that there has been no problem of
communication. It happens that the first
chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton region is
fluently bihngual. He held the second part
of a press conference yesterday in French.
Mr. Chairman: Anything more on section
82?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, you are taking these things all together,
and this may have been discussed while I
was out. Is it the thought that you are not
going to have planning boards up there, you
are just going to have committees or coun-
cils for planning?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have discussed
this, Mr. Chairman, but that is correct. I
should have brought up this point before.
Ottawa wanted to continue within Ottawa a
subsidiary planning board, and the Act
says so. That really is an unnecessary section,
because of course the Minister can designate
planning areas. It may be that some of the
others will want a subsidiary planning board
which could be either appointed or elected.
As far as the region is concerned, it is all
elected people.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder
if the Minister could not think of carrying
through the general legislation and cutting
down the time it takes to develop pieces of
land. You will get a lecture on that when
your estimates come up, but there is an
advanced step here.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Before I get the lec-
ture, read Hansard for what I just said.
Sections 82 to 91, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 92:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, section 92
states that on the board of health there shall
be both elected people, that is members of
the regional council, and non-elected people,
who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor in council, upon recommendation from
the Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond). I was
wondering, more out of curiosity, how the
Minister justifies his previous statements
about needing councils, and what not, com-
posed of people who are elected, with the
provisions of subsection 92 that there are
appointed people as well.
Does he consider that the question of elec-
tion, and of people being represented, does
not matter in a board of health, whereas it
does matter in a council? How does he draw
his analogy? Just to extend it a bit, he re-
ferred to this wonderful place being like a
council; both must be democratic. Does his
analogy break down when he goes to the
board of health? Now, let us have some
logical thinking.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suppose that the
easy way to explain this is that the planning
legislation is my legislation, and the board
of health legislation falls under another de-
partment. This would be fair to say.
Mr. T. Reid: But typical of this govern-
ment!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we are making
a departure here from what would be normal,
because normally the legislation which would
apply would be the district board of health
legislation, I gather. We have gone a step
farther here, and this comes into this whole
area, it also comes into the planning area. It
comes back to this principle of returning
some of the autonomy to the council. For
every board or commission that has been set
up either at the municipal level or at our
level, there has always been good reason, and
you can justify it, but collectively at the local
level, I think it is fair to say that the powers
of the council have been eroded and dissi-
pated in a number of boards and commissions.
Normally, the county would appoint, or
the district would appoint, people outside of
the council or the board of health. In my own
3730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
city, or county, it is a five-man board usually
composed of the mayor and I do not think
that there is even a councillor on it, it is
usually made up of two or three interested
citizens. What we have come back to here,
I tliink that it is fair to say, is a compromise
between the historic position of The Depart-
ment of Health, and their and our concern
to try and turn as much autonomy as we can
to the council. We have said that nine was
the appropriate number for this area, and six
of those shall be members of the regional
council. Then, as always on a five-man board
of health, tlie Lieutenant-Governor in council
appoints one person; in this case the propor-
tion is three out of tlie nine. Whom the
Minister of Health appoints or recommends
to the Lieutenant-Governor in council I do not
know; I would suspect that tliey vwll probably
he citizens again, drawn from existing boards
of health, I would think, in this instance.
It is not going the whole step as we have
done in planning but it is going part of the
way. The interesting part of this legislation
is that there are no local boards set up by this
legislation other tlian the local board of health
which has a very heavy involvement from the
regional council.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to note that there is an inconsistency in this
bill. The Minister is aware of it, I know, but
I disagree quite strongly. He states that a
standing committee of the council, hence any
formally established committee or council,
should be composed of elected members only
and should not have someone from the
national capital commission and so forth. Yet
in section 92 he contradicts himself. I will
leave it at that.
Sections 92 and 93 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment to
section 94.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: On section 94, sub-
section 2, paragraph (b), the last words are
redundant because there will be no welfare
officers of area municipalities. This was a
change again in our thinking as we went
through these. Originally, perhaps I should
explain this now, welfare was to be divided
into two parts. Mandatory welfare, meaning
mainly general welfare assistance, was to be
at the regional level; optional services, like
day care centres and homemakers' services
were to be at the local level, and along the
line we developed, putting all the administra-
tion at the regional level.
Administration by the region, with the
mandatory things being paid for by the re-
gion, with the optional things, like the day
care centres, being paid for by the particular
municipality which wants it under agreement.
So that language— that is a long way of
saying— that language is no longer needed. I
move that the words, "for the welfare officer
of the area municipality in which the appli-
cant resides at the time of his application," l)e
deleted from 94, subsection 2, paragraph b.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs carry?
Section 94, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 95 to 104, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 105:
Mr. Sargent: I say that we have, I think,
the most ambitious bill submitted to the
House this session, wdth about 78 pages in
length and 162 provisos. I think it is a com-
pliment to the Minister that he has tackled a
programme hke this. I think, in total, you
have taken the machinery out of a lot of
legislation you have there now and you have
tried to fit it in here.
The wording may, or may not, fit the exact
package at the time, but I do want to say
constructively that I object to your pohcy of
the province paying a director $32,000— as
mentioned before by a Minister here— to
implement a pilot programme in the Ottawa
area.
The $30,000 is not the point. It is the fact
that you are spending $30,000 there, you are
not spending in Owen Sound, or the Grey-
Bruce area.
This is a matter of principle. In fact, the
main point here, Mr. Chairman, is that we
are going to be subsidizing tills very hand-
somely, and at great cost to the taxpayers of
this province indirectly, by the focus of your
department on making tliis pilot programme
work. We know that you have many, many
other problems, insofar as the rest of the
province is concerned, in the assessment and
tax collection field, and so I think that it is
wrong, from the principle of my people, to
subsidize a programme that you want to set-
stand up— a pilot programme.
Mr. Chairman: May I point out tliat the
member is talking about the principle of the
bill?
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about financing,
sir. I will get to the point—
MAY 31, 1968
3731
Mr. Chaiiman: That is the principle of
the bill.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir. You are a hard
man, McGee.
Mr. Chairman: That part of the bill is
discussed at second reading,
Mr. Sargent: Well, on this section I would
like to ask the Minister—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Do not let him sweet talk you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sargent: I thought you would be still
in bed today.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I never got there.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask the Min-
ister: Is there, in the debt picture in all these
municipalities embracing this new regional—
is there any allocation of the existing deben-
ture debt? How are you going to resolve
this point?
In other words, are you going to take the
debt picture and put it into one pot, or are
you going to do it broken down in muni-
cipalities? How are you going to resolve
that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not existing debts.
Existing debts are a charge on whoever has
incurred the debt, but new debt will be a
charge on the regional municipality.
Mr. Chairman: That is section 113— debt.
Mr. Sargent: Well, under the financing
here. As I understand it then, any new
debt will be put in the pot of the regional?
But any old debt will have to be— each muni-
cipality will make its own levy to retire
the existing debt? So there is no thought in
any of these many subsections here of pro-
vincial subsidy to retire the debt?
Hon. Mr. McKetough: No.
Mr. Sargent: Under this section, how many
firms of consultants have you working in this
job now?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In this?
Mr. Sargent: In this part of the project.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: None. The only out-
side advice we have had has been some
legal advice in drafting tlie bill.
Sections 105 and 106 agreed to.
On section 107:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, in section 107
it refers to:
The regional council shall in each year
prepare to adopt estimates that involve
sums required during the year for the
purposes of the regional corporation.
Surely if we are heading towards a project,
or a new form of government, which could
lead the way for regional government in On-
tario as a whole, we should be willing to
write into tlie initial legislation, with regard
to financing, ways in which the finances can
be done on a much longer term basis?
In other words, the point is that here again
in this whole legislation we are talking about
—yearly estimates and levies; that under the
sections we talk about each year, the new
regional corporation will present its budget,
and so forth.
Surely we could write into this legislation
now, at least an intention that regional gov-
ernment budgets in this province, as regional
government develops over the next 30 years,
should be developed on a proper five-year
planning basis?
We have moved into this to some extent—
the Minister of Education (Mr. Davis), has
done so— into the area of five-year capital
budgeting in our universities, albeit just to a
ininor extent. But surely here we can say—
for goodness' sake, we are talking about
regional government; we are talking about
regional planning— we are talking about— in
this particular case— a very important area
of Canada and Ontario. Surely we should
write in here— get away from one-year plan-
ning, financial planning, and let us get into
five-year financial planning. Let us now set
up the legal framework whereby we can
work toward admini.strative procedures and
techniques whereby five-year capital costing
and five-year budgeting and so forth can be
worked out in close co-operation with this
House, because we have to approve funds
granted in the one-year basis.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are talking about
two different things, of course, because this
refers to yearly estimates and levies which
presumably are for current purposes. I do
not think anybody would suggest, for
example, that the treasurer should not bring
3732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
down a yearly budget for current purposes,
although there should be long-term planning
for capital purposes. I recall a certain Min-
ister of Finance in another place who felt
constrained to bring in three budgets in one
year, so I do not think we have arrived at
tlie point where we might budget for two
years.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Some years they did not bring in a budget at
all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: True. However, as
far as the capital portion is concerned, I
suppose this properly comes under the next
section— debt. This municipality, like any
other, will, of course, be required— if they are
going to borrow— to prepare a five-year fore-
cost by the Ontario municipal board. This is
being done. Anybody now who wants to
borrow has to go on a five-year basis.
I am not so sure that that should not be
not only for this municipality, but those sort
of financial planning principles. It may be a
little difiicult, but I am not so sure that those
should not be in legislation, rather than a
policy of the Ontario municipal board. I
think there is some merit in that. I do not
know just how you would word it. But we
have some other wording in here which,
perhaps, legally, does not mean anything but
points the intent of it, and I think this is
important. However, this might be more
appropriately done in The Municipal Board
Act or one of our Acts, I do not know.
Mr. Sargent: Under the estimates and
letters, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that
Metro Toronto pays its own Metro mayor, I
feel that there is a principle involved here and
that you might consider an amendment at
this point to have the province move out of
the payment of the director. Let them pay
their own director out of their own funds.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is certainly the
intention when he is elected. They will pay
him after this four-year contractional period.
Section 107 agreed to.
On section 108:
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): On section
108, subsection 6:
If any area in the municipality is not
satisfied with the last revised assessment as
equalized by the department, and so on, the
municipality may appeal.
I am not at all sure whether that referred
only to the period between now and 1971
inclusive, or whether it refers to any year,
1972, 1973. In other words, Mr. Chairman,
my question to the Minister is: Does sub-
section 6 of section 108 refer only for the
years up to and including 1971, or does it
mean from henceforth and evermore?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Go ahead, I am not
sure, go ahead!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, this is pretty
basic, but would the Minister define equalized
assessment? Mr. Chairman, I have been
mixed up on this assessment for the last 20
years on equalizations, and I think I know
what I am talking about. I would like to
know what the Minister's version of equalized
assessment is.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Equalized assessment,
or the equalizing factor, is simply what you
have to multiply the local assessment by to
arrive at equalized assessment. In Owen
Sound I assume that you would say that
houses are probably assessed at about a third
of values, so therefore to arrive at the equaliz-
ing factor in Owen Sound is therefore 33.
You multiply the assessed value, or at least,
you multiply by-
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. This is not fair;
I should not be doing this but I am trying to
find out on what basis you are going to do it.
On a present-day value or what, on this pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This comes back to
your question for which I have the answer
now; the equalization factors between the
municipalities will not be needed after 1971
because by then, they should have completed,
and will have completed, a re-assessment of
the whole area, and the whole area will then
be on the same basis, which presumably—
Mr. Sargent: It will all be uniform.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, and presumably
it will be at market value.
Mr. Sargent: Does this programme plan a
yearly equalization? The city of New York
has a yearly equalization.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: A yearly re-assess-
ment in other words?
Mr. Sargent: A yearly equalization. We
are talking about the most important thing in
all our democracy, that a cash-box of a
democracy is equalized assessment. We have
not got it in this province, and it is a great
MAY 31, 1968
3733
lack of uniformity, equity and equality, and
we should have a yearly equalized assessment
right across the board. There is a very im-
portant principle here.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Smith makes rec-
ommendations as to re-assessing yearly or
keeping up to date yearly, and frankly we
have not considered all of the implications of
that yet as to whether or not it is practical,
or whether there is that much change in a
one or two or three year period, that you
cannot re-assess, say, every three years.
Mr. Sargent: Tiered debentures.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: But certainly they
have to be equalized; we equalize now for
all municipalities, every year, to the best of
our ability. And it is a sampling method—
we do not say it is perfect; it is as perfect as
the assessment on which it depends will
allow it to be.
Mr. Sargent: And personnel?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, there has to be
an equalizing each year.
Sections 108 to 112, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 113:
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in connection
with 113, the whole part dealing with debt;
in reading through this, I am not clear
whether this now precludes all municipalities
within the region from doing their own bor-
rowing.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I see your point;
reading 113 I am told that it does preclude
them. I suppose they might want to do it
on their own, presumably they get a better
rate. This is one of the purposes by borrow-
ing as a region rather than as local parts,
but they would be precluded— I do not know
which section precludes them, but they are
precluded.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I am entirely
in agreement with the principle of Laving
all the capital borrowing done by the region
but I wanted to be sure the bill was definitely
precluding the others from doing it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Subsection 3 would
preclude them.
Mr. Deacon: Right, I see that. Now, as
far as the existing debt is concerned, I see
there is provision where they may refinance
but do not have to. I suppose that is to
prevent any of the present debt-holders forc-
ing the municipalities to redeem their debt
at higher than current market levels, which
also makes sense, but does give them the
right at whatever time, if so desired, to
assume the existing debt of the individaul
municipalities and re-issue.
Section 113 agreed to.
On section 114:
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
when the municipality within the region
wants to issue a debenture, I think you are
suggesting that they go through the regional
council, but would it be mandatory on the
regional government to issue the debenture
at the request of that municipality within
the region? Obviously, they cannot do it but
is it mandatory on the overall council to
issue the debentures?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Wait until I find
the right section.
Mr. Pilkey: Well it is under section 114
here.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer is "yes"
but I just want to—
Mr. Stokes: Would not subsection 4 of 113
cover that? It says "shall pass by bylaw";
section 113, subsection 4, clause (d).
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, that is right.
And presumably the arena that this is settled
in— you are right, 4 A of 113— brings in the
Ontario municipal board. And if there was
a dispute between the region and one of its
parts, it would be up to the board to sort
it out. Neither one has the absolute right,
of course, to issue debentures; no munici-
pality does now anyway; it is subject to the
approval of the board, so the board would be
called in to settle the dispute.
Sections 114 to 137, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 138:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr, Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister if I am correct in the
following statement.
Is it true that in the single Bill 112, that
people who are ehgible for election to the
divisional board of education under subsec-
tion 138, must be Canadian citizens, whereas
people who are eligible to the new divisional-
regional council in other sections of the bill
can be British subjects but not Canadian
citizens?
3734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is u very interest-
ing point. The Department of Edncation
amended their legislation relating to this two
or three years ago, I guess, and in so doing
1 think disenfranchised a certain group of
people. They did not do it intentionally biit
they have done it and have not changed it
back and I guess it does not create any prob-
lem—and I am referring to British citizens
who are not necessarily Canadian citizens.
We have not done that in our legislation and
we are following it on here. I think we have
got it straightened away.
Mr. T. Held: Well, I would like to follow
up on this if I might. Some of us on the edu-
cation committee feel that people running for
public office in Canada should be Canadians
and I certainly feel this personally. Now I
would like to ask the Minister how he can
justify ha\'ing inconsistent legislation in the
same bill?
Hon Mr. McKeough: Because this is what
is in our general legislation and we follow
the same pattern.
Mr. T. Refd: Would now not be the time
to change it?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, because I am
not prepared to change it in the general
legislation at this point. That is not an amend-
ment which is before us. I will be glad to dis-
cuss it then when The Municipal Act comes
in but we do not have it under consideration.
Mr. T. Reid: That means that if the Min-
ister does bring forward legislation changing
TJie Mimicipal Act, we are going to have to
go back to amend this Act to suit the new
legislation.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think it
would logically be done. I think it is probably
The Assessment Act which is not correct-
it would not be The Municipal Act. But if
you were going to do something then the
logical thing to do would be to amend The
Municipal Act first, that being the principal
bill, and then you would amend this Act,
and presumably you would also amend-
since I assume it contains the same provision
—The Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think you would
start with The Municipal Act,
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister this. He mentioned The
Department of Education had disenfranchised
certain people li\ ing in Canada. I suppose—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not disenfranchised;
disqualified certain people from running for
office.
Mr. T. Reid: Disqualified, okay. So we
will change Hansard on that point.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
Mr. T. Reid: But I would like to ask tlie
Minister, Mr. Chairman, whether he believes
that people who are not Canadian citizens
should be eligible for public office imder his
jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have not really
thought about it, Mr, Chairman. I do not
think this has anything to do with this
particular section of the bill.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not
suppose one can blame the Minister, but one
can blame the government that they are now
caught in their own tardiness. The hon.
member for Scarborough East may be inter-
ested to know that the origins of the incon-
sistency which has emerged were to be found
in a standing committee of this Legislature.
I happened to be on diat standing committee
and somebody took a look at this bill that
was going through— maybe it was myself, I
have forgotten-
Mr. Sargent: You do not forget—
Mr. MacDonald: —took a look at the bill
and said, "Now surely it is ludicrous in Can-
ada, some 30 plush years after the statute
of Westminster, that we should say you must
be a British subject and that a Canadian
citizen could not nm." So they made an
amendment, and I will say, Mr. Chairman,
quite frankly, that we were astounded that
all the Tories on the committee supported it
and it went through unanimously. Now I
would judge, in view of the Minister's—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why were you
astounded?
Mr. MacDonald: I was astounded at such
an air of enlightenment on this issue— 30 years
after the statute of Westminster had been
accepted— by the Tories who were at that
committee that morning.
My point is that apparently the same
enlightenment does not exist in the whole
government, because surely the government
did not have the face to veto the decision
MAY 31, 1968
3735
of the standing committee. I mean that would
liave been a little bit ludicrous to have gone
back to British citizenship after the standing
committee had unanimously, with the sup-
port of the government party, made this
change.
But you have not followed through four
or five years afterwards, because I think it is
four or five years since that happened. So
you have got two parallel pieces of legisla-
tion that are inconsistent and now you bring
in a bill which brings these two parallel
pieces of legislation into the one, and incon-
sistencies clash head on. Surely without too
much passage of time the government can
clarify this issue.
There is one case, that I happen to be
personally familiar with, of a person who was
a British subject and came to Canada. He
wanted to run for the school board and dis-
covered at the last moment that he was not
eligible; he had to be a Canadian citizen.
While he succeeded in getting Canadian
citizenship in Ottawa in what is regarded as
absolutely record time, he was not able to
persuade die poHtically oriented local clerk
to accept his nomination and so he was dis-
qualified.
Sections 138 to 158, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 159:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, regarding 159
subsection (a). The regional corporation of
an ordinary area municipahty, or the regional
corporation of one or more area municipali-
ties, may acquire land for the purposes of
constructing a municipal building. I would
like to ask the Minister again, for my own
clarification, does the word "acquire" mean
expropriation; does it include the powers of
expropriation?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
Sections 159 to 162, inclusive, agreed to.
Forms on page 80 agreed to.
Bill 112 reported.
Hon. Mr. Haskett moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report a certain
resolution and one bill with certain amend-
ments and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report a certain
resolution and one bill with certain amend-
ments and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
ACT, 1968
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill 130, Tlie Em-
ployment Standards Act, 1968.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour in
moving second reading of this bill would, I
presume, be prepared later in the discussion
to have something more specific to say about
their decisions associated with minimum
wages? In the first reading of the bill, he said
the department was undertaking some con-
siderable research as to how this might be
established and improved some time in the
future.
I am quite concerned that through the
Minister's announcement we are going to be
treated to another formula which sees mini-
mum wages a patchwork across the province,
v/ith a number of different levels depending
upon the economic attainments of the par-
ticular area. There has been some complaint
about that approach in the past, and since it
is associated with this particular matter, I
thought perhaps the Minister might be able
to make some further comment on the prin-
ciple of applying a minimum wage across the
province.
Beyond that, this bill is supposed to deal
with the rights of those workers who are not
themselves able to organize unions in any
convenient way. For that reason, I believe
it is a very important bill because there are
so many of the labourers across the province,
and others who by reason of being dispersed
and the type of industry they are involved in,
cannot have the advantages of their own
organization in the normal sense.
The ones we have heard about most re-
cently are those that have been employed by
companies, usually in large urban centres,
which have signs out on a continuing basis
for anyone who is without employment at
that particular time to come in and register.
They are then found what amount to part-
time jobs by these particular companies and
a fairly large percentage of their wages is
taken by the company for the services they
render. This kind of jobbery is one that is
of some considerable concern, and it appears
that these bills the Minister has brought in,
which are designed to provide this protection
3736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for this class of people, might perhaps have
been more pointed in this connection.
I heartily approve of the acceptance of our
responsibility to order the affairs of those
people who cannot organize themselves, and
give them as much protection and assistance
as possible so that they will not be subjected
to exploitation that has gone on in the past,
and in my view is continuing in the type of
labour practices that I have just described.
I would like to hear the Minister's com-
ments in general on these matters, and I pre-
sume there will be, what, three bills brought
in and discussed at this time? Right.
Mr. L Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that these changes are very
necessary. The one thing that concerns me
is the change in the overtime pay, under part
(b) of overtime pay, where it discusses an
employee working on a holiday and does not
make any allowance for any employee who
happens to have his day off on that holiday.
Quite obviously, if an employee's regular day
off is on the holiday, he should also receive
time and a half for that day, since he will
have to work a normal shift during the course
of the following week. Surely an employee
who happens to be on a rotating shift basis
should not be penalized because his day off
falls on a statutory holiday, and I would ask
that the Minister of Labour consider making
a change in that portion of the bill.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, on
the bill itself I would also like to make a point
on the question of the minimum wage. The
Minister, in presenting the bill, said that the
government intends to establish a new and
higher minimum wage rate this year. He
said that this step will be taken during the
next few months on the basis of surveys and
studies in the course of preparation. He also
made a comment that this survey would be
taken in light of wage and price increases and
other economic factors; and the other eco-
nomic factors, I would suggest, are the
increase in the cost of living.
It has been rumoured, and I hope this is
not correct, that the minimum wage would
be somewhere in the area of $L35 per hour.
Let me point out to the Minister that if
he makes the survey in light of the economic
factors and takes the increase in the cost of
living in relationship to the minimum wage
when it was originally put in effect or went
to $1, then I would suggest to him that the
increase should be beyond $1.35 to bring
these people in line with the present-day
cost of living from where it was at $1. So
they are going to have to go beyond this
question of $L35 an hour if they are going
to relate this in those three areas— the wages
and price increases, and the question of the
cost of living.
I also want to say that on this question of
the time-and-a-half overtime payment on
statutory holidays, really I do not think this
is giving the unorganized workers in this
province anything. Obviously the employer
is going to close his establishment down; in
my opinion the great majority would close
their establishment down during these statu-
tory holiday periods, and they would not be
working anyway. It is like negotiating a
wage classification in an agreement. You
negotiate a $6 rate per hour but there is
nobody working in the classification, so really
you have not done anything as far as negoti-
ating wage increases for the people; it is
just on paper, and really it does not mean
anything.
If the Minister had come in and said
that, "We are making it mandatory that the
employers pay the seven statutory holidays
if they do not work, and if they do work
they pay time and a half," then I think he
would be bringing in some progressive type
of legislation. But this type of legislation
is meaningless, it does not mean anything
and will not reflect in the economic well-
being of the unorganized workers of this
province.
In addition to that, I do agree that the
Minister's position under the Ontario human
rights code requires that men and women
receive equal pay for equal work. I would
think that this was a good point; if the
women are doing equal work to men, obvi-
ously they should receive the rate, but in
this regard I had hoped the Minister would
have people working in this area to investi-
gate not just on the basis of complaints, but
to make sure that the employers in this prov-
ince are treating the women on an equal
basis to men where the job content is identi-
cal. I would not think it would be good
enough just to work in the area of com-
plaints.
Also, I would like the Minister to indicate
to this House in this area of time and a half
after 48 hours, what he meant when he made
tlie point that he would hope that this would
create additional employment if we cut down
on excessive overtime. This again brings me
back to one point, and I would hope that
the interpretation on that section under the
new Employment Standards Act is that no
employee in this province is required to work
MAY 31, 1968
3737
in excess of 48 hours a week. That is eight
hours per day and six days a week on the
basis of overtime. Many of the employers,
and I talk specifically of the auto industry,
do put in excessive overtime schedules for
those employees, working ten hours a day
and six days a week in some cases.
If you refuse to work the overtime, then
your job is in jeopardy and this is the point
that I am making. If this is going to be
meaningful, then they should not be required
to work this overtime. It should be on a
voluntary basis, and if they work for eight
hours, then they should be in a position
to say, "I have had enough and I am going
home." I hope that this is what this legis-
lation means, as far as the overtime schedule
is concerned-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Pilkey: No, the union agreements do
not agree to that. The union agreements call
for time and one half for overtime and you
will find very few agreements where overtime
is on a voluntary basis. This is one that the
companies in this province guard very jeal-
ously, this area of overtime. They like to
schedule it and have the employees work it,
and I think that you would be in for a
great fight with many of the companies in
this province if you try to inject voluntary
overtime into a collective bargaining agree-
ment.
Obviously, most of the demands that are
made on the company initially call for that,
but they have not had the ability to negoti-
ate it into the collective baragaining agree-
ment, and I am talking about overtime above
40 hours on a voluntary basis. The province
calls for a 48-hour work week, and I am
suggesting to the Minister that it should not
be mandatory that an employee work more
than 48 hours a week, and if he does, he
does it on a voluntary basis.
My last point was that I would like the
Minister to enlarge a little on the transfer
from the industry and labour branch of the
minimum wage rates to the Lieutenant-
Governor to estabhsh from time to time the
regulations, and I would like to know why
he is bringing in that type of legislation as
well.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, there is one principle of the bill
that concerns me and that is the one of equal
pay for equal work. I am just worried about
the fact that possibly some types of indus-
tries that may have both male and female
employees may simply put a door or wall
between the portion in which the women and
the men work and in that way, evade the
principle of the equal pay for equal work.
I would like the Minister's views on this
when he does get up and make his conclud-
ing comments, I hope that industry would not
try and use this type of approach to evade
the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I do not want to speak on the generalities
of what this bill may or may not include
here, but I think that there is a great area
for intervention on the part of the Minister
for the slave labour that is going on in some
resorts by university and high school students
during tlie summer time.
They are employing youth at greatly re-
duced wages and an aside here is that if the
large corporations at Banff and Lake Louise,
which may be outside of our territory here,
or on the CPR and CNR, they get these
university students and they have them—
Mr. Speaker: Order, the member must
speak to the bill. He is speaking to a matter
which is entirely beyond the jurisdiction.
This bill is eflFective only in Ontario.
Mr. Sargent: There is no legislation as I
understand it to protect people from 16 to
18 years of age who are working in resorts
during the summer, and there should be
some minimum wage that should be paid to
them, like everyone else.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview has
the floor.
Mr. F. Young ( Yorkview ) : Mr. Speaker,
one of the problems of this bill, and I would
like to hear the Minister's comment, is the
unorganized worker who is fearful of asserting
his rights. Certainly the increase of the mini-
mum wage, the time and one half and the
other rights which the bill provides for, are
all to the good and we would hope that the
minimum wage would be set at adequate
levels.
But so many of our small plants in parti-
cular are unorganized, and workers in small
stores and businesses have no union to pro-
tect them, and while they may have rights
under this legislation the problem is going to
be in asserting those rights so that the protec-
tion is actually afforded. Perhaps the worker
has rights in the courts, but the little person
who is working in that small plant, or the
person who is working in the store or the
small business knows what his rights are.
3738
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
perhaps, but he is afraid that if he demands
his rights, he will immediately be told tliat
he is dismissed.
This is where the problem lies, I think, in
tlie enforcement and the affording of the pro-
tection this bill is aimed to give. Perhaps the
Minister will have some advice here for us as
to how the person actually can achieve that
protection if he does not have the protection
of an organization behind him. This, I think,
is the answer that must be given before this
legislation can be adequate and enforced. In
other words, if we are leaving to the un-
organized employee, the burden of enforce-
ment, then in many cases, tlie employee will
fear to enforce it because of the economic
consequences that will fall upon his head.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for
Dovercourt will adjourn this debate? And
depending on the agreement of the House are
you going to tlie private members' hour at 1?
It would be excellent if the Speaker were to
be advised of these changes. The member for
Dovercourt has the floor.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Thank
you. Mr. Speaker, it seems to be that what the
Minister of Labour is really attempting to do
is to bring the unorganized worker and give
liim some rights that are usually obtained
through the collective bargaining procedure.
In my opinion, tlie Act does not go far
enough. For instance, and I do not wish to get
at any one specific part of the Act, it provides
that the employer must pay overtime for any
hours worked over 48 hours per week.
It is my impression that most collective
bargaining agreements pay time and a half
for hours worked over 40 hours. Now, I ask
the Minister to tell the House when he makes
his final address on tliis bill, why he has not
looked closer at the agreements made by
workers in Ontario in the past to guide him
for an Act to cover unorganized workers.
I particularly ask the Minister to look at
time and one half over 40 hours instead of
the 48 hours. What we are asking is for the
unorganized worker to be paid for overtime
if he works more than six normal days a
week. In other words, a worker could work
every day from Monday to Saturday, eight
hours a day, and still not have any right to
time and a half for overtime and I suggest,
Mr, Speaker, that the normal working week
for people other than parliamentarians is 40
hours.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other meml)cr
who wishes to speak?
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the Minister. I do not know when he is
going to reply but maybe he could answer it.
Mr. Speaker: Normally in a debate a mem-
ber speaks only once.
Mr. Pilkey: I just want to ask a question,
I do not want to speak.
Mr. Speaker: That, in my opinion, is speak-
ing but I think the Minister would have no
objection to a question which might help him
elucidate the Act further.
Mr. Pilkey: Do I understand that the bill
requires an employer to pay overtime on a
daily basis— anydiing over eight hours? It
does not. In other words, he has to have
his 48 hours in before he then becomes
eligible for overtime.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who now wishes to speak to the bill before
the Minister replies and closes the debate?
The Minister of Labour has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments made by the various members
and— since this is second reading— I shall
endeavour to deal with tliem in rather broad
ways, and perhaps not in the specific manner
we might when we deal with the bill section
by section in committee.
I want to reiterate that the basic principle
behind the bill is to give further assistance to
that very broad segment of our work force
that exists throughout this province, and to
combine these protective measures into one
statute. We also wish to increase this pro-
tection and their standards from time to
time in the future.
I would reiterate one particular point. That
this is not an average wage level or employ-
ment standard, but rather this is a basic level
which the government can improve from time
to time. There are many people employed
throughout this province in small industry
and otherwise, who require this basic pro-
tection and it will come from this statute.
There have been various measures in the past
and under this bill we are combining those
for greater clarification, both for the employ-
ers and the employees.
I would also remind the hon. members
that speed of application is not the only
thing to be considered in social legislation.
We have constantly to keep in mind the
overall picture, so that the greatest good
accrues to the greatest number of our people.
MAY 31, 1968
3739
When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I have in
mind that one of the prime responsibilities
of this government is to do all we can to
ensure that the economy continues to move
ahead, so that enough new jobs are created
<!ach year to provide work and pay cheques
for the young people of this province, and
the newcomers to the province.
In this year we require some 100,000 new
jobs for people in this province and, in the
search and creation of them, we are quite
literally in competition with other provinces
and also with the economy of the United
States. Under these circumstances we must
constantly bear in mind that we cannot bur-
den the economy to a greater degree than
do other jurisdictions. This is especially true
when we remember that 95 per cent of the
industry of this province employs 20 or
fewer people, so that in many instances we
are not dealing with large industries or large
employee groups.
In some situations we can afford to make
social progress faster than in other places,
and this government has done so. But in
other areas, we must bear in mind that im-
provements in employment standards must
also be in line so that industiy can be
attracted to and maintained in this province.
One thing that I want to make extremely
clear is that this is not a final position in
reference to this matter. We look on this
bill as one that we can develop and compare
as circumstances and other factors in this
economy permit.
In dealing with some of the particular
matters raised by the hon. members, ques-
tions have been raised concerning the mini-
mum wage. I would deal with it in this
way— that initially the minimum wage was
adopted throughout the province on a zone
basis, because it was felt that it must be
done in that way, so that the economy of the
different sections could have time to adjust.
That served its purpose at that time.
At the present time the minimum wage is
uniform throughout the province and it is our
expectation it will remain so.
In reference to establishing the minimum
wage, we have been conducting a very
thorough survey of wage levels throughout
the province. It is not complete as yet.
The reports are being worked on and it is
on that information that we will be able,
ultimately, to establish what should be the
new minimum wage for this time. But I
would make it very clear that we contem-
plate an increase in the minimum wage.
In the matter of the industry and labour
board establishing the minimum wage, as
against the new system of the Cabinet— this
was a question that was dealt with by Mr.
McRuer and his committee. It was felt by
the committee that the responsibility for that
decision should not rest with a civil .service
board, but rather with the Cabinet througli
the Lieutenant-Governor in council.
There have been matters raised about over-
time pay and particularly it should be effec-
tive at 40 hours, rather than 48. As I said in
the beginning, this is basic protective legisla-
tion. We realize that many people in this
province will have a standard higher than
this and we encourage that, but we wish,
through this legislation, to raise the stan-
dards of employment for others who do not
have a higher level at the present time.
We feel that this is the type of legisla-
tion that can be adapted from time to time
and it will improve situations for many
people in this province. That is the reason
it is being brought in now. I may say it
will bring it in line with a number of juris-
dictions in this country.
The question of labour contracting firms,
wherein they employ people and make their
services available to other companies. I
reiterate what I said a few days ago, that
this matter is being investigated by my
department through a study. Largely it is a
case of one company employing people at
various rates— and they must pay the mini-
mum wage for their employees and then
making their services available on a tempor-
ary basis to another company. That company
pays the labour contracting firm— it is a
contract between the person or company who
requires the service and that who makes it
available. As I say, it is not a system of
deduction of pay from the individual worker.
The hon. member for Yorkview raised a
question as to what protections there are for
the individual. I can only say to him that my
department has a large staff for this and
we will have to increase it under this legisla-
tion, for inspection purposes. When a per-
son complains that he may be receiving less
than his due for minimum wage or holiday
pay, our people make an investigation they
have substantial powers under this new Act;
if he would refer particularly to section 35
in the enforcement part, he would find
therein improvements in that regard.
Our people are able to look at the books
to see if the person has received his, or her
proper pay, and we are able to collect if he
3740
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has not. We are enlarging that provision
under this Act, so that the department,
through my officials, can collect up to $1,000
on behalf of employees for moneys that
they have not received and that, perhaps, v^^e
have found they are entitled to.
We have endeavoured, on a broad basis,
to improve the employment standards of
people throughout this province. I am par-
ticularly pleased, of course, with the com-
ments in reference to equal pay for equal
work provisions. I would say that whereas
before a complaint had been made before
an investigation was started, now it will be
brought under the labour standards or the
employment standards branch and our people
will be inspecting situations as they go
throughout the province. Mr. Speaker, I
think I have covered the main points raised
in the debate.
Mr. Sargent: What about the students?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Oh yes, in reference to
the question of the hon. member about stu-
dents, I simply point out that there is, at the
present time, a minimum wage for students
in the province just as there is for other
people. It is at a lower rate, because it is
seasonal employment and, of course it is
often of a different nature than adult employ-
ment.
Mr. Sargent: That is discrimination right
there!
Hon. Mr. Bales: No, it is not. The hon.
member raised particular questions at the
time of my estimates— and he has asked ques-
tions before— there was justification for it,
because you were concerned about university
students and other students obtaining tem-
porary work. This is an important point, be-
cause the summer resort industries frequently
could not afford to pay on the minimum wage
basis.
Mr. Sargent: Who says that?
Hon. Mr. Bales: There is a basic minimum
wage that must be paid to temporary em-
ployees for the summer tourist industry; that
protects them and helps them.
So these are the general points, Mr.
Speaker, in reference to this bill. I think
it is a forward looking measure and it is one
on which we will extend from time to time as
the years progress.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did
not answer the question I asked.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The custom
that has been established here are that ques-
tions which wish debate, which the members
wish to engage in, come before the Minister's
statement. Then, if there is something that is
not clarified, usually in the committee of the
whole, or in the standing committee, those
matters can be dealt with because normally
they are matters not of principle but of some
particular item with respect to the estimates.
And I would hope that the member's question
would fall into that category and it could be
asked and clarified either in the committee of
the whole or in the standing committee. The
motion is for second reading.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, excuse me, on a point of order.
For some time, I have been wondering to
what extent your repeated statement about
the rules— that it is always in order for a
member to ask a question of a Minister-
would carry.
I think that at the conclusion of the Min-
ister's speech on second reading, it is not at
all impractical or a matter of wasting the
time of the House— if the member has a ques-
tion to ask of the Minister at the conclusion
of his speech; whether it is a question of
information, a question to ask when the Min-
ister is going to reply to a question asked
earlier in the debate, or whether it is argu-
mentative, or a question of a debating nature.
Is it not so, Mr. Speaker, that the member
may ask such a question?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I would suggest that the
House allow this matter to stand for the
moment so that eitlier the party whips or the
party leaders may decide whether there is
any change in what I understand to be the
procedure here. The problem, which I think
Mr. Speaker or the House leader would have
in the event that we would allow unrestricted
questions after the close of the debate, would
be that not only would the member for
Windsor West be entitled to ask his question
but any one of 116 other members would also
and we would never conclude a debate
If the member will allow me, and the
House agree, I will be glad to take the
matter up with the whips and the party
leaders and see if there is any change in the
custom. Because, so far as Mr. Speaker is
concerned, while his duty is to see that the
House operates properly, it is also to see
that matters proceed in the manner which the
members of the House feel best. I will be
glad to take that under advisement, to contact
the party leaders and the whips and see if we
MAY 31, 1968
3741
have any amendment which needs to be
made. If that is agreeable to the member?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I certainly
would abide by your ruling; I would only say
in reference to the hon. member that he did
mention one point which I did not cover in
my remarks, and I would be glad to do so
but with out-
Mr. Speaker: Well, the Minister is the last
speaker; if he would care to clarify the
answer to the member's question.
Hon. Mr. Bales: It is simply that the hon.
member did ask a matter in reference to
overtime pay and about adjustment for a
day off. I would say that that is a matter
that we would deal with under regulations,
and we would certainly take it under con-
sideration.
Mr. Speaker: I will still discuss the matter
with the party leaders and whips, as raised
by this debate.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest that what has hap-
pened indicates we do not need to discuss it.
Because what has happened here is that the
hon. member for Grey-Bruce interjected a
question, and because he interjected and did
not ask to get the floor the Minister dealt with
it. My colleague rose and said, "I asked a
question; the Minister did not deal with it;
can I ask it now?" And the Speaker began
to lower the bar a little and said, "No, we
will keep it until later."
I think it was clearly in order; it was
inadvertently missed by the Speaker and by
the Minister, and I think we have wasted five
or ten minutes that we could have used more
usefully otherwise.
Mr. Speaker: Judging by previous experi-
ence in the House, I doubt if the time was
wasted. The motion is for second reading of
Bill 130. Is it the pleasure of the House that
the motion carry?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE WAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Bales moves second reading of
Bill 131, An Act to amend The Wages Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AGT, 1964
Hon. Mr. Bales moves second reading of
Bill 132, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safety Act, 1964.
Mr. Nixon: It is not printed.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): It is
being distributed this morning.
Mr. Speaker: I might point out for the
information of the members that because of
the 9:30 opening it is very difficult to know
whether the printing will be up or not because
it normally comes up at 9:30. So I asked the
Clerk and we discussed it and we decided
they would not likely be up and would be
shown as not printed. If they came up they
would be distributed and the House leader
would be advised and then we could deal
with those bills. So that is what I believe has
happened, Mr. Prime Minister, with respect
to this bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 25th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. R. J. Boyer in the
chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
(Continued)
On vote 2201:
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): With
regard to research, in the course of his reply
to other questions yesterday, the Minister said
that it would be inaccurate to give the House
the impression that the figure of $516,000 for
maintenance was in any great part for re-
search, although I think he conceded that
research now has become sort of buried in
that figure.
May I ask the Minister, specifically, how
much is, under the head office estimate, de-
voted to research, and what is the nature of
the research that remains in this dwindling
aspect of the department's work.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, the amount in these estimates
for the research section of the main office this
year will amount to $18,000.
Mr. MacDonald: May I repeat my question?
What is the nature of the research, par-
ticularly in the hght of the Minister's com-
ment again yesterday to the effect that you
do not do piure research.
3742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that it is more in the nature of studies
and correlation of information on vehicles and
vehicle studies, and there will be increasing
work in this field. It is mostly in the nature
of vehicle statistics and equipment and that
sort of thing.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a brief comment because I think this is
pretty important. Quite frankly it raises in my
mind serious questions as to what exactly is
the purpose of this department present, past
and future. What the Minister in effect has
said is that the research department has dis-
appeared completely. Eighteen thousand
dollars to be spent on research is peanuts. If
it is being spent on collating studies, this is
just another aspect of the department's statis-
tical figures with regard to one and another
aspect of the compilation which is the main
work of the department at the present time.
Interestingly enough, if one goes back two
or three years, there used to be a research
branch. Last year that disappeared; it got
buried in the head office estimates with a
specific item to deal with research, and as I
recall, it was a fairly significant figure. In
fact, it was fees and expenses for special
studies and research, $410,000. Admittedly,
that may well have been with specific refer-
ence to the regional transportation study for
the Toronto area.
But you see, Mr. Chairman, this raises the
whole question in relation to what is the pur-
pose, direction and the future jurisdiction
of this department. I cannot make up my
mind whether the government started a de-
partment with a certain concept of its
functions and then changed its mind, or
whether the government has lost confidence
in this Minister so that when anything of a
research nature comes up, they place it under
the jurisdiction of somebody else. What hap-
pened when we got into the regional trans-
portation study for the Metro area, was that
it was shifted off under the chairmanship of
a committee that was headed by the then
Highways Minister, now the Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton). In effect,
the Minister who under any asses.sment of
the departmental terms of reference should
have been doing tlie job, was deprived of the
opportunity of doing the job. And now who-
ever is responsible— and I suppose it must be
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) or .some-
body else at the Cabinet level— has really
stripped this department of all of its research
functions and has switched them over, I pre-
sume, to the economic and research branch
of the Provincial Treasurer.
Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to that,
I think I could make a case that research with
regard to transportation is so intimately tied
in with economic development of the prov-
ince, that maybe that is the appropriate place
to put it. But if, in fact. The Department of
Transport is now stripped of its research
function, reduced to being a statistical com-
pilation department, then I suggest to you
that the case that was put forward by the
Liberal lead-off critic and by my own col-
league is a valid one, that the raison d'itw
of the department has been efiminated.
There is another tangent one could go off
on, and it is one that was suggested by my
colleague in the lead-off on behalf of tliis
party: If the government can make up its
mind— and it seems to have been wafiling back
and forth, but generally back, in terms of
what the functions of this department are-
if tlie government can make up its mind to
create a genuine transport department and
bring under it, conceivably, tlie ONR, be-
cause this is part of the transportation system.
Such pipeline developments as might be in
the province, and the airstrips that the
Minister says now come under his jurisdiction,
almost as a sop to give some justification for
the continued existence of the department, I
think a case can be made for a transport
department.
Indeed, what puzzles me and leads me to
l^elieve that both the Minister and the govern-
ment do not know exactly where they are
going, is that somebody asked the question
yesterday— it was my colleague, the member
for Wentworth— "What exactly is your future
concept of what comes under transport?";
and I think Hansard will record the Minister
said, "Well, I do not think that the construc-
tion of highways should come under The
Transport Department." But he implied all
these other things legitimately might.
Maybe he is dreaming; maybe the Prime
Minister is not on his side and the facts
suggest this is the case. One would agree
that the construction and the maintenance of
highways is a monumental task and clearly
should be off into another department, but
all of these other transport items in my view
could be put into a meaningful, purposeful
substantative Department of Transport. But at
the moment, since the government set it up
ten years ago, it has been dwindling, it is
withering on the vine; the main job is high-
way safety and the Minister now gives us
MAY 31, 1968
3743
very extensive rationalization as to why he
cannot move radically or revolutionarily.
This Minister moving in a radical and
revolutionary fashion just sort of silences me;
I boggle at the thought of it, so there is no
danger of that happening. But the proposi-
tion of this province moving ahead on some
of these vital things that affect human lives
is something that could be done even in
this very limited department, but it is not
being done.
To sum up, I think the government has
to make up its mind what The Department
of Transport is or is going to be. If it is
going to be only what it now is and is be-
coming less and less, then I think the best
thing to do is a little bit of mercy killing,
and put it back as a branch in The Depart-
ment of Highways or somewhere for com-
pilation of statistics, and let the research
work be done in the new department of the
Provincial Treasurer.
There is one final and specific item that I
retiu-n to and I am going to attempt not to
repeat at greater length than is necessary to
present it to the House once again, but I
return to it with a particular and specific
purpose in mind. If research has disappeared
from this department, I suppose I am talking
about a closed chapter and then the Min-
ister is not in a position to speak. Maybe
all the files from that former research branch
have been taken away from him and he is
like the little boy who has lost the candies;
he has not got them now.
However, I go back to that important study
tliat was done on motor vehicle taxation
by this department when it did have a
research branch. It was an important study,
as I have said so many times in the House,
because it was a follow-up study from a
select committee headed by the now Prime
Minister, on the question of weight-distance
taxes and toll roads. In effect, a more accu-
rate name for it is highway revenues. We
came up with specific proposals in that
committee. The government saw fit not
to implement the porposals— such as, for
example, implementation of a weight-distance
tax— and they launched into further studies.
Those studies went on for four or five years
and strange things happened.
For example, back about 1963 or 1964,
both of the Toronto afternoon papers, if I
recall correctly, suddenly came out witli
extensive stories suggesting what was in the
report that had been completed by the
research branch of the department. At that
time, we sought to have the report pub-
lished and the explanation of the Minister
of Transport, now the Minister of Tourism
and Information (Mr. Auld), was that the
report was only an interim report, they were
waiting for the actual tests to be completed
in the United States for making certain re-
visions, and there would be a final report.
But when the final report was done, it still
did not become available.
As I have already recounted to the House,
last fall, when spokesmen for all of the
parties were asked to come to the automotive
transport association annual meeting and pre-
sent our views, we were very interested to
learn through somebody from the floor, who
apparently had previously been associated
with the research branch, informing this as-
sembled gathering diat I was wrong in say-
ing diat the government had not done studies,
that they had in fact done studies, that the
studies had been completed in 1963 or 1964,
indeed the studies had been circulated to
appropriate departments in the United States
and tiiat the officials there believed them to
be one of the most authoritative studies in
this field. I was wrong. Well, I was very
interested to learn tliat I was wrong, but I
made the point tlien that if these studies
had been completed with public moneys, that
surely we were entitled to have them.
The next rather interesting revelation is
that tiie Smith report— and I shall not repeat
the details of this because I put it on the
record when we were debating the fuel tax
and the gasoline tax bills— but on pages 273
to 275 and thereabouts in volume 3 of tiie
Smith report it is stated very clearly that the
conclusions tliey came to, and which they
included in their recommendations, were con-
clusions based on information which they
got from The Department of Transport. So
once again, this secret report that everybody
is keeping hidden for whatever reason, was
made available to the Smith committee and
their research people.
Now with that background, I ask the
Minister why cannot we have this report, so
that we can assess it in light of the studies
of the publicly financed study? Why can we
not have it so that we can assess what the
government is doing, a little bit more in-
telligently, on the basis of the information
that is in your files.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The report that was
made to me, or to my predecessor, was a
study made in our department on road user
costs, and the sharing of them back in 1963.
3744
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It was a report that was prepared for the
use of this department and tlie government
in apportioning the charges on the users of
the road. The hon. member has asked before
if we would release that report, and I had
intimated to him that it was my view that
it was a departmental report and I thought
it should stay there.
I will take issue with him on the sug-
gestion, perhaps a report by the chap who
made the study, that it had been distributed
to departments of government in the United
States. To my knowledge, there were several
copies of the report, and those were in my
keeping, and they were numbered.
I delivered one to the Prime Minister, and
I loaned one to the Provincial Treasurer for
use by the Smith committee. As far as I
know, those are the only copies of the report
that went out. That so-called copies of the
report were sent to various departments of
the United States government, I think is an
erroneous statement. There was a paper pre-
sented by the author of the road-user tax,
or cost sharing report; there was a paper
given by that author to the Canadian good
roads association, at a meeting in Winnipeg.
It was not on the findings of the report,
but on the method by which the report was
compiled, his approach to the subject of ana-
lyzing road user costs. The actual report, I
say, was made available to the Provincial
Treasurer, for the Smith committee, and used
properly by them. We now see in the Smith
report the use it made of the facts in that
report. I think the members have seen the
benefit of the department report, and I tliink
we are all sharing in that benefit.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, just to
emphasize to the House that tlie Minister-
to put it in frank and blunt terms— does not
know what he is talking about, since this
document in part or in whole got into the
hands of newspaper people and was published
in the afternoon papers, I just do not accept
the Minister's statement that it was not circu-
lated to places in the United States, and I
repeat that it went and became available to
the Smith committee. I now inform the Minis-
ter, that I have got a copy of it here because
I am sick and tired of this government hiding
documents for their own political purposes.
Two or three years ago, we had the same
thing with Krueger report, a report on
regional government that just revealed this
government to be a laughing stock in terms of
its conflicting departments, and everything of
this nature. The result is that we had to go
out and get a copy of the report, and we got
a copy of the report, and I have done the
same in this instance.
The reason why the government has been
hiding the report, is that the report says it is
legitimate to raise 68 per cent of the revenue
for highways from the highway users, and the
rest of it should come out of the general
Treasury.
Yesterday, my friend from Scarborough
began to raise questions about what he called
the unfortunate by-products of cars and things
of this nature, and therefore, to what extent
should the cost come from highway users to
be able to meet some of these unfortunate
by-products.
The Minister said he was interested in this
topic. He should be interested in this topic
when the Smith report repeats what was in
this study, that highway users should be pay-
ing between 65 and 75 per cent, no more,
and the government is now extracting out of
highway users 106 per cent. That is why he
did not want the report to come out in the
view of the experts.
You have been soaking the people who
are using the highways, not 60 to 75 per cent
of your highway expenditures, but over 100
per cent of your highway expenditures. This
is the reason why you want to hide it, and
it is a straight political reason.
You have misled the ATA, you have mis-
led the public, you have kept the members
of this Legislature in the dark. Mr. Chairman,
I leave the matter there for the moment,
because this is entitled "motor vehicle taxa-
tion" and the appropriate time to go into the
substance of the report will be in the Pro-
vincial Treasurer's estimates when they come
up, because that is the place that it is to be
dealt with, not now.
This department is wasting the time and
money of the province of Ontario. It spends
most of its time hiding information that the
public should have, and we in fulfillment of
our responsibilities must dig it out, which we
have done once again.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Resign!
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to add to the discussion that we have had,
what I said last night that we were not bound
by this type of report. That if we decide to
use revenues from users of the road, for other
purposes, that was part of the tax mix that
this government collected, and our depart-
ment's report was used in a very proper way,
it was prepared not only to be used by our
MAY 31, 1968
3745
department, but to be used by this govern-
ment in determining its taxing.
Mr. MacDonald: The Provincial Treasurer
did not even know of its existence.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The Smith committee
did, for it based its report on it; and the
furtherance of that report was very proper.
We collected the information, we made it
available to those who were assessing costs
and the appointment of taxes, and it has been
made public through the Smith report in a
very proper way.
Mr. MacDonald: We will make it available
to the House.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I
think the Minister of Transport is quite right
when he said that they are not bound by any
report. As a matter of fact, you cannot tie this
government or any of its Ministers down to
anything, so I believe the Minister's state-
ment. But there are a lot of things that have
been omitted in the Minister's department
which would make this a safer province to
live in as far as the people are concerned,
but which this government just will not imple-
ment, nor will this Minister's department.
For instance, we have an extremely high
accident rate. There are a lot of unsafe cars
on the highway, but the only way we can put
a stop to people speeding is by chasing them
and by apprehending the drivers, in order
that the police can identify the driver, and
thus bringing them to justice.
At one time you were able to summons
the owner of the motor vehicle, but with
the point system now you must identify the
operator in order to be able to charge points
against him in case of a conviction. I think
what we sadly need here is a law which
would enable us to summons the car owner,
and it will be up to the car owner to prove,
if he was not operating the car, who was
operating the car. At any rate 1 think the
owner ought to be penalized for putting his
car into unsafe or dangerous hands.
Another suggestion, something that has
not come forward so far, is the compulsory
training of all of our youth in the operation
of a motor vehicle— that is driver examination
and the compulsory training of drivers. As
you may recall, Mr. Chairman, last year or
the year before I advocated that licences
ought not to be given to anybody under the
age of 18. This government has not seen fit
to adopt my suggestion. But there are pro
drivers' courses in high schools, which do
produce better-than-average drivers, and
which is evidenced by the fact that insurance
companies give those drivers a lower rate of
premium.
Mr. Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the
member, but I think he can see that the
qualification for driver examinations would
more appropriately come in the next vote.
Mr. Ben: It could come under either
licensing of drivers or driver control. Fine,
I am content to leave it there, but I would
suggest on this particular vote that there be
a mandatory jail sentence for those people
who operate motor vehicles in this province
while their licence is under suspension. This
is something, I think, that the government
ought to implement as soon as possible. Fur-
thennore, and I think I can speak with some
authority now, in applying for renewal of a
licence, one of the questions asked is, "Has
the bearer of the licence ever had epileptic
fits?"
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is driver control.
Mr. Ben: Is that driver control too? Well,
I do not know whether it would actually be
under driver control because my suggestion,
Mr. Chairman, is that it should become com-
pulsory for all doctors in the province to
report, to The Department of Highways, any
patients who are either heart victims, victims
of epilepsy or who have mental aberrations
which would make them unsafe drivers. That
might come under driver control, it may not.
At any rate, I make that suggestion and when
a person is applying for a renewal of a licence
or for a licence, those questions ought to be
asked of him.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is covered in sec-
tion 145 of The Highway Traffic Act now.
Mr. Ben: 1 am not sure that it is to the
degree that it should be. I think that those
questions should be asked on tlie driver's
licence, on the apphcation as I have stated,
Mr. Chairman. Among the questions asked
should be, "Have you ever had a heart dis-
ease? Have you had any mental illness?"—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is under driving
licences.
Mr. Ben: —when you are applying for a
hcence. Then I also suggest that perhaps
again it may come under driver control, but
I think every Hcence ought to have a pictiu-e
of the owner on it.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member—
r46
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: It should come under driver con-
trol and perhaps I may leave it until we
reach that point.
Another aspect where I think this depart-
ment ought to take the initiative is for the
installation of international signs throughout
the province. You now read in the paper
where some community puts up a sign partly
in French and partly in English and then the
signs go down. You have the situation where
people go putting shotgun pellets into these
signs because they do not approve of them.
I think the sane and simple solution would
be to have the international signs on all our
roads and perhaps the province of Ontario
ought to give a lead in this respect. I trust
that the Minister will take up that suggestion.
Hon. Mr. Ilaskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to say in respect of the comments made by
the hon. member for Humber that I quite
agree with him that the offence of driving
while under suspension might very well have
a penalty of a jail sentence, and I have so
recommended to my colleague, the Attorney
General (Mr, Wishart). It is a matter that
comes under the criminal code.
Furthermore, the hon. member will find
the provisions of section 145 (a) are meeting
his objections with regard to licensing people
who are physical-
Mr. Ben: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I was
distracted. Could the Minister please repeat—
Hon, Mr. Haskett: I was saying the hon.
member's comments with regard to the licens-
ing of people who are not physically capable
of driving, such as those suffering from
epilepsy and the like, that they are required
to report such condition to us. Sufferers
of epilepsy probably constitute by far the
largest group of those whose licences arc
suspended because of physical condition.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Chairman,
on May 28 I directed a series of questions to
the hon. Minister in connection with the loca-
tion of the driver examination centre at the
city of Samia.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Vote 2202.
Mr. Bullbrook: In connection with the order
of this matter at the present time, I intend
to use this series of questions as an example
of the administration of this department under
vote 2201, especially at the Ministerial level.
I recognize—
Mr. Chairman: It would more appropriately
come under tlie next vote, ho\ve\'er.
Mr. Bullbrook: I submit to you, sir, if you
would listen to my submission and what I
put forward to you before, out of necesisty
I am going to comment on the location of that
driver examination centre at the city of Samia.
I want to relate that to the general adminis-
tration of this department especially at the
Ministerial level. I ask to be permitted to
continue.
Mr. Chairman: I would suggest, then, that
the member continue since this evidently
is a matter of head office administration.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is a question of the gen-
eral administration at the Ministerial level.
Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,
you will recall I had directed a letter on
November 2, 1967, to the hon. Minister of
Transport relating to the very question of
the location of the driver examination centre
at the city of Samia. You will recall perhaps
that my concern was this.
There had been intimated to me, perhaps
correctly or incorrectly, that the hon. At-
torney General and his department were
considering the establishment of a new magis-
trate's court facility at the city of Samia.
We in the city of Samia, in connection witli
our core area, are undertaking an urban re-
newal study and it came to my mind that
perhaps the best interest of the province of
Ontario from the fiscal point of view might
well be served if we considered tlie possi-
bihty of a provincial building in that core
area. That is, rather than just subsidizing
through provincial funds, to the tune of, I
believe 37.5 per cent of the contribution of
private enterprise, why do we not attempt to
upgrade the area of Samia concerned by put-
ting therein a provincial building?
I directed a letter to the hon. Minister and
a letter to the hon. Attorney General in con-
nection with this. What I asked of the hon.
Minister was to consider the appropriateness
of putting your centre in that area. What
you did in effect was this— and I say this most
respectfully to you, but as exemplified on
May 28 in the hon. Minister's answers to my
questions, he completely missed the point
entirely, never came even close to my point—
the hon. Minister wrote back to me and
assured me in effect that he had taken the
advice of the city officials in Samia that the
location of this centre would in no way, in
effect, adversely affect the urban renewal
scheme. I was absolutely astounded and I
replied to the hon. Minister.
MAY 31, 1968
374';
But to shorten that point and to bring it in
perhaps more appropriately, Mr. Chairman,
to vote 2201. I find it almost impossilile to
conceive, first of all, that the only official in
the city of Sarnia with whom you would
consider taking up this location is the plan-
ning director of the city of Sarnia. You only
did that after I asked you to locate it under
the urban renewal scheme in the core area
of the city. I cannot, for tlie life of me,
imderstand how the Minister, in properly
administering his department, could fail at
least to contact the chief of police, the head
of our traflic advisory committee, the sergeant
in charge of traffic for the Ontario Provincial
Police detachment in Sarnia, and the sergeant
in charge of traffic of the city of Sarnia police
department.
I submit to you, sir, most respectfully, that
you should also have asked me about it, per-
haps, aside from asking the people of the
city of Sarnia where they thought it might
be appropriate to locate it. You might well
have had the courtesy of asking me where I
thought it might be appropriately located.
the point of this— and I am not going to
dwell on it unduly, but it must be said, it has
to be said— is that it is located right next door
to the OPP and right next door to the
Brewers' Retail. You follow me, the same
owner; the same mvner, right? They did not
tender this location, and I objected to giving
it to this o^vner without public advertisement
and after-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of tl\e Opposition):
Some Tory gravy.
Mr. Bullbrook: This is a fact. If I am in-
correct I will take my seat. I insisted that this
department do advertise this possible facility
and they did advertise it and do you know
who got it? The same fellow who was going
to get it in the first place. Really an exercise
in frustration, this was. But then, and this
is historically beyond belief, I could tell you
other things about this particular gentleman
too and some of the facilities that he has
acquired over the years, but we will not, I
think, just divert it too much from 2201.
But after this, we find that the OPP are
going to Petrolia. There were some reasons
for that and I will make mention of those
again, when the hon. the Attorney General
answers my questions. So what does this man
do? He makes an application to change this
building to a hotel, right? 1 asked the hon.
Minister of Transport on Tuesday about it,
and he said— and this I suggest in the vernacu-
lar is beautiful, this is beautiful— 'Tf there was
an existing hotel there, Mr. Chairman, we
would not have permitted the driver examina-
tion c( ntre to be located beside an existing
licenced premises." He also answered that he
was not aware that the common owner was
making an application to have these premises
licenced. I pointed out to him that day that
this was being done. I contacted the liquor
licensing board yesterday, but still there are
no objections from the hon. Minister of Tjans-
port in connection with this.
This to me, sir, is ineptitude at the Minis-
terial level. 1, of course, do not mean this
personally at all; it goes without saying that I
have the highest personal regard for the
Minister. He has been nothing but a gentle-
man with me since 1 entered tliis House. I
must say one other thing. It just smells to
high heaven of political patronage and this is
exactly what it is. It is time that Hansard
recorded something of this nature. I put it
to you, sir, that it is incumbent upon you now
to make sure tliat those premises are not
licenced. I request most respectfully of you
that you will let me have some imdertaking
that The Department of Transport will com-
municate forthwith, if it has not been done
today or yesterday afternoon, its objection
to the licencing of the premises.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to make a brief comment on the matter
the member for Sarnia has raised. 1 think that
he has to be fair in his approach to this. We
had looked at and turned down no less than
nine locations before we decided upon this
one. We accepted this because it met, in the
main, our chief criteria. It was proximate to
the built-up area and it was away from the
most heavily congested traffic area. It had
adequate parking space for those arriving
and it afforded opportunity for motorcycle
testing.
These other problems raised by the hon.
member have developed since this matter was
undertaken for us as a project by The Depart-
ment of Public Works. As I said the other
day, we checked with the director of planning
of the city, to assure ourselves that it would
meet the city's bylaws and not run counter
to its urban renewal plan, and further that it
was in keeping with the findings of the traffic
study that had been made in Sarnia.
This being so, sir, I think tliat we have
proceeded with this matter in a very fit and
proper way. It may not ha\'e met tlie local
member's feelings entirely, and I am sorry,
but I think that our chief concern is to get
a suitable site. We have been looking for a
3748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
site there for some time, and we have decided
on this one. I hope that it does not prove an
unsatisfactory one.
Mr. Bullbrook: Am I correct in assuming
from what you just said, Mr. Minister, and
that Hansard has properly recorded it, that
your department looked at nine separate sites
—prior to my coming into the picture— and
advertised nine separate sites and you chose
this one? Is this what you are saying?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I am not able to answer
the member. I do not know whether the sites
were looked at prior to advertising, or some
prior to and some subsequently.
Mr. Bullbrook: This is most germane to
the position I am taking in connection with
this. My position and my understanding is
that your department bi-laterally dealt with
this common owner and came to the conclu-
sion, and then I came into the picture. After
the necessity was appropriately advertised in
our area, you had otlier people come to you
and offer services. This is my understanding.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, in fair-
ness I cannot tell the member whether it was
prior to or subsequent to, because I do not
know.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr.
Chairman, may I ask of the Minister if regu-
lations were published in languages other
than the English language— and I will speci-
fically mention French— and if an individual
from Quebec who operated a transport fleet,
asked for the regulation in the French lan-
guage, would it be supplied to him by the
hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think that up to now the regulations have
been printed in French.
Mr. B. Newman: Up to now? Thank you,
sir.
Vote 2201 agreed to.
On vote 2202:
Mr. Chairman: I believe the Minister,
in his opening remarks, had stated that per-
haps we could deal with 2202 and 2203 on
the basis of the programmes which are de-
tailed on page 134; for example, on the
driver's branch. Perhaps we could proceed
first of all with the driver examination pro-
gramme.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gested this last night because I thought
that the items in votes 2202 and 2203 and
2204 were not meaningful, but the votes were
divided into programmes which I thought
did make meaning and would help the
members to advance their presentations in
an orderly way, and so instead of passing the
vote by items, we would pass it by pro-.
grammes. I thought that it would be a help
to the House.
Mr. Chairman: If this is agreeable,
perhaps—
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. I am just going to read something
here that takes two minutes, to point out
how impossible it is. I was at one time doing
some editorials and this is one of them that
I wrote. I would just like to show how all
these cannot be discussed item by item.
Mounting motorcycle deaths and injuries
on our roads have finally reached propor-
tions that are close to epidemic. This wan-
ton and needless slaughter of youthful
riders points incontestably to the fact that
the motorcycle is the deadliest vehicle on
the highway.
Almost every day, new names are added
to the already too long list of victims;
victims who played the deadly game of
gambling with their young lives for the
passing thrill of riding a motorcycle at high
speed.
Any untimely death is a waste. The un-
timely death of the young is nothing short
of tragic. This sense of tragedy deepens
when we examine the coroners' and police
reports. The ages of victims of motorcycle
slaughter are mostly young men between
the ages of 17 and 22. Frequently their
girl friends riding on passenger seats, fall
victim to this mechanical carnage. A study
by the University of Iowa this year
brought some interesting statistics to light.
One motorcyclist in 13 is injured every
year, compared with only one motorist in
50, almost four times as many.
Of every 100 persons killed on the high-
way, three are motorcyclists. The study
showed that the chances of a motorcyclist
being killed are 20 times greater than for
the driver of a car. Let us face it, the
appeal of the motorcycle is to the young,
who seem to have a love for speed and
danger. Manufacturers and dealers who
understandably slant all their advertising
to the young contend that there is nothing
deadly or dangerous about the motorcycle,
providing it is ridden with care and skill.
MAY 31. 1968
3749
Few young people are concerned with
using care and skill. They just want to
get the limit out of their machine.
I might point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that
already we have covered three of the items
that are listed under driver's branch. I quote:
Until a few short months ago, anyone
with a beginner's permit could jump on a
motorcycle and go, whether or not he
could handle the machine or knew how to
ride it. Thank goodness that ridiculous and
asinine law permitting this one-way ride
to death or injury has been changed. It is
now illegal to ride with only a beginner's
permit. Unfortunately this change in the law
has had little deterrent effect, the number
of motorcycles registered in Canada in-
creased in 1966 to nearly 108,000, which
was an increase of 34,000 over the previ-
ous year and registrations are still on the
increase.
In the light of these figures, it hardly
seems likely that the motorcycle is in dan-
ger of being banned from Canadian roads,
as it should be. What we hope for, and
what I urge, is legislation to force manu-
facturers to equip their machines with
safety devices, and legislation to force
would-be riders to take proper and com-
prehensive instruction on the handling of
motorcycles, preferably at government-
run or sponsored training establishments;
legislation to force riders to wear protective
clothing and safety helmets. In short, legis-
lation with teeth in it in order to put an
end to this two-wheel death.
The police, those who see the mangled
young bodies, have a nickname for motor-
cycles. They call them murder cycles.
There is no room on any Canadian road
for a murder cycle.
Mr. Chairman, that is the end of it, but the
fact remains that in that two-minute speech,
I covered driver examinations, licensing of
drivers, and driver control and even safety.
Mr. Chairman: Do I take it that the mem-
ber is opposed to—
Mr. Ben: I am proposing that we be able
to take vote 2202, and not be restricted to
simply driver examination for one debate or
the licensing of drivers for another debate,
or data processing as another debate.
Mr. Chairman: There was no intention of
restriction, I would say to the member. The
thought was that it would be an easier and
orderly disposition of the vote, rather than
to try to deal with the total vote. I would
think that we should have the concurrence
of the House, unanimously, one way or the
other. So, if the member is opposed to deal-
ing with this programme by programme, I
suppose the only alternative is to take the
total vote. Vote 2202-the member for Went-
worth.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of supply rise and report
a certain resolution and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has adopted a
certain resolution and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 1968
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves second
reading of Bill 113, The Air Pollution Control
Act, 1968.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker,
before proceeding with Bill 113, I do not
want to take up the time of the House un-
necessarily, but I thought I should remind
members of the House that the whips have
come to certain agreement as to what subject
would be introduced for private members'
hour.
Contrary to what we have done formerly,
we have arranged for a schedule that will
take care of all subjects within a period of,
say, a month. So that this is not used as a
criterion, it should be pointed out to the mem-
bers of the House that in future, if there
should be any switch of subjects, it should
take place within the proposed schedule so
that we do not dip into the order paper and
take a subject from the order paper, but
rather that we transfer subjects from the pre-
arranged schedule.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, speaking to that point of order I do
not want to get into an extended argument
at this point. It is true that the whips have
agreed on a whole month's scheduling. The
bill that was originally going to be discussed
was withdrawn, I think, at the suggestion of
the other side of the House because I think
most of it was covered by the legislation
which has been introduced by the Minister
3750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Labour (Mr. Bales). Therefore, we were
free to make another choice. We exercised
the freedom which is ours, 72 hours at least
in advance of the time, to choose what we
wanted. All the government whip is saying
is that we are now restricted to choosing
what we originally had in that month's
schedule and cannot go back to the order
paper.
I submit that this is his interpretation and
I do not think it is one that need be accepted.
Certainly it can be discussed further. I give
him fair warning that I do not think we are
going to be bound by the position that we
cannot go back to the order paper if some-
thing is washed out because of government
legislation.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Speaker, I think I should make the position
of this party clear in this particular regard.
While I agree with the comments of the gov-
ernment whip to some extent, this party's
position that we take is that, subject to the
required notice, the party introducing the
resolution technically was within its rights to
l>ring in the resolution of its choice.
The reason for this sudden change has been
quite obvious, of course, even if a little bit
ridiculous, and I do not feel that the time
of the House needs to be taken to discuss a
matter that should have been taken care of
by the whips out in the corridor in the
ordinary way, by consultation, and by agree-
ment, especially since this party is prepared
to debate anything on the order paper at any
time as always. Mr. Speaker, we just do not
care.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has the floor to speak on the motion.
Mr. Shulman: This bill, Mr. Speaker, I sub-
mit is a very timely and an extremely im-
portant one. Perhaps this subject is the most
important subject that will be discussed in
this Legislature. I do not wish to waste the
time of this House rediscussing matters that
were discussed under the health estimates—
the importance of the problem of air pollu-
tion was explored fully at that time.
I just once again wish to stress that if we,
as legislators, do not take action to control
the problem of air pollution, it is no longer
a matter of not being able to fish in our
streams, or not being able to swim in our
lakes, not being able to breathe our air; we
are going to run into the problem of people
dying. This is already beginning. We see
this in Sudbury where the rate of bronchitis
and asthma is rising higher than in the rest
of the province. We see it here in sections
of Toronto, where the people are developing
emphysema and other respiratory ailments if
they live in certain areas that are more
polluted than others. And I submit to you,
sir, that the government has done practically
nothing about this problem.
We have a bill which is now in effect— The
Air Pollution Control Act, 1967— which con-
tains some ten pages of ineffectual print.
The key phrases are, the Minister may do
this, the Minister may do that. If there is a
complaint of air pollution the Minister may
cause an investigation. Nowhere in here do
we have standards set out for what industry
must do, for what government must do. That
is what I have here today, a very definite set
of standards, a very definite set of rules and
regulations for industry, for government, for
individuals.
I say again, and I said when introducing the
bill for the first time, if we are prepared to
follow the rules in this bill you can clear up
the air pollution problem absolutely within a
period of three years in this province, with
one exception— automobiles.
May I say the problem of air pollution has
two aspects. The first is the problem of the
automobile and this bill does not attempt to
deal with that problem— that is a separate
problem and there will be a separate bill
introduced to deal with that problem. The
major problem of air pollution has to do
with the fuels that we are using in this prov-
ince and the pollution that is coming out of
the industrial production that is occurring in
this province.
Let us say furthermore that this is not
theory— this bill is modelled on the principles
of a bill passed in New York two and a half
years ago which has proved workable. It
worked in New York, the pollution problem
is being cleaned up there. We can do the
same thing here this session if we are wiHing.
I would like to refer back to the final report
of the select committee on air pollution and
smoke control of this Legislature in 1957,
which was headed by the former member for
High Park. I would like to quote one line from
this report on page 61 and it read, "Almost
without exception every industry can clean
itself up if it will take the trouble and spend
the money."
That was written 11 years ago and as we
know, industry has not cleaned itself up be-
cause it was not prepared to spend the money.
And if we continue to give pious hopes and
pious requests we are going to wait another
II years and instead of things getting better
MAY 31, 1968
3751
they will continue to get worse as they have
in the past 11 years.
So I ask you not to rely on hopes or
requests, not to rely on The Air Pollution Con-
trol Act of 1967, which is completely ineffec-
tual, but to bring in a bill with teeth. I am
not going to go through this bill in detail, I
just wish to point out the two or three essen-
tial parts. First is section 10 which I wish
to draw to your attention and I would like
to read the first part of section 10:
No person shall cause or permit the use
of fuel ihat contains more than the follow-
ing percentages of sulphur by weight:
1. For a period of two years and four
months commencing eight months after
this Act comes into force— coal, 2.2 per
cent; and residual fuel oil, 2.2 per cent.
2. For a period of two years commencing
three years after the Act comes into force-
coal 2 per cent; and fuel oil 2 per cent.
And after the period mentioned in item 2
expires, then coal, 1 per cent; fuel oil, 1
per cent.
An exception can be made. You can use
fuel containing a higher sulphur content if
the industry involved is prepared to put a
scrubber, which is an apparatus which re-
moves the sulphur from the stacks, onto its
particular stack. This gives industry a very
reasonable period of time. They do not have
to do anything for eight months after the Act
comes into effect.
They have then a period of a number of
years in which to change the type of fuel
they are using or if it is not economical to
change the type of fuel, and they wish to
continue to use the cheaper American coal,
which is polluting our atmosphere, then they
have the alternative of putting a scrubber
into their plants, which will remove the
poisoning which is occurring. And I submit
to you, sir, that this is a very reasonable
approach and an approach which we should
take at the present time. The other key sec-
tion in this bill is section 11 and I would like
to read this section also:
Commencing three years after this Act
comes into force, no person shall use bitu-
minous coal and fuel-burning equipment
until he installs, uses and continuously
maintains control apparatus capable of con-
tinuously preventing the emission of at
least 99 per cent of all solid, particulate
matter that would otherwise be emitted
from the use of such coal in the fuel-burn-
ing equipment.
This will take out— and I am not talking alxiut
sulphur; I am now on the aspect of the other
types of pollution that come from coal— fly-
ash, things of this nature. This will solve
this problem; this is the type of pollution that
we see with our eyes, drifting from the
chimneys, these black clouds of smoke. This
is not as dangerous to health as the other
types of pollution which are not visible. But
it is a definite hazard to growth of certain
types of vegetables and our crops, and it is
unsightly, it is dirty, it causes tremendous
expense in itself, just in cleaning it, just in
carrying out the aspect of removing it from
our cities and from our homes. I would like
also to draw your attention to section 5 of
this bill— which is also a key section, the
third key section and the last one which I
am going to read— which reads as follows:
Commencing one year after this Act
comes into force, no person shall cause or
permit the use or operation of fuel-burning
equipment using residual fuel oil imtil an
operating certificate has been issued by the
department. A certificate shall not be
issued unless the applicant's fuel-burning
equipment includes the installation and
use of a combustion controller, an auto-
matic oil temperature maintenance device
and an automatic water temperature main-
tenance device or the equivalent of such
devices, and in addition thereto, such other
requirements as may be specified.
Commencing two years after this Act
comes into force, no person shall cause or
permit the use or operation of fuel-burning
equipment using coal as fuel until an oper-
ating certificate has been issued, and such
a certificate shall not be issued unless the
applicant's fuel-burning equipment includes
the installation and use of a combustion
controller and an automatic water-tempera-
ture device or the equivalent of such de-
vices, in addition to such other require-
ments.
To sum up, if we are prepared to pass such
a law— if the government is prepared to pass
such a law, I am sure we are prepared to
pass such a law— we will, within a period of
five years, completely eradicate this problem
which is a tremendous hazard to the health
and— even more so— the welfare of tiie people
in the province. It is going to cost money to
begin with but in tlie long run it is going to
be free. There has been study after study done
in the United States and in Europe which have
indicated that the ultimate saving in greater
crops and greater health, in less need of hos-
pitals and less need of all the medical care
3752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tliat is needed for our people who are suffer-
ing the chest illnesses which come from air
pollution, will more than repay the initial cost
of putting in this equipment.
The equipment would be put in intially at
a cost to industry, not a cost to government,
let me stress that. Numerous studies by the
President's board on this matter in the United
States have agreed that financial incentives
should not be given by the public, because
ultimately everyone benefits, and indiistry
should make the initial expenditure. And let
me say that in relation to the profits of the
industries involved, these expenditures are
miniscule. Once again I would like to take the
example of Sudbury, Vv'here International
Nickel Company is netting some $140 milHon
a year and where it is estimated that to clean
up this problem which is ruining that city,
tliey would have to spend some $5 million.
So let me, to sum up, say in one sentence,
we can lick this problem very simply, very
quickly, and over a period of ten years at no
cost to the government, no cost to the people,
and no ultimate cost to industry. I ask die
government— I am not asking them to lead; I
know that this government does not like lead-
ing, doing things that other jurisdictions have
not done— but this has already been done in
populations which are just as dense, with just
tlie same problems as we have. We have seen
it done in Europe; we have seen it done in
California; now we have seen it done in New
York. If you are not willing to lead, at least
follow. Do what they have done and clean
this problem up.
Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Hum-
ber yield Mr. Speaker the floor for a moment
because I have had it drawn to my attention
by the member for Ontario South (Mr. W.
Newman) that in the west gallery,
unannoimced and unheralded, are pupils from
the R. A. Hutchison public school in Whitby.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Firstly, Mr.
Speaker, I want to compliment the hon.
member for High Park for introducing this
bill, and secondly I want to thank him for
having offered to me early today any
unexpended time that he may have had. He
said he was going to keep his speech short,
and he said that I could make use of any
time that he had left over. Thirdly, I would
like to apologize to the hon. member for
looking into the future, and it is a dark and
smoky future. I am afraid that this bill has
about as much chance of getting anywhere in
this House as a speckled trout in tlie open
sewer we call the Humber River.
The hon. Minister, who is so proud of his
departmental budget, may think I am being
dramatic, but I have found him to be like a
physician— in fact he is a physician— who tells
a patient in the throes of some fatal disease,
not to be dramatic after prescribing aspirin.
And that is all this government has done in
the past, with reference to this pollution dis-
ease that is killing and crippling our people
left, right and centre— they prescribe aspirin.
They moved it to the present, to be sure, but
they have only moved it to the present with
bylaws or statutes after they have been
pushed into it. After they have been pushed
into it, we find that when we go to court,
their bylaws are so vague that the charges
are dismissed.
This bill has many points. I do not think
it goes far enough, not by a long shot. As a
matter of fact, I am afraid that in many
respects they are simply regulations. The fact
is that we have a very serious problem, and
since we are supposed to be speaking on the
principle of the bill, I want to speak on
the topic of air pollution because this is
v/hat the bill is intended to remedy.
As I said, the government has moved, but
not far enough, not far enough by any search
of the imagination. All we really get from
them is lip service, and it is their lips that are
the only things they have not covered up.
They keep monkeying around with the whole
thing— in the traditional monkey pose— only
in their case, it is seeing no evil, hearing no
evil, and smelling no evil.
We have the hon. Minister of Health mak-
ing such statements as, "It is not possible at
the present time to establish air quality
criteria which are meaningful." Last year we
had him saying of his own so-called "compre-
hensive" programme for air pollution control,
"It should be stressed that this is not a
crash programme." I know it is not a crash
programme; the only crash connected with
that programme was a dull thud.
Another great complacent aristocrat was
fiddling while his environment burned. Now
we have a case of thumb-twiddling while ours
poisons itself to death— death, yes, and that is
what I am talking about. I am talking about
the 750 people who were killed just six
years ago in one dramatic display of what air
pollution can do in London, England. Tjhey
were buried beside the 1,000-that is 1,000,
Mr. Speaker— killed by the same poison in the
same city just six years before that. And
they, sir, were laid to rest beside the 4,000
human beings who fell to the killer smog in
that same city just four years before that.
MAY 31, 1968
3753
Look at those rows of bodies, Mr. Speaker,
and add to them the 240 killed in New York
by smog in 1953. Since 1880 there have been
at least nine well-documented cases of mass
death adding up to nearly 8,000 fatalities.
And there have been thousands upon thou-
sands hospitahzed. And this is what I am
talking about. And do not say it cannot hap-
pen here, because it is happening here.
Those statistics I gave you were only the
obvious ones; the abrupt ones; the weak, the
aged, the very young, the ones who just could
not continue to live under the poisons being
spewed from the chimneys and the exhausts
of the cars and trucks and buses; the ones
who died at about the same time, from
obviously so-called "special" pollution situa-
tions. There are all the others— the ones who
have died and who are being slowly killed by
pollution as we know it now. We worry
about the mushroom cloud of the atomic
bomb; we should be worrying more about the
squat evil cloud that crouches over every
one of our cities today.
Alarmist? Sure, I am being an alarmist. I
want to sound an alarm siren call that will
wake up the government to what is happen-
ing now and to what the futrue holds. And
do you not think there is need for awakening?
The hon. Minister of Energy and Resources
Management (Mr. Simonett), one of the Min-
isters with the resources, if not the energy, to
come to the aid of his doctor colleague, said
at a government air pollution conference,
"The problem is one of creating no more pol-
lution than we are prepared to tolerate."
Well, now, is that not nice? That is about
the same as saying someone can get a little
bit pregnant.
But he made it more clear what he meant
when he went on to say that a balance must
be found between requiring industry to under-
take pollution controls that price them out
of business, and allowing industries to market
cheap products and at the same time pollute
the human environment. You can easily see
where the stress is there— on industry, not on
air-breathing human beings.
It is like the legislation which allows a
negotiation procedure to be implemented
when it is considered that air pollution has
caused damage to agricultural crops or live-
stock. But what negotiation procedure is there
for those people on those streets in the
central west end of Toronto who are suflFer-
ing in numbers far beyond the normal from
various lung diseases?
But for a moment, let us play it by their
terms. Let us stick to the more comfortable,
less emotional and trying facts, like those
involving just dollars and cents. Where is
our pollution? First of all, in our urban areas.
Steel corrodes from two to four times as
fast in urban areas as it does in the cleanliness
of rural air. Nickel in industrial areas corrodes
25 times as fast— 25 times as fast. Copper has
to be replaced five times as fast. If the
government was as quick to point that out as
it is to dodge its responsibilities, it might
even have industry siding with it in a real
effort to cut down pollution.
In New York City a study revealed that
pollution adds about $600 a year to the
budget of a family with two or three children
for such things as washing, cleaning, repair-
ing, repainting. You can add to that all the
hidden charges that same family is paying
to finance the same kind of costs in govern-
ment and private enterprise because we
persist in pumping poisons into our air that
not only kill humans but wreck our phsyical
environment.
Let us say New York is in a worse state
than we are in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton,
Windsor, Sudbury and other cities. You can
still figure that the cost is a high one; as
high or higher than the average person is
paying in property tax. Think what the prov-
ince and all the fine citizens of this province
could do with that kind of money. And that
kind of money will eventually be available
if the government will finally do something
about our pollution.
You can take even the figures compiled
by the federation of Ontario naturalists and
it is too bad they do not have a lobbying
power in this province as strong as the in-
dustrialists. They estimated last year that
pollution cost every person in Ontario $72.
That adds up to about $500 million. Are
these the kind of figures you people under-
stand—dollars and cents?
Or how about this: Dr. Alfred Bernhart, an
associate professor of engineering at the Uni-
versity of Toronto, estimates that 95 per
cent of Metro Toronto pollution could be
eliminated for a total cost of $540 million.
Sounds impossible? That, my friends, is only
about $270 per person. Compare that price
tag with those figures from New York, a cost
of $600 per year every year for a family
with two or three children. Compare it, even,
with the annual $72 cost provided by the
federation of naturalists.
3754
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Or take another estimate that has been
made. The hon. Minister of Health, of course,
will be sure to say that more research is
required. But it is suggested that pollution
in Toronto is costing $120 million a year in
the deterioration of building materials, deteri-
oration of vehicles, clothing and, of course,
medical bills for emphysema, bronchitis,
asthma and so on. The plain and simple
two-plus-two mathematics of the matter is
that a clean-up of pollution would pay for
itself. We do not have to have pollution.
But let us take a little closer look at those
costs. We were talking about the cost of
replacing corroding metals, flaking paint,
soiled clothing, mostly that type of thing. Let
us assume, as the government seems to
assume, that in this affluent society the citi-
zens can not only afford to pay higher and
higher taxes but also can afford to pay to
replace and repaint ad nauseam.
Fine, for the sake of argument, but let us
for the moment buy their argument. The heck
with the expense. The chimneys have to keep
smoking because we do not want to bother
some little industrialist too much We do not
want to be too hard on the car manufacturers.
And those big business friends, of course, of
the government on the other side, we do not
want them to scream and complain about
dumping their airborne garbage into the air
we have to breathe.
L. F. Wills, president of Honeywell Con-
trols Limited and speaking as Ontario
chairman of the Canadian manufacturers'
association, was quoted as saying:
Industry is not the prime culprit on the
pollution scene, but has probably made
the most progress in meeting its respon-
sibility.
I would like to insert an aside here, by the
way, Mr. Speaker. One industry— a paper
mill in that part of the province the govern-
ment forgets except at election time— showed
one of the things it had done to the Prime
Minister when he was unsuccessfully cam-
paigning up there. They gave him a kit of
their products and it included a cute little
fuzzy skunk, the kind of thing that would
make a novelty brooch. It has sort of be-
come their symbol. It epitomizes that sweet
smell of success. They may not have gotten
rid of the stink in which they envelop their
entire area, but they have prettied it up by
saying, "Look, the more you smell, the more
you know we are making money."
And continuing my interjection further, I
would hke to point to a comment made by
an Oregon housewife testifying in a lawsuit
against— you have guessed it, a pulp mill-
involving pollution. She said, "How many
times have I heard it: 'It smells like money'."
She added pointedly, "To me, it smells like
death." Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, she and
her husband were awarded $2,147 in that
case.
But back to our friends' friend from the
Canadian manufacturers' association who was
bragging about how much industry has done
to fight pollution. Speaking of criticism of
pollution, he was quoted as saying:
One detects an intensity going beyond
the bounds of constructive criticism— a
bitterness and vindictiveness of an emo-
tional nature.
Well, you are dam right, it is bitter and it
is emotional. The executives of Noranda
mines do not have to work in their smelters
where the sulphur content is so high that
those legendary stokers with the horns and
arrowed tails could likely learn a lesson. And
the executives in the cities do not have to
live out their lives in the airless houses of
the slums. They can get away to their homes
in the suburbs or in the country and to their
summer homes. Sure, it is bitter and emo-
tional and why should it not be?
The alleged great contribution of industry
reminds me of the proud comments made by
D. P. Caphce, director of the Ontario water
resources commission's division of industrial
waste. He said that 1,800 firms under OWRC
surveillance had spent $117 million in ten
years to fight pollution. That sounds like a
pretty munificent figure when you say it that
way. It is enough to want to pass around
the hat and take up a collection for the poor
industries doing so much for our welfare. It
is, that is, until you use a piece of paper and
a pencil and work out the fact that it works
out to an average per industry of $6,500 a
year, the price of a janitor or two. Now, that
is really a big deal!
And meanwhile, the average family could
be paying out of its small budget something
like maybe $600 a year because of the pollu-
tion these firms— looked on so beneficently by
this government— are pumping into the atmos-
phere. And the only reason there is not more
of a public outcry than there is, is because
the government and its pollution-pumping
friends are lucky. A good deal of the pollu-
tion is invisible. It is not all black smoke. It
is fine particles of suspended invisible poison
hanging in the air, filtering downwards, and
into our lungs.
MAY 31, 1968
3755
There are more than 50 seperate pollutants
which have been identified in big city air.
In Metro, they estimate one-third of them
come direct from industrial sources, one-third
from residences and one-third from vehicular
exhausts. Some authorities jack up the
amount of pollution from vehicles to close to
half of the total. But no matter how you
slice it— it is there and it stinks. And it kills.
Maybe with their new taxes on cigarettes,
the government think they are going to save
lives by making people cut down or cut out
smoking. Let us say they do. Let us be
agreeable on a most disagreeable subject for
a moment.
And then let us take a look at a study
performed by Drs. Sadamu Ishikawa and
D. H. Bowden of the University of Manitoba.
They compiled tests on lungs from 300
autopsies in St. Louis and 300 autopsies in
Winnipeg. St. Louis, it should be pointed
out, has a much worse air pollution problem
than does Winnipeg. They found that 35 per
cent of the non-smokers in St. Louis had
mild or moderate— moderate means up to 70
per cent of the Itmg tissue destroyed— cases
of emphysema. In Winnipeg, only 12 per
cent of the non-smokers had mild or moderate
cases.
The conclusion, and I am sure the Minister
will probably again say it requires more re-
search, is that pollution is as much to blame
as cigarettes for lung diseases, especially
emphysema. It does not matter if you are a
non-smoker, if you are living in our cities,
which are protected by the cloak of govern-
ment air pollution legislation and covered by
a cloak of pollution— the legislatve cloak is a
threadbare one— if you live in our cities, you
might as well be puffing happily away.
To those who wonder what emphysema
is, well, it is more common in older persons
and usually follows years of chronic bron-
chitis. Shortness of breath after shght exer-
tion is one of the most prominent symptoms.
The victims are susceptible to chest colds that
persist, sometimes, for several weeks if not
treated. The trouble is caused by the walls
of the air sacs weakening and ballooning
out and the bronchi becoming thickened and
narrowed. It is tlie kind of thing that you
get from pollution. It is the lingering death
—along with other lung diseases that I am
talking about and about which the govern-
ment prefers to remain silent.
Among all those poisons I talked about—
another one among tliose poisons I talked
a»bout is benzopyrene. It is a cute little item
that is highly suspected of causing lung
cancer. Dr. Milton Feldstein, director of
technical services of the San Francisco Bay
area pollution control district, includes it
when he says the resident of any big city,
over a three-month period, breathes in as
much as a pack-a-day smoker inhales in
a year. That is also the kind of death I am
talking about.
And, faced by facts like these, what sort
of reaction have we been getting from the
complacent compilation we are compelled to
call a government? They pass an Act that
the courts say cannot be enforced.
An apologist, T. W. Gross, an engineer
with the government's air pollution control
service, pointed out in a recent issue of the
Municipal World:
The Minister has the power, after in-
vestigation, to order the discontinuance of
the discharge of any air contaminant in
unusual cases where such discharge creates
an immediate and serious danger to the
health of the public.
My goodness, they are the greatest barn door
closers since Mrs. Murphy locked in her cow
with the lantern. That is like passing a law
about murder, saying that a police officer has
the power to stop a would-be murderer if
he is going to kill someone stone dead with
a bullet, but that if he is just slowly stran-
gling the victim to death, he has to set up
a committee to study the situation. And we
are being strangled to death.
Just a few months ago, in BuflFalo, that
great world thinker, Buckminster Fuller, the
man hired by a newspaper— well, it is the
Toronto Telegram, may as well give them a
plug; they hired him to do what the gov-
ernment should be doing, studying satellite
city development— had something to say
about what we are talking about.
Here is a man who has always been look-
ing into the future, not backing into it, like
our friends across the way, who are always
getting a little behind in their work. Here
is a man whose prophecies on many subjects
during his 72 years of life have been proved
true. Over there, in Buffalo, he said mankind
is running out of time fast in pollution of
our environment. He said if action is not
taken, we will reach the point of no return
in 10 years.
Is this some crackpot being emotional, be-
ing bitter, being vindictive? I say no, Mr.
Speaker. This is a world figure who has been
honoured around the world for his power of
thought.
3756
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And he is not alone. Austin N. Heller,
the New York air pollution commissioner,
which is the source of this particular bill
here, said recently that if the United States
does not get the upper hand in 10 years, it
will have lost the battle for clean air. And
U.S. Surgeon General Stewart has declared
that the government there has "an abundance
of compelling evidence which demonstrates
beyond reasonable doubt that air pollution
is guilty of killing and disabling people."
Now the Minister charged with responsi-
bility of controlling pollution is also charged
with the responsibility for hospital and medi-
cal bills. While they have been increasing
the hospital and medical bills of the citizens
of Ontario, they have been ignoring one of
the issues that is putting people into the
doctors' oflBces and into the hospitals.
We do not need more research. We do
not need to wait for the United States to
lead the way in virtually every effort to
combat the killer poisons. If we must wait
we will wait ourselves into an even earlier
grave than we are heading for now.
With that, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is
that the government had better give serious
consideration to the implementation of the
facts contained in Bill 113. I myself believe
that many of them could be added as regula-
tions under The Energies Act, which is
chapter 112 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
The bill in itself would be dangerous if it
rescinded all other bills, because it does not
provide penalties for the pollution of the
environment, it simply sets criteria for equip-
ment to be used. It permits regulations to be
made under it, but I believe that, in itself,
it is a good set of regulations to be incor-
porated into The Energy Act. I would say
that our party, therefore, in principle sup-
ports the bill.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker:
with reference to Bill 113. It is admitted by
its author that it is a reprint of a local law
the city of New York passed in 1966, which
the member for High Park has introduced as
a new bill. The only thing new about Bill 113
is that it is almost 100 per cent American
content, but printed by the Queen's Printer
and using captions from our own bills passed
on December 20, 1967, known as The Air
Pollution Control Act. The author of Bill
113, the member for High Park-
Mr. MacDonald: Has this been written by
Bill Lee too?
Mr. Jessiman: Six o'clock this morning, I
did it myself, with your indulgence, sir.
The author of Bill 113, I might reiterate—
the member for High Park— has removed the
teeth from our existing bill, possibly with
intent. He has included kitchen garbage
grinder and I will refer you to page 7, item
12, paragraph 4.
Surprisingly, Bill 113 omitted any reference
to the control of automobile emissions, even
though it is admitted to be based on U.S.
principles and the U.S. federal government
have made the control of automotive emis-
sions mandatory. Automobile emissions must
be controlled, especially in larger urban areas.
Various estimates of the quantity of emission
from these sources state that it accounts for
30 per cent of the total pollution burden.
The present Air Pollution Control Act,
section 12, contains the provisions for such
control and the motor vehicle manufacturers
and the importers have been advised that
emission controls will be mandatory with the
1969 model year and I quote:
No person shall sell, offer or expose for
sale a new motor vehicle or a new motor
vehicle engine of a class or type that is
required by the regulations to have in-
stalled on or incorporated in any of its
system or device to prevent or lessen the
emission into the outdoor atmosphere of
any air contaminant or contaminants unless
such motor vehicle complies with the regu-
lations and the offence— every person who
contravenes any provision of this section is
guilty of an offence and on summary con-
viction is liable to a fine of not less than
$50 or not more tlian $500.
Item 13:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle of
a class or type that is required by the regu-
lations to have installed on or incorporated
in any system or device to prevent or lessen
the emission into the outdoor atmosphere
of any air contaminant or contaminants
unless such motor vehicle has installed on
or incorporated in such system or device
and makes use of such system or device—
And the same convictions for an offence.
I would like to make a remark to the mem-
ber for Humber regarding paper mills. We
have four at tlie Lakehead—
But we are trying to cure it.
I will draw your attention to the annual
report of Great Lakes Paper Company Lim-
ited at the end of 1967. They have spent
$4.2 million on affluent and odour pollution
MAY 31, 1968
3757
control with the concurrence and co-oper-
ation of The Department of Health, and The
Department of Energy and Resources Man-
agement. They have completed primary
treatment, both in air and stream— or water-
pollution, while expanding newsprint and
kraft production and, believe me, I am sure
that they will eventually control kraft produc-
tion smell, as we have on many of the mills
in northwest Ontario, but not fully.
They are working on it— they are working
desperately on it, and they are spending time
and money on it. At the same time as they
are expanding the newsprint and kraft pro-
duction, some $37 million in the last four
years— employing over 1,000 persons in north-
west Ontario— and I am not just speaking of
the Fort WilHam-Port Arthur area, I am
talking about the whole northwest, and this
is just one of four companies I am speaking
of. I think it is a very dramatic contribution,
both in co-operation and control of pollution.
Further, I make reference to the May issue
of the Resource, if you will bear with me.
This is a federal publication, you all receive
it, issued by the Canadian council of Re-
source Ministers. Reference to the bottom
of page 1— it says:
Waste treatment cost of Ontario indus-
tries approaches $120 million. Ontario firms
have invested close to $120 million since
1957-
Granted it is ten years, but it is a tremendous
stride in industrial waste treatment facilities,
—with over $11 milhon of this amount
accounted for in 1967, according to figures
released by the Ontario water resources
commission.
Also, a record number of Ontario indus-
tries were taken to court in 1967 on water
pollution charges, laid under The OWRC
Act. Eight firms were charged compared to
three in 1966, and all prosecutions resulted
in convictions. In all, 127 applicants for
approval of industrial waste treatment facil-
ites were received by the OWRC in 1967,
and 65 were approved compared to only
48 in 1966. In addition, 27 applications for
works valued at nearly $1 million were
under way, and under review at the end of
this year.
The OWRC reports that all operating
uranium mines in Ontario have installed
satisfactory control measures for removal of
radium and have planned for future dis-
posal needs. Good progress by industries
in the chemical manufacturing, petroleum
and steel classifications also is noted, and
the OWRC receives applications from the
pulp and paper industry for approval of
treatment facilities worth several million
dollars.
Back to Bill 113. It does not provide that
the department shall have the right of entry
to inspect premises, nor does the department
have the right to request information neces-
sary for the purpose of the Act. There is no
right of appeal from any decision made by
the department, and paradoxically there is
no power for the department to issue orders
included in Bill 113.
No provision has been made in the bill to
assist the agriculturalist should he suffer
economic loss due to air pollution. Nor is
there even any provision to set up investiga-
tions should any such damage occur. With
so much of our province devoted to agricul-
ture, such provisions are mandatory.
Mr. F. Young (York view): In every bill?
Mr. Jessiman: Section 3 of Bill 113 pro-
vides for the eschewance of operating certifi-
cates, which ordinarily will be valid for a
period of three years. Our Act does not con-
tain a parallel provision. Unsatisfactory opera-
tion is to be controlled under section 8 of
our Act, which deals with the survey of and
recommendations for existing sources. This
provides a degree of flexibility since the
operations may be suveyed at will and
changes are recommended as required.
Sections 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Bill
113 all deal with fuel and refuse burning
equipment. All items covered in these sec-
tions, with the exception of section 14, can
be dealt with under the regulatory powers
of the present Act.
Section 14 deals with courses of instruction
and air pollution control for operators of fuel
and refuse burning equipment, including
boilers, water heaters, stoves, kilns, and so
on. Presumably such courses would be supple-
mentary to requirements of The Department
of Labour— for example, stationary engineers'
certificates. Section 10 of Bill 113 spells out
in detail sulphur restrictions on fuels, and
would make them mandatory across the
province.
The same results can be obtained \mder
the regulatory section of the present Air
Pollution Control Act. In fact the present
permits much more flexibility in that it per-
mits the needs of the individual regions and
the areas to be met. One would get the
impression that the only pollutent that is of
any importance is sulphur dioxide, since many
3758
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sections of the bill are devoted to it. This is
definitely not so; there are many other pollu-
tants which are just as important.
Section 12 of Bill 113 provides for the
prohibition two years after the bill comes
into force of the construction of incinerators,
except for municipalities or local boards. The
prohibition would make no provision for the
disposal of industrial waste material.
Section 15 of Bill 113 provides authority for
the department to seal any equipment in-
stalled or operated in contravention of this
Act. This can be accomplished under present
legislation by requesting an injunction.
Section 17 of Bill 113 is a regulatory sec-
tion and is woefully inadequate for the pur-
poses of a comprehensive Act which Bill 113
certainly is not. Section 18 of the bill makes
no provision for an orderly and progressive
implementation of an air pollution control
programme. It assumes that there are instant
people available, and that all are adequately
trained.
Mr. Young: The hon. member's party has
not been in power for 25 years.
Mr. Jessiman: In general, the provisions for
Bill 113 will closely resemble a municipal
bylaw, without the broad concept of an Act,
and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with
Bill 113, and support the government's pres-
ent legislation and programme which is both
realistic and practical.
Mr. Speaker: There is five minutes of time
left for the New Democratic Party if they
have a speaker, and thereafter five minutes
of government time. I understand they do
not wish to speak and yield the floor to the
member for Niagara Falls.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, having list-
ened this morning to the production of my
hon. friend who works so assiduously at six
o'clock by candlelight, I am provoked to add
a bit to this debate since we have the time.
There are two or three points tliiat I would
like to make.
The first one is, if we are going to solve
the problem of air pollution there must be a
will to do it on the part of the government.
The record indicates very clearly that this
government has not had the will down
through the years. Events have had to push
it, cajole it, prod it, and finally they recognize
that the ludicrous situation of having each
municipality looking after air pollution made
a mockery of the whole objective of cleaning
it up. There are no invisible barriers between
two different municipalities, so the govern-
ment has moved now to take over the thing
themselves.
In taking it over, the will to really solve it
is not yet evident, because it is a piecemeal
takeover. It is going to be some years before
the whole of the province is encompassed,
and time alone will tell whether or not there
is a real will on the part of the government
to impose the regulations and make certain
that they are lived up to.
We had a striking example in another con-
text from the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management just a couple of days
ago with reference to the government's actions
in connection with pollution up in the Dryden
or the Kenora area. After all, if the govern-
ment finally moved to lay charges, obviously
they must have been pressured by events.
And yet after the charges are laid, the com-
pany belatedly indicates that it is willing to
do something— so a soft-hearted government
withdraws the charges to give them another
few years to live up to the spirit of the regu-
lations and the law in Ontario.
There is one interesting thing in this bill.
The hon. member for Fort Wilham can nit-
pick and go through it and say that this
and that is not included. His nit-picking
prepared at 6 o'clock by candlehght this
morning did not take into account what the
hon. member for High Park said. The hon.
member for High Park, for example, indicated
that with the problem of pollution from cars,
you would have to have a separate bill.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member indi-
cated it, but he indicated that it was not in
the bill, and it-
Mr. Chairman: Order! The member
wished to raise a point of order.
Mr. Jessiman: I have read die bill very
thoroughly that has been prepared by the
hon. member, and I find no reference any-
where, spoken or read, pertaining to auto-
mobiles. Please correct me if I am wrong. I
am right.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. member had
listened, he would have gotten the point that
I am making, which is that the hon. member
for High Park explained, when he introduced
the bill, that automobile pollution was not
included because it required a separate bill to
deal with it. But that information was not
available to the hon. member when he was
MAY 31, 1968
3759
doing his work at 6 o'clock this morning. But
he got it in tlie House and ignored it.
Mr. Speaker, let me come back to stan-
dards. The chief worry that I had with regard
to the government's legislation and its imple-
mentation is (a) the stringency of the stan-
dards, and (b) the willingness to implement
them. I shall never forget that very useful
conference that we had on pollution at the
Inn on the Park last December when the rota-
tion of speakers appeared to be so handled
that the last man who spoke at the end of the
conference was an expert from Britain whose
name escapes me for the moment— P. G.
Lawther, or some such name as that— who
indicated that you could not have standards.
It was impossible to have standards.
For a government which indicates that their
chief concern is to clean up pollution, to end a
conference by bringing in an expert whose
main thrust is the argument that you cannot
have standards, it is impossible. You might
have thrown in the towel at the outset and
quit kidding the public, because you must
have standards or it is impossible to have
regulations and it is impossible to have them
enforced.
Admittedly, the government itself has
moved with the establishment of standards
in their regulations that have been promul-
gated under the existing legislation, but we
have got to wait to see whether the stan-
dards are stringent enough and, secondly, and
even more important, whether there is the
will to make certain that they are lived up to.
The next point that I would like to touch
on briefly, Mr. Speaker, is the costs. As my
hon. colleague from High Park has pointed
out, 11 years ago a committee that studied
this problem in the province of Ontario indi-
cated that there were very few of the indus-
tries who really could not handle the cost.
We have had a lot of experience in the inter-
vening 11 years to indicate that in many
instances, when industries were pushed by
public outcry, and they spent a little bit of
money, they actually ended up by making
money, because the anti-pollution devices
that were installed resulted in the catching of
a byproduct which more than paid for the
installation cost.
In some instances there may be costs
involved, but the simple point in principle
here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have reached
a stage when the accumulated pollution of
the environment in which we live is such that
we simply cannot tolerate pollution. I think
that this is an invisible principle, even to
the point, and I make my point with this
underlining— that there may well be industries
which cause so much pollution that society
will have to come to the conclusion that they
sacrifice those industries.
They will simply have to find other ways
of providing employment if they cannot clean
up a pollution situation which is fouling the
environment to the extent that has been the
case in the past. However, the important
point is that in 99.9 per cent of them, I
think a solution can be found. I recall your
suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that each of us
take five minutes, so I shall conclude my
remarks here.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to take part in this debate simply be-
cause I agree with Bill 113. Anything is
better than what we have at the moment. If
the regulations of the government and the
bills that exist today have the necessary
teeth in them to clean up the problem that
we are discussing here this morning, then
one thing of two has happened: Either they
have not used the necessary persuasion on
the industry to clean up the problem, or they
are ignoring their own statute.
I have reason to believe that this bill, at
least, being discussed here today, will get to
the ears of some of the people in the indus-
try who are still polluting the air that we
breathe. I was flying in from Sudbury not
too many months ago and the International
Nickel plant there, where the wind was
blowing to the south, and I would say tliat
for at least 100 miles, the air was polluted
to the extent that on occasion you could
hardly see the earth below.
I was thinking of my stay at one of the
better hotels in the city here. I opened my
window and the following morning I found
soot and dust that was not there the night
before. I am not going to talk about the
hotel, but I am going to talk about the plant
that I believe is bringing about that con-
tamination.
If the wind happens to change and come
a bit from the southeast, you will see pollu-
tion from the Richard Heam thermal power
plant or hydro project that we have visited,
with its many tons of coal that they must
burn in a matter of minutes to bring about
the necessary power needed. I do not think
that Hydro are doing too well about cleaning
up tlie air and they are a big public project.
I am also thinking of the Port Credit plant,
sending 72,000 tons of pollutant into our air.
I do not know how that figures, but there
3760
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was quite a lot on my window sill. That I
can understand.
If you are lost along some of our highways
and you want to locate Toronto, all you have
to do is to look into the air and see the
Port Credit plant, the thermal plant that is
polluting our air, and doing a beautiful job.
They are almost in competition with the Rich-
ard Hearn, and maybe better! But let me
take you a little closer to home where I am
a little better acquainted.
If this bill will bring about the type of
relief that the people are looking for then
naturally we all ought to support this bill. I
might dwell for just a moment on that one
issue. Mr. Speaker there are some things in
the United States that we ought to look to.
When a bill is presented whether it be by
a member of the Opposition or the govern-
ment if it is good, it ought to be imple-
mented. This makes sense to me. We do it on
principle and conscience rather than because
we go on party line.
There are four or five industries in the
area that I represent that are polluting the
air, and have done so for many years. I realize
that they are giving a lot of people work, and
I realize that they are in competition with
others to cell their products. But they are
polluting the air and they ought to have tax
incentives from our government if no other
thing. The government can persuade them
by assisting them financially to put in the
necessary equipment to clean up the air. I
would like to touch on another change of the
wind.
Usually, we have a prevailing wind from
the west, but if it comes from the east, and
this bill is based on some legislation from the
American side, then they do not abide by
their laws either because I have seen pollu-
tion come across that Niagara River to the
point where you could hardly bear it. I do
not know how the people live in that on the
American side.
This is a major problem that the govern-
ment has to reckon with. This bill ought to
be implemented in some fashion, and if not,
the ones that you have ought to be brought
about and the people should be made to Hve
up to the laws of the province.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, when we finish the estimates of The
Department of Transport, we then will deal
with Education, followed by University
Affairs, followed by Energy and Resources
Management, followed by Trade and Devel-
opment. On Monday, we are going to deal
with the motion of the leader of the Opposi-
tion, which strangely enough, deals with this
same subject which is on the order paper.
That debate will be completed at 6 o'clock,
and on Monday evening we will resume the
estimates of The Department of Transport.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of die House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 2 o'clock, p.m.
No. 103
ONTARIO
Eegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 3, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
FHce per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, June 3, 1968
Presenting report, Province of Ontario Coimcil for 1967-1968, Mr. Davis 3763
Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Bales,
first reading 3763
Statement re interprovincial consumer protection conference, Mr. Rowntree 3764
Debate on amendment to the motion that the House resolve itself into committee of
supply, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Deans, Mr. Root, Mr. Deacon, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Boyer,
Mr. Breithaupt, Mr. J. R. Smith, Mr. Burr, Mr. Haggerty, Mr. Simonett, Mr. Pilkey,
Mr. T. Reid, Mr. Pitman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Young, Mr. Bukator, Mr. Dymond 3765
Recess, 6 o'clock 3802
3763
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today, in the east gallery,
we have visiting us, students from the Mac-
kenzie public school in Kleinburg; and we
are to be joined by Parkway vocational school
pupils from Toronto. We welcome these
young people here today.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education
and University Affairs ) : I beg leave to pre-
sent the report of the Province of Ontario
Council for the year 1967-68.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO LABOUR-MANAGEMENT
ARBITRATION COMMISSION ACT, 1968
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. The On-
tario Labour-Management Arbitration Com-
mission Act, 1968.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this bill will
establish a new system to facilitate the arbi-
tration of labour-management grievances
arising under collective agreements. It repre-
sents a very significant step forward in
industrial relations in this province.
The Act provides for the appointment of
the Ontario labour-management arbitration
commission, which will consist of an impartial
chairman and six members, equally repre-
sentative of labour and management. The
commission will recruit, train and maintain a
panel of acceptable arbitrators and arbitration
board chairmen. It will assist arbitrators by
way of such administrative services as arrang-
ing meeting dates and faciHties, producing
and distributing awards and so forth. It
will also sponsor research into the arbitra-
tion process and will publish awards and
information concerning arbitration.
Monday, June 3, 1968
The parties will, of course, continue to be
free to agree mutually on the choice of an
arbitrator or arbitration board chairman.
Where they cannot agree, they will continue
to apply to The Department of Labour for
an appointment in accordance with The
Labour Relations Act. However, we expect
that these choices, or appointments, will be
made from the roster of persons maintained by
the commission.
The establishment of this panel will help
to guarantee the availability of knowledgeable
and independent arbitrators who can handle
grievances expeditiously. The cost of arbitra-
tion will continue to be paid jointly by the
parties. However, the commission will be
empowered to establish a standard schedule
of fees and expenses.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would allow me
to outline the background of this step.
As hon. members are undoubtedly aware,
strikes and lockouts are prohibited during
the life of a collective agreement. All griev-
ances and disputes over the interpretation,
application or alleged violation of an agree-
ment, if not settled directly by the parties,
are subject to final and binding adjudication
through arbitration. This is done, in some
cases, by a single arbitrator, or through a tri-
partite arbitration board chaired by an
independent person.
The arbitration of grievances, without resort
to strike or lockout action, is one of the most
important features of our industrial relations
system. It functions effectively only to the
extent that arbitrators are readily available
and are respected for competence and impar-
tiality. Over the years, a large proportion of
Ontario's 2,000 or so arbitration cases, each
year, have been decided by county judges.
Last year. Parliament amended The Judges
Act, and effectively removed judges from the
field. While my department has built up a
panel of arbitration personnel, the removal of
the judges has proved to be a serious blow.
The Ontario union-management council con-
sidered this to be one of the prime current
problems in industrial relations in Ontario.
I asked the council to suggest a solution,
which it did on a unanimous basis. This bill
reflects the council's recommendations.
3764
ON'rARK) LKGISi.ATURK
Mr. V. M. Singer (Do\\Tisview): I wonder
if I can ask the Minister a question?
What is tills bill s:iying about The Arbitra-
lOrs an;i Oflieial Referees Act that we were
talking about— the 1962 bill which was ne\er
proclaimed?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, there will be
a further bill introduced in the House, with
reference to that particular Act.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Couunercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to announce today that arrangements
have been completed— I am sorry, are there
other bills?
Mr. Speaker: Any further bills?
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to announce that arrangements have
been completed for an interprovincial con-
sumer protection conference, sponsored by
the government of Ontario, through The
Department of Plnancial and Commercial
Affairs, to take place at the Skyline hotel in
Toronto, from Monday, June 10 through
Thursday, June 13.
Efforts have been under way for some
weeks in an attempt to bring together appro-
priate officials and political persons, both
federal and provincial, so that many of the
problems facing us, all in the area of con-
sumer protection, might be aired in an in-
formal manner.
As 1 have often indicated to the House,
.\Ir. Speaker, there are several areas, such as
price control, where jurisdiction in a con-
stitutional sense may be clearly outlined, but
in fact, does not lend itself to easy applica-
tions in a practical sense. It is our hope,
through this first conference of its type to be
convened by The Department of Financial
and Commercial Affairs, that a greater under-
st-UKiing of the entire area of consumer pro-
tection will result.
It is possible, sir, that a conference such
as this could help us begin the complex task
of trying to define areas where some degree
of uniformity in approach might be desirable.
Response to Ontario's invitation has been
excellent. The government of Canada has
signified its interest, and will be represented.
Seven provincial Ministers have indicated that
they will attend, and confirmation from an
eighth is anticipated. In addition, senior offi-
cials from every province will be on hand.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a
cjuestion for the Minister of Reform Institu-
tions, Mr. Speaker.
Has the Minister investigated charges by
Matron Shirley "H" regarding the cau.se of
the sitdown strike of female prisoners at the
Don jail on May 19, 1968 and will the
Minister reveal the results of that investiga-
tion to the House?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, I will take that cjues-
tion as notice.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I also have two
questions of the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs:
1. Why was Ord Wallington and Company
Limited allowed to accept funds for pay-
merit of securities from public clients on April
23, 1968, which date was subsequent to the
hearing of the Ontario securities commission
which stated, "The company is permitted to
complete the trades for which it has already
contracted and to make delivery of securities
to its public clients." Yet public clients who
paid in full for stocks on that date have been
unable to obtain their securities and have
been told that they are merely unsecured
creditors of the company.
2. Will the Minister intervene with the
securities commission and with the trustee to
see that public clients in this position have
their securities delivered to them?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I will
take the ciuestion as notice but in the mean-
time I have asked the securities commission
for a report as to the circumstances and the
facts of the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts moves that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the chair and the House resolve
itself into the committee of supply.
Mr. R. F. Nixon moves, seconded by Mr.
\^ M. Singer, that the motion that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of supply, be
amended by adding thereto the following
v/ords:
That this House regrets the inadequacy
of government policy involving research,
regulation, intergovernmental co-operation,
and community planning to deal with the
growing effects of pollution of the air,
water and land of Ontario.
JUNE 3, 1968
3765
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY DEBATE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion during
this present session when the Opposition has
offered an amendment to the government's
supply motion and we have selected a topic
for discussion this afternoon which is of
great importance, indeed. I know that the
hon. Premier never likes to have political
matters from other jurisdictions brought in
to this House, and yet he should surely be
aware of one of the recent polls conducted
by the CBC on a phone-in programme in
v/hich we are told that for every five people
that communicated their interest in federal
issues, four of them felt that anti-pollution
measures were of great importance.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion
not only in the minds of the electorate but
of politicians themselves as to where the
responsibility lies for the control of pollution
in Ontario. We in this province have
accepted the largest share of this responsi-
bility as far as the imperative programmes
that have been accomplished and are in the
process of being accomplished in this part
of Canada. But our understanding of pollu-
tion and the accelerating damage we do to
our own environment has been slow to
develop.
Most of us remember the passing refer-
ences in our schooldays to the importance of
erosion control, tree cover and not picking
trilliums. It took hurricane Hazel in 1954
to awaken this government to the need for
public programmes to control our rivers
which over a century had been denuded of
natural runoff control. Then, as the no swim-
ming and pollution warnings went up around
our rivers and lakes, there was the growing
awareness that through sheer neglect and
passivity, we were allowing industry and
mushrooming municipalities to foul our com-
munity nest.
These feelings of alarm had centred at
various times on dead fish counts, debris float-
ing in rivers and lakes, foaming detergents
and pictures of our sewage disposal installa-
tions being rendered almost inoperative by
foam from phosphate detergents, red worms
and frightening statements from scientists that
we were approaching the point of no return
with regard to pollution in the Great Lakes
basin.
Now we have, I suppose, been treated on
many occasions to statements by scientists
and others in high places that have been
responded to by this government as if these
scientists were crying wolf.
I have two statements with me today that
I want to bring to your attention, Mr.
Speaker, one of which was generally received
by all members, and the other as a result of
a recent conference. Both of these are state-
ments from scientists of general acceptance
and repute and do bear on the problem that
I have brought before the Legislature this
afternoon. The first is a letter signed by John
N. Jackson, professor and head of the depart-
ment of geography at the Brock University.
It is addressed to Dr. J. A. Vance, the chair-
man of the Ontario water resources commis-
sion and reads as follows, and I quote:
Dear Dr. Vance,
I am perturbed and seek adequate
reassurance. It is a fact that many cities
and smaller communities along the Cana-
dian shores of Lake Erie and inland from
the lake along the Niagara River and along
the Welland ship canal obtain all their
domestic water supplies direct from the
lake. This lake water also flows into Lake
Ontario, and further communities then
depend upon this water source for their
regular supplies for drinking purposes.
In all these situations, we drink without
thought or worry, water which is derived
from Lake Erie. Against these facts I quote
in full from the bulletin of the conserva-
tion council of Ontario for Spring 1968,
which has just recently been published.
Lake Erie: The US public health service
has warned shippers in Lake Erie that
water within five miles of the shoreline
should not be used for drinking or cook-
ing purposes. This stretch of near-shore
water is so polluted that even boiling or
chlorination will not remove the contamina-
tion. This is a serious and threatening
comment to our very existence in southern
Ontario and the consequences are of seri-
ous and vital importance to the future of
all citizens in this region.
If the water in the lake has been con-
demned as being unfit by the responsible
American authorities, is it fit for Canadian
consumption? Do we endanger our own
health by drinking contaminated water?
Yours sincerely,
John N. Jackson.
That is the end of the quote from the letter.
Mr. Speaker, the date of that letter was May
22, 1968, and it outlines a problem that is
3766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of great concern to the people living in that
part of Ontario.
The second matter that I want to bring to
your attention was reported in the Brantford
Expositor of May 23, 1968. As you know,
I have the opportunity to read that paper
regularly and carefully, and they quote some
comments made by Dr. Robert S. Domey,
jirofessor of geography and planning at the
University of Waterloo. He was speaking to
a meeting conducted, I believe, by the
Niagara-Iroquois tourist association, and here
are some of his comments, and I quote:
"The Grand River is a river which is a
biological sewer."
We have heard professors, politicians, and
many others use quotations like that. "Hamil-
ton harbour is the biggest septic tank in the
Great Lakes system."— things like that, which
tend to obscure more than assist the need
for a rational and reasonable approach to a
problem that is definitely approaching the
point of no return. But he does give some
more interesting features of the problem as
it relates to the Grand River, which I would
inform you is the largest single drainage
basin in southern Ontario, exclusive of the
Great Lakes system itself.
He says that there are two solutions: The
government of Ontario can either institute
effective treatment plants at all industrial and
municipal locations in the river valley, or it
can constnict a sewage pipeline which will
run down the river valley and collect this
material and dump it into Lake Erie. Natur-
ally there was some objection particularly
to this second proposal, which would seem to
transfer the problem away from the territory
that he was discussing, and would in fact
use Lake Erie as a great septic tank. But his
response to this complaint was as follow^s,
and I quote:
Much of Lake Erie is without oxygen
and operating presently as a septic tank. It
is one of the l>iggest cesspools in the world.
These are phrases which, of course, the re-
porter for the Brantford Expositor was quick
to set upon and extract for his stories, and
yet they were said before a responsible body
by the professor from the University of
Waterloo. He went on to say, and I quote:
Two thirds of Lake Erie is biologically
sterile and Lake Ontario is going the same
way.
Mr. Speaker, Ontario has a place of special
importance, being the jurisdiction with by far
the largest shoreline on the Great Lakes sys-
tem. ^^'e share this with eight states of the
imion, but we deal through the federal gov-
ernments of Canada and the United States
when attempting to co-ordinate our efforts
concerning water pollution. Our attempts at
co-ordinating or even understanding this pol-
lution have been a pitiful failure from the
standpoint of Ontario, which is, I would say,
the most important jurisdiction not only be-
cause we live in it but because it controls the
shores of the Great Lakes system on the
Canadian side.
I want to concentrate on the problem of
pollution in the Great Lakes system with par-
ticular reference to Lake Erie. The unwitting
destruction of this body of water is a tragic
example of how man's lack of knowledge of
his natural environment can rob him of the
precious resource on which human survival
depends. The lake has deteriorated so badly
that the game fish are almost gone and
beaches are open only occasionally. Swim-
ming is often curtailed by high bacterial
counts in the water and the revolting stench
of rotting algae and dead fish on the beaches.
Each summer sees the formation of algae
blooms covering 800 square miles of the lake
to a depth of two feet.
If you have done any research in this, Mr.
Speaker, you will know that Lake Erie is the
shallowest of the Great Lakes. Its deepest
area is just off Long Point towards the east-
ern end of the lake; the western end, being
relatively shallow, has to suffer most of the
problems associated with pollution. There are
many specific areas where the problem is
well known to individual members of the
House.
The one area which I have visited fairly
recently is Nickel beach at Port Colbome and
it gets its name because it is right under the
stacks of the International Nickel refinery,
which is located in that town. It has been
leased through the generosity of the com-
pany for $1 a year to the local municipahty
and for many years there has been good use
made of the excellent bathing and recrea-
tion facilities. But in the last two or three
years, the effluent of dead fish and dead algae
particularly has made the beach practically
unusable. The bacteria counts have resulted,
on some occasions, in it being posted as "no
swimming." And it is normal to look to the
great nickel refinery and say: "Well, there
is the centre of the difficulty." And yet exam-
ination shows that this is not so. We find
that Nickel beach is closed much of the time
not because of pollution from local industry,
but because of the general devastated con-
dition of the lake from pollution, mainly from
JUNE 3, 1968
3767
the United States side. Detroit and Windsor
dump waste from automobile, chemical,
paper, steel and petroleum industries; Toledo,
Cleveland, Erie and Buffalo are major pol-
luting centres; while the Grand River— and
I mentioned it just a moment ago— having the
largest drainage basin of any river in south-
em Ontario, carries a heavy load of indus-
trial, municipal and agricultural pollutants.
Experts say little relief is in sight and ex-
panding knowledge of the problem reduces
hope for meaningful improvement.
I understand the hon. member for Welling-
ton-Dufferin (Mr. Root) is going to take part
in this debate, some time this afternoon; I
know he will be quick to recall what has
been achieved by the government through
the Ontario water resources commission by
putting in expensive capital installations for
the control of municipal sewage.
The problem, however, has gone consider-
ably beyond that, Mr. Speaker, as you may
well know. While we have an opportunity as
members to look at these facilities in our
local municipalities and constituencies and
marvel at the efficiency with which the ones
tliat are installed operate, we should now be
aware of the fact that the eflEuent— even from
our most modem plants— contains dissolved
solutes of nitrate and phosphate extraction
which are made mobile by the sewage dis-
posal process. They are dumped into the
rivers in a very clear and acceptable form
but, as they enter Lake Erie, are now the
major contributory cause to modern pollu-
tion as it is understood.
This super-fertility, that is dumping into
the lakes at ever-increasing rates, is going to
be the chief problem associated with pollution
that the Ontario water resources commission,
and this government, and governments in
every jurisdiction, must face in the immediate
future. It is this super-fertility, as it is
sometimes called, which is making possible the
tremendous growth of algae and other plant
life in the lake, rendering it practically useless
as far as the recreational aspects of the lake
is concerned and, in fact, is using up the oxy-
gen that has been available, and should be
available, in this tremendous and important
body of fresh water.
It is the invisible menace then that consti-
tutes the real pollution danger, not the human
excrement thrown up on the shore, but the
clear and apparently harmless liquids which,
while free from disease organisms, are actually
super-fertilizers of a very special kind. They
are now known as fertihty pollutants, and it is
these liquids that are making Lake Erie, for
example, what it is today.
When people read about Lake Erie being
an "open sewer" or a septic tank— as I have
just quoted a moment ago— and then drive
down to look at the situation, they are often
surprised to see nothing out of the ordinary.
Many of these people have grown accustomed
to the excessive growth of algae and the fact
that it washes up on the beaches, rendering
much of the area unfit for recreational use.
Yet, Lake Erie is an organic chemical vat
which may threaten our health in a most
serious fashion.
The same is more or less tme of all the
Great Lakes and all of the major river systems
of the populated areas of North America. As a
matter of fact, it is interesting that the drain-
age system flowing directly into Lake Erie
has one of the largest population concentra-
tions of any particular lake. It is estimated
that between 12 and 15 milfion people live
in the drainage area and it is further interest-
ing to note that pollution of the type I have
described— dissolved nitrates and phosphates
leeched out of farmlands— is equivalent to a
population at least as large in addition. This
sort of pollution is not derived from the
source that you might at first expect, but
chiefly from commercial fertilizers that are
being used in an ever-increasing concentra-
tion. Up-to-date farmers are now aware that
the very best use of their dollar is in the
purchase of commercial fertilizers to improve
their cropping position and this, in turn,
through leeching and through situations that
are associated with the problem that I have
been describing to you, sir, is leading to an
increase in the difficulty of the pollution prob-
lem. It is very difficult to see how it can be
reasonably controlled.
What we have done is to make organic
wastes mobile. They are no longer trapped in
septic tanks. They are all hquid now, free to
move and mix.
One of the most important studies in this
matter was carried out by the state of
Wisconsin around the city of Madison, where
funds were made available for a very care-
ful study of the movement of these pollutants;
and a small city like Madison, Wisconsin, puts
into its lake outlet, tlie daily equivalent of
1,500 tons of ammonium nitrate and 1,000
tons of superphosphate. That is from a city of
130,000 people. Multiply by 15 for Metro
Toronto alone. Multiply by 30 for the golden
horseshoe and lakefront communities. Since it
costs so much to remove the phosphorus,
3768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
little further progress in sewage treatment
technique is seen in the near future. The
sewage engineer now recognizes tliat his role
is to remove, from water, organic wastes and
associated toxic bacteria, but we are only a
little way along the road to the solution of
the problem.
However, these solutions must be found. It
is possible, using modem chemical processes,
to extract a large percentage of the nitrate
and phosphate pollutants, but it is estimated
that this would increase, by a factor of five,
the cost of operating sewage treatment facili-
ties. And, of course, the capital cost in the
first instance would be extremely high.
The growtli of algae in our lakes is like
the eruptions that follow a disease of tlie
blood in a human, the parallel, we are told, is
an exact one. If algae are seen to be bloom-
ing, then the lake is sick, and this is what has
happened in Lake Erie to the extent that I
have already described. The sickness can be
periodic, in which case the parallel is with
the common cold experienced from time to
time by every healthy person. Under those
circumstances a large body of water, through
its own purification processes, is able to over-
come the difficulties that are more and more
noticed. But the algae growth, tliat is charac-
teristic of the Great Lakes today, is approach-
ing a permanent situation. According to Dr.
Langford, who used to be in charge of the
Great Lakes institute, it is probably a terminal
illness, so far as tliese inland waters are con-
cerned.
In addition to clear pollutants orginating
in conventional ways, modem industry pro-
duces clear, pure, basteria-free effluents that
nevertheless contain complex organic and in-
organic chemicals— chromium and sulphur
salts, phenolic compounds and often mildly
radioactive wastes. These affect the algae,
usually by stimulating dormant forms to un-
expected growth.
The economy and people of our province
will not only accept, but are demanding, rig-
orous controls to be imposed on industrial and
municipal pollution. We are prepared to pay
for the remedies that are known, and for re-
search that must be imdertaken to solve the
problem.
I, therefore, have three specific proposals
that I would put to the House, Mr. Speaker,
in completing my introduction of this amend-
ment.
First, stringent regulation of pollution
backed up by subsidized loans for industry
so that the expensive, purifying equipment
can be installed.
In commenting on my first point here, Mr.
Speaker, we have been assured by the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment (Mr. Simonett), that Ontario is, in fact,
undertaking the improvement of our regula-
tion. But, there is always the case of the
industry which can prove to the satisfaction
of any reasonable judge, that if they were to
undertake real anti-pollution measures-
effective anti-pollution measures— they could
not maintain themselves economically. Now,
here is where the public interest must come
to the fore. We must be prepared to make
available subsidized loans, so that these indus-
tries can accomplish the anti-pollution
measures that are essential, if we are to clean
up our environment.
Now, there are associated things that could
go along with it; that is, assistance by sales
tax rebates, both federal and provincial, for
this sort of purchase. My main point is, that
government must step in with a subsidy pro-
gramme of the type that I have described.
Secondly, an improvement of the OWRC
programme, so that the economy and tax
base of the whole province will share the
cost of water grids and sewage systems. This
may well be a part of the reform of our
whole tax system.
I would say further that I should spend a
considerable time on this; as you know Mr.
Speaker, my time is limited by other speakers
who wish to follow. All of us as members, I
would say, are aware of small communities
which require sewage disposal plants. It
has been put to them by officials of the
OWRC that they must take steps to introduce
the sewage disposal systems or they will turn
over the information to the community plan-
ning branch of The Department of Municipal
Affairs, and they will no longer have sever-
ances granted in that particular town site.
Tliis is true of a good many areas now, and
when they want to proceed with the kind of
sewage disposal plant that is recommended,
they find that their credit is not good enough
for Ontario municipal board approval. They
have at least one alternative, that the OWRC
will install it for them and it is put on their
tax bill as a user payment.
In a good many of these towns, we find that
this user payment amounts to $150 to $200
l>er dwelling per year which will extend for
40 years. You can see why these communities
are reluctant to take on that kind of respon-
sibility which, in fact, would double the tax
load for a 40-year period. Surely there has
to be some other answer than the one that
JUNE 3, 1968
3769
the OWRC is presently using in a good many
of these communities.
It is not for me to say, off the top of my
head, that we have to finance these payments
over the whole province, because it is closely
associated with general tax reform. If the
communities were relieved of their share of
the cost of education or a large part of it,
then it might very well be that we could leave
at the community level the responsibility to
pay for these expensive installations which
simply must come about.
But if there is going to be no change in
education finance, then surely we must accept
this at the provincial level. We had some
alternatives. Unfortunately, all of them are
expensive and unfortunately one of them must
be accepted.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you know of the
problems that municipalities face, that indi-
vidual taxpayers face, that those who are
applying for plans of subdivision are facing.
We have not seen the answers forthcoming
from this administration and we must have
some answers.
These particular programmes of abatement
—and I am coming to my last point, Mr.
Speaker— are only meaningful if they apply
throughout the whole Great Lakes system.
There is no sense in Ontario undertaking an
expensive and expansive programme if pollu-
tion from Ohio and Michigan is going to con-
tinue unabated. That is why there must be
the dependence on an international agreement
that will be needed if the Great Lakes basin
is going to be saved. With this in mind, I
come to my third and last point.
I call on the government to convene a
conference to the international joint com-
mission, but under the initiative of Ontario,
at which the Premier and the governors of
Miimesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York
can examine the problem of water pollution
in the Great Lakes basin; pinpoint pollution
responsibilities; co-ordinate the many provin-
cial, state and federal programmes to time-
table what must be our top commitment of
research and capital costs.
It sounds like an impossible conference to
convene. We have had one in the past
when the Premier of Ontario was concerned
about either high lake levels or low lake
levels, I forget which, but under those cir-
cumstances he did convene such a conference.
We know that political exigencies in the
United States are tremendous right now. How
are you going to get these Republican and
Democratic governors to leave in an election
year and sit down and discuss what has got
to be one of the biggest problems they face
and that we face?
Nevertheless, I believe we must make a
start. The Premier will be sympathetic when
I say it has got to be done through the
international joint commission. I do not be-
lieve they have effectively taken the initiative
in this sort of work. They have hold a num-
ber of studies. The government of the United
States has taken the lead. The government
of the state of New York has liad certain re-
searches undertaken. But in Ontario we are
the people who stand to lose the most and
to gain the most. Such a study can be imple-
mented on a timetable basis which will set
goals that we must meet. I have said already
it will be expensive, but it is our most
important commitment of research and capital
cost.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentwortli): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to enter this debate on pollution I
think I am very well able to discuss the mat-
ter since I come from a part of this province
that has pollution in abundance.
There is no doubt in my mind that the
city of Hamilton probably has as much pollu-
tion of all three types as any other city in
this province and, perhaps, even this country.
The Hamilton bay, as was referred to by the
leader of the Opposition, is indeed a cess-
pool. It is almost beyond recall at the present
time.
One does not have to be an expert on
pollution to drive across the Burlington bay
skyway and be overcome with the horrible
smell that emits from the Burlington bay or
the Hamilton bay, depending on which side
you happen to live on; to recognize that we
must take some action right away to resolve
this filthy mess.
But as one drives in the daytime around
the city of Hamilton, you would get tlie im-
pression that sometiiing was being done about
the smoke pollution from the many industrial
complexes which surround the bay area. It
is unfortunate that the majority of people
checking into these things do not do their
checking at night, because that is the time
when the flues are opened, the pipes are
cleaned, and the worst pollution is emitted
into the air.
I am sure that this takes place not only in
tlie city of Hamilton but also in most indus-
trial areas of this province. I know it do(^s.
I would say first oflF, that we recognize this
is not purely a provincial responsibility, that
3770
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a great share of the cost, a great share of
the administration, a great portion of the
work must be done at the federal and inter-
national level.
We must have co-operation between all
of the provinces and indeed all of the various
states and provinces in the North American
continent, if we are going to achieve any
measure of success. We have had quite a bit
of research done into the pollution field, and
the only picture that comes through very
clearly is that even with all of the research
we have still not been able to decide at
what level the atmospheric pollution, the
water pollution, even the soil pollution, will
reach a point at which humans can no longer
absorb it.
What I am afraid will happen is that
unless we take some action now, we are
some day going to find out how much the
human can absorb. And when we find this
out it will then be too late for us to take
the necessary steps to resolve the problem.
In the field of water pollution a great
many things can be said and a great many
things have been said in the past. The pollu-
tion that we have is directly related to the
industrial development along the shores of
the Great Lakes; it is related directly to the
vacation land development that is taking
place along the Great Lakes without any
kind of control. It is related to the munici-
palities who for years have been allowing
the raw sewage and the semi-raw sewage to
drift out into the lakes and to create un-
sanitary conditions.
The Ontario water resources commission
have taken some steps in this direction. They
have made attempts, some with success, to
put an end to some of this pollution, but the
big problem is that they have not taken the
very necessary step of insisting on secondary
sewage treatment. One way that we could
help eliminate the continued erosion of our
waters would be if we were to insist in this
province on secondary sewage treatment and
thereby eliminate by far the greatest portion
of raw sewage and semi-raw sewage, and
sewage in a state that will influence the
calibre and state of the water.
We should be doing this now, and we have
not been doing it. In fact, the township that
I represent requested permission for a sew-
age works programme study, and it was
turned down by the Ontario water resources
commission. It is a very sad thing when the
township is prepared and asks for the assist-
ance that will bring about the necessary
changes and the Ontario water resources com-
mission does not see fit to assist it along the
way. 'i
The Hamilton area, as I said, is one that
lends itself well to discussion when we are
talking about pollution, because there we
have all of the various things— the little red
worms that the leader of the Opposition
talked about— the Hamilton harbour that some
day, I suppose, will wash itself into the lake
and create problems for the entire lake area.
We had in the Hamilton area just recently
a study which it points out the city itself
has been doing a great deal towards pollut-
ing the lake, and the only way that this can
be stopped is with the assistance of this gov-
ernment. There is no municipality that I
know of that has the financial resources to
undertake the type of programme that would
be necessary to rid itself of the pollution ]
that takes place, and the only way that we ^
will be able to do this is if this government
undertakes, if not to do it for them, at least I
to make available in the form of grants, in \
the form of subsidies, money to do it. When
a municipality, such as Saltfleet township,
asks for assistance, it is very necessary that
it get the assistance that it asks for.
The pollution, as I said, is a direct result
of the society in which we live and the
advances tliat we have made, and we have
made many advances. Our affluence which
we presently enjoy is a direct result of all of
the many industrial advances that have been
made, but together with these advances we
have been put in a position of having to
absorb a lot of the cost, and much of the
cost is in pollution of land, air and water.
The largest industrial areas of this coun-
try, and you could name them if you wish,
are situated right in this province, and there- ;
fore it would require the federal government :
to take a very great interest in providing \
financial backing to assist these corporations ■;
to eliminate, or at least to cut down drastic- ■
ally, the pollution that presently is emitted
out of their chimneys and the pollution that 1
they are dumping into the lakes. And they j
are actually just dumping it— driving it down ^
in trucks and dumping it into the rivers and t
lakes. It has been seen, it has been photo- ,
graphed, it has been brought to the attention ^
of the various organizations that deal with ^
these things, and the end result is that they 'i
get a fine and they continue doing it. i
It has been said that Lake Erie is beyond
assistance but I do not believe this is true. |
If this little article that I picked out of one ^'
JUNE 3, 1968
3771
of the newspapers by a gentleman by the
name of Matthew E. Walsh, the chairman of
the U.S. section, international joint commis-
sion, and his observations are true, it would
take us something like 30 years in which to
clean it up, but we must start. The fact that
it is going to take 30 years should in no
way inhibit us from beginning in this great
move towards clearing it up, and the start
must be made with the sewage that is dumped
into the lake continuously. It must be stop-
ped. We must eliminate this flushing out of
the great summer resorts continuously into
the lake.
There are those who would wonder about
the Lake Ontario situation and I was among
them. I look at the Lake Ontario situation
and I read in the newspapers, as most do,
that the centre of the lake is relatively clear
but the shoreline is where all of the pollu-
tion lies, and it lies there for a very obvious
reason. It lies there because, as I said, the
municipalities are being allowed to dump
this garbage into the lakes. This can be
stopped. It can be stopped in a number of
ways. We can begin by getting rid of the
land fill programmes that are going on in
most municipalities, and in particular, the
Niagara peninsula, where there is a tendency
to fill ravines with garbage and allow the
natural fluids that flow from the garbage as
it comes under pressure to flow into the lake.
We have to eliminate this. We have to pay
heed to the warnings that have been brought
to our attention by many people, including
Allan Prince, who says that unless we take
these steps now, even Lake Ontario will be
beyond reclaim within ten years.
We have to start now to ensure that every
automobile, and this may take five years or
ten years even, but we must start now to
ensure that every automobile in this province
is equipped with the proper exhaust devices
that will cut down on the air pollution in
the area. We say that while we might do it,
others may not, but because others are not
prepared to do it, should not in any way
preclude us from doing these things.
As you read in the papers you find that
more and more people are suffering from
lung diseases; more and more people are
suffering from respiratory diseases, and most
of the problem lies in the air we breathe. It
says that the air pollution is directly linked
with lung and breathing diseases. The only
way that we can resolve these things is with
a massive government intervention; is with a
regulation that says, regardless, we must stop
people from polluting the air and it can only
be done if we pass the necessary legislation,
and put teeth in it. There have been people
who have been fined in the last two or three
years, and there have been people who have
been fined within the last year for polluting
the atmosphere, but the amount of the fine
was ridiculous in comparison to the amount
of pollution that was being poured into this
atmosphere.
What we do not want to see is a repeti-
tion of what happened two years ago at the
Grey Cup game when we had so much smog
in this area that one was unable to see and
the end result was that we could not get rid
of the pollutants out of the various factories,
out of the automobiles, out of the chimneys
of homes, into the upper atmosphere, because
it could not get through the fog layer. We
are always going to get a fog layer but we
can cut down on the pollution that is emitted
from the chimneys and from the homes and
from the automobiles. Thereby, we will be
in a position, when a fog does lie over this
area, where we are not going to trap all of
the gasses and all of the killer smog below it
and end up with something similar to what
they had in London some years ago.
I asked, two or maybe three weeks ago,
whether or not we were prepared to take
steps in the field of banning the use of DDT.
This is certainly one area where we could
take steps to cut down on the amount of land
pollution that is taking place. It has been
proven, at least to my satisfaction, if not to the
satisfaction of the Minister responsible, that
DDT is most definitely affecting the lives of
people. It is killing off the animal life, it is
definitely affecting the soil, and the only way
that we can stop this from happening is by
banning its use, and it must be done now.
We cannot sit back and wait and wait as
we have been doing over the last years hoping
for some miracle to occur, and knowing that
nothing is likely to come.
In the Hamilton area, we are fortunate in
having a research centre that is in the pro-
cess of development, and I hope that some
results will be forthcoming from it. A good
proportion of it is federal, in fact it is
almost entirely federal. I would hope that
we would get some results from this, but we
could now take steps to stop the pollution.
We could pass legislation that would bring
about anti-pollution devices in automobiles.
We could make assistance available, whether
in the form of grant, or whether in the form
of direct subsidy, to any industry that is pre-
pared to undertake now to cut back and
eventually stop the pollution of the lakes and
3772
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the air. And we could also quite easily, as
I said before, eliminate entirely the pollution
in the soil from DDT and from the insecti-
cides that are used.
There are so many areas in pollution that
one could talk about. We are fortunate in
our party of having people who have special-
ized in each of the areas, and they will deal
in detail with tlioir specialities as the debate
progresses. Thank you.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-DulFerin): Mr.
vSpeaker, I have listened with great interest to
the remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion and the last speaker on this important
subject of pollution control. The amendment
reads:
That this House regrets the inadequacy
of government policy involving research,
regulation, intergovernmental co-operation,
and community planning to deal with the
growing effects of pollution of the air,
water and land of Ontario.
I welcome this opportunity to make some
comments with regard to the tremendous
strides that have been made in Ontario deal-
ing with the effects of pollution of the air,
water and land. My remarks will be con-
fined, in the main, to water, with some refer-
ence to air and land.
I must say that I am surprised that the
hon. leader of the Opposition would put this
motion on the order paper, since year after
year I have tried to enlighten him and mem-
bers of this House regarding the programme
that has been carried on by the water
resources commission in co-operation with
various forms of government and various
departments of government. However, since
the motion is here, this gives me the oppor-
tunity to bring to the attention of the many
new members, in the short time that is
allotted to me, some of the highlights of the
Ontario water resources commission pro-
gramme.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Lots of
enlightenment but no action. All we get is
enlightenment.
Hon. J. R. Simonctt (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): The member
had better be quiet, he might l(\u-n something.
Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon.
member did not listen last year when I
recorded where many of tliese treatment
plants were situated. However, I will go on.
For the benefit of new members, let me
remind this House that following a survey by
a committee appointed by the government,
The Ontario Water Resources Commission Act
was passed in 1956. The commission was
established and given very wide powers under
the Act to deal with the problem of supplying
adequate quantities of suitable water and to
bring pollution under control where pollu-
tion might exist. Office space and staff were
acquirtMi following the passing of the Act,
and policies were developed, and the pro-
gramme was actually launched in 1957.
The commission was faced with a great
challenge. We are all aware that during the
war years certain priorities had to be estab-
lished, and works that might have been built
in that period were not built. We are also
aware that through the 1930s, under a
different government, perhaps there was not
enough emphasis placed on pollution control
and the provision of adequate supplies of
water.
Under the sound policies that were intro-
duced by the Progressive Conservative Party
when it assTimed office, Ontario developed
and expanded at a rate that was not equalled
by any province in Canada. Over half of the
new Canadians coming to Canada since the
end of World War II have established their
homes here in Ontario. Half of the new
industries coming to Canada have established
in Ontario. Many people have flocked to
Ontario from other provinces that were not
providing the job opportunities that were
being provided in Ontario. I am sure the
hon. members from the NDP are quite aware
that literally thousands of people left Sas-
katchewan to get out from under the dead
hand of socialism and established their homes
liere in Ontario.
Mr. C. G. Pilkcy (Osliawa): How about that
23 per cent that earn less than $3,000 per
year?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Nixon: This is a good pollution debate.
Mr. Root: Well I see it struck home. Hon.
members are quite aware that the thousands
of jieople who came to Ontario were not
wrong, tliey were right.
Ontario population since tlie early 1940s
has grown from around four million to nearly
7.25 million. This great influx of new people,
along with new industries, consumed tremen-
dous fjuantities of water and created a corres-
ponding amount of wastes, and there is no
more water available. This is the challenge
JUNE 3, 1968
3773
that was presented to the OWRC when it
\v;is established.
A number of distinguished members of this
House have served on the commission, in-
cluding the Prime Minister, the Provincial
Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton), and the
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart). They played
a major part in developing the policies that
we are following.
Mr. Speaker, it was forcast when the
commission was established tliat it would
require something like $2.4 billion over a
20-year period to pick up the backlog of
needed works and keep pace with the vibrant
economy of the province.
I could advise hon. members of the House
that since the commission was established we
have issued approval certificates for water
and sewage works, having a total estimated
value of $1,492,992,387. In addition to
these municipal works, industries that do not
treat their wastes through the municipal sys-
tem have spent approximately $127 million.
And I might remind the hon. member for
die Wentworth area who spoke about Hamil-
ton that Stelco have spent between $6 million
and $8 million, and Dofasco has come into
the programme with over $4 million for
control of industrial waste. In other words,
approximately $1,620 million worth of water
and sewage works have been approved or
built in the province in a little over ten
years.
In addition to the works that have been
completed, at the present time we have over
200 provincially owned and financed projects
in various stages of development or construc-
tion, as well as some 53 projects where
OWRC is building under agreement with the
municipality. A number of area water projects
have been developed, such as the Lake Huron
water supply system and the Lake Erie water
supply system. Another project under devel-
opment is in the Haileybury-Cobalt area.
Agreement has been reached for both water
and sewage in the southern part of Peel
county, and this project is presently before
the OMB. In all, some 15 regional projects
have been under discussion and development.
I am sure that hon. members will agree
that Ontario can be justly proud of what
lias been achieved, and hon. members will
understand why Ontario is recognized as a
leader in the field of pollution control.
Mr. Speaker, I note the reference in the
hon. leader of the Opposition's motion regard-
ing research, regulation, intergovernmental
co-operation, and community planning. Let
me inform the House that on the water
resources commission we have a research
branch tliat is constantly making studies
to assist us in our programme to develop
efficient and economical ways of dealing with
pollution. Let me mention a few of the
projects that have been dealt with by our
research branch:
The radioactive density meter for sewage
sludge measurement and control, marine toilet
facilities, sludge thickening and primary
clarifiers, phosphorus reduction by algal cul-
tures, effluent polishing process evaluation,
the effect of algae on gravity fillers, aeration
tank diffusion study, catch-basin efficiency
evaluation, high rate combined tank activated
sludge process, sludge treatment and disposal,
control of cladophora, biological reactancer-
ate studies, sub-surface aeration systems, the
characteristics of water filtration media, pilot
oxidation ditch, farm animal waste disposal,
starch waste treatability studies, control of
flowing wells, model sewage treatment plant,
water treatment sludge disposal, ultraviolet
sterilization of potable water supplies. These
are some of the .studies that are carried out
by our research branch.
I might say that we co-operate with other
branches of government and with different
governments in the field of research, indeed
in many areas. For example, we have a liaison
committee that works with many of the
departments of our own government, such as
Education, Family and Social Services, High-
ways, Agriculture and Food, Trade and De-
\elopment. Mines, Energy and Resources
Management, conservation authorities. Health,
Municipal Affairs, Lands and Forests, Public
Works, Tourism and Information, the Hydro
Electric Power Commission, Transport, and
Ontario housing corporation. We are in con-
stant touch with these departments so plans
will be co-ordinated.
We are seeking to avoid such problems as
liaving a sewer installed after highways have
been built or just prior to highways building
a road— in other words, breaking the street
up twice. We carry on discussions with Agri-
culture and Food to develop a means of con-
trolling farai wastes in co-operation with tliat
department. We are working closely with The
Department of Mines, and in order to avoid
air pollution at times we agree to the deposit
of tailings in certain waters, provided there
is adequate control of the deposit. With the
tailings deposited under water there is no
air pollution from the fine dust blowing. We
3774
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have a committee that works with the min-
ing people. They are looking at the possi-
bility of vegetation on tailing disposal areas
to prevent the fine tailings drying out and
polluting the air, and possibly water.
We work with The Departments of Health,
Education, and Public Works, to try to avoid
finding large institutions being erected in
areas where there is not sufficient water or
facilities to treat wastes or dilute sewage
effluent.
We have carried on discussions with many
branches of the provincial government and
the federal government. We have developed
regulations to control pollution from boats.
I might say in this area, the federal gov-
ernment is taking the responsibility for the
large boats, and we are developing a pro-
gramme to control pollution from the small
pleasure craft that cruise our waters. I know
The Department of Tourism and Information
is greatly interested in this programme. The
tourist industry can be greatly affected if
the waters of our resort areas become
polluted. The cottage owners are concerned.
Many of them take their water directly from
the lake, and they want to know that boats
are not discharging raw sewage into their
water intakes. At the same time, the boating
public wants to be sure that there are ade-
quate facilities to deal with the wastes that
they will discharge from their boats. This is
a co-operative programme and is moving for-
ward, and will help to improve the condition
of the waters in our resort areas.
With regard to intergovernmental co-opera-
tion, I might mention that there is a Deputy
Ministers' committee on pollution. This com-
mittee is chaired by the Deputy Minister of
Energy and Resources Management. The
water resources commission is represented on
this committee by our general manager.
Other departments of the Deputy Ministers'
committee are from Mines, Health, Lands
and Forests, Agriculture and Food, Munici-
pal Affairs, with a representative from the
Prime Minister's office. This will indicate that
there is complete co-ordination and co-opera-
tion in the government regarding the pollution
of air, water and land in the province.
Mr. Speaker, I might also mention that we
co-operate with the federal government. Hon.
members will know that we are carrying out
a survey of the five major river systems that
are flowing into Hudson and James bays—
namely the Severn, Winisk, Attawapiskat, Al-
bany, and Moose. This survey is in co-opera-
tion with the federal government.
The Ontario water resources commission
works very closely with the international
joint commission. I might make some refer-
ence to Lake Erie, as to its condition. Con-
trary to what was read into the record this
afternoon, I could tell you that two thirds of
all the commercial fish that were taken in
Ontario last year were taken from Lake Erie.
It is far from a dead lake.
Mr. M. Shulman ( High Park ) : There are
five years left for Lake Erie.
Mr. Root: I would suggest to the member
who interjected that he get facts rather than
quote from newspaper articles that are reports
of statements by ill-informed people.
Both the federal government and the On-
tario water resources commission are carrying
out surveys on the Great Lakes system. I
might say we work in co-operation, through
the international joint commission, with people
on the other side. We are carrying out a co-
operative survey of the Ottawa River with the
province of Quebec.
We maintain liaison with the Great Lakes
commission which represents the eight states
that border on the Great Lakes. We are
working together to get a uniform programme.
I might say that we also have liaison with
Manitoba and the Maritime provinces, and
we have many foreign governments coming
to the Ontario water resources commission for
information and assistance. In other words,
the Ontario water resources commission is
recognized as a leader in the field of pollu-
tion control and the provision of adequate
supplies of safe water, and this is recognized
all over the world. I might add, we are
actively participating in the international
hydrologic decade, a world study of water
resources.
Mr. Speaker, I note the suggestion in the
proposed amendment that there is inadequacy
of intergovernmental co-operation and com-
munity planning to deal with the effects of
pollution of air, water and land of Ontario.
Perhaps I should remind hon. members that
there is the greatest co-operation between
The Department of Municipal Affairs and the
Ontario water resources commission with re-
gard to community planning to control pollu-
tion of water. I might also add that, in the
main, our municipalities are co-operating with
the OWRC in its programme to provide ade-
quate supplies of water and to bring pollution
under control wherever pollution may exist.
One of the co-operative prograrrunes that is
carried out by the planning branch of The
Department of Municipal Affairs is to inquire
JUNE 3, 1968
3775
of the OWRC whether there is suflBcient
water in the municipality, whether there is
adequate pollution control in the municipality,
before they will approve of subdivisions. We
on the commission advise the planning branch
when there is not sufficient water, when there
is not sufficient capacity to treat wastes, or
when there is not sufficient stream flow in
streams to dilute the sewage effluent after it
has been treated. The planning branch, work-
ing in co-operation with the commission, has
from time to time restricted development
when the development might not be related
to the available water and facilities to treat
sewage wastes and dilute the sewage effluent.
Mr. Speaker, I note the suggestion that
there is not enough regulation. I think that
I have already indicated that under our Act
and under regulations, all municipalities and
industries are now required to have their pro-
grammes for treating wastes and water ap-
proved by our divisions of sanitary engineering
and industrial wastes, and in the main, we are
having good co-operation from both munici-
pahties and industry. There has been an odd
occasion when we have had to issue a report
or mandatory order to a municipality. There
have been probably something like half a
dozen orders in the history of the commission.
This has not been necessary, to any degree,
since we developed a policy of working in
co-operation with the planning branch of The
Department of Municipal AflFairs.
With regard to industrial wastes, practically
all of the industries are co-operating— many
of the industries, as you know, treat through
municipal systems— some on staged pro-
grammes, but we are getting a great measure
of co-operation in bringing pollution under
control. When an industry refuses to co-
operate we have not hesitated to use the
authority under the Act; in fact there were
some 13 convictions in the courts for impair-
ing the quality of watercourses in the past
year.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The hon.
member cannot depart from the prepared text.
Mr. Root: I would say to the hon. member
that I am not in the habit, as are some
members, of being repetitious. You asked the
Minister for an answer, and the answer is in
Hansard. I am not going to be repetitious.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members
would realize that the amendment proposed
by the leader of the Opposition is really not
related to fact. I am sure that the people of
Ontario are proud of the fact that the On-
tario water resources commission and various
departments of government are leaders in
the matters of water, air and soil pollution
control.
Perhaps hon. members would like to have
some idea of where the treatment works that
I have mentioned are located. Members are
no doubt aware from the comments I have
already made that our programme extends
from the shores of Hudson bay to the inter-
national boundary hne of the Great Lakes,
from the Manitoba border to the St. Law-
rence and Ottawa River valleys. At the pres-
ent time, we are constructing sewage and
water works as far north as Red Lake on
the western side of the province and Moos-
onee on the northwestern side of the province.
Hon members are no doubt aware that
we hold public hearings when sewage works
are being established to treat the wastes of
one municipality in another municipality or
where there appears to be opposition to the
location of sewage treatment works in a
municipality. In 1967, some 48 public hear-
ings were held, and already in 1968 some 32
hearings have been held. The number of
hearings that have been held are indicative
of the way the programme is developing, and
our desire to make people aware of the pro-
gramme and give them an opportunity to
express their views.
Mr. Speaker, in 1967 I asked our staflF to
prepare for me a summary of where treat-
ment works were located to treat municipal
water supplies, municipal waste water, and
industrial waste treatment. I asked staff to
break this down into the various watersheds.
For the information of members I could
tell you that up to February 1967, in the
province there was capacity to treat 9.3
million gallons of water a day in the area
that drains into Manitoba; 68.7 million gal-
lons of water in the Lake Superior drainage
basin; 120 million gallons in the Lake Huron
and Georgian Bay drainage basin; 34.5 mil-
lion gallons in the area that drains into Lake
St. Clair; 148.4 million gallons in the area
that drains into Lake Erie; 652 million gal-
lons in the area that drains into Lake Ontario;
28.7 million gallons in the area that drains
into the St. Lawrence; 27.9 milhon gallons
in the area that drains into Hudson and
James Bays, and 118 million gallons in the
area that drains into the Ottawa River basin.
In other words there was a capacity in the
province in February, 1967, to treat 1,208,-
000,000 gallons of water per day.
3776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
With regard to municipal waste treatment,
there was capacity to treat 2.7 million gal-
lons in the area draining into Manitoba; 11
million gallons in the area draining into Lake
Superior; 48.4 million gallons draining into
Lake Huron and Georgian bay; 47.9 million
gallons in the area draining into Lake St.
Clair; 65 million gallons draining into Lake
Erie; 399 million gallons in the area draining
into Lake Ontario; 15.6 million gallons drain-
ing into the St. Lawrence River basin; 4.1
million gallons into the area of Hudson and
James bays; 54.8 million gallons into the
Ottawa River, for a total capacity of 649
million gallons of municipal waste water
treatment per day in the province.
Looking at industrial wastes, we find that
there were industrial waste treatment facilities
to treat 41 million gallons a day in the area
draining into Manitoba; 141 million gallons
in the area draining into Lake Superior; 164
million gallons in the area draining into Lake
Huron and Georgian bay; 383 million gal-
lons in the area draining into Lake St. Clair;
54.9 million gallons in the area draining into
Lake Erie; 693 million gallons in the area
draining into Lake Ontario; 14.4 million gal-
lons in the area draining into the St. Law-
rence River; 14.4 million gallons in the area
draining into Hudson and James bays, and
21.2 million gallons in the area draining into
the Ottawa River, for a total of 1,538,000,000
gallons of industrial waste treatment per day
as total capacity.
Mr. Speaker, when you add these three
figures together you will find that in the
province of Ontario in February of 1967 we
had a capacity to treat 3,395.7 million gal-
lons of water, municipal wastes, and indus-
trial wastes. When you add to this figure
the many projects that I have already men-
tioned that are in the mill or that are being
developed at the present time, I think you
will agree with me that Ontario can be proud
of the leadership that they are giving, and
the tremendous strides that we have made
in all the fields that are mentioned in the hon.
leader of the Opposition's resolution.
I think you will agree with me that the
leader of the Opposition is completely out
of touch with the facts that the government
has a sound policy involving research, regula-
tion, intergovernmental co-operation, and
community planning to deal with the growing
effects of pollution of the air, water and land
of Ontario. I am sure that hon. members, if
they vote according to conscience, will want
to vote unanimously against the proposal
of the hon. leader of tiie Opposition.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, in 1956, when I was a member of
a municipal council north of this city, we
were all delighted to know of the organiza-
tion of the Ontario water resources commis-
sion. To us it sounded from the announcement
that it was going to be anotlier Ontario
Hydro. It was going to supply an integrated
system of water supply, and sewage treat-
ment facilities in all areas of the province
that needed them.
In some cases, these would be on package
plant and municipal wells bases, but cer-
tainly an overall programme of laying out
a system would Im? developed. Those of us
in investment industry suggested— but under-
stood that it was not the wish of the govern-
ment—that the water resources commission be
set up with the same type of financing base,
an independent base, as Ontario Hydro. It
could then go forward quickly to promote
and construct a well integrated system to
avoid pollution throughout this province and
to provide its citizens with adequate sup-
plies of water at all times of the year.
Eleven years later I am very disappointed
with the results. Although there has been
$1.4 billion spent directly or indirectly dur-
ing this 11-year period, a great deal of it
has not been spent in any difi^erent manner
than it would have been had there been no
Ontario water resources commission.
The only project that has been completed
is the Lake Huron pipeline, which was com-
pleted last year with an initial capacity, a
very substantial one, of around 15 million
gallons per day. It can go up to a good deal
more than that, once all pumps and other
parts of the system are completed. But it
still took 11 years to complete this project,
and it was a very, very poor example of
government getting a job done that is greatly
needed, and it has only then been done to
serve a very limited portion of the province.
We have had for many years discussions
in the Brampton area regarding sewage facili-
ties, but they still are not under way. It has
been blocked by bickering l)etween munici-
palities and the commission. It seems to me,
that the commission has failed to act in a
way that you would expect a provincial body
would. Ontario Hydro did not wait until it
had agreements with each municipality lx>-
fore it went ahead with the provincially inte-
grated system of supplying hydro to this
province.
For example, north of Toronto the piece-
meal approach of the Ontario water resources
JUNE 3, 1968
3777
commission is shown by the type of project
they have put in up there. They have helped
us drill more wells in Richmond Hill— which
are now going dry in the summer. In Mark-
ham township, we are not sure that our well
supply will be adequate for this coming year.
Thornhill, Kleinburg— all these areas are on
wells, not pipelines. Our sewage treatment
facilities are overloaded. Plants that were put
in almost entirely after the inauguration of
the Ontario water resources commission are
not on an integrated basis according to the
drainage basin, but are based upon munici-
pal boundaries. Surely this commission should
have been going forward and treating this
matter of water supply and sewage treat-
ment on a regional basis— water supply which
would not cause a lowering of water tables
and danger of increased pollution in our
creeks, and sewage treatment which would
mean that plants were not being overloaded
and could adequately treat the sewage that
was being put into them.
Surely, we could expect that from a com-
mission which has been in operation during
most of the period when the development in
these areas has been going forward. But no,
they have not. They have done nothing but
stop residential development from proceed-
ing because they say the municipalities have
not yet agreed, among themselves, as to how
they will deal with the problem. This is not
a situation which should be left to the
municipalities to work out among themselves.
This is where the province should be step-
ping in and doing the job, knowing that they
have the power to insist upon proper pollu-
tion control, and insist upon the proper avail-
ability of services in any development. And
therefore, they could ensure that as the de-
velopment proceeded, there would be ade-
quate usage of these facilities.
As a result, they have also prevented
further development on septic tanks, even in
areas where the land is quite suitable for
septic tanks. There are many parts of this
province where even on one acre or two
acre lots, septic tanks would not be ad-
visable. But in other areas you could go
forward on much smaller lots and have ade-
quate pollution control. This scarcity of
serviced lots has caused a tremendous short-
age and permitted those owning these lots
to ask prices far beyond the proper value,
and helped drive up, very substantially, the
cost of housing— an unnecessary, high cost to
the people of this province and, at the same
time, not contributing one extra dime to the
solution of the problem. The only solution
is that which can be provided through
properly integrated and well developed plants
on a regional basis.
Finally now, the Ontario water resources
commission is going forward in proposing a
plan for the whole region north of Toronto;
a plan which will carry, through a very large
trunk, untreated sewage, 30 to 35 miles, by
which time it may not be possible to treat it
adequately.
The very high cost. They fail to realize
that sewage must be treated, according to
elevation and the drainage basin— and it would
be much cheaper to put the treated effluent
of that sewage through high pressure lines
into the lake rather than carry untreated
sewage all across the north of this city. They
could then take it down a valley, via high
pressure steel pipelines, to the lake, and still
treat the untreated sewage according to the
natural drainage basins of the area where
development would take place.
There is another great opportunity for the
Ontario water resources commission in the
areas beyond Toronto. The Premier spoke,
last fall, of satellite cities within a fair dis-
tance, but not too great a distance, of
Toronto. The development of these cities
would certainly be very feasible, and could
be developed well, if the water resources
commission puts in its facilities without
worrying about back to back contracts, as we
call it in industry, to ensure every penny is
received from the municipalities to cover the
exact cost.
These latter are the agreements which take
a long time to work out. It is because of
these agreements that it has taken years for
London to get its pipeline, and taken years
for Brampton to hope to get its sewage treat-
ment. Work out a proposal which will pro-
vide proper sewage treatment facilities for a
good size area, a desirable city size, in these
satellite areas and then, we can economically
give other incentives, including transporta-
tion via GO transit and educational grant
incentives to get these areas developed and
take the stress away from the demand on
lots around this city.
It is this tremendous demand— the excess
of demand over supply of lots— that has driven
our land prices, in Toronto, to the highest on
the continent. It has not helped us one little
bit toward being able to divert land specula-
tion money into a much more useful economic
end.
In the construction of the London pipeline,
for example, the commission used tlie old,
standard, pre-stressed concrete pipe, instead
3778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of using modem high pressure inside treated
steel pipe which can be much more quickly
laid; a matter of several miles a day— instead
of painstakingly going along with 16-foot
sections of 48-inch concrete pipe; and would
not only be cheaper and faster to build, but
would be able to provide these pipeline
facilities much more rapidly to the various
parts of the province, where the water table is
a problem.
In our own area, the water is still coming
from water wells, and the water table is lower
now than it was when the water resources
commission started. Our stream flows are
worse now than they were 12 years ago. We
did have, I think, reasonable expectations
that with this new provincial commission, we
would see the end of the problem of lower
water tables caused by wells and the increased
pollution from these little package plants. But
we still do not have them.
So, in conclusion, I would like to hope that
this entire water resources commission would
be revitalized; that it would go after its own
basic financing plan and programme of an
integrated supply of water and integrated
sewage treatment plants throughout the prov-
ince, the areas in which the province foresees
development; that it will move ahead with
modem-type facilities, including the use of
new techniques of pipeline laying which can
be done so quickly; that they do not take 11
years; that they would take less than 11
months. In some cases 11 weeks for a 30
mile line would be quite easy for them. Take
a new approach to provincial planning so
that we—
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer): I wonder what engineer has been
preparing that stuff for him.
Mr. Deacon: So that we can greatly in-
crease the availability of serviced lots in this
province to reduce the cost of land. So we
can cut out these overloaded sewage treat-
ment plants which they have continued to
encourage and build on a piecemeal muni-
cipal basis, instead of working on a regional
basis with municipalities. Cut out the neces-
sity for all these little hearings that upset
people because of the very great increase in
their costs of water under the programmes of
the commission that would not be necessary
if these were properly sized, and properly
developed, on a provincial planning basis.
Let us put Ontario in a position to elimi-
nate a lot of this pollution, Mr. Speaker.
Give us a good supply of water in areas of
the province that need it. We do not have to
read about dry taps in summers. A properly
integrated programme of development can
then be carried out on a sensible basis.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, in rising to
support this amendment, I would first like
to express my disappointment that the govem-
ment, in their defence through the member
for Wellington-Dufferin, have listed the large
gallonage of treated sewage that is dumped
into our lakes, but, have completely ignored
the billions of gallons of untreated sewage
that is polluting our lakes and rivers. This is
what they should be concerned with, not with
the portion that has been treated for many
years. I would have hoped for a more
responsible approach.
However, the item which I wish to discuss
today is one which I do not believe has been
discussed at any time in this House in con-
nection with air pollution, and this is a new
form of air pollution which we have not, as
yet, been affected with but which, beginning
next year, we are going to suffer with. And
this, is air pollution caused by the noise of
the new supersonic jets and the sonic booms
which they will produce.
An international congress was held in Lon-
don, England, some two weeks ago, to con-
sider this problem, which is just beginning
to be felt in Europe and in the United States,
and which is going to begin affecting us
next year, and at that congress, on May 18,
a resolution was passed urging government
to prohibit supersonic flights over their ter-
ritories. Now, this was the fifth international
congress for noise abatement.
Speaking realistically, we realize that we
cannot prohibit such flights because they
must occur, and progress must go on. But
something has to be done for the people
who are going to be affected.
John Connell, the chairman and founder
of Great Britain's society re noise abatement,
urged this action because of the physical
and mental disturbance such flights do cause.
Now Dr. Charles Waxstein, of Dartmouth
College, reporting on this problem at the
congress, said that 150 million American
urban dwellers are subjected to annoying
noise levels in their homes on account of
traffic, including air traffic. He warned that
overland flights of the projected supersonic
transports could expose 51 million people to
an average of 15 sonic booms daily, and he
estimates annual damage to homes of about
$100 miUion, mosily to windows and plaster.
If we try to put this into the Canadian
surroundings, it means that some 5 million
JUNE 3, 1968
3779
people in Canada are going to be subject to
something like 1.5 sonic booms a day, with
damage of some $10 million yearly.
Now, this is a problem that has not been
considered by government, at any level, and
I would strongly urge the government that
the time to do something about that is now,
before the problem is upon us.
Now, suggestions were made at this cong-
ress for improving the air noise problems,
and for preventing the difficulties that are
going to occur, and for compensation for
those people living near international air-
ports, such as Malton, who are going to be
aflFected no matter what is done. They sug-
gested creation of a subcommittee of inter-
national experts, to formulate a uniform code
to curb commercial aircraft noise at major
airports, and to propose acceptable noise
levels. They deplored the increasing assault
of noise pollution on the human ear. They
pleaded for quieter aircraft, better insula-
tion in the new buildings— and let me stress
that— mufflers in construction equipment— and
finally and most important, more govern-
mental control action.
Now, in the United States there is a depart-
ment of housing and urban development,
headed by a Mr. Charles Harr who is the
assistant secretary. He made a number of
suggestions to control this situation, and he
summed up the nature of the damages, and
the inequities stemming directly from air-
port noise pollution, with five points:
1. Aircraft noise seriously affects property
values and the health and well-being of those
exposed to it— and I would like to add here
particularly, hearing. The supersonic booms
and aircraft noise in general are a definite
hazard to the hearing of those living, around
the airports.
2. The noise damages are rarely recover-
able in courts.
3. With rare exceptions the courts have
left the burden of property damage where
it falls, on the property owner.
4. Property owners have been compelled to
pay for something they may never use, that
is air travel.
5. The changing levels of noise volume
and the number of flights make damages diffi-
cult to assess.
He suggested that we require laws in all
the jurisdictions so affected— and may I say
that Toronto is particularly affected— to pro-
tect the rights of property owners and to
make the air transport industry fully aware
of the cost of noise. The transient nature of
airport noise level, he said, suggested a
leasing system that would provide equitable
means of recognizing accurately the extent of
damage suffered for a given time, and instead
of a permanent right to make noise at a level
prevailing at the time of proceeding, the
airport would lease the right to make noise
for a stated period of time, perhaps two or
three years. Then if new planes come in
and there is more and more noise, they
would have to pay at a higher rate. At the
expiration of the lease period the property
owner would be required to prove loss in
value suffered due to noise, and by settling
claims at the expiration of a period it would
be easier to determine accurately the amount
of damage, taking into account the change in
noise level, up or down, that might have
occurred.
They have done a study around one of
the cities in the United States to show just
how many people are affected. They used
Los Angeles, and they found that around the
Los Angeles international airport, which is
very comparable to Malton international air-
port, the number of homes affected was
47,000— that is seriously affected by the noise
level— 33 public schools, a score or more of
churches, three hospitals and a college.
A similar study around Kennedy airport
showed comparable figures because of the
slightly smaller volume this one was about
two-thirds of the Los Angeles figures.
I would like to suggest to the government
—and this is an area which has not been
touched as yet in Ontario, has not been
looked at— we are going to have this problem
upon us with a bang, if I may use the term,
beginning next year with the first flight of
the supersonic aircraft. I would suggest very
strongly that now, before the problem has
already gone too far, as it has in other aspects
of air pollution and water pollution, you
assign someone in your department— in the
department that controls air pollution— to look
into this study, make suggestions, pass the
necessary laws, so that once again we do not
have a problem which has come upon us and
we are not capable of handling it.
Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Muskoka
going to engage in the debate? The member
is next on my list.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
so far this afternoon there has been very little
reference to one of the subjects mentioned
in the leader of the Opposition's motion^
and that is the matter of clean air, although
there have been several references during
rso
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the session to this subject. When this matter
is discussed, Metro Toronto in particular is
referred to although the hon. member for
Samia (Mr. Bullbrook) has also spoken of his
city and referred to coal-burning electric
generating stations. Some hon. members have
been indicating that these stations are in some
measure responsible for air pollution difficul-
ties in the municipalities concerned.
On Friday afternoon we were debating
here a matter having to do with air pollu-
tion, and one of the members of the Liberal
Party who took part in that debate spoke
about Metro Toronto— after all it was the
area from which he came— and he mentioned
that a study of Metro Toronto has shown
that one third of air pollution in this city
comes from combustion and fuel-burning
equipment, one third from automobiles, buses
and trucks, and one third from industrial
plants.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Tell us how
the Hydro pollutes.
Mr. Beyer: May I take tlie time to deal
with that. It is in tlie last third that tlie On-
tario Hydro contributes a portion of tlie
pollutants to the air, and Mr. Speaker, it is
my wish this afternoon, although no one
else in the debate so far has mentioned this
matter, to speak about Ontario Hydro's con-
tributions to the clean air programme in this
province.
I would like to make note of a speech
earlier in this session by the hon. member
for Ottawa Centre (Mr. MacKenzie) in which
he made reference— although perhaps it was
indirectly— to the contribution that electric
heating of homes and buildings makes to the
cause of pure air in this province. This is
quite often a matter which is not mentioned
and which deserves greater attention.
I want to assure this House that Ontario
Hydro is by no means indifferent to the
health of tlie people of the province and is
ready to adopt every proven means which
will ensure cleaner air.
I give as positive proof of Hydro' concern
for clean air, around its thermal-electric
plants in particular, the expenditure of $33
million arealy committed for air quality con-
trol at its coal-burning generating stations.
Hydro does not deny that its coal-burning
stations contribute to air pollution, nor has
it ever attempted to do so. Long before air
quality control regulations were anywhere
near as stringent as they are today, the com-
mission was striving for clean air around its
thermal installations.
There is no known way in which the
large quantities of coal diese plants consume
can be burned without discharging some
impurities into the air. Hydro's efforts to
control air pollution go back, however, more
than 15 years, to the start of construction of
its first large coal-burning station, and in
that decade and a half its committed expendi-
ture for air quality control has reached the
$33 million figure which I have already men-
tioned.
As part of its air quality control pro-
gramme, the commission has installed, or is
installing, in its coal-burning stations, equip-
ment desiged to remove up to 99.5 per cent
of the fly ash before it reaches the chimneys
—that is the solid matter which is one of the
two main pollutants. The other — sulphur
dioxide— is a different problem. To date, no
satisfactory, practicable method of controlling
emissions of this pollutant, which is a gas, has
yet been developed, in spite of intensive
research in Britain, the United States, Ger-
many, Japan, and elsewhere. All concerned
are most expectant tliat this continuing search
for a solution will soon be successful.
The judgment of technical men in the
utility industry the world over is, however,
that the problem of sulphur dioxide emissions
still is best handled by dispersal of the hot
gases from tall chimneys high into the upper
atmosphere. This is the principle followed by
Hydro. And, as a further insurance against
SO2, Hydro uses the lowest sulphur-content
coal available on a long-term contract basis.
This has averaged slightly over 2 per cent
during the past several years. During adverse
weather conditions coal containing only
around 1 per cent sulphur content is burned
to further reduce SO2 emissions.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment, may I refer
to page 2370 of this year's Hansard, when
the hon. member for Samia was speaking and
he used these words— which I did not notice
at the time, or I would have commented upon
them:
Here we are entering into contracts, as the hon.
member tor Muskoka says, to buy the lowest sulphur-
content type of fuels at the highest economic feasi-
bility. Right. Now those last words are scurrilous
words, because it is like calling black white. We are
saying in effect that we want to buy the lowest con-
tent fuel but the economic context of things must
be overriding and this is the thing that has caused
me some polarization of thought and respect to it.
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I want to
say that I never referred to "the highest eco-
nomic feasibility" with respect to the pur-
chases of low sulphur-content fuel. What I
did say on that same occasion was that Hydro
used the lowest sulphur-content coal available
JUNE 3, 1968
3781
on a long term contract basis. The sulphur
content is as I have already described.
In addition to all other precautions Hydro
is taking to safeguard the quality of air
around its thermal plants, extensive air-quality
surveys are conducted in co-operation with
other organizations in the plant areas. A task
force of experts on a technical pollution com-
mittee brings its collective skill and knowledge
to bear on air pollution problems. In the light
of such control measures, I assert that Ontario
Hydro is endeavouring to lead tlie way in the
battle against air pollution. Hydro shall con-
tinue in its eflForts to be a good corporate
citizen, and neighbour, and continue to im-
prove upon the situation where its thermal
stations are concerned.
In keeping with the province's desire to
accelerate programmes to improve air quality,
and as an important research project, earlier
this year Stone and Webster, a firm of
engineering consultants, was retained by
Ontario Hydro to study the air quality control
operation of the Richard L. Heam plant on
the Toronto waterfront. Among the many
items being studied are: (1) the degree of
pollution caused by the consumption of diflFer-
ent types of fuels; (2) chimneys; (3) the
installation of additional precipitating equip-
ment; ( 4 ) the feasibihty of adopting processes
and devices for the removal of chemical
pollutants, and other problems. It is expected
the firm's report will be completed in the very
near future.
When the Heam plant was built 16 years
ago, neither the effectiveness of control equip-
ment nor the standards established for the
operation of thermal stations were developed
to the point that they are today, as I suggested
earlier. Hydro is continually upgrading
equipment at the Heam plant, and to date has
spent $10 million for air quality control at
this station.
The advent of the giant thermal station is
changing the pattern of power production in
Ontario. By 1970, the commission's total
thermal-electric capacity— both coal-burning
and nuclear— will be greater than its water-
power resources for the first time. And the
emergence of thermal-electric generation
creates yet another need for great quantities
of water in the production of electric energy
for the province's consumers. This need lies
in the area of cooling water for condensing
steam into water for reheat purposes.
Use of large quantities of water for cooling
purposes has raised the question of possible
pollution of lakes and rivers where the com-
mission's thermal stations are, or will be
located. In reply, let me first say that exhaus-
tive studies are carried out in advance in the
vicinity of all proposed sites, with the view to
obtaining the coldest water possible and
returning it to its source in such a manner
that it mixes in quickly. These studies deter-
mine the relative locations of the plant's in-
take and discharge channels.
Water used for cooling purposes is screened
as it passes through these stations, and if
necessary, chlorinated to maintain cleanliness
in the system. The result is that the water,
although slightly warmer, is actually of higher
quality when it is retumed to the source than
when it was extracted.
I might also point out that cooling water is
exactly what the name implies. It is used
for cooling purposes only and not for the
production of steam. Steam cycle water is
used over and over again, while cooling
water is used only once— in a straight-through
process. It simply does not qualify for the
description given, I think three times in this
House this session by the hon, member for
High Park, of being "superheated and de-
oxygenated." It is definitely not applicable!
Mr. Nixon: Is the member for High Park
wrong when he states that it is polluting
water?
Mr. Boyer: Oh, yes, he is quite wrong. I
reject completely the statements that he has
made.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment refers to inter-
government, interdepartmental relationships,
and I would like to speak for a few moments
on this with respect to these matters. As in
all matters of this nature, Ontario Hydro
works closely with the government depart-
ments concerned. In co-operation with the
fish and wildlife branch of The Department
of Lands and Forests, and the biology and
water quality surveys branches and the indus-
trial wastes division of the Ontario water
resources commission. Hydro is engaged in a
comprehensive programme of study of the
long-term eflFects which its thermal generating
stations have on the biology and marine life
of the surounding area. This programme is
of great asistance in the design of various
facets of water handling and condenser
systems at Hydro's themial plants— and in
other research work.
In closing I can asure you that Hydro's
engineers will take advantage of every
modem technological advance to control air
pollution. They will be supported by the
conmiissioners and by the government, and I
trust that all programmes now in hand or to
3782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be undertaken in the interests of clear air
will have the support of the electrical cus-
tomers of the province.
Thank you very much.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise and
support the motion of my hon. leader, and to
add to -what has already been stated by him.
The hon. leader of the Opposition has spoken
to this House about pollution in general and
I shall be addressing myself to the problem
of soimd, or noise, pollution in particular.
Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to
point out that pollution, especially water
pollution, is not something that has just been
sprung on this innocent government in the
last few years, or indeed in the last quarter
century. It is something that has been with
us for at least 150 years. To stress this I
would like to read hon. members a poem.
About 150 years ago, the poet Samuel Taylor
Coleridge wrote this poem as a special com-
ment of the day:
In Koln, a town of monks and bones
And pavements fanged with murderous
stones,
And rags and hags and hideous wenches,
I counted two and seventy stenches.
All well defined, and several stinks.
Ye nympths that reign o'er sewers and sinks,
The river Rhine it is well known
Doth wash your city of Cologne,
But tell me, nymphs, what pov/er divine
Shall henceforth wash the river Rhine?
Today I wish to restrict my remarks to an-
other form of pollution, not as deadly perhaps,
but nevertheless extremely harmful. I refer
to noise pollution. It has been estimated, Mr.
Speaker, that between 2 and 20 per cent of
the population are especially susceptible to
hearing loss from noise, although there is no
way to predict who falls into this susceptible
group. Dr. Keith Neeley, the head of the
sensory capability section of the defence
research establishment at Downsview, said
recently when speaking to a course in audi-
ology at the Toronto General hospital, that
one out of every ten Canadians has already
acquired some kind of hearing damage.
Very few people realize that their hearing
is being impaired or damaged by noise. Noise
destroys, first, hearing in the high frequency
range. Since this seldom affects the under-
standing of conversation, the loss is not
noticed by the person. It is only when the
continued exposure to noise begins to destroy
hearing in the lower frequency ranges and
the person has trouble understanding normal
conversations that he realizes something is
wrong.
Dr. Neeley points out that noise levels in
major cities frequently rise above 85 decibels,
which can damage hearing if you are exposed
to it for more than four hours per day. In
industrial plants, noise levels often exceed
100 decibels and exposure to noise levels
from 100 to 130 decibels can permanently
damage your hearing.
I might add, Mr, Speaker, that a noise
level of 130 decibels is about the intensity
of sound if you happen to be standing beside
an idling jet airliner.
How many thousands of workers in On-
tario have been deafened or partially deaf-
ened through their employment. Without
knowing that it was as a result of their
employment? We can only guess at the num-
ber. It is almost certain, however, that they
would be denied workmen's compensation if
they apphed.
All about us we have noise, and the strange
thing is that few seem to notice and still
fewer seem to care. There are recommenda-
tions which can be positively made to com-
bat this menace. Some of them are as
follows:
1. All factories should test the level of noise
exposure for employees around machines.
2. Persons required to work more than four
hours in a noise area of 85 to 100 decibels
should be required to wear some form of
ear plugs or ear muffs.
3. Persons required to work in noise areas
of 100 to 130 decibels should wear plugs or
muffs for any exposure.
4. From 130 to 150 decibels, we should
have workers in some form of an isolation
booth, which is soundproof.
5. Plants should be encouraged to pro-
mote sound conditioning to keep the decibel
level below 85. Sound absorbers such as
carpeting, drapes and acoustical tile will help,
but more important, steps must be taken to
regulate machinery manufacturing to that
sound so that it is deadened at its source.
6. Measures must be taken to provide
province-wide control of automobile and
motorbike and truck noise in an effort to
reduce this noise.
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that public
awareness to air and water pollution is in-
creasing. We must also be aware of the
pollution to land, and problems immediately
arise concerning the present situation with
respect to the "no-return" glass beverage
JUNE 3, 1968
3783
bottles. Roadsides and recreation areas are
being littered with these items. Without the
saving grace of a deposit, even the small
children at public parks whose very feet will
be cut by these broken bottles, have no in-
centive to collect and return them to stores
and refreshment booths in order to obtain
an ice cream bar or other treat from the
proceeds.
Unsightly and dangerous conditions are
being created. There are public values here
which may well overcome the inexpensive
use of these bottles. It may well be in the
public interest to discuss this whole problem
with manufacturers, distributors and mer-
chants to find the best solution to it. I under-
stand that the good roads association and
various municipal councils including, I might
add, that of the city of Kitchener, favour
development of legislation to control these
"no-return" disposable glass bottles.
Much has been said today to show the
growth of polluted areas in Ontario. By air,
by water, by noise and by land, we are all
fouling our society. The growth of the city
of Kitchener and of the whole of the area
known as the golden triangle, has brought
with it some serious problems of pollution.
In years past, all of our citizens were happy
to see factory smokestacks belching forth
because this showed a busy and prosperous
economy. Our points of view are now chang-
ing and we see that other balancing factors
exist which must lead us to control pollution
for the long-term benefit to our entire
environment.
The city of Kitchener has been actively
aware of the air pollution threat for some
time. Since 1962 a pollution recording device
has been operating to record the number of
micrograms of pollution per cubic metre of
air. Regrettably, it will not be until 1969
that we will receive a district air pollution
station.
Mr. Speaker, there appear to be no gen-
erally recognized standards in Canada of what
is an accepted pollution level. However,
there are several Ontario cities, notably
Windsor, Toronto and at times Oshawa and
Hamilton, which exceed dustfall levels that
are regarded as excessive by United States
public health authorities. There is an uncom-
fortable feeling among our populace that
the air and water are daily being polluted
by potentially lethal chemical wastes.
Ever since the planet was formed, nature
has polluted the atmosphere with dust and
the rivers witli pollen— the so-called natural
pollutants. However, nature has also devised
ways of cleansing these natural pollutants.
When man began treading the earth, a differ-
ent type of pollution developed. This simi-
larly was easily managed because the
population was small and there was no indus-
trial pollution of any consequence until about
100 years ago.
Pollutants now have overcome nature's
own ability to clean its own water, air and
soil. It some areas of the world crisis propor-
tions have already been reached. Air pollu-
tion represents monetary expense to every
citizen. The annual cost in the United States
alone is estimated to be $11 biUion, three
times the budget of this province for the
current year.
Air pollutants tarnish paint, disintegrate
nylon stockings, eat away historic buildings,
abrade, corrode, crack and weaken materials
of any description. Steel corrodes from two to
four times as fast in urban and industrialized
areas as in rural areas. Corrosion of stone
buildings and statues is greatly speeded by
the high concentration of sulphur fumes in
the air resulting from the burning of coal and
oil fuels.
We are gradually losing our fresh air,
streams, rivers and soil. Although economic
prosperity has importance in an industrialized
nation, it should not have the premium posi-
tion ahead of the citizens* health, the citi-
zens' water and the citizens' air.
Besides research to prevent the problem,
money is needed to aid in developing more
effective anti-pollution techniques. Newer
fuels can be used that produce far less pol-
lutants than the present fossil-type fuels.
Chimneys can be filtered so that particular
smoke is reduced. Open burning of waste
products should be eliminated. Automobile
engines and anti-exhaust devices can be made
much more effective.
In the United States this year, stringent
regulations will apply to all automobile
engines and their exhaust systems. The draft-
ing of impartial rules and the establishment
of sound standards by this government is
long overlue and, Mr. Speaker, in this im-
portant area this government has failed.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton
Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, we witnessed over the past few
years a growing concern over the pollution
of our waters, land and air in this province,
and this concern is certainly to be expected.
3784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
After all, these three natural resources are
vital to our health and wellbeing. They are
essential to life, whether it be animal, plant
or human. It is a fact that pollution of even
one of these three essential resources can be
a threat to our very existence. That is vi'hy
I am certain that the hon. members of this
House agree with any measure possible that
must be taken to safeguard these vital re-
sources.
We are a prosperous province, a province
that is experiencing tremendous growth and
development in every respect. However, with
this growth and with this development there
is an ever increasing amount of waste; waste
that must be disposed of, or it will destroy
our waters, pollute our lands, and make the
air unfit to breathe. This is no idle threat.
We have seen with our own eyes what this
waste can do to our water and air if it is
permitted.
However, I am sure, as undoubtedly the
hon. members of the Opposition are, that the
intention and purpose of this government is
to introduce legislation designed to keep
pollution at not only a safe level, but a
level that would be greatly reduced. There
is every indication from what I have found
in the very short time that I have had the
honour of being a member of this Legisla-
ture that great measures have been taken, and
new ones are being designed to bring this
about.
The government of this province has always
considered the matter of pollution to be a
m:itter of the highest priority, Mr. Speaker.
Pollution has been continuously under the
watchful eyes of our Department of Health.
And within the last 11 years it has become a
prime responsibility of the Ontario water
resources conrmiission.
These and other governmental departments
work in close co-operation towards tlie prime
objective of not only being able to control
pollution, but to bring about a reduction, and
these departments all work in close co-opera-
tion with the municipalities in the province
towards this particular goal.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I was interested
to find out that as long as 20 years ago.
The Department of Municipal Affairs got
together with The Department of Health to
estabhsh lot size standards for this province.
These standards have been reviewed on a
number of occasions, and revised when neces-
sary, so that they would be in step with the
times, so that they would help, among other
things, to avoid the pollution of land and
water where spetic tank systems are required.
There is a great deal of so-called inter-
departmental co-operation between the
departments on all general questions relating
to water and land pollution. And there are
numerous consultations to deal with soil
qualities, capacities of lakes and rivers to
absorb effluent control of lot sizes, new
methods of disposing of domestic waste, and
so on.
For example, when a municipality makes
application for approval of a subdivision, or
an official plan, TTie Department of Health,
the Ontario water resources commission, and
The Department of Municipal AfFairs must
carry on extensive and exhaustive investiga-
tions to conclude that among other things
there will be no problems of pollution— no
hazards to the health of the citizens of our
province.
This particular area of control is important
in the vacation lands of our province, as well
as to the more highly developed urban areas
of Ontario. Without stringent control on the
use of land and lot sizes, or without zoning
and subdivision control, many of our fine
cottage areas could very easily become
heavily polluted, and soon the fine crystal
clear lakes and streams could become murky,
with adverse effects on plant life and such
recreational pursuits as swimming, boating
and water skiing.
The Department of Municipal AflFairs does
not confine its responsibility to vacation areas
alone. I have been interested to know that it
provides advice to planning boards of muni-
cipal councils across our province on plan-
ning techniques and standards with consistent
concern for prevention of pollution.
I am told, Mr. Speaker, that this depart-
ment has exercised a great deal of firmness
where it has found that municipal develop-
ment, policies and regulatioas are inadequate
or even non-existent, and where danger of
pollution is evident. In some instances, it
has even gone as far as to impose partial
moratorium on development until policies and
regulations of the municipality concerned are
brought up to acceptable standards.
As I mentioned before, the burden of
pollution control lies heavily on the shoulders
of the municipalities as well. I, for example,
come from one of the great industrial cities
of North America where water and air pollu-
tion have always been of great concern.
One point on this subject comes to mind. In
a specific area near where I live, on Hamilton
JUNE 3, 1968
3785
mountain, we were faced with a serious
pollution situation. We had the dumping of
garbage in a large land-fill area which caused
pollution of a creek that spread polluted
waters across the east end of the mountain
and the city below. Measures had been taken,
and are being taken to remedy this situation
by the municipality, the city of Hamilton.
The provincial government, through The
Department of Municipal Affairs, puts great
stress on the fact that municipalities within
this province must provide sound regulations
on zoning which, among other things, would
help to control pollution, especially in areas
where water and sewers are not available.
To bolster the eflFect of its policy in this
respect, the department has adopted a policy
on urban development in rural areas which
is specifically designed to discourage scat-
tered haphazard urban development in rural
parts of this province.
While I am still on the subject of pollution
control, I think it is interesting to note that
every effort is being made by people of this
department to keep up with the new develop-
ments on pollution control. Its members take
active part on committees dealing with pollu-
tion, and the Deputy Minister of the depart-
ment is a member of the advisory committee
on pollution control.
This war on pollution has become so impor-
tant and so vital that every avenue is being
investigated. Every step is being taken in an
all out effort to overcome the threats and the
problems caused by pollutants.
• Sir, I think all the hon. members should
be heartened by the negotiations that are,
for example, underway at this very time with
a university in this province of Ontario for
the understanding of a study. This study is to
deal with the capacity of lakes and other
bodies of water to accommodate various uses
such as summer cottages, urban development,
boating, fishing and swimming without lower-
ing acceptable levels of water quality. The
study would also deal with wildlife protec-
tion, water safety and aesthetics.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that through
the continued perseverance of this govern-
ment, the pollution of our water, land and air
will not only be controlled, but shall in actual
fact be reduced. Our objective is to effect
a reduction, and that is what we shall do.
Therefore, I intend to vote against this pro-
posed amendment.
Mr. F. A. Burr ( Sandwich-Riverside ) : Mr.
Speaker, I spoke at considerable length on
March 12 on air pollution. This afternoon I
shall try to be brief and avoid repetition.
After the ERGO affair broke last October,
there was considerable pubHc indignation in
the Windsor area about the air pollution from
Ecorse-Zug Island complex, on the Michigan
side of the Detroit River. But all that hap-
pened from the direction of goverrmient was
a newspaper picture in the Windsor Star of
a representative of the international joint com-
mission examining a possible site for one of
five new sampling stations.
An accompanying article said:
The 20 Windsor area sampling stations
—there were already 15— will collect data
on local air pollution conditions for a two
year period, forming the basis for recom-
mendations on what can be done to improve
the situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if Macleans magazine
ever runs a contest for the most typically,
bureaucratic governmental announcement, I
intend to enter that one and win the first
prize. Just imagine, there have been 15 sta-
tions there for many years. They add five
more! Why? To spend two more years collect-
ing data. Why? To form a basis, just a basis,
mind you, for recommendations; not decisive
action, but cautious, poHte recommendations.
And about what? About what can be done—
not what must be done or should be done or
shall be done, but just what can be done to
improve this situation; not to eliminate it, just
to improve it.
It leads one to believe, Mr. Speaker, that
the international joint commission intends to
perpetuate itself. A commission on a matter
of this urgency should be set up for a limited
time and paid well if it succeeds and paid
poorly and dismissed if it does not. Just like
many employees in the work-a-day world.
The international joint commission should
produce results instead of reports. It should
clear up the air or clear out and let someone
else do the job.
What are these sampling stations sampling?
It is my understanding that the number one
pollutant, sulphur dioxide, is being measured.
But are they measuring the fluorides which
are rated by various experts as the second or
third worst pollutants? As far as I can dis-
cover they are not. I should be glad to have
the Minister correct me if they are measuring
the fluoride emissions that are drifting over
Windsor, LaSalle, River Canard and the rest
of Essex county. There is absolutely no doubt
that large amounts of fluoride, in both solid
and gaseous form are being thrown into the
3786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
air by the open hearth furnaces and the steel
mills of Zug Island. The question is how
much, and how dangerous to our health?
A few years ago a mysterious pitting of car
windshields occurred in Windsor, suggesting
an unusually strong concentration of hydro-
gen fluoride in the air. When between nine
and 17 persons were found to be suffering
from fluorosis because of air pollution in the
Port Maitland area it should have become a
matter of great concern to the provincial
government to measure fluoride emissions
from Zug Island, to persuade our federal
government to set national acceptable safe
standards for emissions, and to pass the neces-
sary reciprocal legislation with the United
States that would enable, and in fact obligate,
Washington to crack down on Zug Island for
the benefit of the people of Essex county in
particular and for the benefit of Canadians
in general.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, a few weeks ago my family and I
saw a movie called "The Bible" in our local
theatre. In Genesis, chapter 3, verse 6, it
says:
Where in the Garden of Eden when Eve
and Adam had eaten the fruit from the
tree of knowledge and of good and evil,
the core was dropped to the ground, rolled
into the river, so began the pollution of
our waters.
The province of Ontario is surrounded by
immense natural wealth— the largest supply of
fresh water possessed by mankind. Almost
10 per cent of the population of the United
States lives in counties bordering the Great
Lakes. Almost 35 per cent of the total popu-
lation of Canada lives in Ontario and its Great
Lakes regions. Many of them take their
drinking water from the lakes. Industries use
enormous amounts of the water and others
find their livelihood in recreation.
In Ontario, with all this glorious wealth,
we live in a threatened society. The pollu-
tion of our water and air that we drink and
brea'he is, I believe more a threat to our
health and welfare than the atomic bomb. Mr.
Speaker, this problem was recognized some
59 years ago under The Boundary Water
Treaty Act of 1909, which prohibits pollution
in Canada or the United States to the injury
of health or property.
The international joint commission com-
pleted its three-year study report on March
8, 1961, titled "the pollution of boundary
waters." For the purpose of the report, it
was deemed advisable and sufficient to con-
fine these studies to the St. Clair, Detroit and
Niagara Rivers and the Great Lakes. In
certain portions of the Great Lakes and in all
the connecting waterways serious pollution
was shown to exist. The St. Clair River was
included in the studies as a case of less
serious pollution. Lake St. Clair was found
to be moderately polluted by shipping.
The waters of Rainy Lake showed a minor
but quite unexpected pollution. The river
itself showed the effects of pollution from
Fort Frances and International Falls. This
pollution remains practically constant through-
out the length of the river. Water of the
Lake of the Woods and Lake Superior showed
extensive pollution in Thunder Bay region
especially in the areas of Port Arthur and
Fort William.
The Detroit River was polluted with a coli-
form count ranging from 2,000 to 65,000. The
western end of Lake Erie was found to be
so noticeably affected by pollution entering
by the Detroit River as to be unsafe for use
on steamers. The waters of the Niagara
River were studied extensively, with a mean
seasonal average of coliform count of 4,250.
The pollution of the Niagara River was found
to extend into Lake Ontario ten to 16 miles
from the river's mouth.
The lower end of Lake Ontario was found
to be almost sterile before the season of navi-
gation. The Kingston waterfront was found
seriously polluted. Minor and intermittent
pollution was observed about the Thousand
Islands, rendering the waters unsafe for local
domestic consumption at these points. Pollu-
tion by steamboats was shown to be a distinct
source of pollution and they must be looked
upon as moving sewer outlets travelling oiir
waterways.
So much for the warnings of the past but
what of today and of tomorrow? Today, our
waterways are overcharged with offal, pesti-
cides, acid mine drainage, wood fibres, deter-
gent wastes and ravaging chemicals which
are not only destructive in themselves but
which, combined in water, form new chemi-
cals whose effect on human beings is even
unknown.
Lake Erie is already well on the way
towards becoming a septic tank of soiled
water, incapable of supporting any marine
life. This is not too loathsome to life for
those that are not too loathsome to live
in sludge. Lake Erie is charged with un-
treated human and industrial wastes. Feed-
ing an overgrowth of algae with added
nutrients in the water, speeds aging. The
United States federal water pollution experts
JUNE 3, 1968
3787
issued a report in 1965 describing Lake Erie
as almost a dead body of water. In Lake
Erie, sporting fish like blue pike, whitefish
and sturgeon have disappeard, ruining the
lake for commercial fish. Studies have shown
that sludge worms are a sure indicator of
pollution and have multiplied enormously.
In their latest report in 1968, Lake Michi-
gan is now headed toward the same fate as
Lake Erie. Pollution is aging it fast. Ontario
spends thousands and thousands of dollars
advertising our vacation land for tourists, and
yet the pollution in Lake Erie and that of
the many other lakes and rivers causes sig-
nificant damage to recreation. Some 25 years
ago, swimming in Lake Erie, there was no
algae, but today it can be found almost any
place covering some 100 feet of the water
along the shore, four to 18 inches deep.
Many beaches along the entire shoreline on
the Canadian side and American side are
being closed down by local healtli authorities
—in particular, INCO Beach at Port Colborne.
It is becoming increasingly diEBcult to
ignore the quality of water around us. Since
1945, there have been 30 epidemics affecting
six to 20,000 persons attributed in differ-
ent parts of the world to water-borne infec-
tious hepatitis. Yes, in the province of Ontario
in 1966 there were some 2,311 cases, more
than the combined total of six other prov-
inces in Canada. Ontario had 24 cases of
typhoid fever. Dr. W. L. Mellmann at Michi-
gan State University discovered heavy con-
centrations of streptococcus bacteria in
chlorinated swimming pools. Bacteria re-
mained alive in the water long enough to be
picked up by humans.
A principal source of our life is water,
yet it proves, in many cases, to be a source
of disease. Is our water safe for persons who
come in contact with it? What has this gov-
ernment in Ontario accomplished to combat
pollution? The Ontario government has been
allowed to open our Great Lakes to 90 per
cent of the world's commercial vessels, with
little control of their wastes being dumped
into our waterways. There was the decision
to postpone enforcement of sewage discharge
controls on pleasure boat owners. We in On-
tario were warned of increasing pollution
from vessels and small craft in the report of
the international joint commission in 1916.
For 25 years, the Tory government has
shown no leadership. It has lobbied, and in
fact endangered the health and welfare of the
citizens. Any attempt to clean up the source
of the outrageous water and air pollution is
declared by some elected officials, business-
men, and even in cases that jeopardize the
public health, to be an attempt to undercut
the regions' prosperity. The offending indus-
tries might move away, and jobs would be
lost. This is where the government action
is needed. Federal and provincial govern-
ments are responsible for the control and
uniformity of laws across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, another study of the sources
of pollution along Ontario shorelines— in
Lakes Erie and Ontario, in the St. Clair,
Detroit and St. Mary's Rivers— was imple-
mented in 1966 by the Ontario water re-
sources commission dealing with the same
problem that existed in 1960 study reports.
It will this time state, as it has in the past,
that our American neighbours are far more
responsible than we for the problem of pollu-
tion in our Great Lakes waters. The study by
the Ontario water resources commission of the
Niagara River, the Niagara peninsula and
the Welland River, in 1964 and 1965, from
just above the city of Welland some two miles
to Port Robinson downstream, found the
water to be polluted to such a degree that it
was rendered undesirable for industrial water
supply purposes, and unfit for recreational use.
Excessive bacterial contamination of Lions*
Creek in Welland county also, the Tlwelve
Mile Creek in St. Catharines and Lincoln
county showed a high coliform count.
Mr. Speaker, to delay sewage construction
adds finally to its costs. It is time now in
Ontario to recognize that pollution control is
a necessary part of running the business of
this government. Pollution is a drain on
everyone's pocket book. There are three
municipalities in Welland South that are
going to join in the near future to spend
large amounts of money to improve their
quality of water. Ontario is the richest prov-
ince but its municipalities are poverty ridden
and hampered in their quest of clear, safe
water, by the lack of money.
Many sewage treatment plants do not meet
the minimum requirements set by the On-
tario water resources commission for the re-
moval of suspended solids and coliforms
bacteria in their effluence. The Ontario gov-
ernment in four months has committed 40
per cent of the $10 million made available
for interest free industrial development of
slow growth areas of the province. If this
government would apply this same scheme to
every municipality in Ontario, there would
be no slow-growth areas in this province. We
in Ontario would estabhsh guaranteed income
3788
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for thousands of people for the next ten or
15 years.
In a time of critical housing crisis in On-
tario, with a programme for capital sewage
systems and with further aid from the federal
government, there would be little delay for
approval of existing subdivisions in our
municipalities. Instead, you would see many
new cities and towns rise in Ontario with
new industries following this trend. For they
require the same services as housing. We
then would have every drop of waste water
returning to our lakes adequately treated.
The Tory government has failed miserably
to abate water pollution, and it has failed
to carry out its responsibilities. Caught in
government bureaucracy, it goes on and on
for years, with study after study. The govern-
ment has led its people down the garden
pathway to a false economy. I wholeheart-
edly concur and support the motion put
forth by the leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Mr. Simionett: Previous speakers have
referred to specific details concerning the
government's very considerable programme
of pollution control measures and I do not
intend to be repetitious. I would like, how-
ever, to take a moment to expand on the
work and success of the advisory committee
on pollution control. This committee, chaired
by my Deputy Minister, and including the
Deputy Ministers of the various departments
involved in pollution abatement, was estab-
lished in 1966, and has subsequently set up
working subcommittees at the branch head
level to deal with the technical aspects of
the various phases of the overall problem.
The Deputy Ministers' committee meets
monthly and the subcommittees meet as
technical progress warrants.
I would like to list the subcommittees and
describe the relationship of the various
departments represented on them, so that hon,
members may have a better understanding
of the dimensions of this complex, modern
problem.
1. Air pollution subcommittee: Department
of Health: The main effects of air pollution
on the health of people and the administra-
tion of The Air Pollution Control Act.
Department of Agriculture and Food: Tlie
effect of air pollution on food production,
both plant and animal.
Department of Lands and Forests: The
effect of air pollution on tree growth.
Department of Transport: Vehicle exhaust
emissions.
Department of Mines: Smelter and refinery
emissions.
Department of Trade and Development:
Regarding industrial plant location.
Department of Municipal Affairs: From the
standpoint of community planning.
My own department: From the standpoint
of the safe use of fuels and the approving
of fuel burning equipment.
2. Industrial wastes subcommittee: OWRC:
Industrial water pollution and the adminis-
tration of The Ontario Water Resources
Commission Act.
Department of Agriculture and Food:
Needs of clean water for food production
and problems of waste disposal from feed
lots and poultry operations.
Department of Health: Regarding occupa-
tional health.
Department of Mines: Concerning disposal
of mine wastes.
Department of Lands and Forests and my
own department: Regarding biological prob-
lems of fish and game in the field of conserva-
tion.
3. Radioactivity subcommittee: Department
of Health: Ensuring that radiation levels do
not become a hazard to human health.
OWRC: Working closely with The Depart-
ment of Health in a monitoring programme.
Department of Lands and Forests and my
own department : Relating to radiation hazards
to fish and wildlife from the point of view of
conservation.
Department of Mines and my own depart-
ment: Concerning the desirability of safely
maintaining uranium production as a source
of energy to supply an expanding world mar-
ket.
4. Pesticides subcommittee: Department
of Agriculture and Food: Relating to the
continuing increases in food production made
possible by the judicious use of pesticides and
lierbicides.
Department of Health and OWRC: From
the effect on human health.
Department of Highways and Ontario
Hydro: As two large users.
Department of Lands and Forests and my
own department: As a large user and also
resulting from fish and wildlife conservation
problems.
5. Refuse disposal subcommittee: Depart-
ment of Health: Primary administrative
responsibility and human healtli aspects.
JUNE 3, 1968
3789
Department of Trade and Development: In
relation to locating certain types of industries.
Department of Lands and Forests: Where
no municipal organization exists.
Department of Municipal Affairs: In assist-
ing organized municipalities.
OWRC and my own department: To pro-
tect river valleys and watercourses from
refuse contamination.
6. Mine tailings disposal subcommittee:
While similar in nature to the radioactivity
problem, a separate subcommittee is examin-
ing some non-radioactive tailings problems in
northern Ontario.
As you see, these six subcommittees encom-
pass a range of technical knowledge which is
beyond the ability of any one person to fully
comprehend, but by establishing subcommit-
tees which report to a main committee which,
in turn, is able to advise the government, I
think we have succeeded in providing the
machinery to deal with this complex problem.
One of the difficulties, of course, in a task
of this kind, is to make it possible for the
average citizen of this province to keep
abreast of developments and progress, when
these tend to be of a highly technical nature.
To try to bridge this gap, the government
sponsored a conference last December in
Toronto. This conference was not intended to
glorify the government but to give a progress
report on pollution control programmes. Our
instructions to the advisory committee, which
arranged the conference, were to admit freely
any lack of progress in particular programmes
where such had been the case, as well as
describing progress made in other pro-
grammes.
I believe the news media recognized an
honest attempt to be objective in reporting
our progress and consequently reported the
conference as a public service and helped
interpret technical material for their readers
and listeners.
In the light of the motion now under
debate, it is interesting to recall that while
members of this House representing the two
other parties attended the conference, mem-
bers representing the Liberal Party were
conspicuous by their absence. It would seem
that their motto is, "My mind is made up,
do not confuse me with facts." I have a few
spare copies of tlie conference proceedings
which I would be glad to give to any member
of this House in the hope that they will find
them of interest.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the leader of
the Opposition and the mover of this motion,
I think that perhaps he is in agreement that
we in the Ontario government, and especially
Ontario water resources commission, are
doing a fairly god job as far as water pollu-
tion is concerned. His great concern was the
Great Lakes, and I think that is the govern-
ment's great concern.
I might say that OWRC, the commission
and the Ontario government have been work-
ing very closely with the international joint
commission. We have been working very
closely with the federal government when we
can find the federal government, and that has
been a httle difficult of late. As you know,
some time ago they called a national conven-
tion and it was very hard to find the respons-
ible Ministers in Ottawa when that was going
on. Immediately after that, they called an
election and it is very difficult now to deal
with them. But I would say this, that we are
vviUing and we will be dealing with them on
these problems shortly after June 25, when
a new government is elected, because we
have many problems that are of some con-
cern to us and I am sure we want to discuss
them further.
I think it is about time that all parties
cease to deal with pollution as a political foot-
ball, and this is what you are doing and this
is what has been going on for some time. If
you have a problem— and many of you have
problems in your own ridings-I cannot see
why you cannot deal with Ontario water re-
sources commission, I am talking about water
pollution. If you are dealing with some of
the other pollutants, deal with the respon-
sible people and deal with them immediately.
Let us work together and try to clean up
some of the things that are a problem not
only to this government but to everyone in
the province of Ontario.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Speaker, it has been said
many times that we live in a very exciting
period of human history. We will make more
technological progress in the next 20 years
than man has made since the beginning of
history. This progress will be translated into
a better standard of living and greater oppor-
tunities for human leisure, but as we gain
extended periods of leisure, we turn man-
kind into a polluted wasteland. Is technol-
ogy and man's abuse of our great natural
resources going to destroy the kind of envir-
onment that is necessary for the creative
mind of man? How long can we go on neglect-
ing our environment, polluting our streams
and lakes, polluting our atmosphere, with a
general neglect of the great resources of this
3790
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
country that have been placed at our dis-
posal and in our custody?
There has been some enlightenment and a
measure of awareness to the awesome prob-
lem of pollution, but there is still too much
inertia and indifference, and the forces that
continue to perpetuate the status quo are
still at work in our provinces. We need a
massive mobilization of the resources of this
province in terms of its citizens and its
finances to begin to clean up the water, the
atmosphere, and the land, so that we create
a living environment worthy of man. If the
people of this great Canada of ours fail in
this endeavour, then we will have destroyed
our great natural heritage and the future
generations will never have the opportunity
to recapture the natural living environment
that is ours today and theirs tomorrow.
We somehow become addicted to slick
slogans as some people have become addicted
to drugs, such as "the province of oppor-
tunity" and "the just society." Too often we
accept pious platitudes as a substitute for
dealing with basic problems. What we need
to do is to find common answers to a com-
mon problem. Slogans can never be the
answer. There is no lack of know-how for
the capability to find solutions to the prob-
lem of pollution. What we lack is the will
to commit ourselves and our resources to the
total dimension of the problem that obviously
confronts us. It is up to this government to
generate the collective will of an aroused
people as a motivating force to get on with
the job.
I want to quote from a couple of para-
graphs in a magazine. The Canadian Business-
man. This magazine is not noted for being
in the vanguard of the struggle to advance
the new frontiers of social betterment, and
it goes on to say:
The Great Lakes are threatened by pollu-
tion. In places blue waters are becoming
blackish. Water deterioration is taking
place so rapidly in certain areas that some
states in the United States face the pros-
pect of paying $1 billion each to clean up
the sludgy waters lapping at their shores.
United States public health service ofiScials
have traced half of all Great Lakes' pollu-
tion to industry, with the other half to
municipal waste.
I suspect the same thing is applicable in Can-
ada. How did such a situation develop? Pol-
lution of swimming beaches, loss of fish life,
and general contamination of water, are basi-
cally a direct result of the growing concen-
tration of people and industry. Many indus-
tries continue to channel waste into the lakes.
People contribute debris, sediment, logs,
lumber, automobile tires, and even automo-
biles.
We have assumed incorrectly that we could
go on using the Great Lakes indefinitely as a
means of disposing of waste, but now we
have exceeded the capacity of some lakes
and we are in trouble, warns a Great Lakes
authority— and it was the leader of the Oppo-
sition who pointed this out— Mr. Langford,
former director of the Toronto Great Lakes
institute, said that. No matter how big, how
deep and blue, lakes can be killed by pollu-
tion. In contrast to polluted rivers, which
can be flushed clean, a lake damaged by
pollution may never be reclaimed. Nature
makes a gallant effort to absorb the filth, but
natural processes cannot restore purity to the
billions of gallons of sewage and chemicals
surging from the expanding cities and boom-
ing industries.
The problem is at its worst in Lake Erie,
the shallowest of the Great Lakes. The 2,600-
square-mile area of its central basin is practi-
cally devoid of oxygen. All desirable fish and
aquatic life have disappeared. The United
States public health service survey conducted
last summer showed an 800-mile algal bloom
in the western basin and dense surface gum
two feet thick. For years this lake has been
a cesspool of Detroit, Windsor, Tioledo, Cleve-
land and dozens of other cities on its banks,
or along its tributaries. It can absorb no more
and still remain what it was— a beautiful
blue, fresh-water lake, a summer resort site,
a source of millions of pounds of fish.
Lake Michigan is next. Because this lake
has so very little outflow, experts fear pollu-
tion over a period of years may make this lake
brackish. Today the southern tip of the lake is
so badly polluted with sewage, oil, chemicals
and iron slag that scientists doubt it can be
reclaimed. Scientists flying over Lake
Superior, the deepest and clearest of all Great
Lakes have been surprised to find early but
substantial signs of pollution.
As the water resource for the entire indus-
trial, agricultural midwest, these lakes are of
increasing value to the economy of both
Canada and the United States. This region
constitutes one of the fastest-growing indus-
trial complexes on the continent due to its
transportation, power and fresh water re-
sources. But the point that I really want to
JUNE 3, 1968
3791
make, Mr. Speaker, is the last paragraph
where it points out:
If the tragedy of Lake Erie is repeated
in the other Great Lakes, as it may well
be, the great industrial cities of Canada
and America would be the victims of the
greatest natural resources disaster in mod-
em times.
Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic
Party have advocated that each child should
have the kind of educational opportunity that
would give the student adequate education
to meet the complexities of today's society.
We have called for greater security and dig-
nity for the older citizens of this province
when they are too old to work, yet too young
to die. We have advanced the proposal for
equal rights for every citizen, so that all may
share in the abundance created by techno-
logical and scientific progress, and equal citi-
zenship without discrimination of race, creed
or colour. Our party has said many times
every person who is able and willing to work
must have access to a rewarding job.
When we gain all of these desirable objec-
tives, it will have meant very little if we
continue to put more filth, dirt and poisonous
stench into the atmosphere. We in Ontario
put thousands of tons of aerial garbage into
the air each year, and in my own city of
Oshawa we have a problem of industrial
waste to which neither the municipality nor
this province has found a solution. The citi-
zens of Oshawa are consistently confronted
with fall-out from coal and the burning of
cheap oil by industry.
Mr. Speaker, we must create a wholesome
environment, which means greater concentra-
tion on the conservation of resources, the
cleaning up of the rivers and streams, and
our lakes is not only a matter of highest
priority but also one of great national
urgency, because the day and the hour is
much later than we realize. What is needed
is strong legislation and stringent enforce-
ment.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me, that one of the
fundamental problems, if not the fundamental
problem, about pollution of all sorts— and
perhaps I might restrict my remarks to air
pollution only— is how much pollution would
it pay society to eliminate. And to handle
such a question— such a basic question in
strict economic terms— and other questions
that arise in connection with this type of
social problem, economists have developed a
technique of what might be called cost-
benefit analysis.
This technique attempts to calculate the
cost and benefits associated with difFerent
government decisions, in order to pick up the
one which is the most desirable. Ideally, I
suppose, we would like to know the cost and
benefits associated with the elimination of
each unit of pollution— if you could imagine
a unit of pollution. In this context, I think it
is important to note that there is a general
failure to understand that it is not relevant,
in a discussion of the economic cost and
benefits of air pollution, to compare the
damage from pollution to the amount spent
on its cure. What is relevant, as one
economist has stated, "are the additional
benefits and the additional costs from reduc-
ing each unit of pollution." In the jargon of
economics, the relevant analysis is what is
called "marginal analysis". Just because the
damage from pollution is, say, $5 million a
year in a particular province of Canada, for
example, and society is spending only $3
million on reducing pollution, this does not
mean that more should, or should not, be
spent. A government would be justified in
spending more, for example, if another million
dollars spent to combat air pollution, reduced
the cost to our society of air pollution by $2
million; a rate of return of 100 per cent.
Well, it is fair to state then that we would
be able to spend money on controlling pollu-
tion as long as the drop in pollution damages
—which is the social benefit— exceeded the
cost of obtaining the drop in pollution.
Now, the real problem, as many Ministers
know, is that it is very difficult to obtain this
type of precise information. Indeed, we may
be able only to obtain data on one decision
about air pollution. For example, our scarce
information may limit us to the decision of
whether nothing should be done about pollu-
tion or whether it should be eliminated
entirely. Such a limited cost-benefit analysis
might run along the following types of lines—
and this is a standard technique, I believe,
being used in the United States in this par-
ticular way, as explained in an article that
appeared in Life magazine about nine months
ago. It gives an idea of the type of approach
that could be taken. For example, one must
measure, or try to measure, however im-
precisely, the yearly damage from pollutants-
say air pollution. We might apply this to
Ontario. We would cost this out— and
economists can do this— by talking about the
following types of pollutants or the damage
a particular pollutant might have.
379^
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
For example, there is the health damage
such as cancer and respiratory diseases. There
are the cleaning costs for laundry, rugs and
drapes and facial cleaning of buildings. There
is the increase in corrosion of metals, result-
ing from air pollution and, of course, anyone
in Toronto who lives next to a factory and
has a frame house will know their increased
costs of painting their house. Well, suppose
we trv' to estimate these yearly costs, these
damages from air polhition in a particular
area, and we cost it out, which can be done
roughly. We might come to a figure of $150
million over a given period of time for a
given geographical area. Then if we divide
that by the number of people in the area,
for example, two million people, we find that
the total annual cost of air pollution in a
particular area, in a particular province or
even, indeed, in a particular country, might
come to $75 per person.
Then we would examine the sources of
pollutants. Where does this pollutant come
from? And here again, the economist's tech-
nique, plus engineers and so forth, can arrive
at estimates which give you some idea of the
sources of the pollutant. For example, we
might find that municipal incinerators account
for 20 per cent of the $150 million worth of
damage from pollutants. You might find an-
other 40 per cent of the damage comes from
pollution caused by automobiles and other
types of vehicular traffic. We might find that
10 per cent comes from manufacturing plants,
and another 10 per cent from hydro-electric
plants and so forth. Well, this can be done
roughly and then, once you get those two sets
of figures, you can arrive at a yearly pollution
damage by source. That is to say, you can
say that municipal incinerators in the given
locality, at a given time, over a given time
period, account for, say, $30 million of the
total damage of $150 million. Automobiles
might account for $30 million, manufacturing
another $15 million, hydro-electric plants $15
million and so forth. Break it down and you
find out what the various sources are which
contribute to the various types of pollution
damage. Then you have to get into the area
of how much it would cost to reduce the
pollution from each of the sources and again,
there are techniques. Indeed, there needs to
be done more research in this area, but you
might find, for example, that the cost of
reducing pollution from municipal incinera-
tors, automobiles, manufacturing plants,
hydro-electric plants, apartment incinerators,
and so on, would come to something less than
$150 million. These would have to be costed,
again, on an annual basis.
Well, to make a long story short, you find
out what the benefits are of eliminating pollu-
tion; you find out how much it will cost to
eliminate the pollution; then you ask, where
do you stand after that? And in this par-
ticular example, you find the annual cost
might be $150 million. You might find the
cost of damage to society is $150 million in
one year, and that the cost of eliminating it,
entirely, might only be $86 million. Tliat
means that the net benefit is plus, that there
is a net benefit.
Well, the point is \ cry simple. Studies have
been done and I know they are being done in
this government. I think the real question is
the urgency of these studies, the need to get
as much precise data as possible to make a
decision. I think that in Ontario there would
be a net benefit by the elimination of pollu-
tion. I think we can probably convince the
public that this will be a worthwhile invest-
ment because there would be a rate of return
on this. But I think we can only go to the
public, to the taxpayers of this province, if
we do come up with this type of study,
for we can then show them that they will
not have to paint their houses as much if they
get rid of air pollution. They will not have
as high a laundry bill if we do away with
air pollution. They will not have their car
repainted quite as often if we do away with
air pollution. If we sell anti-pollution costs,
if we sell to the people of the province the
fact that they will be benefiting, both in
terms of their health and in terms of material
goods in our acquisitive society, then I think
we can get this support for tax dollars, in
this area.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude
my remarks and say that I hope the govern-
ment studies in this area, particularly the
health studies, will be done quickly, and
enough resources will go into research so that
we can get the facts and the statistics to con-
\ ince the people of this province that it is less
expensi\'e to do away with air pollution and
water polhition than it is to have air pollu-
tion and water pollution.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I represent a community where
clean air and clean water is something which
can be expected, but we do want to keep it
that way. My concern was particularly
aroused a week or so ago when I heard the
chairman of the Otonabee River conservation
authority discussing the prospects for the
future of this area. As you are aware, Mr.
Speaker, we are moving towards a leisure
society. Expectations are that there will be
JUNE 3, 1968
3793
seven to eight times as many people cominjj
into this area within the next ten or 15 or
20 years.
In that sense tlie leisure society represents
a very real threat to the people even of
what could be termed "rural" or "tourist"
Ontario. I want to deal with this problem,
ptn-haps in a sense of what it tells— what is
reveals to us about ourselves as a people—
and also about the process in Canada.
There certainly has been no dearth of
warning. Brock Chishohn put it this way: "If
pollution is not checked, every lake and
stream in Canada will be contaminated
beyond hope." In a recent Royal Bank of
Canada letter, it was stated, and I quote:
After 5,000 years of solving mistakes by
fleeing from tliem, that solution is no
longer possible because there is no place
to go. It seems evident that man is ap-
proaching a crisis which unless adequately
prepared for, could bring disaster within
the lifetimes of the people already bom.
As the previous hon. member pointed out,
there is a cost, a very real cost, and he tried
to indicate how the economist would deal
with this particular kind of a problem on a
cost-benefit analysis. However, I would sug-
gest that this analysis really does not go
quite far enough, because we could reach
the point where we would have to move
entire cities, and certainly entire industries.
The cost at this point in Canadian histor>'
would be minimal, and I suggest to you that
if you regard die political process as one
which is not simply ambulance service, then
this is the time to act. I suggest to you that
even if the cost analysis basis which has
been described is not sufficient reason to act,
the obvious demand of irrationality in our
whole political process— that we must do cer-
tain things or we have catastrophe, and there-
fore we do them. Surely we can believe there
is such a thing as foresight in politics, which
leads us to do those things which must be
done. The people of Canada are aroused;
that is quite obvious. They recognize the
priority of this matter.
The great problem, of course, tliat this
government faces, and I think it is one which
is quite obvious, is the problem of money.
And here again is anotlier problem where
we must stand and wait until this govern-
ment has somehow sorted their chaotic mess
of taxation which we have in this province;
until then it means that municipalities cannot
move forward.
It means that the province itself must hold
back on certain projects because the money
simply is not available. So I would hope that
once this taxation problem is at least re-
vealed by the committee which is soon going
to be at work, some of these things which
are of first priority will be looked after, and
I suggest this is of sufficient priority that
this government and this Legislature will be
willing to see a certain levelling out in terms
of the rising living standards in this province
in order to deal with something which is so
important to ourselves and those who are
c( ming after us. I think it is just that im-
portant. Of course, that cannot be done
until there is a just taxation system, as well
as an effective taxation system.
We have not given much emphasis to the
whole problem of water and air pollution
in the past; perhaps it is because we have
had so much emphasis on Canada being a
country in which there is no end to our na-
tural resources. Perhaps it is also because we
have tended to look at ourselves as a rural
population in spite of the fact that we are
now down to some 12 per cent of our i)opu-
lation on the farm as compared to over 80
per cent of our population in the cities. And
therefore this problem has not come before
us in the same impact as it has in many parts
of the United States.
I was rather interested to find that even
young people are concerned about this.
I had the opportunity of visiting Thomas A.
Stewart secondary school in Peterborough last
week, and a group of young people came up
to me and brought a petition which was
signed by all the 30-odd members of that
class, asking that this government pass legis-
lation to end the use of non^biodegradable
detergents; that is, forcing detergents to be
made out of processes which can be diluted
into the water system which does not create
all the kinds of foam and the problems which
we had described to us on several occasions
this afternoon.
That class knows as well as this Legisla-
ture knows that phosphorous salts that are
being poured into oiu- water system from
this source is a small aspect. Raw sewage
puts more into it, and certainly fertilizers
probably put more into our water system than
that small source, but this would be a begin-
ning—at least these young people felt that
this would be a beginning.
They as well as we have read what the
conservation council of Ontario has said:
There are few watercourses in the settled
parts of Ontario that do not contain some
3794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
pollution. Many appear to be grossly and
dangerously polluted.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are going
through what can only be called a dance of
the mandarins. We are going through a
meaningless process during which we will
speak in favour and the government will
defend its record, and make perhaps a few
comments on the possibility of some improve-
ment, at least in minor areas. I suggest to
you that this is a dance of the mandarins
because all of us know this is a serious
problem, all of us are concerned about this
as a serious problem. And perhaps some day,
we will become sufficiently conscious of the
realities of our political process.
I am not going to get into a discussion
with the member for Sudbury on this matter,
but the realities of the parliamentary approach
are such that we have to recognize that there
are some matters which should become before
this House, and on which all of us can
speak positively; in which there is absolutely
no concern as to the survival of a govern-
ment, and where we can at least pass a reso-
lution unanimously in favour of something
which is so obviously needed, so obviously
important as what we are doing here today.
We in the New Democratic Party will vote
for this amendment. We will vote for it on
the 50th anniversary of a resolution passed
by the international joint commission on a
first report on a study of boundary waters
pollution. In that report, sir, it was sug-
gested that the international joint commission
should itself be given the opportunity and
the right to make rules and regulations,
and the power to appoint the personnel
to deal with the problem of pollution. Fifty
years later, we are no closer to some par-
ticular source of authority to deal effectively
with this kind of water pollution.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak
on one further note. I would like to say this.
This is another of these problems which seems
to be divided between international authorities,
by means of the international joint commission,
the federal, provincial and municipal. I
think that I mentioned in the beginning,
that I think that a matter such as this
does tell us something about the political
process in which we find ourselves, as well as
about ourselves and our priorities. It is like
housing and agricultural problems, and these
seem to be the problems that we cannot solve
effectively in this country. I would suggest
to you, sir, that in the next decade, we had
jolly well better find ways of solving these
kinds of problems, and a good place to start
would be on a problem such as water pollu-
tion. There is not much time left.
Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): We held
a public meeting in Port Credit in January,
with some 60 people present, to discuss this
problem of pollution. This discussion centred
around the Lakeview generating plant. This
plant attracts attention because of the promi-
nent smoke stack. TJiere are emissions of
smoke and steam which are subject to adverse
comments which in a good many cases are
uniformed and overly critical. Mr. D. P. Cliff,
the vice chairman of Ontario Hydro said
recently the following, and I will be brief in
the interest of time, Mr. Speaker:
We do not deny that our coal-burning
plants contribute in some degree to air
pollution. But if the degree is measured
against the care and expense of which
the commission goes to abate such pollu-
tion, then I suggest that Hydro is to be
more applauded than reproached.
He goes on to speak of the capital contribu-
tion and so on. Well, I would like to again
to refer to our county. Peel, where there has
been a pollution control officer for some
three or four years. It was one of four muni-
cipalities in Ontario which have had a con-
trol staff, and this now has been taken under
provincial jurisdiction because of the new
Pollution Control Act. Also this month there
is going to be another office opened in Oak-
ville, and they are going to work jointly.
The Ontario provincial Budget has increased
about threefold in this fiscal year. I should
say that industries in our area— four plants
that I can think of, Texaco, British American
Oil Company, St. Lawrence Cement, and
Domtar have spent millions of dollars to suc-
cessfully reduce the pollutants. We are not
denying that there are some plants in viola-
tion; there are. But these, in accordance with
the new Act, have been informed of their
violation, and they must come within the
regulation.
I wanted to touch for a moment on the
role of the federal government, which has a
responsibility, of course. In 1966, the govern-
ment of Canada had no air pollution control
legislation except for provisions in The Can-
ada Shipping Act regulating marine traffic in
marine waters within one mile of the shore,
and orders by the board of transport com-
missioners controlling smoke from railways.
This was in 1966. I could say to the House
that the status today is no different, two years
JUNE 3, 1968
3795
later. A couple of members spoke of the con-
tribution of aircraft toward this problem.
This of course comes under the federal gov-
ernment, currently The Department of Trans-
port. Here again, federal participation and
leadership is essential, and I was pleased to
hear the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management indicate that more efiForts are
going to be made to get together with the
federal government.
One other remark: There has been much
discussion on the rivers and lakes pollution
problem. The Credit River has been much
improved in quahty through a co-operative
programme between the province and the
Credit Valley authority. The latter was
formed in 1954, and at that time we had "no
swimming" signs in various places up and
down the river. Now, the water quality data
recently provided showed that the pollutant
limits are well under the OWRC objective
of four parts per million. The dissolved
oxygen concentration is well above the mini-
mum values required for the support of
marine life, and we are very pleased with
this. Today, we have the cleanest river in
urban Ontario, according to the latest data
provided by the OWRC sampHng, and this
is supported by the comments of the chair-
man.
The Air Pollution Control Act, Mr. Speaker,
has been in force about six months. I would
interpret this amendment as indicating some-
thing of a condemnation of the Act. There
is absolutely no evidence that this Act will
not work. It has not had time even for
testing.
With these few remarks, I just say that it is
not possible to support the amendment.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker,
rising to support this amendment this after-
noon, and to wind up the debate for this
group, I can only say that in listening to the
members who have spoken for the govern-
ment, I would never know that they had
been in power on these benches for the last
25 years. The hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin mesmerized us with a great array of
figures, and he told us exactly how many
gallons had been treated or are treated at the
present. But he did not tell us how much is
untreated. He did not tell us the proportion,
the percentage of the effluent that is now
being treated in the province of Ontario.
It is all very well to give us figures, but
we ought to have something with which we
can compare these figures and then we will
know whether he is talking sense, or not. My
guess in this case is that he is not talking
sense because of the slow progress that has
been made in this whole field. He also told
us other matters that are going on— the pro-
gress that this government is making, and
fine, we agree that some progress is being
made. I take off my hat to the OWRC and
realize that they are making some progress
since they were initiated some years ago, but
that progress is far too slow because this gov-
ernment is not willing to put the resources
into the programme which perhaps the
OWRC might be willing and anxious to carry
through.
Time after time this afternoon, we heard
about this government's goings-on from its
members. We had study after study under-
taken. Fine. It is good to study. But as the
hon. member for Peterborough showed, these
studies started 50 years ago, and surely it
does not take that long to get the information
that we need from the studies?
So the studies continue, and the pollution
continues to rise, and we set up committees,
and they have acted, as the hon. Minister
told us today, in various fields. Fine. But
the old pollution continues to flow and rise
in this province in spite of whatever activity
there has been by this provincial government.
The fact remains that the pollution of our air
and streams is rising rather than decreasing,
in total. I know that some streams are being
cleaned up— I agree, some streams— but the
total pollution is on the increase.
This government, says the hon. member
for Hamilton Mountain, does not aim at clean-
ing up pollution. Well, I suppose that this
is impossible in any case, but he says that
"We aim at the reduction of pollution." He
did not say how far we are going to reduce
it. This is the problem. How far? He could
not give us an answer because this govern-
ment, and the federal government where this
activity should originate, have not set stan-
dards. They have refused to set standards.
Until standards are set, we just do not know
how far down that reduction ought to go.
So the government is bewildered, because
it has not been wilhng to set the standards
above which pollution should not rise. We
must realize in this kind of civilization that
we cannot possibly get back completely 100
per cent clean air. Nor can we get 100 per
cent clean water. We are not looking for that.
But we have to determine in the light of our
industrial development, and in the light of our
population explosion, where that threshold is;
where the clean water becomes untenable for
human beings; where the clean air becoming
3796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
polluted becomes untenable, and set those
standards and then start to reduce, with some
meaning, toward those standards.
But again this government is the govern-
ment you remember— 25 years in office, know-
ing all that time of this problem and refusing
to face up to it until forced. It was a govern-
ment which, when the Spanish River became
polluted by the Kalamazoo Vegetable Parch-
ment Company and when the resort industry
and the fishing industry was threatened,
passed legislation to exempt that industry from
the penalties. It is the government which
allowed things to get out of hand in Elliot
Lake and Bancroft with the uranium industry,
imtil one of the employees spoke out of
turn and the thing exploded and was brought
to public attention. Then this government
acted to do something about it.
It is the government which has seen our
lakes become more and more polluted from
waste and motor boats and all the rest of it.
And then they began, under pubhc question-
ing to take some action and then drew back
because they said, "We have not the facilities
to look after the waste from the boats." True,
we had not those facilities, but again I say
to you this government has been in power
long enough so they should have seen this
years ago, and they should have set up the
facilities and seen to it that this pollution
was prevented rather than us having to clean
it up after the damage is done.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East)
can they fight that, though?
How
Mr. Young: We come to the whole matter
of how we are going to deal with pollution.
We have today one of the great polluters, in
the oil burners in our homes. For the last
ten years there has been very very little
research as to how to burn the oil in those
burners more effectively. We have incinerators
whose design goes back for decades, and there
has been no great research in these fields.
In another field, motor car pollution, we
have seen some progress being made, although
again this government has refused to set
standards. We are told that next year we are
going to have anti-pollution devices, but we
do not know whether those standards are
going to be set at the United States level or
not. But we did not get it until California
and then the U.S. set the standards and
said that all motor cars sold must have certain
anti-pollution devices to bring the hydrocar-
bons down to 275 per million, and the CO
down to L5 per cent. And California says by
1970 the hydrocarbons have got to be down
180 and the CO down to 1 per cent.
An Hon. member: But that is a different
climate.
Mr. Young: I tliought we had sunny
Ontario here, which has pretty good climate
in the summer time at least-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Young: We will not talk about the
political climate at the moment. But the fact
remains tliat the motor car industry for years
and years and years said, "We cannot do it,"
until the state of California said, "You have
to." And then they went to work and diey did
do research and we got the results, and I hope
that this government will start to cash in on
the results of the United States areas.
Just as soon as governments begin to say
to the oil industry, and to tlie designers and
the sellers of the incinerators in our apart-
ments and our domestic incinerators, "You
must bring your efl[luent up to a certain stan-
dard by a certain year," tlien they will go to
work on it. But why should they spend money
if governments refuse to set standards?
It is the same way with plants like INCO
in Sudbury, Stelco, Dofasco, KVP and the
great paper companies— unless this govern-
ment says, "By a certain time something must
be done and you must bring those standards
up," they are not going to do it.
Out in British Columbia, Cominco has
cleaned up tlie kind of pollution that we see
spewing from the stacks in Sudbury, and yet
they say, "Well, we are doing research."
Surely we know enough to go to the places
where these problems have been solved and
find out how they did it, and apply that
knowledge here in the province of Ontario.
Surely we have that much brainpower and
have that much common sense.
We can reduce the sulphur content of
fuel. I was very interested in seeing tliat in
Kuwait of all places they are doing research,
and they have set up a refinery in Japan,
because Japan demands low-sulphur fuel. The
equipment reduces Kuwait cnide, which is
3.9 per cent sulphur, to less than 1 per
cent. A second crude de-sulphurization unit
is being built in Kuwait, for American Inde-
pendent Oil Company. In other words we are
learning the techniques and all we have to
do is to enforce the standards for fuel and
we will get those standards met eventually.
I was very interested in the poem which
was read to us by the hon. member for
JUNE 3, 1968
3797
Kitchener about tlie River Rhine and the
pollution there a century or so ago. But one
thing that has happened in the River Rhine
and the Ruhr basin— the cribbage area of the
Rhine— in recent years is that the pollution
has been cleaned up, until today, according to
Time magazine, one can swim in the River
Ruhr. It is not as good as it was originally, but
it is improving!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No it is not.
Mr. Young: But what I am saying to the
hon. Minister is that tlie techniques are tlicre
if this govenmient has die willpower and the
courage to go after them and to enforce those
techniques.
Mr. Spealcer: Order, order! May I draw to
the member's attention that he has overgone
the time that has been agreed between the
parties and is cutting off other speakers.
Mr. Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
just want to say that in winding up, we sup-
port the motion by the hon. leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator: (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard with interest this after-
noon the comments of my hon. friend from
Wellington-Dufferin and the hon. Minister of
Energy and Resources Management. Try as
I may to believe what has been said, I think
this short account in the local paper on May
14 answers the question pretty well and out-
hnes the problem:
Death by Pollution
The dead smelts and American scoter
ducks in this photograph taken at Port
Dalhousie beach are indicative of what
most of the Great Lakes shoreline looks
like today. Deputy conservation officer
says that fish and ducks are dying in in-
creased numbers every year because of the
rising level of pollution in our waters.
I would like to believe what has been told to
us by the hon. gentleman, but how do you
circumvent a thing like this? Pollution is
with us, as a matter of fact greater than ever.
I have heard comments about the federal
government. I heard about the 50th anni-
versary of the international joint commis-
sion. I have an advance copy here, a
summary report on pollution of the Niagara
River. You have all the pollution in Lake
Erie and the lakes above, coming dov^Ti into
that narrow channel of water. You find a
report made up by a group of people dated
September 27, and they come up witii a
picture showing the city of Buffalo sewage
treatment plant on the Niagara River, two dis-
charges of the International Paper Company
on Tonawanda island, discoloration at the
shore from the Robert Gair Dure/ Plastics on
Tonawanda creek.
International waters have been continuously
polluted by large industries on both sides of
the river, and I would like to show another
illustration to you in connection with Beth-
lehem Steel. That is on the Smoke creek,
the discharge at Smoke creek, I should have
said. Note the change of colour from clear
to dark under the bridge; stream flow at left;
) and at right. Smoke creek discharging indu-
trial waste from Bethlehem Steel Company.
It is one of the larger polluters in the inter-
national river.
I know I am getting involved in an inter-
national problem but I do believe that the
water resources commission is in good stead
with the people in Niagara Falls, N.Y., with
the authorities there. I think they can work
out the problem between them. The problem
is not that great, in my opinion, but I think
legal force has to be put on our American
neighbours to clear up the situation.
I have before me another picture in the
same report, a little closer to home at the
Horseshoe Falls. It says:
Surface foam on river below Niagara
Falls. Note diversion sewer outlet on the
right bank in the background.
And there is a large sewer just across from
the Brock hotel, with which most of you
people are acquainted and where you have
been on occasion. You will find this dis-
coloured water coming through this large
outlet from industry and the city of Niagara
Falls, N.Y., itself. A little farther down the
river they have their sewage disposal plant
and I would like to read the caption on a
small illustration into the record here:
Diversion sewer outfall to the Niagara
River below falls and downstream from the
Rainbow bridge at left. International Paper
plant has ceased operating, reducing the
degree of discoloration.
But there is still lots tliere because there
are other plants flowing into this interceptory
sewer and into the international river. Some
of the authorities on the Ontario water re-
sources commission, I know have looked at
this particular scene.
Going down the river between the two
bridges you will come to the city of Niagara
3798
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Falls, N.Y., sewage treatment plant. This
plant only provides screening and disinfection
and contains 75 per cent industrial waste. If
this is cleaning up our international waters
and if these industrial wastes come through
these pipes, that is why you have this result
down at Niagara-on-the-Lake and at Port
Dalhousie.
They have a better financial process on
the American side and I would like to draw
it to your attention. This is a plus in their
favour. If a municipality would like to build
a sewage disposal plant, the federal govern-
ment will give them a grant of 30 per cent.
The state government will give them an
additional 25 per cent and if they come to
that agreement the federal government will
give them another 30 per cent. In other
words, 85 per cent will come from the federal
and state governments. The city of Niagara
Falls, N.Y., by agreement, can build disposal
plants for as little as 15 per cent. I have
talked tax incentive to this particular Legis-
lature since I came here. I think industry
needs some financial assistance. I think that
a municipality needs this assistance and I
think that New York state has found an
answer to the problem.
I would like to get just a little bit more
on the record because these are facts ' that
cannot be disputed. They have 29 outlets
that are polluting the international waters
from above Buffalo on Lake Erie, to Lake
Ontario. They have 14 outlets and it says
"additional treatment required" and they are
proceeding voluntarily. They have one "addi-
tional treatment required", no formal order
issued. They have 12 "additional treatment
required", completing without a formal order.
In other words they are voluntarily doing
this work.
But the pollution is there and they are
doing not too much about it. They have two
substantially completed but not complete. I
think here again is an opportunity for this
provincial government, with the government
of New York state, to sit down and discuss
their mutual problem, because the representa-
tive at a meeting that I attended in Niagara
Falls, N.Y., made a statement to the gather-
ing, and he was speaking on behalf of the
city council. In summary, he said the city of
Niagara Falls, aware of its obligations to do
whatever is necessary and possible, technically
and economically, is proceeding in a forth-
right and practical manner to eliminate
sources of pollution quickly when the solu-
tion to the problem is obvious.
I know they want to work with us and I
know it is a serious problem. I find it most
interesting to hear the vice-chairman of
Hydro, and the member for Peel South say-
ing that there is not too much pollution. They
realize there is a bit; something is being
done. I realize the government commissions
ought to set the pace. I think they ought to
set the example, and I have, for the record,
something that I would like to read to_ you:
The adverse environmental effects of the
conventional power stations, and perhaps,
to a lesser extent, nuclear power stations,
will become a growing concern.
It is significant that the smoke plumes from
Lakeview power station are often the most
distinct sign of air pollution over Lake
Ontario. There is some evidence that anti-
pollution measures taken since the inception
of the Ontario Hydro thermal generating pro-
gramme in the early '50's have not been fully
adequate.
Power generation economics may be more
and more influenced by the need to con-
sider environmental factors in the future.
Ontario Hydro is fortunate in being able to
locate its major thermal generating plants
on the large bodies of inland waters available
in the province. The heat losses, which be-
come very substantial in large power stations,
are usually safely dissipated in large bodies
of water. Occasionally situations do arise
where cooling water discharge does upset
the ecology and balance of lake areas with
adverse effects on fish and plant life, thus
contributing to pollution.
I am glad that we have the chairman of
the Niagara parks commission with us because
in a brief on polhition abatement measures in
Ontario with respect to water quality in the
Niagara River, to the international public
meeting of the international joint commission
on January 16, 1968, at Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
the representative of the international joint
commission said this about the Niagara parks
commission.
Other pollution sources: For some time
a number of Niagara parks commission
properties have been responsible for the
discharge of raw sewage to the river. As a
result of a recent correspondence with
the Ontario water resources commission,
we have now been advised that the parks
commission officials have completed plans
for the conveyance of waste from Table
Rock House and the surrounding area to
the municipal sewer. This work should be
carried out early this year.
In other words, hundreds of thousands of
people are using the outlets of the Niagara
JUNE 3, 1968
3799
parks commission and raw sewage is going
inta the river. This is a government commis-
sion. Hydro and the parks commission, while
they are not setting the example themselves,
are not even doing a good job setting an
example. I think tliey are finding themselves
lacking and that is the reason for this resolu-
tion.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very inter-
esting things about pollution this afternoon
and there is one common thread running
through the debates on all three sides of
the House— if the House can be said to have
three sides. It has at least three points of
view, and they are all against pollution,
naturally.
In listening to the hon. members of the
oflBcial Opposition I have been trying to read
between the lines. I believe they have a
g"eater appreciation of some of the prob-
lems inherent in this tremendously great
problem than our friends on the socialist
side. Of course, they can, by a stroke of the
pen, or a word of the mouth, wipe out all
the ills of humanity just like that. Well, of
course, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that
this does not happen.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): It is a
good way to start.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes, but wind never
blows away all the pollution. It will blow
away some of the air pollution but it will not
blow away the water pollution or the soil
pollution.
Mr. Speaker, we are getting increasingly
accustomed to the instant experts, and it is
refreshing to hear, at least from the official
Opposition benches, recognition of tlie fact
that they do appreciate some of the difficul-
ties that the government is facing. They are
not as kindly in debate today as I have heard
some of them in private but the fact does
remain that they understand the problem.
The government of Ontario— indeed, sir,
all governments of Ontario— almost through-
out the life of this province have recognized
the problem of pollution. Indeed, water
pollution was one of the main reasons for
bringing into being the original board of
health, I think back in 1872, if I recall my
dates correctly. Because of the spread of
diseases such as typhoid and diphtheria,
water-borne diseases, the government of that
day brought into being programmes for the
control of water pollution.
And even today, with the greater com-
plexity of our living, government recognizes
as never before the potential damage to
man's environment from water, land and soil
pollution. Today we have heard introduced
not exactly a new source or type of pollution
but one that is not talked about as much or
has not yet been talked about as much as I
predict it will be in the days that lie ahead
—and that is sound or noise pollution. It is
a very real problem and it is coming more
and more to the fore in our modem society.
The government today has a well-defined
policy, and I am quite surprised to hear one
of the hon. members say that he cannot
for the life of him, I think his words were,
see what the government has done. May I
quote to him a passage with which I am sure
at least in former days he was familiar: "He
that hath eyes to see, let him see." I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member
open up his eyes and look about him and he
will see the programmes that have been
brought into being, the programmes that are
being steadily expanded, the programmes that
are producing productive and successful
results.
These programmes are producing effective
results in dealing with land, air and water
pollution alike. Our expanding industrializa-
tion, our growing population, our increasingly
higher standards of living, our tendency to
urbanization, all of these contribute to the
ever-growing volume of wastes that must
be controlled if we are to avoid serious de-
terioration in our environment. But there is
ample evidence of an accelerated response
by this government to this challenge, and
some of this evidence we have already heard
and seen, even if there are those on the
other side of the House who are not quite
able to see it.
Mr. Speaker, when I presented the esti-
mates of The Department of Health, I
pointed out that none of us was satisfied
with what has been accomplished. We arc
all constantly straining and striving towards
even higher goals and higher achievements.
We could spend a lot of time talking about
what might have been done, and we heard
what might have been done over the last
hundred years and even more recently, but
Mr. Speaker, if I may quote Churchill,
"Nothing is gained by recrimination." The
important factor remains that we are deeply
involved in it now, and our job is to move
forward with all possible vigour to the end
which we have in view. We are in regular
consultation with other authorities and the
.3800
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
federal government, and the federal anthori-
ties are a very important part, and have a
very important role to play in this matter
of pollution. Indeed, the hon. member for
Sandwich-Riverdale spoke almost exclusively
of matters that come within the purview of
the federal government. The provincial gov-
ernment has no right or authority to involve
itself in international matters. I think that
should be very clearly in the minds of all
of us, in view of happenings that are qviite
current, or have happened in very recent
days. We have established environmental
monitoring and regidatory programmes within
the province. We do, and are actively foster-
ing, research into environmental control pro-
grammes. There is continuing consultation
with all of those who are involved and inter-
ested in the field, all those groups seeking to
identify emergent problems and to work out
the control measures. And we do support and
encourage improved training programmes for
training people in new skills, requisite for
the control of environment and the menaces
of health that come about.
The hon. member for Kitchener pointed
out that water pollution was old. Of course,
all pollution, Mr. Speaker, is old. As soon as
man came on the face of this earth we started
to pollute our environment, and the degree
of pollution has grown with the growth of
population. New methods and new ideas, the
so-called progress of society has brought in
its wake some things that are not quite so
progressive as others.
As I pointed out, the programmes which
helped to bring into being a department of
health, arose because of the pollution of
water. People thought that a clear running
stream, so long as it was clear and running,
was good water. Oftentimes, sir, it was the
m')st lethal medicine that could be taken, as
many, many thousands found to their dismay.
And the programmes introduced even then
-nearly a hundred years ago in this prov-
ince by the government of the day— have al-
most wipefl out diseases such as diphtheria and
typhoid. Of course, new problems have
arisen. New dragons have arisen to plague
us and some of these, such as infectious hepa-
titis re still carried by water, still causing us
a great deal of concern, still more difficult to
control tlian were the diseases of nearly a
hundred years ago. Conditions that were
once merely a nuisance have now achieved
the status of being threats to our civilization.
But the whole record of government action
throughout the province in this area— and I
say all go\ernments, Mr. Speaker, because
we cannot exclude the efforts of other gov-
ernments, they have been few in this cen-
tury in this province but at least they did
make some small contribution. Indeed, one
of the outstanding contributions during the
term of government held by our hon. friends,
who are now the official Opposition, was one
of the finest measures in the control of disease
in this province, I am sure they know what
it was, I will not go into it now.
We have heard today a good deal about
the legislation that has come about, and I am
not going to belabour it. I would point out,
of course, though, that long before the
OWRC was brought into being The Depart-
ment of Health, through its environmental
sanitation branch, was trying to control these
maUers.
Air pollution control is something that is
more topical in these days; we hear a great
deal about it. We hear a great deal about '>t
that might better not be said because it is
not bo-ne out by factual information in many,
litany cases.
Scil pollution is something we have not
heard much about this afternoon in all of
the debates and yet it is a very real prob-
lem, and it is a problem that is tjpical of
our modern society. The legislation for the
control of pesticides brought into being by
this government has kept paie with the in-
creased use of these products. Through the
major provisions of the new Act and regula-
tions e\cr}' possible safeguard has been
established so that the benefits flowing from
t!ie use of these chemicals can be utilized
without (au.sing harm to man's environ-
mental health.
In this field there is perhaps more change
than in any other related field. Continued
research and study are essential in order that
we keep pace with developments and assess
the effects of those new products upon the
hvunan health.
l»ec ognizing the growing need for the regu-
lation of refuse disposal, we introduced
amt ndments to The Public Health Act dur-
ing the last session of the Legislature. By
tl.is amendment the establishment, alteration
cr enlargement of waste disposal systems or
sites are controlled by The Department of
Health. And the depositing of waste is for-
bilden on any land or in any building which
is not approved as a waste disposal system
or site. Even a householder who until the
present time has felt free to disjKJse of his
own waste on his own property as, when
and how he chose can no longer do this if it
JUNE 3, 1968
3801
is likely to create a nuisance or a hazard to
health.
In regard to radiation protection, one of
the siyjiis of our modern times, the labora-
tory in this province of Ontario is the only
one that has been established and is oper-
ated by a province in this whole Dominion,
and it is only matched by that operated by
the federal government itself.
The present government's concern is typi-
fied also by the organizational changes within
our department. We have come to see that
the branch of our department concerned with
environmental health was one of the least
important until a very short time ago. Now
it is one of the more important, having a
staff of 378, including four separate corre-
lated services. These services as outlined
during the estimates have to do with the
air pollution control, the public health engi-
neering service, the occupational health serv-
ices and the environmental laboratory
services.
Mr. Speaker, the member for High Park
made mention of a new source of pollution,
the pollution due to noise. In his opening
remarks he mentioned particularly the noise
from our modern airplanes. I think he is
bound to recognize, as I am sure every
other hori. member must, that this is not a
matter that the province can control in any
possible way. I am not pointing this out to
emphasize that we want to get out of some-
thing. I am simply pointing this up, sir, to
emphasize what we have held for a long
time, that the federal government must be
in co-operation with us in these matters, in
the control of all sources of pollution.
Mr. Sopha: Trudeau will do all tliat.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Well, if Trudeau's
osculatory activities engage more of his time,
he will not have time to do anything else.
But there are areas where the government of
Ontario is already in\olved. During the last
year, sir, we were involved in more than 10()
studies and surveys for management, for
unions and for the workmen's compensation
board.
A great deal is yet needed in the way of
research and it was most refreshing to hear
that the hon. leader of the Opposition enipha-
sized this. He also noted and emphasized,
as did the hon. member for Niagara Falls,
that there needs to be incentive for industry,
for municipalities, for all of those who are
seeking to control these problems of pollu-
tion.
Unfortunately the time is pressing, but I
have to emphasize that rash and irresponsible
statements will not accomplish anything
in this. The hon. member for Sandwich-
Riverside, if I heard him aright, spoke al>out
nine cases of fluorosis. I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, there was not one case of human
fluorosis found in the Port Maitland area— not
one. I think that the record should be put
absolutely and definitely straight in this
regard.
And then we had the hon. member for
Yorkview, who is given to flamboyant state-
ments. "My guess," he says, "is that thus is
so." He is quite prepared to accept and have
you, sir, accept his guess as gospel, but he
refuses to believe the word of the hon. Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management,
the vice-chairman of the Ontario water re-
sources commission, people who are deeply
involved.
We can afford to involve ourselves in
guesses when we do not have to face up to
the responsibility of establishing and putting
into operation a programme. But the gov-
ernment must do this and the government
is concerned only about putting into oper-
ation a programme that will work, a pro-
gramme that can achieve the goals that we
have for it. I suggest that every hon. mem-
ber of this House should join forces on tliis
important occasion and defeat this amend-
ment.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has moved
that I do now leave the chair and the House
resolve itself into committee of supply. An
amendment has been moved by Mr. Nixon,
seconded by Mr. Singer, that the motion that
the Speaker do now leave the chair and the
House resolve itself into committee of supply,
be amended by adding thereto, the following
words:
That this House regrets the inadequacy of
government policy involving research, regu
lation, intergovernmental co-operation ami
comnmnity planning, to deal with the grow-
ing effects of the pollution of the air, water
and land of Ontario.
The House divided on the amendment
moved by Mr, Nixon, which was negatived
on tlie following division:
AYES NAYS
Ben Allan
Braithwaite Bales
Breithaupt Bernier
Bukator Boyer
Burr Brunelle
3802
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
AYES
NAYS
Davison
Carruthers
Deacon
Carton
Deans
Connell
De Monte
Davis
Edighoffer
Downer
Farquhar
Dunlop
Ferrier
Dymond
Gaunt
Gilbertson
Gisborn
Gomme
Good
Grossman
Haggerty
Guindon
Innes
Haskett
Jackson
Henderson
Knight
Hodgson
Lawlor
(Victoria-
Makarchuk
Haliburton)
Martel
Hodgson
Newman
(York North)
(Windsor-
Jessiman
WalkerviUe)
Johnston
Nixon
(Parry Sound)
Paterson
Johnston
Peacock
(St. Catharines)
Pilkey
Johnston
Pitman
(Carleton)
Reid
Kennedy
(Scarborough East)
Kerr
Renwick
Lawrence
(Riverdale)
(Carleton East)
Singer
Lawrence
Smith
(St. George)
(Nipissing)
MacNaughton
Sopha
Morningstar
Spence
Morrow
Trotter
Newman
Worton
(Ontario South)
Young-37.
Potter
Price
AYES NAYS
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Randall
Reilly
Renter
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Snow
Villeneuve
Welch
Wells
White
Winkler
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko— 55.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "ayes"
are 37, the "nays" 55.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The vote is now on the main motion by the
Prime Minister that I do now leave the chair
and tlie House resolve itself into committee
of supply.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of supply, Mr.
Reuter in the chair.
A. E.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 104
ONTARIO
%tqiiiMmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 3, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, June 3, 1968
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Haskett, continued 3805
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 3837
3805
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
(Continued)
On vote 2202:
Mr. I. Deans (Wentvvorth): Mr. Chairman,
on Friday I was going to ask the Minister
about the matter of dual controls on driver
training cars, and it just happens that over
the weekend I got a great number of letters.
I am sure that everyone did, so it fits in quite
well with what I was going to say. I question
the sensibility of the law that was passed that
insisted on the disconnecting of the dual con-
trols on automobiles to be used for driver
training at the time they went to take their
tests.
I really wonder at the wisdom of this
move. Surely at the time when a driver is
being examined, and we are not sure of his
ability to handle the automobile-
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Why test him if
you are not sure?
Mr. Deans: Why test him if you are sure?
Mr. Ben: Well, that is why you should.
Mr. Deans: When there is the possibility
of error on the part of a student driver,
surely this is the time when dual controls
would be the most valuable.
Mr. Ben: If he cannot pass the test he
should not take it, and if he can he does not
need dual controls.
Mr. Deans: What I would like to ask is
that I have been led to believe that all of the
people who are in the business, or a great
many of them, of instructing student drivers
are of the opinion that these dual controls
should be left in effect during the testing
period, for safety's sake.
I would much rather that we did test them
with the dual controls in effect, than we lost
someone's life because they were not being
used. I would like the Minister to tell me,
Monday, June 3, 1968
if he can, how many accidents there have
been since the disconnection of the dual
controls; how this relates to the time during
which they were in effect; and the reasoning
behind disconnecting them.
Han. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, the member takes a very
natural approach to this subject, and I think
that I understand his feeling in the matter.
His idea is that if a driver comes up for
examination, and is not too sure of himself,
it is rather reassuring to him, and perhaps to
other users of the road, to feel that big brother
beside him, his teacher in this case, or the
examiner, is sitting there with a controlling
set of brakes and steering that can supersede
his control.
This is what has led to the public accepting
the protest from the driver teachers against
our regulation that students that come to
their schools and come for their examination,
must be tested in a standard equipped car,
that is one which the driver controls, or in
which the second set of controls have been
disconnected.
Let me begin by saying that about three-
quarters of all those coming forward for
examination come forward with their own
cars. About one-quarter, or between 25 and
35 per cent may use the driving school car.
That would mean that the pupil of the driv-
ing school had that much advantage over the
applicant who was taking his test who had
not been trained in a driving school, and
whose vehicle in which he was being tested
was not provided with the second set of
equipment. That being so, we think that it is
only fair that they should all take their test
on an equal basis. As soon as the test is over,
every driver is going to be driving a normal
car without the benefit of the super-control
operated by the instructor or examiner. That
is the only man who is going to be driving
on his own.
That being the case, they have to be on
equal standing. The next step is this, that if
a driver comes for his test, so untrained and
unsure of himself that he has to have big
brother beside him at the second control,
then he is not ready for the test, and he
3806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
should not be allowed to pass the test buoyed
up by this extra support.
Immediately that afternoon, or the next
day, he is put on his own as a fledgling to
run his own machine without that protection.
What we have found is this. I think the
member wished to argue that tliere would be
a reduction in accidents and a lessening in
the danger to other users of the road if the
second set of controls were there for the
teacher or examiner. We have found dif-
ferently.
We have found that since this new regula-
tion went into effect at the first of the year,
that there has not been but one accident by
drivers for every 4,500 tested, compared to
before when there was one accident for
every 3,800 tested.
Let me give you one further significant
view on this which will perhaps help mem-
bers to understand why we are under pressure
by the driving schools to amend our regula-
tion, and why they have bolstered their case
with as much argument as they have. When I
tell you that driving schools have taken their
pupils forward for tests, taken them there in
the car in which they have learned, and
equipped with these dual controls, and
charged the pupil in tlie most cases for use of
the car during the test, and I find that the
schools make varying charges for the use of
the automobile with the dual controls— and
that is the driving school's car for the test—
and these costs run from a low of $10 to a
high of $22. I would think that the average
would run about $15 for the use of the car
during the test.
I think this will help us to understand some
of the pressure, but my basis is this, that if
three quarters of the drivers have to take their
tests in standard cars, I think they should all
take them in standard cars. If a driver has
not acquired a sufficient degree of efficiency
and sureness in himself to take it in a stand-
ard, he should not be taking the test. Thirdly,
our records show that there has been an
improvement in the safety to the public and
other users of the road since we put this test
into effect, and one thing further, I think
there has perhaps been an improvement in
the condition of the applicants coming for-
ward for tlieir tests, since this has been put
into effect.
Mr. Chairman: Tlie member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: I do not share the same feelings
as the Minister. The Minister says tliat some
of the reason for the driver instructors bring-
ing this forward at this time is financial gain.
They are doing it purely for personal reasons ^
rather than for their concern for the general
public. I do not share that with him at all. J
I feel they are doing it because of their
concern for the public. There is one other 1
thing. If you feel that they do not require ^
tliese dual controls, then why do you wait
until die day of the examination? Why do you
not say that they must take "X" number of
lessons without them? Why should they not
disconnect them and give them at the last
three lessons witliout the dual controls? This,
as opposed to taking the controls off on tlie
day of the examination, with the student left
sitting for the first time without assistance,
or witliout a crutch if you like to call it that. ^^
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think M
that the driving instructor should decide when
his pupil is ready to try his own wings, with- ■
out the dual controls, and he should ascer- -
tain how many lessons the student should
have with tlie teacher beside him and without
dual controls. I do not think we have any con-
trol over the applicant until he comes forward. j
I will support what I said about accidents I
though. Accidents over $50 reported during
1966 were 89 and during 1967 were 83 and
for the first quarter of this year were 13.
Thirteen, 26, 52— that is a pretty substantial
drop.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, continuing on the same sub-
ject. What the Minister says may be quite
true, but it is not so in the eyes of the peoplp
who are more knowledgeable on the subject,
and that is those who are out teaching the |
student to drive the cars. In fact, other than
Bill 66— that was the bill concerning dump
truck operators— this piece of legislation pro-
duced more letters than any other. In fact I
received 30 letters representing 105 different
driver instructors.
Listen to this, Mr. Chairman. Burlington,
Toronto, Stoney Creek, Belleville, Kitchener,
Welland, London, Peterborough, Islington,
Hamilton, Collingwood, Windsor, Brampton,
Brantford, Ottawa. Driver trainers from the |
length and breadth of the province of Ontario i
are extremely concerned with the fact that |
you are requiring the disconnection of the
brake at the time the individual is taking the
driver's test— showing the extreme importance
of having the brake connected, thus allowing
the examiner the opportunity to prevent a
serious injury. I have two exams or two tests
JUNE 3, 1968
3807
that were taken, one on May 17, here in the
city of Toronto, at the Metro test centre in
Downsview. The comment, the reason for the
faihire is "appHcant fails to obey stop sign in
oflF-street test area, depressed accelerator
instead of brake to stop, lost control of vehicle.
Examiner stopped vehicle by applying brake.
Mr. Chairman, what would have happened if
that brake had not been there? The brake was
connected, and this was taken care of in your
own test centre. Another was on March 6 of
this year, and the vehicle was stopped again
by the examiner. Apparently there must have
been dual controls on these vehicles, Mr.
Chairman. Then again you mention the fact,
this was March 6 at Cooksville.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This year?
Mr. B. Newman: This year. March 6, 1968,
right. Both of these are 1968. The first one
was May 17, 1968; the other one was March
6, 1968.
Now, Mr. Minister, or Mr. Chairman,
through you to the Minister. Maryland at
one time required the disconnection of the
dual brake, as did Ohio, and both rescinded
that, because they saw the element of danger
involved. Colorado has no controls. South
Dakota never considered requiring them to
disconnect the dual brake. Alaska never con-
sidered this. Even the Yukon Territories,
which happens to have one car with dual con-
trol in tlie secondary school-
Mr. Ben: All, except the Yukon, foreign
jurisdiction.
Mr. B. Newman: He insists on having
that dual control in the car. Now, as a safety
measure, Mr. Chairman, the national profes-
sional driver educational association would
not be so insistent that you keep the dual
brakes connected if they did not see the merit
of it. In fact, the letter that they did send
around, that was mailed by the various driver
training schools, has in a middle paragraph:
The student, the examiner, and the
bystanders are primarily and most severely
endangered by this Department of Trans-
port ruling. It is they who risk injury or loss
of life in potential accidents, not the instruc-
tor or the driving school owner who are
not present in the car at the time of the
testing. Therefore this issue is essentially a
public issue.
Mr. Chairman, I would sincerely hope that
you would reconsider your decision on this.
When you have 129 driving schools— private
driving school owners representing 430 driv-
ing instructors— requesting that you recon-
sider your decision, I think that they have
presented their case very, very forcefully and
I think you should reconsider.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): What happens
when he wants his own car?
Mr. B. Newmai>: Well, if the man wants to
have his exam in his own car that is his
responsibility.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. B. Newman: Here is a telegram sent,
Mr. Chairman, to show concern. This is not
from one who operates a driving school, but
just an interested citizen. This was delivered
to me this afternoon at 12:01 p.m., "As a
public spirited citizen and a taxpayer, I
oppose the ruling of The Department of
Transport concerning dual brakes in the
interest of pubhc safety." And this was sent
by Gordon R. Lawrie from Markham, Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I think that you should recon-
sider the position that you have taken and
once again re-institute the use of dual con-
trols, t}#) dual brakes, during the testing
programme.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I regret-
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, how many times
do I pop up?
Mr. Chairman: I assure the member that
I will recognize him, but the member for
High Park was first.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): May I sug-
gest that we might avoid this difficulty if you
went back to your list system, which would
solve this problem of everybody popping up
all the time. It seemed to work very well.
Mr. Chairman: I would like to say to the
members and to the committee that we did try
the list system and we did experience diffi-
culty with it, and I will try to be fair and
recognize the members back and forth.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to pursue this
particular matter, Mr. Chairman, by asking
the hon. Minister if there is any area, if
there is any jurisdiction, which has put a
regulation such as he has now made here in
Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I understand that there
is something like 10 or 12 jurisdictions of this
3808
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
regulation in eflFect. I do not have the names
of them.
Mr. Shulman: I wonder if the Minister
would go to the trouble of checking those
jurisdictions because when his department
was previously queried, the gentleman in his
department gave the names of six jurisdic-
tions. Now all six have been written to and,
of the names that were given, all six deny
having such regulations. Some of them did
have it, but rescinded it because of the fact
they were running into so many accidents.
May I suggest to the Minister that perhaps
his department has made this change under
the erroneous impression that other jurisdic-
tions had also made this change, but since
having received this information, they have
rescinded the regulations.
I would also like, on this particular point,
to draw the Minister's attention to a model
Act to increase the safety of people taking
tests and taking courses in the United States
so as to cut down the number of traffic
accidents by adequately regulating and up-
grading drivers' training schools. I under-
stand it has been introduced into some two
dozen states in the United States. It was
originally drawn up by the national profes-
sional driver education association in Dallas,
Texas, and I would like to draw the Min-
ister's attention to rule 6 (c), which reads as
follows:
That the motor vehicle is equipped with
dual control brakes.
Now this is a model Act— I will not trouble
him with the other portions of the Act at the
present time— and I would like to join my
voice to that of the other members who have
already spoken on this matter to suggest
that the Minister has made a serious error
in this particular change and that he will be
extremely wise to give it reconsideration.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I know that a
number of people in the Liberal caucus are
going to be exercised by the fact that I rise
to speak on this particular thing. The fact
that we are talking about a very delicate
subject and a very dangerous subject. More
lives are lost to the automobile in this country
and in the United States than in all the wars
that these countries have participated in. We
have a slaughter of over 5,000 people a year
in this country and the majority of them in
this province— and what are we discussing
here today?
We are not discussing whether we are
going to produce safer drivers or less safe
drivers, or get the dangerous drivers off the
road; what we are discussing here today is:
Are we going to genuflect to the drivers'
training schools?
Mr. Chairman, we have had these drivers*
training schools for some time and what has
been the result? Have the accidents decreased
any? Not a tittle, and I say to you, Mr.
Chairman, that in my opinion these driving
schools, which do not teach people how to
drive an automobile properly, are probably
more responsible for the high rate of deaths
we have on the highways than any other
media that is going on at the present time.
When I was on city council, I took the
trouble for three days to follow driving
instructors from four different schools in
Toronto. They did not even teach the driver
how to back into a parking spot and that is
why, when you go down to the city hall
underground parking lot, everybody drives
in. You go to a Loblaw's parking lot, every-
body drives in. How many times do you
see drivers circling the block looking for a
parking spot and passing half a dozen of
them because they do not even know how to
back up a car and this is what driving
schools are producing today.
Now we come to a situation— shall we have
dual brakes or shall we not have dual brakes?
Mr. Chairman, I tell you this. These driving
school instructors are exorcized because they
do not want to get their cars battered up and
because they charge for the use of them. The
simple solution for the Minister is to com-
promise. Leave the dual controls in the car
but have your examiner sit in the back seat.
He will be safer there.
There is an echo here from the hon. mem-
ber for Went worth. He says it is a clever
statement. The Minister has pointed out that
75 per cent of the people who take a test
do so in their own cars where there are no
dual controls. And until the time that dual
controls are made compulsory in driver train-
aing automobiles, they did not have dual
controls and everybody took an examination
without dual controls. All of a sudden this
House must exercise and exasperate itself
discussing dual controls.
Let is get to something more serious like
reducing the number of accidents on the
road, not on a Department of Highways
driver training ground up at Downsview.
One of the things I want to discuss is
getting people under 18 off the roads. I have
taken this up in this House on two previous
occasions suggesting that there is no reason
JUNE 3, 1968
3809
why youngsters under the age of 18 need a
driver's Hcence.
And yet we continue to licence those under
18 when statistics, year after year, point out
to you— the insurance companies point out
to you— that accidents are caused by those
under 18 completely out of proportion to
their number for their age. But still you con-
tinue to licence them. Why? They do not
need a car to drive to school because they
have either streetcars or the subway.
If they did not have to drive a car to
school you would not have to spend so much
money in The Department of Education to
build parking lots for students. Statistics
show that the marks children get in high
school vary inversely to the amount of driv-
ing they do. The more driving they do, the
worse marks they get in school. All those
things point out why they should not be
driving automobiles. Our insurance rates are
high because our chances of having an acci-
dent with youngsters on the road are greater,
so our insurance is high even though we do
not have anybody under the age of 25 driv-
ing an automobile in our household, but that
still goes on.
I pointed out— and I was told I should
bring it up under this item— that at the pres-
ent time, police officers must apprehend a
a driver of an automobile before they can
summons him, and I suggest to you that we
ought to go back to the previous system
where you could just get the licence number
and did not have to identify the driver of
the automobile. You could charge an owner
for an infraction of The Highway Traffic Act.
And I suggest that that would help to reduce
the high death rate and high accident rate
that we have on our highways. All we get is
an echo from over there, "aw."
What are we interested in? Are we inter-
ested in saving lives, or are we just interested
in giving everybody the right to go in there
and put a loaded gun in his hand, because,
an automobile is more dangerous than giv-
ing a loaded gun to a five-year-old. But they
want just everybody to conmiit mass murder.
They figure that way they are going to get
rid of all the rich. They forget it is the
poor who mostly drive on the roads now.
The rich get rich by taking the subway.
I have already mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
when the estimates were up on Friday or
Thursday, that I believe a jail sentence ought
to be mandatory for persons who drive while
their licence is under suspension. And there
should be a limit to the number of suspen-
sions a person can get.
I think it was on February 29 this year,
there was an article in the Toronto Telegram
about one individual who had had his licence
suspended six times, and who has been found
guilty twice of motor manslaughter. That is
killing people in automobile accidents, and
he is still driving— well, not at the present
time, because I understand he is in jail.
Is he still in jail or is he out?
The driver was Jacob Klassen; he came
here from another province. Nobody knows
how many other accidents he has been in-
volved in but they say since 1954 he has had
12 accidents, two of them fatal, and still he
is licensed to drive. Now surely there must
be some limit to the number of people that
you can kill on the highway, or that you can
maim on a highway before your have your
licence suspended permanently. But to con-
tinually drive and kill or injure people is
sheer nonsense. A licence is not a matter of
right, it is a matter of privilege.
I discussed also, under the previous esti-
mates, that I think doctors ought to report
not only heart conditions and epilepsy to the
department, but I think they also ought to
report to the department when they think
a person is not mentally stable enough to
drive an automobile. There should be some-
thing to protect them from so doing.
I suggest also that licences which, inciden-
tally, are used more frequently for purposes
of identification when it comes to cashing
a cheque or any other purpose such as
that than any other document, should have
a photograph of the bearer affixed thereto.
If the Minister is not going to acquiesce
and increase the minimum driving age to 18,
then I suggest the next tack he should follow
is to make driving instruction compulsory in
high schools so that everyone who finishes
high school is what they call a "pro" driver.
I do not think they should learn by the
hit-and-miss method as is presently employed.
I would think, Mr. Chairman, that after a
person has been involved in three serious
accidents or has had his licence suspended
twice, that he should be given a mental test
before his licence is reinstated. After all, our
job is to protect the innocent, and not the
bad man behind the wheel. Mr. Chairman,
my tranquihzer has taken efi^ect, so I will sit
down.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): That my friend
has exorcised the Minister, that is to say he
has driven out the evil spirits by invocation,
3810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I should like to ask the Minister whether the
press recorded him correctly over the week-
end in attributing to him the statement that
the matter of imposing a compulsory jail
sentence on drivers previously convicted for
driving while under suspension was a matter
of federal jurisdiction only?
Mr. Ben: You made the statement in the
House, Mr. Minister. You suggested—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think my approach
was that the matter of driving while under
suspension was the kind of offence that
should be one that should be considered
as meritorious of a jail sentence, and I had
spoken to my colleague the Attorney General
(Mr. Wishart), with that in mind. Did I say
that it was a federal offence only?
Mr. Sopha: You said that the imposition of
the punishment of that nature was a matter
for the federal government. Or so the press
reported you as saying. I wanted to ask you
if that is actually what you said.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I do not think tliat it
would necessarily, but I would agree that a
suspension is the kind of offence that, when
it is breached, merits a jail sentence. I would
agree with that, but I do not think that I
would say that I did not; I would not intend
to say that.
Mr. Sopha: My friend from Humber now
tells me that you were even more specific,
that the imposition of such a penalty would
require an amendment to the criminal code.
No lawyer in The Department of Transport,
nor the Attorney General nor any law officer
of the Crown would agree with diat as you
said it.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, I would agree.
Mr. Sopha: All right, now we are on good
common ground. For at least five or six
years, and perhaps longer, I have advocated
that those convicted of a second offence for
driving while under suspension have a man-
datory sentence imposed upon them. I think
that this is a reasonable and defensible posi-
tion to put, and I do not have to speak in
terms of driving being a right or a privilege.
Driving a motor vehicle is a fact of life. It
is part of the environment in which we live,
and one does not have to get distracted with
the semantics of whether it is a right or a
privilege.
I would think that once an individual has
demonstrated flagrant contempt for the law.
and it is nothing less than that— the individual
has stood in a court, well most of them have
stood in a court and had their licences sus-
pended in the most serious surroundings.
Frequently, I suspect, the magistrate at the
time of imposing the sentence says something
to the convicted person of the seriousness of
the offence upon which he has been con-
victed.
There are a number, of course, who have
their licences suspended by the Minister him-
self, within the confines of his office, and
who never see a court before the time that
their right to drive is terminated. I put it
forward as a reasonable proposition that the
individual should have brought home to him
nothing less than that he has flagrantly vio-
lated the laws, the customs, and the mores
of the society in which he lives. I would
think that a period of seven or 14 days in the
local lock-up would have a very prophylactic
effect on his driving habits in the future.
As I say, I advocated that five or six years
ago in this House, and I have made very
little progress in contrast to the other reforms
that I modestly say were rather grudgingly
accepted on a later day. But I leave this one
open for borrowing by the Minister of Trans-
port. One observes that I have entirely lost
his attention for the last ten minutes. He is
engrossed in some research project that he is
boning up on.
In a parallel way, one observes that the
department does not hesitate to use the penal-
ties imposed by the criminal code of Canada
in relation to certain offences. The Minister
is familiar with them. The penalty which is
added to the conviction, the penalty under
the criminal code, is itself suspension of
licence. That is to say, in a conviction of
impaired driving, as we all know if there is
property damage and the court suspends the
licence for three months, the Minister there-
upon suspends it for six.
Mutatis, mutandis for a conviction for leav-
ing the scene of an accident, drunken driving,
are treated in similar fashion. The depart-
ment in adding to those penalties seems to
say tliat susi>ension of licence is a very effec-
tive punishment. That is what it appears to
be saying. And if the deprivation of a licence
for an extended period of time is viewed by
the Minister of Transport as being consistent
with tlie gravity of the offence under the
ciiminal code, then I ask the Minister to go
one step further. When the individual violates
the law and shows flagrant contempt by con-
tinuing to drive as if he had the privilege.
JUNE 3. 1968
3811
then I think that individual is worthy of
srvcre punishment.
In addition, I would like to see many more
road checks on this basis by the Ontario
Provincial Police. I have advocated that also.
When they have nothing to do, and that
seems to be most of the time, I do not see
why, on a nice summer afternoon, they do
not stop the cars on chance and say, "Let
me see your driver's licence."
The public would soon become knowledge-
able of the risk of driving the car without
having the proper documentation to do so.
And then, by having such an attentiveness
to the law and its enforcement by The
Department of Transport, I believe and pre-
dict that right down the line you would see
greater care in the operation of a motor
vehicle. More and more of our citizens are
becoming aware of the dependence economic-
ally that they have on that right to drive.
Let us make it meaningful. We have the
right to drive because we abide by the laws
and we operate a motor vehicle with pur-
pose. And once we depart from accepted
standards, which are not very high, then we
forfeit the right and we face a state with its
particular law enforcement characteristics
that is going to impose severe penalties on
us for the violation and contempt that has
been demonstrated. There need only be
added to that the additional thought that this
business of the point system and all those
other devices that are used just have varying
degrees of efficacy. Some drivers do not
apparently care a hoot. The higher the
economic dependency on the operation or the
right to use the automobile, the greater aware-
ness and anxiety there is about the point
system.
I have seen far too much of the futility of
the person, as my friend from Humber says,
coming into court on the third or fourth
conviction of driving without a licence, and
the magistrate fining him once again. And
you know, they are not all Draconian like
Tupper Bigelow. We have some real human-
ists on the bench, men of very great human
understanding and they could send the man
to jail. But they just impose another fine on
him, and in the greatest exercise of futility
they suspend his licence again. The one that
he has not got, and has not had for four
squared times.
They add another index to it, and he is
not going to get it until long periods of time
have elapsed. He will not get it back. My
friend from Humber says that there is a great
deal of futility about it, and I would like to
see the department put some teeth in that
statute and impose a penalty such as I have
adx'ocated for a half dozen years.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the mem-
ber for Humber brought up a number of
points that perhaps I should speak to, and
the member for Sudbury now has supple-
mented what the member for Humber was
saying with regard to a mandatory jail sentence
for driving while under suspension. He has
added the further thought that perhaps it
should be mandatory jail on conviction of a
second charge of driving while under suspen-
sion. There is in the criminal code, if I
recall rightly, a provision for a discretionary
jail sentence for driving while under suspen-
sion.
Mr. Sopha: Section 225-4 of the criminal
code, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It is 225 something— it
is in that section, and I would like to con-
sider that, but at the same time I agree with
both the members for Humber and Sudbury.
There is very good ground for a jail sentence
and I think that most of our magistrates in
our area have been using that in convictions
for driving under suspension, usually on
second or third offence. It is a very diflficult
kind of person to deal with. I do not know
how else you would deal with them. I come
back to the question raised by the member
for Humber, with regard to 16-18 year olds,
where he said they should not be licenced
to drive, and then later he said that no one
should be allowed to graduate from high
school without having taken a driver training
course.
Mr. Ben: As an alternative. One or the
other.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is where they do
tie in. I was going to point that out to the
hon. member that a great many of the
students taking the high school driver instruc-
tion course now are in that 16-18 year old
group. I presented certificates to more than
150 at a celebration at Ottawa, a couple of
weeks ago. They graduated some 500 who
had taken the course, and passed it. If we
were to deny driving licences between 16
and 18 or under 18, we would interfere with
that programme on the one hand; we would
also cause considerable consternation in the
rural areas where boys of 16, 17 and 18
need to operate vehicles. They have a very
real dependency on them.
3812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I tell the member for Humber that we are
giving consideration to a probationary licence
for the younger drivers.
Mr. Ben: May I aslc a question of the Min-
ister? Is the Minister aware, or am I mistaken,
that in the state of New York although you
can drive at the age of 16 in the rural areas,
you have to be 18 in order to quahfy for the
city of New York?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There may be in the
state of New York what we call restricted
licences, for daytime or for those under 18.
Most people are warned not to go into the
state of New York with a 16- or 17-year-old
driver because it is against the law.
Mr. Ben: Would the Minister consider
permitting them to drive at 16 in rural areas,
and restricting it to 18 in built up residential
areas or urban areas?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, as a re-
sult of the recommendations of the committee
on youth, we are looking at the Hcensing of
16- and 17-year olds primarily with the
thought of providing them with a probation-
ary licence. We will consider the further
thought.
Mr. Ben: Would you cover the rest of the
points that I mentioned, please, Mr, Chair-
man?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, the member dealt
with two other matters. One was the Klassen
instance. I do not have the record here
but I recall that driver as having a very, very
bad driving record. I am just trying to check
out and if I can get the record from my
friend tonight, I will; if not I will follow it
through to find out.
Mr. Ben: I will help you. It says 54, 12
accidents, two of them fatal, has his licence
suspended six times, has been convicted 15
times for driving offences ranging from bylaw
infractions to dangerous driving. In February,
he was serving a six months term for
dangerous driving, resulting from an accident
that killed a man.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Just to say, Mr. Chair-
man, that we will be checking out to see if
that man's licence is not under what we call
indefinite suspension, which can be for life.
The other matter the member raised had to
do with doctor's reporting.
Mr. Ben: Also summoning the owner of a
motor vehicle.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There has been a lot of
thought given to the matter of summoning
the owTier of a vehicle. We got away from
this because of our demerit point system
and the fact that they did not harmonize. If
we charged the owner of the vehicle instead
of the driver, our demerit point system that
has so much merit— and is working, we think,
very well— is badly interefered with. We have
sought, as an alternative, some device where-
by it might require the owner to identify the
driver, and we have been trying diflFerent
approaches to that.
There is a law in England, and I checked
out with the department of the Minister of
Transport in England as to the number of
convicitions they had brought about through
that device. It seems to be working there,
but I do not know whether we can use it here
or not. That is another approach to it, because
I would like to find some way of facilitating
the work of the police officers without en-
croaching on the rights of individuals.
I see the area that is left unoccupied once
we get into the position of requiring that only
the driver be charged, and not the owner of
the vehicle. There has to be a harmonizing
somewhere here, and I am going to find an
appropriate way of reaching the owner of
the vehicle and if not charging him, at least
requiring him to identify.
Mr. Ben: May I ask a question, Mr. Chair-
man? Do you necessarily have to give
demerit points where you are charging the
owner as distinct from the operator? Could
you not just have a stiff fine, based on the
degree of culpability? I am more concerned
with getting dangerous drivers off the road.
Evidently the Minister is more concerned
about the demerit system working. I think
perhaps we are ad idem, but we are just
going about it in a different way.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I have to agree with the
hon. member. It is just that we are trying to
find a way so that we get at the driver by
requiring the owner to identify, without inter-
fering with our demerit point system. I
would like to be able to cover both situations.
I have just had the report in that Klassen
case, he is under three-year suspension from
February 13 and before reinstatement he will
be considered for an indefinite suspension. I
can assure the member of this.
Mr. Ben: Good grief, Mr. Minister, if the
Chairman will forgive me! It has already been
pointed out that this man has had 12 acci-
dents; he has been convicted 15 times, has
had his licence already suspended six times,
JUNE 3, 1968
3813
and now you infonn this House that he has
only had his hcence suspended for three
years. Why not permanently?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: If I might point out to
the member, Mr. Chairman, that before his
three years is up and before that licence is
restored to him, consideration will be given to
giving him an indefinite suspension, which
could be for life. This is our device for doing
what the member suggests.
His other point was with regard to doc-
tor's reporting and I will direct him to the
appropriate section. I think it is 145a— yes,
here is the new section—
Every legally qualified medical practi-
tioner shall report to the registrar the
name, address and clinical condition of
every person 16 years of age or over and
attending upon the medical practitioner
for medical services who, in the opinion
of such medical practitioner, is suffering
from a condition that makes it dangerous
for such person to operate a motor vehicle.
I think that is what the member had in
mind.
Mr. Ben: I prefer it to be set out, but I had
in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the previous
operators' permits asked the question: "Have
you ever suffered from epilepsy?" I ask why
could not these applications for renewal ask:
"Have you ever suffered from epilepsy, heart
disease, coronary diseases, or mental diseases?"
Why can they not ask those applying for
renewals?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the rea-
son we moved from using the renewal ap-
plication into requiring the doctor's report
was because of the lapse of time that can
occur now between renewals which are three
years apart. We think that this is a much
more solid approach to the subject, that we
should get reports on all of those who should
not be driving.
Mr. Ben: Except some people never go to a
doctor.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It could be.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I would like to
come back for a moment or two to a point
that has already been discussed; that is
driver training in the high schools, a subject
in which I have been very interested, and on
which I have often spoken in this House.
I think the hon. member for Humber,
wanting to get the youngsters off the roads
from 16 to 18, is perhaps a little over-*
zealous. 1 think that the crux of the problem
is to get that training efficiently done for the
youngsters so that when they leave high
school, perhaps even before they get to
graduation, they are ready to drive.
I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, through you, about the timetable for
achieving the purpose which he has intimated
he has. That is, of graduating safe drivers
from our school system.
I know the Minister has been interested in
this. He has started the process and each
year we are told more driver instructors are
graduated, more of them are working at the
high school level. I wonder if the Minister
would indicate to us how far this has now
progressed— whether he has a timetable say-
ing five, ten years from now we are going to
have every high school graduate a driver.
Or has he tried to draw up such a timetable
for the future?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I cannot give the mem-
ber the kind of answer I think he wants. I
can tell him this, that when we started, I
think it was five or six years ago, with the
first driving instruction course in the high
schools, we had 36 schools enrolled to give
a course that year. Last year there were 200
and some.
This year the course is available in more
than 303 schools. By fall, we have indication
that there will be in excess of 350 of the
high schools in the province— and they will
be the larger ones in the main— making the
course available to students in the schools.
That will be well over half of all the high
schools, and I say we will include those in
the main cities now— Toronto, Ottawa, and
so on. But I would point out to the House
that this does not mean that every child
graduating from the high school will have
passed the course. Because the course is still
on a voluntary basis, and it is still an extra-
mural and extra-curricular course and it
costs money.
The course is endorsed by The Depart-
ment of Education. It is put on under the
authority of the local school board, and they
have the authority, they have the determi-
nation, whether the course will be given yet
or not. I do not have the determination of
what course will be given in a school. Our
department provides the aides and the teach-
ers* courses, and the text books and the con-
trols for the cars, and so on. So it is a joint
venture, and we will be happy to see it
extended as far and as rapidly as possible.
3814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not know that I would agree at this
point that it would be desirable to make it
compulsory, and I say that for the reason
that there is a certain value in having stu-
dents reaching for and wanting it, rather
than being compelled to take it. We may
change this thinking in the days ahead, but
we have not achieved a place yet for every
school is provided, and that is our present
goal.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the Minister then, through you, what propor-
tion of the children in high school are actu-
ally graduating from this course. I suppose
we have some figures on that. I would dis-
agree with the Minister. I think that in an
age such as ours— when every person sooner
or later becomes a driver of an automobile,
unless he has some physical or other handi-
cap—the compulsory angle becomes pretty
pertinent. But I wonder if the Minister could
tell us about what proportion of the gradu-
ates are drivers.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know that I have the proportions; perhaps
I have it coming up here. I know that last
year there was something in excess of 15,000.
But coming down to percentages, that is
about 15 per cent of the high school
graduates.
Mr. Young: Fifteen per cent?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Fifteen per cent; so
you see that we are getting into more than
half the schools, but we are not taking all
the pupils or all the graduates.
Mr. Young: Well now, would that be 15
per cent, Mr. Chairman, of all the graduates
in Ontario? Not 15 per cent of— I was think-
ing—the schools themselves. Is the percentage
in the schools where the courses were offered
very high? I presume that it is very high.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it would be consistent. I think that some
schools have pushed it and have advanced
the course greatly, and others have not done
as well. So that the percentage would vary
in schools as indeed the cost of the course
does to our concern. The cost of the course
still is about $35 on tlie average, but it runs
from about $15 to $65, and that is a problem.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-
Bruce.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I would
agree with the Minister that many, if not
most young people in the country need to
drive at 16 and 17.
It is rather obvious that many of those
young people at age 16 are not ready to
assume the onerous and heavy responsibility
of driving a car. Some of them are, of course,
and they do so in a very capable and rc-
sponsibile manner.
I was wondering if the Minister had even
given consideration to instituting a reduced
point system. Something to the effect of three
points at 16, six points at 17 and then perhaps
at 18— provided there were no convictions
or loss of points during that two-year
period— the young person would then be
in receipt of the total 15 points. I wonder,
first of all, if the Minister has given con-
sideration to that matter. I pose that question.
Then the other matter I want to deal with
is in relation to a letter which I received
from a high school teacher in connection
with the application for renewal of a driver's
licence. The letter is a rather technical one
and perhaps tlie simplest and easiest way
would be for me to read it into the record.
This letter was addressed to the Deputy
Minister, and a copy was sent to me. It says
Dear sir.
With the application form mentioned
above, you enclose a card entitled "points
to remember".
If I may interject at this point, the letter is
rather critical of this application, tliis renewal
application form, and in the letter he sug-
gests various things which could be done
to improve the clarity of the form.
Item 1 on this card says, "Have you an-
swered the five questions on the back of the
application?" If you check the back of tliis
application you will notice that there are
questions la, b, c, 2, 4 and 5. And the ques-
tion is asked, where is question 3? The writer
goes on to say:
I have had a bit of experience with tlie
design and wording of this type of form
and I think this is one of the most ill-con-
ceived that I have ever seen. I offer the
following suggestions:
1. If the space for restriction on the face
of the card is to be filled in, you should
clearly state this fact.
2. The list of questions on the back is a
badly muddled set. Part of the questions
are answered on lines, part in little boxes,
and number 3 is missing entirely.
Such a list of questions should be a neat,
consistent progression.
June 3, i968
3815
3. On the back of the fornli under "re-
striction code" the item marked "9 see box
below" is unclear. Is there any reason why
the numbering of these items is x 1 2 3 4 9,
instead of a more orderly sequence of
numbers. The box marked "code 9" carries
with it absolutely no instruction about
whether to fill in something or other or
leave it blank.
4. The last line of the address on the
front of my card reads "Wingham, Bx 465".
And the writer again asks the question, when
did Bx become an abbreviation for box. "If
you were going to use this abbreviation on
my address, why do you not use the same on
the address of your return envelope"?
Then he goes on to say, "Many people will
wonder whether or not to include exchange
with their checks if it is so; if it is to be in-
cluded, the form should clearly state so".
And then the last suggestion the writer
makes is to proofread the form. I would be
interested in hearing the Minister's comments
in that connection.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I take
the member's criticism and I shall make a
real point of going over the format of the
application form and tlie nature of the letter
going out. I think that we used a filler that
had not been corrected as it should have
been. The problem that we run into really
on the renewal application is trying to get a
lot of information into a very small space.
And we deal with all kinds of people. We
have avoided getting into anything like the
income tax forms that are driving people up
the wall; we do not want to do that with
this.
I can see by trying to keep it compact to
work through our machines, our data pro-
cessing, that it does pose problems. I will go
carefully into the format of the renewal ap-
plication and the letter or the stuff that goes
out with it. The member makes a good point;
you cannot be too careful when you are deal-
ing witli the public en masse, like we do with
three milhon drivers. We try to make it as
simple and as understandable as we can.
With regard to the points, a varied points
or a modified system of points for young
drivers— 16-year-olds— that is inherent in what
I said to the member for Humber. It is under
consideration to have a probationary licence
for 16, 17-year-old drivers. It is, you might
say, a modified Yazer plan, which is really
our demerit system turned inside out; but it
may allow varying the number of points
available to a young driver until he proves
himself.
Mr. V. M. Singer ( Downsview ) : Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could
tell us a little more about his present attitude
about breathalyzer tests so far as controlling
drivers?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
matter of the use of breathalyzers, blood tests
and urine tests to determine the amount of
alcohol in the system is one that has been
receiving a great deal of attention and has
been used to increasing advantage in many
jurisdictions. I think we are all aware of
what benefit has flowed from the new law
in England. I have said in this House before
that I think the proper place for the breath-
alyzer test, and especially the improvement
in the law regarding impaired and drtmken
driving belongs in the criminal code and like
most people concerned with safe driving I
was delighted with the amendments being
made in the criminal code when the House
at Ottawa suddenly dissolved.
We are hoping it will go back onto the
order paper in the House of Commons— what-
ever the government— and be processed. I
have said that I preferred dealing with it in
that way— in the establishment of an offence
for being in possession, or in control of a
motor vehicle with an alcohol condition above
a certain measurable limit. I prefer that
approach to it rather than the implied consent
law whereby the provinces can make the
acceptance of a driver's licence conditional
upon undertaking to undergo a test when
required to do so or to surrender his licence.
I think that is what we understand generally
is tlie implied consent law.
I have had the opinion given me by those
in jurisdictions where they have the implied
consent law that they do not get much more
evidence adduced, and they do not get a
much better record of convictions with that
amount of evidence available to them through
the implied consent law than we do. That may
be.
My chief resistance to adopting the implied
consent law here was that— and I have said
it publicly— I think it helps get the federal
government off the hook, as it were, in the
need to amend the criminal code. I certainly
approve of the action they were taking in that
direction and I am sorry it did not proceed
through the sieveral stages until it became
legislation.
3816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: You still can bring in your own
legislation.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: A good suggestion. I
understand what the member means.
Mr. Sopha: By voting the right way, you
could facilitate its passage.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The one point that I was
somewhat concerned about was that they
seemed to water down in the bill the recom-
mendations that had gone forward from so
many sources, including the standing commit-
tee on justice and legal bills in the Commons.
I think generally speaking a level of .08 was
approved by most authorities, including the
bar association, the medical association, the
British white paper, and the committee, as I
say, on justice and legal bills in the Commons.
I was rather hoping that when the bill came
before the Commons that they might amend
the .1 rating to .08. Is that what the member
was asking?
Mr. Singer: Well, I wanted to get the
Minister's view and now I think I have it.
Let me tell the Minister, Mr. Chairman, what
I think of his view. A few words, not very
much at all; I am disappointed, but I learned
over the years that insofar as we look for
action or advanced steps from this department
we are bound to be disappointed. I am very
sorry, Mr. Chairman, that over the years we
have not been able to take advantage of the
wonderful research work done by the late Dr.
Ward Smith, who was the head of the
Attorney General's crime laboratory.
He was the man who pioneered in this field
in Canada and I would have thought there
could have been no greater testament to the
great service that he did for this province
than that the Minister of Transport would
have risen in his place one day and said, "We
are not going to pass the buck any longer,
we are going to take some action."
Yet what do we get tonight, Mr. Chairman?
We get the Minister saying hopefully those
fellows up in Ottawa, whichever party might
get returned, will maybe do something and
maybe they will have a law that is a little
better than the one they were talking about.
The Minister has heard what Dr. Smith has
had to say over many, many years. He has
heard the speeches that have been made in
the House, not only by me but by the hon.
member for Yorkview since he has been here
—he has been saying exactly the same thing.
He has heard the recommendations of this
outstanding research man, Dr. Smith, who
was a leading government employee. The
Minister has shilly-shallied backwards and
forwards. ■
At one stage, I remember him telling us \
that he did not think there was legal authority '^<
within the province to do it. By now he has |
backed away from that because we read in i
chapter and verse of the decision of the '';
Supreme Court of Canada, which said that ^
the province of Saskatchewan had this power. ,"
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the most con-
crete example of all, it has been in effect in
England. The outstanding result in England of
enacting this kind of a law, is the dramatic
reduction in death toll.
What more can the Minister ask? How
much longer is he going to say it is some-
one else's responsibility and not his? The
Minister is aware of the figures, he says it is
interesting to note. Is it any comfort to those
who continue to be killed on our roads by j
people who are under the influence of alcohol, '
that the Minister finds it interesting that
something has been done in England? And
in England the law was subject to great
criticism, but the law was enacted. What
happened? As my colleague, the member for
Windsor, pointed out deaths were down 579
or 23 per cent for the first three months after
the new law came into effect in October of
1967.
Is that not a startling figure? I am sorry, the
member for Yorkview corrects me— 33 per
cent. Would the Minister not like to have
been able to stand in his place and said, "We
have taken a step which resulted in a saving
of lives of 33 per cent of those people who
were killed on the roads last year." Would
that have been a feather in the Minister's hat?
But what do we get from him tonight? "I
wish those fellows up in Ottawa— whoever
they might be after June 25— will do some-
thing, not quite what they are proposing but
something maybe a little stiffer."
Where is the courage that once resided in
the front benches of that government, Mr.
Chairman? Where is all the brave and new
initiative that they tell us they are prepared
to exercise? Where are they? Why do they j
not do something to prevent the horrible death ]
and acccident toll on our roads?
Mr. Chairman, over the Christmas period
in England, in the five festive days of 1967
compared to the same period in 1966, 60
fewer people died on the roads; 497 fewer
were seriously injured; and 1,367 fewer were
slightly injured, for a total of 1,921 fewer
total accidents. Mr. Chairman, those figures
speak for themselves. There were lots of
complaints.
JUNE 3, 1968
3817
My friend, the member for Sudbury, and
I have talked this over frequently. We do
not believe that anybody has done any less
drinking in England; they are just drinking
in different places; they are walking to
where they drink or taking taxis to where
they drink. They are drinking closer to home
but they are not drinking and then driving.
We are not asking the Minister to reform the
morals of Ontario, we are asking him to enact
laws that will protect the lives of the people
of Ontario.
That is what we are asking you to do and
it lies very badly in the mouth of any member
of that government, any Cabinet Minister, to
say, "I am waiting on some other jurisdiction
and maybe, hopefully, some day they are
going to do something." This Minister, Mr.
Chairman, has the power, he and his col-
leagues can do it. They could bring in an
Act tomorrow morning; they do not even
have to exercise any initiative as to how to
write the statute. The province of Saskatch-
ewan did it for them.
TJiey do not even have to have any doubt
in their mind as to its vires. It is intra vires
the powers of any province, as the Supreme
Court of Canada decided. The judgments are
there; they have been read into this record
and I am not going to labour that any more.
With the record of England still fresh in our
minds, I am shocked and disappointed that a
Minister of the Crown, in this province today,
can stand up and say in reply to the question
I posed to him what this Minister has just
said.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, just to add to
what the member for Downsview has already
said, I have a quote here from the Ontario
safety league of November 20, 1967. We
have heard of the British experience:
The Ontario safety league says that two
years ago Czechoslovakia reported a 25
per cent drop in accidents after blood or
breath tests were made compulsory in
the case of suspected impairment.
These figures are similar to the ones in the
British experience, and I would like to bring
to the Minister the report of the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Gomme), and he might per-
haps listen to the experience of the Minister
of Highways in this regard, on page 214 of
this report.
Mr. Singer: That was where?
Mr. Young: In Ontario. The gentleman
who is sitting across from us— his advice to
the Minister of Transport perhaps might be
pertinent at this point.
The King's highway system, exclusive of
secondary highways, reported 766 deaths
as a result of 604 fatal accidents. There
was evidence of drinking in 36.3 per cent
of these accidents. Single vehicle type fatal
accidents accounted for 30.6 per cent of
the highways total. Drinking drivers were
involved in 46.5 per cent of 189 fatal acci-
dents which resulted when the vehicle
went off the roadway and struck a fixed
object on the King's highway.
Pedestrian accidents resulted in 113
deaths or 14.8 per cent of the total of 766
persons killed on highways. In 32.7 per
cent of these accidents the pedestrian had
been drinking.
The 7C0 miles of controlled-access high-
ways had a 2.6 per cent fatal accident rate.
TJhere was evidence of drinking in 41.5 per
cent of the accidents resulting in deathsj
41.3 per cent of the fatal accidents involv-
ing one vehicle only, while pedestrian
deaths accounted for 21.8 per cent of the
total reported for access highways.
In other words, what the Minister of High-
ways is saying to us is that a very high
proportion of the fatal acidents on this sys-
tem involved the drinking driver.
There is also a report here from CTV
which has a well-known outlet in this city.
March 24, 1968, not very long ago, in the
programme W5 it reported on one of its
surveys, "78 per cent of the people inter-
viewed were in favour of the breathalyzer
test." Their survey showed also that six out
of 10 accidents involved alcohol and five out
of 10 deaths on the highway involved alcohol
as well.
Mr. Chairman, this matter has been debated
in this House every year at great length and I
do not know that we need to debate it to-
night to similar length as we have in the past.
Again I urge upon this Minister, as the hon.
member for Downsview has urged, that the
breathalyzer test— backed up, if you will, by
a blood or urine test, voluntary on the part
of the driver concerned— should become
mandatory in the province of Ontario. I am
not a lawyer; I do not know the legal aspects
of this. I am assured by my hon. friend that
the power is here, and I accept that. I believe
that with the breathalyzer brought into oiur
legal system, we will see the same dramatic
drop in the death rate on our highways as
we have seen in the case of Britain and of
Czechoslovakia and other jurisdictions. Again
3818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I urge upon this Minister to take another long
look at this situation and to bring the re-
quired legislation to make our roads safer
because the breathalyzer is mandatory.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, it becomes quite obvious from the
remarks that have been made on this side
of the House that the Minister will certainly
not find opposition to the introduction of
stricter regulations, both with regard to the
breathalyzer test and abuse of the ordinary
public by drinking drivers; the dangers that
go with it, and the dangers that we face from
people who are not in a condition, medically
or mentally, to drive.
But, with regard to the original question
which was presented to him a while ago
about the drivers' training school regulation
and the disconnection of the dual-safety
brake, I would like to find out from the
Minister, Mr, Chairman, if the prime reason
for tiiis disconnection was to ensure that the
drivers that were applying for tests and
applying for approval would be better trained
and better prepared for the test than they
might otherwise be.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the mem-
ber for York Centre puts the question in a
very easy way to answer. My officials report
that a noticeable improvement in the calibre
of applicants presenting themselves for driver
tests during the last few months indicates that
novice drivers are taking greater care and
more time in preparing themselves for their
driver tests. Furthermore the results are re-
flected in a higher passing rate at their first
attempt.
There are fewer failures and fewer retests.
There has been a sharp reduction in the
number of persons waiting for tests because
people have understood tliey have got to come
forward better prepared than they were; and
the driving schools know they have to bring
their pupils forward in a better trained con-
dition.
Mr. Deacon: Mr, Chairman: I would ap-
preciate the Minister advising me whether
or not there is a difference in the performance
of drivers who are taking their tests in their
own cars. That is, of those 75 per cent of
applicants coming forward for tests that be-
fore did not have any dual safety system and
now do not have any dual safety system, are
they also improving in their performance?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, formerly
they could take the test in either the driving
school car with the dual controls, or in their
own cars without them. I think I can get
some statistics on the failure rate, if we may
just hold up. May I deal with the other
matter, tliough, finally, since we have had
further comment on the breathalyzer test?
I think we all want the same results— a
reduction in road collisions and fatalities and
injuries resulting from drinking drivers. I
have to repeat, though, that breathalyzer
tests alone would not get us all the desired
results; that more benefits can be expected
from the approach of the federal govermnent
in amending its criminal code that will estab-
lish the impaired level and make it an offence
to be in control of a car while with a level
of alcohol content above a specified level,
along with the means for collecting the evi-
dence. I think we have to be very careful
that we understand the difference.
I may say that the matter was discussed by
all our provincial Ministers responsible for
motor vehicle administration and the con-
sensus was there, as I have just said, that
the breathalyzer test alone has only limited
value in gatliering evidence. Better results are
to be obtained if we can have the federal gov-
ernment amend the criminal code in the way
that it was proposing to do.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what the Min-
ister is obviously trying to say is that he
thinks there is a better way of doing it; and
unless the federal governm-ent moves, he will
not move. He is saying that a better way of
doing it, in his opinion, is to take action
under the criminal power that the federal
government has. Mr. Chairman, the point that
I was making was very simple. It may be a
year or ten years before the federal govern-
ment ever moves in regard to that. In the
meantime, this government, which calls itself
responsible, has the power to do it. It has
the constitutional power to do it and there
can be no doubt about it.
Surely every day that the law is delayed
you are allowing that many more accidents
and deaths on the roads in Ontario. We,
here, cannot control anything that is done up
there in Ottawa. How much longer do we
have to wait to see this government move?
This is the responsible Minister and govern-
ment that gets up and pats itself on the back
saying what great fellows they are and what
great advances that they make. This Minister
has moved a bit; I will give him credit for
the fact that when I first argued this with
him several years ago he thought it a terrible
JUNE 3, 1968
3819
thing. Leslie Frost used to get up and say,
'What an infringement of people's rights',
and shock swept the front benches over there.
This was a terrible thing. They have moved
a little in their thinking in all aspects, except
passing laws.
I say that this government must stand con-
demned by reason of its lack of courage and
by reason of its continued desire to pass the
buck.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, there is one other point asso-
ciated with this matter that the Minister re-
ferred to a few moments ago, and that is the
feeling that has been expressed in many
quarters that the proposed amendment to the
criminal code does not go far enough in that
it recognizes only 0.1 per cent as the level
at which a charge may be laid. The Minister
correctly pointed out that .08 would be more
appropriate. From the reading that I have
been able to do, it appears that if the level
is 0.1 per cent, the person would be very
obviously intoxicated and he would not need
a breathah'zer test other than to substantiate
the charge that would be laid. The person
would hardly be capable of operating a motor
vehicle at all.
I think that the Minister has a good point
when he says that that level is too high. If
he believes this himself, then it appears that
even if the enactment does take place at the
federal level, in the Minister's judgment—
and I think that he is right in this— it is not
stringent enough for matters as we find them
in the crowded highways of Ontario. He
may very well have to request this House to
give him parallel legislation which will make
the enactment more stringent here. He him-
self has said he feels that the 0.1 per cent
level would be inadequate for the enforce-
ment that we feel is needed in Ontario. I
would ask him even if federal legislation is
forthcoming, if he would not then feel-
having said that it is inadequate himself—
if he would not have parallel legislation on
that approach?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
not like to comment on that until we see the
nature of the federal enactment.
Mr. Nixon: It has disappeared?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, it has disappeared,
and wait until you see what reappears. It
may go back to .08. That is what I hope.
But I would just like to repeat what I was
saying. The member for Downsview is one
skilled in the law. He knows very well, that
merely to bring in an implied consent law,
utilizing the breathalyzer for evidence, will
not be the equal of the amendment that can
be made to the criminal code to establish the
offence. Sir, the member for York Centre
asked me specifically with regard to the per-
centages of failures of those coming forward
with their own cars, as opposed to those with
dual controls. My officials say that in 1967
a survey showed that about 28 per cent of
persons in privately owned vehicles failed.
49 per cent of those in dual control vehicles
failed.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, when the Min-
ister says I know full well that the kind of
law that has been enacted in Saskatchewan
would not be nearly as effective as what
Ottawa is proposing, assuming that they re-
duced or increased the severity of the per-
centage of the test—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Established the oflFence.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with
the hon. Minister just as violently and vehe-
mently as I possibly can. I think that it
would be most effective, and I would think
that the only way that we are going to test
that difference of opinion is to pass the legis-
lation here in the province of Ontario. The
English law is much more closely aligned
with the type of thing that has been done in
Saskatchewan than tliat which is now pro-
posed in Ottawa, and the Minister knows
that. His advisers must have told him that.
The dramatic proof is there. There is no
point in quibbling about 0.8 or 1.0. Dr.
Smith made a very substantial argument—
Dr. Ward Smith made the very substantial
argument— that it should be point five.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Point zero five.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right, it depends where
you put the zero. We are talking about 0.8,
0.5, and 1.0. Or, if you take 0.1, then you
are talking about .08 and .05. We are talking
about the same criteria. Dr. Smith was much
more violent in his recommendations. We
put them that way, he wanted them to be
three-fifths of one hundredth of 1 per cent
more stringent. Now, I am asking Mr. Chair-
man, and all I think that this government
should do is to move. The Minister has no
basis whatsoever to suggest that what has
been done successfully in Saskatchewan, and
what has been done successfully in England,
cannot be done successfully in Ontario by
this government here and now.
3820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is a blatant avoidance of responsibility,
supreme negligence on the part of this gov-
ernment that they will not and cannot sum-
mon the intestinal fortitude to move in this
important field.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, two things. First
in the matter of school bus drivers. Has
there been any consideration given to having
their licences reviewed or retested yearly,
in keeping with the practises in Ohio and
Pennsylvania? Second, in the matter of the
school bus stopping law. Taking this under
driver control, although it may not be there,
I would like to know what the accident rate
has been, and what has happened since this
law has been passed. I would gather from
those that I have spoken to that there have
been more accidents since the passing of the
school bus stopping law than there were
prior to its passing. I am not against the
law, but I wonder if the drivers of the buses
have been properly informed in the use of it?
Have they been giving adequate warning
to the drivers coming behind them and from
the opposite direction when they are going to
stop, putting on those flashing lights?
I know of one case in which tliere was a
serious accident, not six weeks ago, because
the bus driver stopped over the crest of a
hill, and two cars, as they came over the hill,
came upon this bus with its lights flashing,
not aware of its presence. Both applied brakes
and the one behind was about to pass the
leading car, but smacked into the back of
it. Now I would like to know something
about the statistics since this law has been
put into effect, and I would also like to know
with regard to retraining or rechecking the
licences of school buses yearly.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I will
deal under this section with the examination
of school bus drivers. That is a routine matter.
Those over 65 are tested annually now, and
those under, every two or three years. But
when we called in all the drivers for pre-
liminary tests, we picked up the licences of
a very substantial number of school bus
drivers, especially in the over-65 age bracket.
I find here that of the 408 drivers over 65,
208, when they were tested voluntarily or
were called in voluntarily, decided to dis-
continue driving school buses. It just shows
how necessary this test on school bus drivers
was.
We have more stringent requirements for
school bus drivers than ordinary drivers.
Mr. Deans: That is very good. I wonder if
I could ask then if the other matter will not
be dealt with at this time? The matter of
instructing the drivers in the manner in
which they should use the warning lights in
the buses to warn the people travelling with
or toward them?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that the matter of the safe operation of the
school bus stopping law comes under vote
2205, and I have here for that purpose an
outline of what we have done by way of
instructing the school bus operators, the
school bus owners, the school boards,
the teachers, the police officers, and all of the
related organizations or bodies of people in-
volved, in how to effectively use the school
bus stopping regulations.
I think we have done— we thought— a
blanket job on this, and yet we still find
that for all that we amended the law two
years ago in a very, very simple way, simply
requiring approaching traffic as well as over-
taking traffic to stop— and that was the only
change we made— that there seems to have
been a tremendous rhubarb made over that
single change.
Mr. Deans: Since you have decided to
answer. Has the accident rate gone up since
the law was brought into being?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I think, Mr. Chairman,
I could summarize or condense it by saying
that the accident rate over all has increased
slightly. The accident rate with regard to
accidents from approaching vehicles being
required to stop, has not. The number of
people involved in accidents has increased.
The number of fatalities has reduced. So how
do you relate all those figures and come to
any consensus?
I think our operation has been eminently
successful and I think our performance is
good.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, coming back
to the matter of driver training and testing.
I note that the Minister has shown there to
be a great discrepancy. The much higher
failure rate on the part of those taking their
tests in driver school vehicles would indicate
possibly that these applicants were not
properly trained at the time they came up
for tests.
I understand from the national profes-
sional driver education association that their
JUNE 3, 1968
3821
main concern now is to have regulations
introduced by the province to ensure that
a much higher standard of school is operated.
They have introduced in various states,
legislation which would ensure this, rather
than putting in a law to disconnect the dual
system which is already in the car and is
quite inconvenient and is not a mechanically
sound regulation to make as far as the car
is concerned. Would it not be better for us
to introduce legislation which would eliminate
many of these schools which are not operating
on a sound basis. They are charging rates
that are far below what could possibly be
charged for a well operated regulated driver
training programme.
We know that good training, such as the
pro driver programme and these high school
programmes, does result in a much better rec-
ord of accident-free driving after the test.
Surely what we are seeking is a lowering of
killing on the highways as the result of the
test that we bring into effect. I cannot see that
it is a sound move for us to go about this
matter by enforcing installation of mechani-
cally inadvisable changes in the mechanism of
these dual safety or dual braking systems,
when we could be covering the matter by
instituting and bringing in legislation cover-
ing driving school regulations.
I have noticed in business in which I have
been associated that another factor that
definitely comes into driver control of cars is
the matter of insurance. If you have full col-
lision coverage and no deductible, or even
$25 or $50 deductible, accident rates are
higher than when you have no collision insur-
ance at all, and the branch which the driver
is working out of have to pay the full collision
cost out of their ovra operating results of any
accidents they have. If we do not have the
financial responsibility or have a lessening of
financial responsibiHty, we do not take the
same care. And this applies, I think, perhaps
in the testing of drivers.
When you are using your own vehicle, and
a vehicle that you have probably been in
much more frequently than you have in a
driver school vehicle where you have to pay
so much an hour, you are going to be much
more careful, and you are probably going to
be better trained, than if you do not have
a vehicle of your own and you have to rent
one or use the driver training vehicle. There
are other factors in here that I am sure are
resulting in a much better record of passing
of tests by those taking it in owner operated
vehicles than in the driving school vehicles.
I, therefore, submit Mr. Chairman, to the
Minister, that he introduce legislation regard-
ing driver training schools at an early date
and consider changing and relinquishing this
other regulation which I do not think is the
right approach for us in reducing the kilUng
on our highways.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: If I may, just for a moment,
follow up on what I was talking about, on the
school bus safety; just two httle points.
Would you consider making it mandatory
for the driver to come out of the bus and
escort the children who must cross the high-
way?
Second, would you make it mandatory for
a driver to pull the bus off the road?
I think this would assist immeasurably in
avoiding some of the problems that we have
been having together, of course, with no
stopping on hills, curves and the likes with
those two things.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, earlier in
the evening there was quite some discussion
concerning the raising of the driving age from
16 to 18 and the Minister mentioned the
report of the select committee that studied
youth and youth problems.
I would Hke to bring to the attention of
the Minister, a conference of all-Canada
young drivers. I will not bother reading the
recommendations that they have made. The
Minister can have someone from his depart-
ment look them up. But, the recommendations
issued as a result of this conference, Mr.
Chairman, are worthy of serious consideration
by your department and I would only hope
that as a result of this conference of the
youngsters that you do come up with some
type of legislation that will enact some of their
suggestions.
To show you how seriously interested we
are in our own community concerning driver
education, the present chief of police in the
community made the following statement,
just on March 16 of this year, Mr. Chairman,
and I am quoting his statement:
Soon Ontario will have to pass legislation
to require teenagers under 18 to take driver
education courses before they are allowed
to drive.
Now I think he is a forward-looking individual
when he makes a comment like that. I would
say that you will follow the example that the
state of Michigan has laid down and you will
insist on exactly the same thing. I only hope
3822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that you will do it sooner than we would
normally anticipate you doing it.
Mr. Ben: What is his name?
Mr. B. NevsTTian: Chief Gordon Preston.
Mr. Chairman, in my introductory com-
ments, when we originally started the dis-
cussion of this department, I made mention of
the use of certain tags on licence plates and
I specifically mentioned a learner plate or tag.
In other words, an individual driving tlie car
not having a permanent driver's licence— or
simply having a learner licence or even if an
individual with a driver's licence accompany
him— must have, on that vehicle, a big "L"
fastened to the licence plate both front and
back. I notice in a magazine sent to us from
nortliern Ireland— I assume every member of
the House received that magazine— that they
are using both an "L" or "R" attached to
licence plates. The "L" being a learner and
the "R" restricted, meaning that vehicle is not
to travel faster than 45 miles an hour.
Mr. Chairman, I would like your com-
ments concerning the use of identifying tags
on cars for individuals who are learners-
individuals who may have lost a certain num-
ber of points as a result of convictions. We
have tried to convince them of safety behind
the wheel. Tliey apparently do not pay at-
tention to our pleadings and so we have to
identify them by putting some type of tag
on their vehicle. I would also like your com-
ments concerning the use of tags on the
Hcence or somewhere on the vehicle. The
tag can be removed when an individual is
no longer driving the car, and someone else
takes over.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I earlier
mentioned that we were considering a pro-
bationary licence for young drivers. The
special learner tag would be a part of that
study, and if we decide to go ahead we
might provide the licence attachment. Before
the member for Wentworth goes, I would
say to him that the two suggestions he made
with regard to school bus stopping, I think
it would more properly come under vote
2203, but I will answer him now.
The requirement for the operator to leave
the vehicle and escort the children across
the road has problems leaving the vehicle
unattended while still loaded with children;
and the consideration of requiring the vehicle
to pull off the road to flash its lights has
been considered, but there are disadvantages
in that traflBc might feel more inclined to
travel by it. We think that the requirement
to stop for overtaking trajffic is better enforced
by having the vehicle stay on the road and
flash its lights. These things are being con-
sidered. They did not just come off the top
of the member's head, I am sure, and I want
him to know that we are giving them serious
thought too.
I come to the member for Windsor-
Walkerville again with regard to the young
Canada conference that was held in Ottawa,
at Carleton University, last summer. We had
members of our department assisting with
panels. I understand they are sending for-
ward a brief to me, but we do not have it
yet. When we have it, it will be very care-
fully considered.
Mr. B. Newman. Tlie conference was held
August 7 to 10, so surely you have—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I say we have not re-
ceived a copy of a brief from them that they
intimated was coming forward to us.
Mr. B. Newman: Surely you would not be
waiting for a brief. Surely you could take the
recommendations on the back of this and
have your department study them, and if
they have merit then implement them. Why
wait for that, why delay safety another six
months.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2202 carried?
Mr. B. Newman: No, there is another
question.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There is some misunder-
standing that there is some second thinking
on some of these points, and that is tlie
reason I was waiting for a formal brief from
them, The member for York Centre also
asked me respecting the licencing of driving
schools. We licence driver instructors, and
we have that control on them. At the
moment we are under pressure, I think, from
a group that is trying to organize the schools
and force them into membership. They would
perhaps have their programme of bringing
all the driver schools into the membership of
their organization, if we co-operated in this
way. We take a second look at this.
At the present there is less than one-
quarter of the driving instructors, as we
understand it, that are interested in this. I
do not think that we would want to run too
quickly into requiring the schools to organize
and probably take out membership in the as-
sociation until we are satisfied that it is
moving in the right direction. One of the
organizers, I understand, has come over from
JUNE 3, 1968
3823
the American association and is trying to set
up an association here. We look at it very
carefully.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I asked
the Minister earlier for his comments con-
cerning a special tag on a licence plate, or a
special licence plate to an individual who
has lost, say, nine or 12 points. After a
person has lost a given number of points, he
receives a letter from your department. Why
not at that time require him to turn in his
licence plate and issue him a special licence
plate identifying him as being a driver who
is not too safe on the road.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Under driver control,
and our demerit point system, drivers are
iiotified in a warning letter that tliey have
reached the six-point level. At the nine-point
level they are called in for interview, and
retesting. There might be a problem. We
have not given any serious thought to putting
a special plate on his car, as a six-point or a
nine-point demerit point driver, because the
cars are driven by all the members of the
family, but I will look at that.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I do not
mean that the plate will be permanent. That
individual who has lost nine points will be
required to fasten a tag on the vehicle only
when he is driving the car. When he finishes
and another member of the family who has
iiot lost his points drives the car, he would
take the tag oflF exactly the same way that he
would with an "L" or an "R" on the licence
plate.
Mr. Chairman:
Centre.
The member for York
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I am interested
in tlie Minister's comment about tlie associa-
tion trying to coerce others into it. This is not
what I was suggesting, and I would concur
fully with the Minister's thought that we
would not want to be doing something to
help build up an association necessarily. That
is their responsibility, not ours.
My understanding is that a group of driver
training instructors are very anxious that the
province bring in very much stricter legisla-
tion concerning the requirements not only
for tlie driver training and passing training,
but also for the vehicles they use in training
drivers. They feel that the regulations as
we now have them in the province are not
nearly strict enough, and there is a great deal
of abuse in this field. It is an easy field to
get into, without any proper precautionary
measures with regard to vehicles, and the
instructors and the sort of performance that
they must live up to. There are many states
that ha\e this legislation.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2202; the member
for Windsor West.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): I would
just like to take the Minister for a few
moments from concentration on the problems
of younger drivers into the age group that
he belongs to.
I note in his statistics for 1966-1967 and
from what he said earlier in tonight's debate,
that 208 of the 408 school bus drivers over
65 years of age voluntarily surrendered their
licences to drive those buses. And that
further, the tests and requirements for their
capabihties were much more stringent than
those applied, I assmne, to drivers of automo-
biles in the same age group and up. It is this
group driving private automobiles, Mr. Chair-
man, that I think requires to be subject to
the same kind of stringent test, stringent
eligibility, the Minister has applied to the
school bus drivers in that 65 years and above
age bracket.
Recently, there was an instance to support
this proposition in a community north of
Toronto, in which a small child was sitting
on the curb of the street, when five car
lengtlis away a driver, 69 years of age, started
up his automobile to drive it on to the road-
way. Instead of pulling away from the curb,
into the normal lane of traffic on the right
hand side of the road, he continued along
with his wheels \ ery close to the curb to the
point where he ran over both legs of the
child, breaking tliem.
To this point, although that aocidenit
occurred, I believe, at least over a montli
ago, no charges have been laid by the police
in that community and tiie driver of that
automobile is not therefore subject to any
review of his capabilities to drive. I suggest
that there is a serious gap in the Minister's
programme of driver control and driver
re-examination when such an accident can
occur, when charges are not laid by the
police, and therefore no investigation is held
of such a driver's capacity to continue to
drive.
I note in the statistics in the Minister's
report for 1966-1967 on page 37, that he sets
out the reasons for the first-attempt failures
on driver examinations for the calendar year
1966. Among five categories of drivers for
which reasons for the failure are given, the
first two (a) and (b) are drivers 70 years of
3824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
age and over, and drivers 80 years and over,
the first group having been involved in
accidents.
It appears that it is not at all mandatory,
except for the driver's physician's report to
the Minister, for such a driver to have his
licence and his capacity to drive re-examined.
I would like to ask the Minister: of the 5,000
drivers who failed on re-examination, how
many of these fell within those first two
categories, (a) and (b) drivers 70 or 80 years
of age and over?
I want also to ask the Minister will he not
apply to the drivers in these age groups the
same kind of stringent tests that he says
would have been applied to those school bus
drivers 65 years of age and over, but who,
rather than subject themselves to the tests
and face the risk of suspension of their
licence, voluntarily gave them up?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know the case to which the hon. member has
referred, where a driver ran over the legs of
a child sitting on the curb. I would think that
there would have been a charge laid if the
driver had been felt to be at fault.
With regard to the drivers over 70 and 80
and their passing percentages, I will try to
get the figure. But I point out to the House,
sir, that all drivers over 80 are required to
provide a certificate or have an examination
every year. All those over 70 who have
been involved in any kind of accident are
required to have a test. I will try to get the
figures. I do not know if I can pull them out
as to the failure rate of drivers over 70 or
80 trying their initial test. That was what
the member asked.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, the reason
I drew these statistics to the Minister's
attention is that I find it hard to credit that
of the 5,000, only 810 were failed because of
lack of adequate vision, the balance being
failed on account of their lack of knowledge,
or inability to deal with, the signs and rules
of the road. It would appear to me, Mr.
Chairman, as appears to be the case in the
accident I raised with the Minister, that vision
had a good part to do with the cause of the
accident. I think the Minister ought to take
a very good look at imposing at least that
test of vision on all drivers over the age of
65, regardless of whether they have been
involved in an accident after they have
reached that age, or not.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Every driver over 80
has to have an annual test on those grounds.
The member suggests that we should drop it
to 65. With regard to vision, we are much
concerned with the vision tests we are making
and this last year we have added a new
instrument to measuring tests. We have
even tightened the vision requirements to
bring us into conformity with all other prov-
inces. We have established a Canada-wide
standard, and that was a prerequisite to a
reciprocating arrangement that we have made
between provinces on licensing drivers com-
ing into one province from residence in
another province where you present a driving
licence.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I think that is
a pretty poor reason for setting the minimum
age at which drivers are subject to a vision
test or other tests, simply because other
provinces in this country may have accepted
80 and that, therefore, we want a uniform
standard and 80 happens to be the age which
the provinces recognize.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The hon. member mis-
understands me. The age of 80 was not set
in the Canada-wide standard. The vision
standards were set to agree across the coim-
try. I would not say that the other provinces
all had an annual test beginning only at 80.
Maybe they have, I do not know, but we
have a test for every driver of 80, and if a
driver has reported that he requires glasses or
he is troubled with his driving sight, he can
be called in as often as his licence pops up.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, this again is
subject to the voluntary disclosure by the
driver of his failing eyesight.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: And his doctor's report.
Mr. Peacock: It is not at all a mandatory
obligation on him to report to the depart-
ment or to come in for an examination once
he reaches a certain birth date and I suggest
to the Minister that the age of 80 for com-
pulsory vision examination is much too high
and that he should reduce it substantially to
the age that I have suggested.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: I would like to talk on
driver control in relation to truck drivers and
bring to the Minister's attention the brief
that had been presented by Dave Elhott of
local 880 of the teamsters' union, in which he
has taken on, as a personal campaign, an
effort to set up more stringent safety stand-
JUNE 3, 1968
3825
ards in relation to the drivers of heavy
equipment.
Now he makes two comments that would
have direct bearing on this vote and several
other comments on following votes. I am
quoting from his brief:
Another important factor that is being
constantly overlooked in the trucking in-
dustry is the standard of health. There are
drivers who have been on the road for
years who may never have had a medical
check up. Most companies ignore this
completely, while others keep a close
check at least once a year.
And he recommends that all truck drivers
should be compelled to take a regular health
and vision check up at specific intervals. I
will ask the Minister to comment later on
that.
He makes mention that every driver should
be permitted a proper rest period after a
decided and controlled number of driving
miles, and the third suggestion made by him
is that log books be kept, as the United
States law requires all United States drivers
to keep a log book which records the length
of time the driver has spent at the wheel. If
a similar procedure were followed in Ontario,
he contends that the accident ratio would
fall substantially and likewise there would be
a method of checking up as to maybe one of
the reasons for the accident not being the
fact that the driver may have been a little
too tired. Would the Minister comment on
these please?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, just this:
The federal labour enactments are tightening
down on the number of hours a truck driver
is allowed to operate. It has not been in
force— I think that is section 3 of The Trans-
port Act— and the labour requirements on
hours with respect to drivers has been post-
poned too, but that is where the control on
hours of driving, I think, would rest. I do not
think that there is anything in our regulations
that would limit the number of hours, or give
us the opportunity to check on driving hours
unless there was an institution of something
comparable to the log book. I see the point
the member is making— the desirability of
having the complete record on the driver as
well as the vehicle.
Mr. B. Newman: Is the Minister consider-
ing the application of the log book principle
in his department?
Hton. Mr. Haskett: I would have to say,
Mr. Chairman, I have not at this point.
Mr. B. Newman: May I suggest to the Min-
ister then that he have his officials look into
its value and if it has merit then implement
it.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I have noted the point.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman: I am surprised at
the Minister's answer because this same topic
was brought up last year and the year before
to the Minister when it was pointed out that
Britain, Germany, South Africa and many
other countries have compulsory log books
with each automobile. Now how can a Min-
ister get up here today and, in answer to the
hon. member's question, say he has not given
consideration to it as yet but that he "might."
I think it is a disgrace.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: First of all I would like to
say how pleased I am to hear the Minister
is considering bringing in probationary
licences, because I have a letter here from
him dated two years back in which he said
that this particular matter had been consid-
ered and rejected as he felt it was discrimina-
tory against some of the drivers. However, as
we get older we get wiser.
The matter I would like to discuss is driver
examination and I have some personal interest
in this particular matter because of a sad
personal experience I had. About a year and
a half ago, I made a speech one night saying
that anyone who drove without a licence
should be locked up and the next day I was
picked up by the police for driving without
a licence.
What had occurred was that my licence
had expired some two and a half years earlier
and somehow I had not learned of this little
matter and when I protested that the IBM
machine must have broken down, the Minister
—and he may have been perfectly right— said
I had not probably opened all my mail.
In any case, for one reason or another, I
did not realize my licence had expired and
I had been driving for two and a half years
without a licence. Well, the pohce pointed
out that it was—
Mr. Sopha: He was liable to six months
imprisonment— is not the Minister of Reform
Institutions sorry?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Not until they give him to me.
3826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: The point which I am coming
to, Mr. Chairman, is that I found that I could
not drive my car at this point, not having a
hcence; I could not have my Hcence renewed
because I was told that because it had expired
more than a year before, I had to take a new
examination. I could not take a new exami-
nation because the places where an exami-
nation could be taken were all jammed up for
a period of some ten days to two weeks
ahead.
I have two complaints here. The first is
that I think everyone should be treated alike.
It so happens that, by chance, at the same
time as I had this misadventure, the police
reporter at the Toronto Star made the same
sad discovery and while I had to go through
the routine and taxi for the two weeks until
I took my examination, this particular gentle-
man, although his licence had also expired
for a period of two years, had a new licence
delivered to him that day by taxi. And, as
he pointed out, it appears in this province
there is one law for the rich and another for
the press.
The point which bothers me mostly here
though, is that in my case I did not need to
drive to earn a living, I was able to manage,
but this could have happened and certainly
must happen from time to time-
Mr. Ben: The member does not take house
calls?
Mr. Shulman: My wife drove me to the
house calls. But it must happen to people
who have to have their licence in order to
earn tlieir living and I would like to suggest
to the Minister through you, sir, that xm-
doubtedly this will occur. Whether it Idc
error of the individual involved or by error
of the departinent is really immaterial; it will
occur, and I would like to suggest that when
such an incident does occur, the persons
finding themselves in this position should be
taken, so to speak, to the head of the line,
particularly if their work depends upon their
having a driving licence.
I can well understand people applying for
a new hcence and people coming up for re-
examination where there is no great rush, a
day or so here or there is not going to matter,
but to someone, for example, driving a taxi,
it can be terribly important. I would like to
suggest to the Minister that there cannot be
too many of these cases and when they do
occur, that they be given the first cancellation
that comes in so they have an early oppor-
tunity to get their licence back.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to check out the story about someone
getting preferred treatment so far as getting
a licence like that. I would like to know of
any happening like that. We try to treat
people fairly.
But with regard to the member's story that
he was required to wait some two weeks or
so, I can assure him that the appointment
can be made now within tlie current week.
I think in his case there was a chance that
there was a cancellation and he was given the
courtesy of being advised of it and filling in.
We try to treat all people fairly. I would be
very surprised; I will make a point of finding
out how anyone got by, because in my opera-
tion there are not two laws.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Minister is quite right. I did have to wait
only a week; there was a cancellation and I
got in. If I could have a page boy I will send
the name of the person who did not have to
vio-ite the exam across to the Minister if he
wishes to look into it.
Vote 2202 agreed to.
On vote 2203:
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the matter
which I wish to bring up is the matter of com-
pulsory car inspection. I have recommenda-
tions here from the Ontario chamber of
commerce, from Canadian Motorist, from the
highway safety agency in the United States,
from the Toronto automobile dealers associa-
tion, the transportation committee of the
municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and
among others I have a recommendation from
the House leader, present here tonight I
believe, the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs (Mr. Rowntree). I will quote
him:
Here I wonder if we could not to a
reasonable degree follow the example of
British Columbia in requiring vehicle
inspection every six months at the hands of
a qualified mechanic. This, it seems to me,
would go a long way toward eliminating
certain chronic causes of accidents, defec-
tive brakes, defective steering, worn-out
tires, horn and windshield wiper not work-
ing, cracked windshields; all are factors'
which contribute to accidents.
I would like to commend to the Minister the
recommendations of tliese various bodies and
individuals.
Tliis particular recommendation was made
by tlie hon. Minister on January 31, 1957,
in his maiden speech. I hope the Minister of
JUNE 3, 1968
3827
Transport has had an opportunity to read
that speech and considered the suggestion.
There is also one other group that has made
the suggestion we have compulsory car inspec-
tion.
Let me stress, Mr. Chairman, the impor-
tance of compulsory car inspection. It has
been proven, in the various jurisdictions in
which it has been brought into eflFect, that
this will reduce the number of accidents.
There was a recommendation made on page
22 of the Guide to Traffic Safety by the Cana-
dian government specifications board; it is
very brief on this subject and I would like to
read it to the Minister through you, sir. I
quote from page 22:
Since the average owner is not competent
or equipped to do more than limited inspec-
tions as outlined above, and in any case
probably will not make them, there should
be compulsory inspection by a competent
professional or enforcement agency at regu-
lar intervals. It is suggested that the cur-
rent issue of Standard D71 of the United
States of America standards institute be
the basis for such inspection.
In case, Mr. Chairman, you are not familiar
witli this Guide to Traffic Safety, which is
issued by the Canadian government specifica-
tions board, let me say that tliis is the ultimate
word in traffic safety, it was produced by
experts-
Mr. Ben: The ultimate.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: It is 100 per cent Canadian
content, for the benefit of the member on the
Conservative back benches. This was set up
by the Canadian Department of Defence Pro-
duction, Ottawa, Canada, and they invited
leading experts on automobile safety from all
over Canada to come and sit—
Mr. Chairman: Could I ask the member if
he is speaking about highway safety, because
vote 2205 deals specifically with highway
safety co-ordination and promotion.
Mr. Shulman: Vehicle safety inspection—
under vote 2203.
Mr. Nixon: Anyone we know among those
experts?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I think there are two
people whose names you might have heard
among those experts. Actually, there are two
people represented here tonight who were
among those experts and one of them was
Mr. A. T. McNab, the Deputy Minister of
Highways. Modesty forbids me to mention
the other.
In any case, the recommendations in this
particular report were unanimously voted.
This particular recommendation was unani-
mously voted; there was not a single person
on that committee who spoke up against this
recommendation because it is plain, ordinary
common sense. I would like to suggest to the
Minister that with all of these bodies, with
members of his own Cabinet making the sug-
gestion, with the government specifications
board making this suggestion, that it is a
shame— I can use a stronger word but it is a
shame— that we in Ontario have not followed
the suggestion.
The vehicle inspection, the compulsory
inspection that we have in Ontario at the
present time, is a pale imitation of what has
already been put into force, as suggested
here, in at least 17 states of the United States
and the District of Columbia, certain areas of
Canada, British Columbia. I understand now
two of the other provinces have it.
It was suggested years ago in the action
programme, the master plan to prevent traffic
accidents, which I have here, which was
brought out by the President's committee for
traffic safety. This has been available to
traffic departments for some ten years now
and I point to page 18 of the section under
motor vehicle administration. They point out
here— I will not read it, it is fairly lengthy-
how essential it is to have compulsory vehicle
safety inspections annually or semi-annually
and that the system which we have here in
Ontario, which was specifically discussed at
the conference that brought out this action
programme, is not sufficient. The system we
have here picks up a tiny proportion of the
cars in the province and examines them.
This is an inadequate system and yet even
with this inadequate system— I have a clipping
here from the Toronto Star of November 4
last year, which has just been passed to me
by the member for Yorkview. It points out
that even here, witli our system, that a
Queen's Park safety lane check of 844 motor
vehicles over the past eight days revealed that
632 had mechanical defects; a total of 27 were
found completely unsafe and ordered off the
road.
This is what you are finding by pulling cars
off the road and inspecting them. If you had
a proper system, where every car had to be
inspected, all of these unsafe cars would be
pushed off the road; changes would be made
in the cars that could be improved, so im-
doubtedly there would be a reduction in the
3828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
number of accidents. More important, and I
think this would follow, in addition to there
being a reduction in the number of accidents
you would have a reduction in the number
of injuries. The present system has, in addi-
tion to being inadequate and inefficient, a
rather sad and yet humorous side effect.
The police are doing their best with this
law, they are pulling off as many cars as they
can, directing them to have safety inspec-
tions. Unfortunately, in some cases it is not
being done too intelligently and I would like
to tell you the story of Lemuel Brent of 48
Meighan Avenue, in Toronto this past month.
On May 6 at six o'clock— it was on a Sunday
night— he was stopped in Ajax by an Ajax
poHce oflBcer. It was a spot check. I believe
they were stopping every 10th or 20th car.
He was not stopped for committing any in-
fraction of the driving rules but just because
this was a routine they were carrying out.
He was told to report to the safety lane at
the rear of Steadman's to have his vehicle
checked. He was quite willing to do this. So
he said, "I will go there now"; but they said,
"No, you cannot go there now, it is closed.
You can go there any time on or before May
7."
This man lived and worked in Toronto.
He just happened to be passing through Ajax
and he said this would be inconvenient for
him to come all the way back to Ajax. "I
will have to miss a day's work," and they
said, "Well, you have to." So when he got
to Toronto, he got in touch with the Downs-
view station and he said, "I do not mind
having this check, may I come up to Downs-
view and have my car checked there and
get it over with." They said, "Well, you are
very welcome to come up and have the check
but if you do not go to Ajax you will be
summoned and you will have to appear in
court in Ajax to answer why you did not
appear in Ajax. Undoubtedly the case would
be thrown out of court if you say you came
to Downsview but this is not going to save
a trip to Ajax."
This is not an earth-shaking matter but
let me suggest to the Minister that this is
one of the rather foolish side effects of the
present inadequate system. If you are going
to continue to use this system, for goodness
sake at least allow people, if they are going
to have a check, to go to the area closest
to their home.
But the whole system is bad and I would
very strongly suggest to the Minister that
the time has come in this province to have
an annual, or preferably a semi-annual, com-
pulsory, governmental check of every car that
is used on this road and let me suggest to
the Minister that there should be two modes
of doing this.
In a city like Toronto, which has a very
large number of cars on the road, the best
system is that which is used in Vancouver,
where there is one large government-run
garage where cars can be run through at a
very rapid rate. The fee I believe is $1.50
or $2 per examination. Because of the high
volume it can be done very reasonably. Obvi-
ously this type of garage is not practical for
smaller areas in the province and in these
areas it is necessary to licence the private
garages to do these inspections.
I am well aware of the objection that has
been taken by the Minister, and of the prob-
lems that have been found in other jurisdic-
tions with small private garages, but these
problems can be overcome by a system of
inspectors. Certainly, it is far better to have
the minor problems that do come with using
private garage in those areas rather than the
system we have now where the cars are not
inspected at all.
So may I say to the Minister, this is a
reform that is long overdue. Are you pre-
pared to bring it in? If so, what system will
be used?
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I spoke on the
same topic last year— about compulsory
checking of automobiles— although to tell
the truth I did not visualize it being done
every six months because I thought that
would be both physically and financially
impossible.
In the city of Metro Toronto alone we have,
I think, some % million private automobiles.
There being 250 working days in the year,
we would have to inspect cars at the rate of
some 3,000 a day if we were to inspect them
all in a year.
As a matter of fact, when I discussed this
topic in the first instance, I discussed it in
connection with a log book, stating that every
time an automobile was taken in for repairs a
mechanic would have to certify that the
automobile was in a safe condition to be
driven on the road. Through this compulsory
log book, it would mean that an automobile
was being inspected— and thoroughly inspected
-every time tliere was an oil change, which
would be anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 miles.
If there were some major repairs in between,
again there would be a major check of that
automobile so that, with the log book, an
automobile would continuously be receiving
a check.
JUNE 3, 1968
3829
Every automobile has its oil changed be-
tween 2,000 and 3,000 miles. This way the
responsibility would be on the mechanic who
is servicing the car. He would have to sign
the log book as does the person working on
an aircraft, who has to indicate what repairs
or alterations he made and sign his name to it
to assume responsibility for it.
Mr. Chairman, I rose on another matter,
and that has to do with noise.
In 1957, then Alderman Don Sommerville,
who subsequently became the mayor of the
city of Toronto, moved that the city of
Toronto, or Metro council rather, ought to
pass a bylaw controlling noise emisison from
automobiles. In order to prepare themselves
for this bylaw, they engaged the services of
one W. E. Hodges, a professional engineer, as
the electro-accoustical consultant and he pre-
pared a very comprehensive report and sug-
gested how this bylaw should be phrased.
Because of objections made by the auto-
mobile industry and, specifically, the transport
people, the automotive transport association
of Ontario and the Canadian automobile
chamber of commerce incorporated, it was
not until 1958 that this bylaw was passed.
But dealing with motor transport it had to
receive the approval of The Department of
Transport and at that time, the hon. Mr.
John Yaremko was the Minister of Transport.
It was not until 1962, under a third Minister
of Transport, following the hon. Mr. Yaremko,
the hon. Mr. Rowntree became the Minister
of Transport, that I believe it was he who
ordered a report, I believe a report was pre-
pared by the motor vehicle noise research
committee. It was set up by the then Min-
ister of Transport.
This committee finally reported in the year
1961, and in the interval, the bylaw which
had been passed by Metro council did not
receive approval of the Minister of Transport.
To make a long story short the report of
the committee was absolutely assinine. They
stated that it was not automobiles that cre-
ated a problem but the presence of people;
that it did not matter how much noise an
automobile out in the desert made, it would
not be disturbing anybody and the only
reason that the noise out of automobiles was
a nuisance was because people were around.
The answer being, get rid of all the people
and you will not have any trouble witli auto-
mobiles.
At any rate, when this answer was passed
down by a third Minister of Transport, the
hon. Mr. Auld, to Metro council, they were
so incensed that they got Mr. Hodges to pre-
pare a rebuttal to the recommendations made
by the motor vehicle noise research commit-
tee under Professor Henderson with the result
that in 1963, if my memory serves me cor-
rectly, a bylaw was finally passed in a slightly
amended form.
They just changed a few words and the
method of metering. But the reason I raise
the topic, Mr. Chairman, was that one of the
reasons given for turning down the approval
of the original bylaw was that there should
be a uniform bylaw across the whole prov-
ince.
Well, five years have gone by and aside
from that section in The Highway Traffic Act
pertaining to mufflers, there is still not a uni-
form anti-noise bylaw pertaining to automo-
biles for this province. As a matter of fact, the
old bylaw that was passed by Metro dealt
with decibels whereas it was suggested by the
motor industry that they should deal in sones,
this is what they suggested should be the
unit of measurement. Please do not ask me
what a sone is because I doubt very much
whether even the hon. Minister knows.
At any rate there are two suggested meth-
ods of measurement. A metropolitan bylaw
provided that a motor vehicle could not emit
more than 94 decibels of sound. It was
pointed out at that time in 1957, that there
were only 10 per cent of the motor vehicles
in Ontario which would have exceeded that
particular measurement and that since the
bylaw had been in abeyance to 1963, during
the interval even those motor vehicles have
gone into the graveyard where motor vehicles
of that age go.
It would make more sense to reduce the
maximum noise emitted by motor vehicles
to say 74 decibels, because it has been pointed
out that if you subject yourself to 85 decibels
of noise for a period of four hours, you can
impair your hearing. You can permanently
lose part of your hearing in the higher fre-
quency ranges. I think you should be wear-
ing ear plugs at that rate, but the only
bylaw that they could pass dealt with 94
decibels. Now I ask the hon. Minister:
When is he going to introduce a uniform
anti-noise bylaw governing motor vehicles for
this province; and if he ever does in the full-
ness of time, how many decibels are going to
be permitted by that bylaw, or is he going to
go into sones?
Mr. Sopha: And if he cannot answer,
resign.
3830
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Unfair, we dealt with
this, I think it was Thursday night, when the
question of noise was raised. I would refresh
the hon. members' memory in this. I gave
tentative approval to the Toronto bylaw that
it could be tested. They laid charges and
they were dismissed, and they have not come
back with anything that they think will make
sense.
Some municipalities seem to have an
enforcement locally, I think with the help
of their magistrates that it seems successful,
but I do not know how to do it. I give you
this frank answer. The research council in
Ottawa has had the problem on its hands for
about two years, and if they can come up
with anything satisfactory, I would be happy
to consider bringing in the law that would
make it uniform across the province.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak
on vehicle inspection, because I would like
to answer?
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the—
Mr. Ben: May I just rebut with the hon.
member what the Minister has said. I want to
point out to him why it is so difficult to get
a proper bylaw for the city of Toronto, and
it is a pity that the Attorney General is not
here, because this is what has to happen.
First of all, with reference to location of
the metering device, for example— the section
of street in which the noise is to be measured
must have negligible grade. The surface must
be smooth, unbroken and free from street car
tracks, or railway tracks, and permissible
speed limits must be 30 miles per and there
must be no building or structure within a
radius of 100 feet from the microphone. In
addition— at the time the measurements are
made— surrounding noises must be at a mini-
mum; the temperature of the air musl be
above 60 degrees fahrenheit; and there must
be no rainfall— in fact, the sky must be clear,
or slightly overcast, and the wind velocity
must be less than 10 miles per hoiur. Now
in those circumstances, how in heaven's
name do you expect them to get anybody
for making too much noise out of an auto-
mobile?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. Ben: You are not going to answer that
one?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, I am not going to
try,
Mr. B. Newman: Earlier in the debate I ■
made a recommendation to the Minister as to ''
how he could effectively institute a compul-
sory automobile inspection, and I would ask
that he give his comments on this. Before I "„
do sit down, may I mention that we had a j
safety lane inspection in my own community. ^
To show you just the type of vehicle tliat is I
sometimes found on the road, there was a ]
15-year-old sedan which had its left front
tie rod lashed to the wheel with a rubber
band. This is the type of vehicle that you
sometimes get on a road. So the type of
inspection tliat you do have is not good
enough, because the individual who has an
automobile that might have some type of
even minor defect, does not take it out during .
tliat period of time in which you have a |
safety inspection, a vehicle inspection in a i
community.
You have to institute a compulsory type of '
vehicle inspection. I did not make mention of
one annually, because I thought it would be
made physically impossible to start at an
annual auto inspection, but I did programme
it over a series of five years. I suggested that
you take all vehicles older than the year
1960, or all vehicles that had over 75,000
miles; inspect them; and have owners present
to the department a certificate of mechanical I
fitness when tliey apply for their 1969 plates. '
In the following year it would be the vehicles
'63 and older, plus all vehicles with 75,000
miles on the odometers. The year following
1970-'66 and older; 1971-69 and older; and
by 1972 you would be right up to date, so
that within a five-year period you could have
all vehicles on the road inspected, and then
later an annual type of inspection. I would
like the Minister's comments on this.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, tliis is just a
section of the vote we are talking about at
the present time.
Mr. Chairman: I have taken the vote in
total.
Mr. Young: Well, it may be the Minister
wants to comment just on this matter on the
techniques of inspection, I do not know, but i
I think before we have the inspection, of ,
course, we have to have some standards as j
regards the motor vehicle, and I am not sure
that the Minister is ready to set the standards,
safety standards, and the kind of items that
should enter into an inspection.
The matter I wanted to deal with particu-
larly was in connection with the transfer of
JUNE 3, 1968
3831
the registrations. Perhaps you want to leave
that for another moment, or shall I deal with
it now.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Now is all right.
Mr. Young: All right. I have a letter before
me, and I will quote a paragraph from it; I
think, Mr. Chairman, it puts the matter very
clearly.
Recently I had to help cope with the
problem encountered by someone who last
winter got a new car. Several months later
he began to get summonses in respect of
his former automobile. Complicated inves-
tigation revealed that the new owner had
not sent in the prescribed form— the car
permit. The old car was not insured and
still registered in the former owner's name
and my father, when consulted, said that
the former owner had no civil liability; but
a fine combing of the Act convinced us that
the only way he could safely conform with
it is by going hand in hand to the postbox
with the purchaser when you divest your-
self of your old car. How silly!
Now, this was a matter which was subject
to some correspondence between the person
writing this letter and the department, and
between me and the department, and finally
some resolution was arrived at. But I wonder
if there is not some better way that could
be developed to transfer the motor vehicle.
It may well be that both somehow have to
act in this field, so that responsibility can
be divested from the former, and the new
owner accept that responsibility. It may be
that the Minister has some ideas as to a
better method than this one which evidently
has been in eflPect up until the present time.
I wonder if the Minister will want to
comment.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We have required that
the transfer be reported, and as you say
it was a joint responsibility of the vendor and
the purchaser. This may be solved in part
by the new regulations with regard to trans-
fers that will require the coming forward of
the certificate of mechanical fitness, and per-
haps impress upon the purchaser the need
to get the papers completed and get the cer-
tificate of mechanical fitness, and see that the
transfer is recorded. I think that there has
been a tendency in the past for each to sup-
pose it was the responsibihty of the other.
Is that the point you are making?
Mr. Young: The point is, Mr. Chairman,
that it is very difficult if I am selling a car
to another person. It is very difficult for me
to force him to register that car in his name.
I might chase him a long time and still he
might fail to do the job. I have another note
here from another person in the same way
when canvassing in Parkdale. A note here:
I met Mr. Anthony Mastrolas, 116 Glen-
dale Avenue, who complained that he
notified the licence bureau of a change of
address for his driver's licence, and as-
sumed that the same notification would
cover his owner's permit. He found to his
chagrin that it did not, and when he got
stopped on a police spot check, he ended
up by paying a $12 fine for failing to
change the owner's permit.
This is the problem. I sell the car to someone
else, and that someone just does not bother to
register, and how am I as the vendor going
to force him to do it. I can telephone: "Have
you done it?" He says no, I am going to do it
tomorow. Tomorrow I telephone him, and he
says: "Yes I have done it." But he has not.
This I think is the fundamental problem that
must be overcome in some way.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Well with our new
requirement for a certificate of mechanical fit-
ness we will have dual papers for both to
sign, and if one completes it and sends it in,
I think that will be satisfactory.
Now I come to the member for Wentworth
to speak on motor vehicle ini^ection.
Mr. Deans: I did want to speak about
tires, that is all.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes.
Mr. Deans: Let me ask the Minister if he
would consider tire safety as part of the
motor vehicle inspection? Every day I see on
television, and I watch in the newspapers,
advertisements that tell me about the won-
derful treads on tires and how they have
redesigned them and how they have changed
them so they are getting a better grip on
the road and everything is getting wonderful.
Now, at the transportation workshop at the
Inn-on-the-Park I raised the question of these
bald tires that were regrooved and at that
time I questioned whether they could possibly
be safe.
I question it yet, I doubt very much the
answer I received. I have looked at them;
I have looked at buses that use them; I have
looked at the transports that use them, and I
question very seriously the safety factor. In
Hamilton, for example, the HSR gets 60,000
miles from an original tire and they are re-
grooved twice to get up to 50,000 additional
miles. A great many of those additional
3832
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
miles and even a great many of the original
,60,000 are on tires that, if not completely
bald, are at least almost bald. It does not
make sense to me that I should read so much
about the value of the tread on a tire if it is
possible to come along and just score it and
make them safe.
I would ask the Minister, has this been
very seriously tested? Has he seen it per-
sonally? Is it safe? If it is, I do not see how
it could be.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, let me
deal first of all with the business of vehicle
inspection. I think we all agree that vehicle
inspection is a good thing. We all agree it is
going to come and the question is how is it
going to come and how fast is it going to
come? The term "vehicle inspection", I think
the member for Yorkview makes his point,
depends on what your standards are. And
this is what we see when v/e look at the
overall problem of vehicle inspection.
I have talked to some of the ablest
vehicle safety people on the continent and I
gain the impression from them that there is
a lot goes on under the blessed name of
vehicle inspection that is not worth the sticker
that is given. There is as much difference in
vehicle inspections at one place or another as
there is between day and night. And there is
a great confusion about the stories we get on
vehicle inspection.
The kind of spot-check that we have been
doing with our 38-point safety check-lane,
which was a unit that was originated here in
Ontario, is good up to a point, and I think
it is a very good standard. It will compare
very well with the standards any place on the
continent. And yet I can pick out a few
instances where they have done certain
vehicle checks that I think were better in
some measure than we were doing. But I
am not sure they are consistent.
The hon. member mentioned inspections
being done in the city of Washington, the
District of Columbia. It has about as long a
record of periodic compulsory vehicle inspec-
tions as I can think of; it has been going on
there for about 20 years. I rode around the
stations with the administrator of motor
vehicles for the D strict of Columbia. I asked
him how long he figures they spend on a car.
He said, "On the average, about three
minutes."
I think we spend about ten on our vehicle
check-lanes. I am not satisfied with that, not
even with the cars we do, about 125,000 to
150,000 a year, because we are using them
now through the winter months. As we had
it out here in the Highways' garage, we had it
operating for some time in Ottawa. In the
late winter we took off the road over 400 cars
as being unsafe, in that piece of winter inspec-
tion. We took the plates off more than 5,000
cars with that compulsory inspection lane
operation last summer. It was our second full
year of compulsory use of those lanes. And
the fleet of lanes keeps increasing.
In British Columbia they have had a good
operation. It is under the auspices of the
municipality. And where you have a com-
pact population like that, with all the cars
close in, an operation by the municipality
has certain things to commend it. British
Columbia does not have compulsory inspec-
tion in the way the members advocate and
think it is now operating in certain places.
They have taken our kind of equipment and
they have really just started using it. I do
not think they could give you any convincing
results over any period of time or over any
area yet. I think we want to be honest about
these things.
The province of Nova Scotia has recently
adopted a province-wide compulsory vehicle
inspection programme drafted, I would say,
after the fashion of the state of New York,
utilizing licenced garages.
These are the different kinds of things.
What are your standards going to be? Well,
one of the standards that concerns me is
steering, tie-rods and ball joints, and we have
just now got in the new equipment for cali-
brating tie-rod play. We can check any kind
of set-up now with the front end to deter-
mine how much tie-rod play there is, and we
will use the manufacturers' specifications as
to what is allowable safety and what is not.
This is the kind of thing we have to get into.
We do not pull wheels and check the
brake linings, and I do not think we can do
that in our mobile lanes. You pull a wheel
and what happens? Supposing a spring falls
off or breaks, supposing one of the cylinders
becomes injured, supposing you put the
wheel back on again and you do not have all
the torsion types of wrenches you need to
meet the manufacturers' specification for re-
placing the wheel. It puts our operators in
the mobiles in the difficult position of pos-
sibly domg some damage to the car and not
being able to replace that damaged part then
and there with the required piece of equip-
ment. These, I confess to you, are problems
we run into in our mobile operations.
Our mobile operations are doing a first-
class job since we got them on to the com-
pulsory operation. I think that it was the
JUNE 3, 1968
3833
operation of one of those in Windsor, I say
to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville,
that moved me to say, "Why do we bother
with using these on a voluntary basis, let's
get into using them compulsorily," and we
have been doing that since. But we are not
covering, as I say, more than 150,000 a year.
And that is only a spot-check or an audit
check; good so far, but just so far.
I have discussed this matter with the
people in the Ontario garage operators asso-
ciation. I have talked with them on the
problems of staff and their ability to handle
that much more work, thinking it would be
a bonanza for them. They shrug their shoul-
ders and just wonder how far they can go
before they got bogged down. We are mak-
ing a survey of all the registered motor
vehicle mechanics there are in this province,
all the certified mechanics. We are wonder-
ing how much more work they can do that
we are going to impose on them this year.
This year every used car sold by a used
car dealer or in a private sale has to go
through a new type of vehicle safety inspec-
tion; not the kind of thing we have been
doing, a much more in-depth inspection. It
will take much longer. It will be done in
one of the Trenced garages by a licenced
mechanic; 600,000 used cars being trans-
ferred in title will go through that kind of
in-depth or sophisticated examination this
year. I say that is a very, very substantial
step into something in the nature of motor
vehicle inspection that will be worthwhile.
Now, add that to what we are doing.
Then we have about 300,000 new cars sold
annually in this province. As you know, the
system now followed by the motor vehxle
manufacturers is they require their franchise
dealer to make certain service inspections and
adjustment before that car is delivered. There
are gaps in it. There have been cars go
through that should not have been passed.
That will happen wherever you have the
human element interjected.
About 300,000 more vehicles will be sub-
ject to that kind of inspection and I have
been discussing this with the leading motor
car manufacturers. The service chief of one
of them is coming in to see me this week
with a report I asked him to give me on just
how they are doing these things, how their
recalls are operated and some of these other
pertinent questions on which we have been
pressing for answers.
So with the 300,000 new cars, with the
600,000 used cars being sold going through
the new in-depth vehicle safety examination,
with the more than 125,000 or 150,000 going
through our check lanes, we are checking this
year more than a million of the cars on the
highways of Ontario. And I say that is a
very, very substantial increase in highway
safety so far as the vehicles are concerned.
We have looked at the different ways of
doing it. Are we going to do like Vancouver
does, or might we copy from a single city
like Washington in the District of Columbia?
Can we do that in Ontario with its great
distances, with its sparse population, with the
long areas people would have to drive? I do
not think so. Can we use garages? We are
not sure we have enough mechanics. When
they get the meal digested that we are giving
them this year, I think they will have all they
can handle for now.
But we are checking, as I say, the total
number of certified mechanics across Ontario
to do the job. If we were to hand it over to
the garages, we could come to a combination
of these— of government-operated stations for
check-lanes and certified garages doing the
job. This we are looking at, but I say that it
is premature to decide if the garages can do
any more than we are gomg to be looking for
them to do right now. There is no use get-
ting a whole backlog of cars to be inspected
because they cannot handle them, because
you know the kind of work that will likely go
on in some garages; it would be quite super-
ficial. This we do not want.
So I say to the hon. member, insofar as
vehicle inspection is concerned I am not
standing in the way of it. I want vehicle
inspection, I want to know the standards, and
these we are checking out— a very long and
detailed list of all the critical parts in a car
that should be inspected. This we are check-
ing over with the manufacturers. All their
key personnel and engineers are coming in to
discuss with us the feasibility of the various
points we want done, the reasonableness of
doing it, and the requirement for specialized
machines for testing. This thing is advancing
as rapidly as I think it is reasonable to push
it.
I come finally to the point on tires raised
by my friend from Wentworth. I intimated
to the House in measure about a year ago,
and I cannot recall my exact words, that we
were expecting further regulations on used
tires, on retreads and regrooves. That was to
have come up following VI and it was to be
grouped as V2 standards for used tires. That
programme has gone by the boards at the
present because we have moved into our
Canadian standard tires. Instead of the VI
now we are applying the CSA standards, the
3834
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
full equivalent of VI and CSA, and the tire
manufacturers are working out with us new
standards that will be used for retreads, re-
grooved tires and such.
Every tire that has been manufactured for
sale in Ontario today has telltale tread level
marks in it. We will be able to specify tread
level depths from here on, as soon as we get
these new standards. I have said to this
House that we are progressing with new
standards for tires and we have done it. We
expect these new tire standards to come out
as soon as we can have them ready and they
will establish tread depths. When we get
tread depths we will be able to specify what
tires can be regrooved safely and we will
have to take cognizance of the telltale colour
lines in the remaining tread depth. This is
what we are looking for.
I know that there was this case in King-
ston of which the hon. member spoke. It was
not as final as we might have hoped because
the case was simply decided that there was
no liability on the part of the driver or the
company, but despite that, our new regula-
tions will deal with the new tires that will
have to have a determined level of rubber
left in tread depth before they can be
touched. The retreading will not be able to
go below it.
Mr. Deans: Just one question on that. Will
these standards also designate what kind of
tread— I mean will it be sufficient to have this
sort of V-type grooving, this criss-cross groove
across the tire? Will this be suitable and
adequate under the new standards or will you
have to have a certain number of treads on
the face of the tire?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would not like to
answer the member, Mr. Chairman, I do not
know. This is the kind of thing that will be
worked out, I think, as we get into the re-
tread programme of regulations for used tires.
I will take the suggestion thoughtfully and
see that it is discusesd.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr, Chairman,
I would like to ask the Minister regarding
the licenced car wreckers throughout the
province. I understand that when they buy a
car for wrecking from a dealer that they have
to submit the licence and the registration
card. Of course, as licenced auto wreckers
they pay a sales tax on all the parts they sell.
But what I am concerned about is the hun-
dreds of people who are not licenced and
who do not submit the plates or the registra-
tion cards to the department. In some cases,
I understand they just burn them and that
you have no record of any of the private
people who buy from dealers.
I was thinking that if the dealer was to
turn in the registration cards and the licences
of cars that are to be wrecked previous to
selling them either to a licenced dealer or to
a private person, that it would be more in
order to keep records.
For example, I understand that some of the
private people who do buy a car for wreck-
ing, transfer the plates to another car, drive
it until the end of the year and are getting
away with it. I have had some complaints by
licenced auto wreckers who claim this is hap-
pening. They feel it is not fair that they are
paying licence fees and paying sales tax on
all parts, and other people are not. Has the
Minister comments on that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the rea-
son we licence not only used car dealers but
car wreckers is that we may have inspection
of their premises. Now this is an enforce-
ment problem and it may be that there are
cars escaping the law. I think the used car
dealers who are selling cars for wrecking
would have to send us the licence plates and
the certificate. If they are not safe cars to be
sold— deals between car dealers, used car
dealers as such— and they are registered with
my colleague, the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs, transactions between
registered used car dealers do not have to go
through the inspection before they are sold,
the sale from one of them to another person
has to be to a user or to a wrecker.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, the discussion
we have had on the inspection of motor
vehicles is a very interesting one. I think we
all understand something of the diflBculties
the Minister faces here and something of the
progress that has been made. We promise
him that we will keep the pressure up until
we see the fulfillment of the dream that he
has outlined here tonight.
But there are a couple of other approaches
to this whole field which, I think, would assist
in ensuring safety on the highway. One is
the insisting on standards of the brand new
vehicles that we have discussed across the
floor here from time to time. The other one
is standards for certain parts of the vehicle,
I am not sure in the province of Ontario
how much supervision is being given to things
like brake linings, for example. Brake linings
are pretty essential in motor cars and while I
think, by and large, the brake linings in the
new cars coming out are pretty satisfactory
JUNE 3, 1968
3835
and pretty good, what assurance have we that
the brake linings going in to replace the orig-
inal ones are all superior quality? Have we
any standards at all in the province of On-
tario in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to say to the member for Yorkview that
we do not have, as far as I know, standards
on replacement of brake linings. I think he
is quite right.
Mr. Young: Yes. I think here is something
perhaps the Minister ought to examine very
carefully because we have a lot of small
plants making brake linings in the province.
I came across a survey which was made a year
or so ago, and this is reported in Mechanics
Illustrated, November, 1966. It is rather an
illuminating article. I am not going to read
the article into the record but there are two
or three things that should be pointed out.
The question is asked how good are re-
placement linings? "Our investigation of only
a small segment of the market, using the
latest and most scientific testing method yet
devised, indicates that some linings are sur-
prisingly good and some equally poor."
Then they ask the question, do the linings
increase in quality as they increase in price?
"Our research revealed that there is no dis-
cernible price-quality relationship. Prices
seemingly depend primarily on how much
profit the manufacturer or retailer permits
himself." I understand there are only a few
regular standards— New York has them, Penn-
sylvania has them, and I am not sure if
Massachusetts also has a standard. But the
survey which is given here points out certain
things, and I want to give an illustration. The
number one, top-rated, top-quality brake lin-
ing costs $6.60 in this particular location to
install. The second best costs $9. The third
best costs $9.50, the fourth best costs $4.25,
a price drop. The fifth went up to $14.88;
that was the fifth quality down the line, and
you have the price up to $14.88. The sixth
$7.50, the seventh $13, and the eighth and
the poorest, $15.80.
In other words, the best as far as the test-
ing equipment showed is $6.60, and the poor-
est costs $15.80. This was a test which was
run and the accuracy is claimed here and the
proof is givers the names are given of all the
various brands. This is an American test, of
course, but I have no reason to think that
similar tests run in Canada, in Ontario, might
not result in the same thing.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, last week
we had an authority to specify brake linings
but with the amendment that went through
The Highway Traffic Act last week, we now
have authority to mandate by adoption of
standards by records.
Mr. Young: But will the Minister mandate?
I do not know whether the Canadian stand-
ards association has set any standards, or is
working on standards of this kind, but surely
brake linings are important enough for the
Minister to give immediate attention to it so
that we have some real standards in this
field?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I will certainly look at
the standards on brake linings.
Mr. D. Jackson ( Timiskaming ) : I just have
a short question for the Minister. Certain
dual-purpose vehicles that are being manu-
factured by General Motors, Ford and Chrys-
ler and some of the imported vehicles, are
classed as commercial vehicles; a person who
licences them has to put a commercial licence
on them. However, in most cases they are
just used as station wagons. Is there no way
that they can be changed to use the dual-
purpose licence which is a cheaper licence,
and still operate on the highway?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The dual-purpose is
really not a commercial licence, it is dual
purpose.
Mr. Jackson: That is what I am saying, Mr.
Chairman, that certain of these vehicles that
are being manufactured and come out of the
plant are originally licenced as commercial
vehicles, and yet when the person buys them
they are used as a station wagon, or dual-
purpose vehicle. I know of several cases
where the owner has tried to change them
over to a dual-purpose licence, and has been
refused, and has had to licence them as a
commercial vehicle. This has had several
other problems other than just the licence-
insurance regulations and the fact that the
licence is more expensive are the main objec-
tions to it.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I can
see a problem in moving a vehicle that has
been licenced as a commercial vehicle into
a dual-purpose one. I will just try to find out
what the requirement is; I think that we can
find out. I will look at it and consider what
the problem is.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, we spoke of
Millbrook reformatory and the making of
registration plates, and I cannot in my own
mind help but wonder a little bit why we
spend the money, $1,040,000 every year.
3836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
making new plates, when a windshield tag or
a small licence plate tag would serve the
purpose.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is likely to happen
in about two years time, as we get our system
mechanized.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I
should like to ask the Minister whether he
has replied to the brief that was sent to him
by the teamsters' local 880, a request for
highway safety measures, particularly safety
equipment and rescue on the highway. Have
you replied to them?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I do not
identify the group that the hon. member
refers to, by the teamsters' union?
Mr. Burr: Yes, local 880. Apparently they
sent this brief in during the winter, I believe,
with a large number of suggestions.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: They did not make an
appointment to see me. I do not think that I
have any brief before me where I do not
have representation and we usuaUy have in-
vited the people to come and support their
brief of that nature. I will look it up if we
have it, but I doubt it.
Vote 2203 agreed to.
On vote 2204:
Mr. Young: On vote 2204 I would like to
ask the Minister if the recent changes in
legislation or proposed changes will make a
difference in the rental situation in the prov-
ince where, up to the present time, rental
carriers were riding roughshod over The
PCV Act. The small cartage firms are limited
by territory and they have certain regulations
to abide by, and yet, up to this point, one
could hire a rental truck and goods could be
transported anywhere without the restrictions
that applied to the smaller common carriers,
and I wonder if the new changes will solve
the problem.
For example: the PCV carrier with a
licence is perhaps licenced to take goods from
here to Cooksville, he cannot take them on to
Hamilton. But that same carrier might rent
a rental truck and carry the load through.
This has been the cause of a great deal of
concern among the smaller carriers in par-
ticular in the province who have been
brought under the PCV licences. They have
been much disturbed by the growth of the
whole rental field. It may well be that the
recent changes in the legislation will meet
this problem, and I wonder if the Minister
would comment on this.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
member suggests that a common carrier can
extend his franchise beyond his licence limit
by renting another vehicle and using it to
transport his goods beyond the licenced area?
Mr. Young: I understand that he can get
one of the rental companies to carry the load
for him?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: He is breaking the law
someplace, I will look into the situation and
see where the breach has occurred. We tried
with our amendments to The PCV Act to
plug both pseudo-leasing and that angle of it.
Mr. Young: So, the Minister feels that this
problem is pretty well solved once the legis-
lation—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, Mr. Chairman, I
would like the member to give me a further
story on the problem so that I can satisfy
myself that what I am saying to the member
is the fact. I do not understand what he says
is occurring.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this
can be done. The Minister feels that the
problem is solved in this legislation and I do
not know that we need take too much time
here tonight. But what was conveyed to me
was that giant rental companies, often con-
trolled outside the country, set up shop in
local service stations and thus escape most
property and business taxes, and they buy
provincial licence plates for their trucks and
thev are in business.
They have no territorv limitations, and
they can go where they wish and work seven
days a week, and do business anywhere. The
rental trucks are generally supplied by dealers
at a much lower price than the licenced car-
riers. This is the information the licenced
carriers give me.
Pecause in the deader link their used trans-
ports have a higher resale potential, and the
licenced carriers are limited to territory while
the rental firms are free as the birds. The
li'^enced companies do business within a spe-
cified area, and thev are subject to penalties
if they pick up or deliver cargo outside these
boundaries.
If they wish an extension of these limits,
they must apply, accompanied by a fee, and
the hearing involves legal and other expenses.
The rentals are not bound in this way. They
JUNE 3, 1968
3837
can go where they wish and do business
where they can find it. It is an ironical fact
that a hcenced company— this I understand—
operating in Metro, cannot use one of its own
trucks to take a cargo to Hamilton, for
example. But that same company can hire a
rental firm, and make the delivery without
violating the regulations of the province. Now
this may be a misunderstanding, I do not
know. What the Minister says is that this is
not the case, and I would like his comment
on it.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the rent-
ing or leasing of a vehicle does not give a
person the right of for-hire carrying the
goods of others. If he rents a vehicle for his
own use and moves his own goods, that is
one thing, but he has no privilege to go into
the for-hire trucking business in competition
with licenced operators because he has leased
a vehicle. He can move his own goods in a
leased vehicle.
Mr. Young: If he takes contracts and moves
goods from here to Hamilton? And then he
cannot get the rental truck to do the job?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is an enforcement
problem. He can extend his own fleet by the
renting of other trucks from other people so
long as he is operating within his territory.
Mr. Young: Thank you.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise and report progress and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, tomor-
row we will deal with the estimates of this
department, followed by those of The De-
partment of Education and University Affairs.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock,
p.m.
I
No. 105
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 4^ 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 4, 1968
Lakehead milk marketing and grants to northern Ontario, statement by Mr. Stewart .... 3841
Printing errors in physicians' appHcations for involuntary admissions under The Mental
Health Act, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3844
Dr. Rygeil's home for children in Hamilton, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 3844
Employment for former Blind River police force, question to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. MacDonald 3845
Altering conditions at an accident site prior to an investigation, question to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. Mattel 3845
Westmorland hotel, question to Mr. Welch, Mr. Singer 3845
Loans to relieve housing shortage in Toronto, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 3845
Income tax deduction for living costs of university students, questions to Mr. Davis,
Mr. Sargent 3846
Regulating use of antibiotics in food producing animals, questions to Mr. Stewart,
Mr. Sargent 3847
Summer student employment programme, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 3847
Tourists bringing live bait into Ontario, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Stokes 3848
Extending deadline of crop insurance purchase for com, soya beans and white beans,
questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence 3848
Altering scene of fatality at Copper Cliff, prior to investigation, question to Mr. A. F.
Lawrence, Mr. Martel 3849
Stacknic inquest, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 3849
Independent police investigation of mine fatalities, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 3850
Release of sworn testimony of Mr. Murray Mehlman, question to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. Shulman 3850
Ord Wallington and Company Limited, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Shulman 3851
Estimates, Department of Transport, Mr. Haskett, concluded 3851
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis 3880
Recess, 6 o'clock 3885
3841
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon we have visit-
ing us, in the east gallery, students from
Christ the King school in New Toronto; and
in the west gallery, from the Richard W,
Scott public school in Toronto.
Later this afternoon we will be most
pleased to be joined by two ladies' groups.
In the east gallery will be the North Derby
women's auxiliary from Jackson and, in the
west gallery, the Madoc women's institute in
Madoc. We welcome these visitors.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The Minister of Agriculture and Food has
a statement.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I noticed a
newspaper article which appeared in the Port
Arthur News Chronicle recently as a report
submitted by the hon. member for Port
Arthur. The article appears under the date-
line of May 10:
Ron Knight, Port Arthur MPP, sug-
gested in the Legislature Thursday, during
a debate on estimates of The Department
of Agriculture, that the department had
obviously written northern Ontario oflF as
far as farming is concerned and it was now
in the process of gradually withdrawing
aid. Mr. Knight said today in a telephone
call from Toronto, the Minister Hon.
William A. Stewart had not denied it. He
did not even reply to the statement. The
Port Arthur member said he had several
reasons for his statement. He asked the
Minister why do farmers in northwest On-
tario have to dump milk at times when in
the city you have to pay 34 cents or 35
cents a quart for it. The Minister said
because the Lakehead is not drinking milk.
The only solution is to get more people to
drink it. The hon. member is a professional
in promotion and perhaps he should go
Tuesday, June 4, 1968
back to the Lakehead and start a milk
campaign to get more people to drink it.
Now I thought that was a very good sug-
gestion, Mr. Speaker.
Twenty two items were discussed and
voted on including the allotment for agri-
culture in northern Ontario which amounted
to $250,000. Mr. Knight said millions were
spent in other parts of the province on
agriculture and he felt that $250,000 was
a piddly amount for all of northern On-
tario. He also objected to the fact this
major item was included with the debate
on general awards and farm safety pro-
grammes. He felt that the debate was not
concentrated on northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not reply to
the hon. member's statement during my esti-
mates was because it was such a ridiculous
statement that I did not really think the hon.
member was serious and so I made no reply
to this charge of withdrawing aid.
Concerning excess milk production to—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point or order please.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I suggest for your consideration that
it is one thing for a Minister to get up and
make a statement ex cathedra on a topic that
has not been before the House, but for a
Minister to get up and acknowledge that he
has changed his mind— that something said
some weeks ago in the House is now deserv-
ing of reply— is an abuse of the privileges of
this House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
In speaking to the point of order. I was under
the impression that the Minister was getting
up on a point of personal privilege as would
be his right, if in fact something had been
reported that he believes is in error; but as
we follow his comments he simply makes a
speech in reply to the comments made by
the hon. member some weeks ago.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I take it this is a point
of privilege, Mr. Speaker—
3842
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: "The Minister of Agriculture
and Food has a statement", the Speaker said.
That would be a Ministerial statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The Minister is mak-
ing a statement and insofar as Mr. Speaker
is concerned he will continue. He is in order.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, do you consider
this a point of personal privilege? Otherwise,
I do not see that it is in order.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Make a fair
ruling.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise again
on this point of order. In fact, I have been
sitting rather quietly for some days and—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: —I have been sitting
rather quietly, Mr. Speaker, for some days
with reference to the greater restrictions be-
ing placed on questions from this side of
the House. Now this is your duty— to see that
the rules of the House are enforced with
regards to questions from this side.
I suggest that abusive Ministerial state-
ments are equally important in terms of see-
ing that the rules of the House should be
enforced. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we have
reached the stage where the only way we
can protect the House from abuse from this
side is that you get the questions and vet
them in advance. Conceivably, the only
answer to the problem facing us is that you
should get the repHes and the Ministerial
statements in advance and vet them. Then,
maybe, we will have an even balance in
applying rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Well, after listening to debate
in this House on all sides during the present
session, I must say that the matters concern-
ing which the Opposition are now question-
ing my ruling and feeling are equally evident
at various times on all sides of the House.
And as far as I am concerned, I would be
very pleased to take under advisement the
suggestion by the member for York South and
discuss the matter of Ministerial statements.
I must say this though, as far as I am
concerned, the Ministry has a right to make
a statement as to policy or as to any matter
of importance so far as the department-
Mr. Sargent: — pohcy! He is defending
himself.
Mr. Speaker: Would the member please
extend to me the courtesy which I usually try
to have extended to him?
As far as the Ministry statements are con- \
cerned I have a strong feehng that they must ]
be proper, but that they must be less l
hampered than Opposition parties, of course, 1
would wish them to be. J
Mr. MacDonald: Why? |
Mr. Speaker: Just as the Opposition |
questions have been allowed and are still
being allowed to be quite unhampered.
Mr. Sargent: And unchanged? |
Mr. Speaker: The questions, if they are ^
changed, are changed by the member con- {
cerned now in accordance with the rules. |
Mr. Sargent: On the govenmient side. |
Mr. Speaker: The member has never i
learned that courtesy pays and, in this House, i
when he continually interrupts the Speaker ]
he is interrupting the work of this House 1
and not myself personally. And since the
question and problem of statements by the
Minister before the orders of the day has been
a custom of this House for a long time, as long
as I have been here, I think it is one that
should continue. But as I mentioned, I will
be glad to take under advisement the suggest-
ion of the member for York South. Then I
would say to the Minister of Agriculture and
Food that on occasion he has let in this House
his feeUngs— partisan feelings— persuade him
into longer and greater statements than per-
haps he originally intended to make. I would
ask that he now deal with his statement before
the orders of the day in the manner which is
understood in this House.
Mr. Nixon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to
prolong this, but on the same point of order
—since you are asking for advice or you are
taking it under advisement— I do not believe
it is your responsibility to vet Ministerial state-
ments but only to rule in a reasonable way
when a Minister appears to be out of order;
as this Minister is on this occasion. If he were
to rise on a point of personal privilege there
would be no question. But to cloak this in all
the majesty of the Ministerial statement is, in
my view, out of order.
Mr. E. W. Sopha ( Sudbury ) : Mr. Speaker,
I should like to raise a point of order.
I want to submit to you sir, and I want to
beseech you and I want to plead with you. I
observe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
has come to his seat and I am very glad of that
so that he can become party to this discussion.
I want to submit to you sir, that May— I do
not, like my friend from London South (Mr.
JUNE 4, 1968
3843
White) have a copy of May at hand at all
times— lays down in very strict terms the char-
acteristics governing a Ministerial statement.
They can be in relation to a matter of govern-
ment policy, or the announcement of some
happening pertaining to Ministerial responsi-
bility. But May makes it very clear that such
statements are not to be characterized by
pohtical partisanship or are not calculated
to generate disagreement or provoke antagon-
isms on the other side of the House.
Mr. Nixon: May could not have said it
better.
Mr. Sopha: Now in the light of those, I
want to suggest to you that this statement,
sir, being made today is nothing more than
an act of political partisanship coupled with
an effort to— it is alleged— set the records
straight and engage in argumentive discussion
concerning remarks made by my colleague
from Port Arthur. It is nothing short of the
type of statement that one would expect to
encounter in the Throne or Budget debate-
Mr. Sargent: Right!
Mr. Sopha: —and it cannot cloak itself in
any way under the characteristics set out by
May, concerning Ministerial statements.
Therefore, I am pleading with you sir, as a
guardian of our rights I am pleading with
you to say to the Minister of Agriculture and
Food now, "do not go ahead with this state-
ment." If you will, as you have indicated—
at some later time when you have had a
chance to consult the authorities— you then
can lay down, on our behalf, the considera-
tions that shall hereafter govern the making
of Ministerial statements. But if you allow him
to go ahead, sir, what makes me anxious is
that not only may a precedent be set, but all
rights may be infringed in a way that is
difficult to rectify. Perhaps through you I
could ask the Minister not to insist on his
right; any right you give him to go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: I might express my thanks
to the member for Sudbury for giving the
House a very good resume of some of the
statements and rules laid down in May with
which I must say I am not unacquainted.
I am not, from now on, going to put up
with interruptions; and quite properly. The
Speaker has the floor, and I want it perfectly
well understood, because if it continues, I
shall ask the House to back me and take
steps to see that it does not occur continually.
I would ask the Minister, first of all, if
his statement— as he wishes to continue— is
a Ministerial statement or a point of privilege.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, quite frankly, Mr.
Speaker, I feel that it is a point of personal
privilege, and I do not want to offend my
hon. friends opposite in the least degree. I
simply wanted to relate to them the facts of
the situation as they actually are, and to let
them know what really is happening; because
this newspaper statement, to me, is some-
what misleading. I am sure it is not inten-
tionally misleading in any way, shape or form,
and I do not want to leave the impression
with you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members
of this House, that the hon. member for Port
Arthur— in the telephoned news report which
he made to the paper in Port Arthur— did
attempt to mislead anyone. I simply wanted
to provide the information which I felt that
the hon. members of this House would be
pleased to have. With your permission, sir,
I would like to continue to set this record
straight.
Concerning this matter of excess milk pro-
duction to fluid requirements that the hon.
member mentioned, it is virtually impossible
to gear production to fluid requirements, be-
cause there are times of the year when there
is more milk produced and it cannot be
used in the bottle trade. In an area such as
Port Arthur and Fort William and the Lake-
head area, because of economic conditions in
the cost of producing that milk, there has
been no industrial plant established to use
excess milk.
Now, two of the dairies at the Lakehead,
realizing that there is a problem, with some
farmers not being able to gear their produc-
tion to what they are able to use in the
bottle trade, have installed butter chums.
They are going to skim that excess milk and
make the butter fat into butter. I thought
this was something that we should all know
about.
In connection with what the hon. member
describes as "that piddly amount of $250,000
on agriculture in northern Ontario", this
refers only to one item. This is the $250,000
special agricultural grant which is provided
by the department through the extension
service for special projects as designated by
local committees of farm people working in
co-operation with our extension branch.
A quick examination of some of oiu: de-
partment's work in northern Ontario last year
shows that grants alone have reached in
excess of $3,616,000, and this does not include
the provision of dozens of stafi^ workers in
northern Ontario, in the extension branch,
in home economics, in veterinary service,
3844
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fruit and vegetable inspection, research, rural
development, dairy inspection and our live-
stock and soils branch. In fact, we have a
higher ratio of workers per 1,000 commercial
farms in northern Ontario than in the rest of
the province; a substantial number of these
extension and agricultural department people
are bilingual.
In addition to these outright grants in
excess of $3.5 million in the years 1965 and
1966, we gave grants of $1,364,000 in north-
ern Ontario to persons who suffered crop
losses in adverse weather. We have provided
to northern Ontario farmers many millions
of dollars in loans, and in most cases with a
government guarantee and subsidized interest
rate: $331,000 for seed and fertilizer in 1966;
$2,650,000 for adverse weather loans in 1966
and 1967; $2,596,000 in first mortgage loans
on the junior farmer loan programme since
1963; and $218,000 in loans under the co-
operative loans board. The subsidization of
the interest rate on these loans and the
administration alone is a very substantial
annual cost.
In setting forth these benefits for northern
Ontario, I have not included the thousands
of acres of land that have been acquired for
community pastures, for farm enlargement,
for beef farms, for reforestation programmes
and similar land assembly programmes.
Neither does it include the multitude of spe-
cial studies and research projects that we have
financed in the north, and hundreds of north-
ern Ontrio Indians that we have transported
to jobs in southern Ontario and back again;
nor the northern Ontario young people we
have transported as part of the 4H and
junior farmer programmes. I might, in this
instance, point out the fact that we were
very much honoured by the fact that a
yoimg lady from the Port Arthur area won
the Ontario dairy princess competition and
the Canadian dairy princess competition a
few years ago.
Mr. Nixon: Out of order!
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the Minister
will stick to the statement from which he is
reading, which I believe was very good until
he departed from it.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I thought that was an
interesting sideline.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that every serv-
ice available to farmers in southern Ontario
is available to farmers in northern Ontario,
in addition to those special grants and services
that I have just outlined. I would hope, with
the revelation of these facts as they are, that
my hon. friend would display the same haste
to report to the newspapers these facts as he
did in tlie first place.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question for the
Minister of Health. What printing errors
occurred in the physicians' applications for
involuntary admissions under The Mental
Health Act proclaimed last Saturday? What
was the cost of correcting these errors?
Hon. M. D. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, in adjusting the spacing of the
content of this form, three words were drop-
ped from one line. The printer assumed the
full cost of reprinting the form and the notice
of the error when it was drawn to his atten-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
Minister— these had been distributed well in
advance of the proclamation of the Act, is
that so?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I cannot be certain but
I think about ten days, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. member for Welland
South (Mr. Haggerty) put a question to the
Minister yesterday and because of the Min-
ister's absence it could not be answered. The
hon. member has asked me to ask it today—
if you will allow it, Mr. Speaker— in five parts.
Is the Minister aware that Dr. Rygeil's
home for children at 430 Whitney Avenue, in
Hamilton, is near bankruptcy and may have
to release 100 mentally retarded children for
lack of funds? What will happen to these
children if the home is forced to close? What
special steps will the Minister take to keep
the home open in the light of a comment of
Dr. D. E. Zarfus, provincial director of serv-
ices for the mentally retarded, that this home
is, and I quote, "The biggest, the newest,
and one of the best"? What is the reason
for the difference between the per diem rate
of $8.50 for the private homes and the $12.50
allowed government institutions? Finally,
what special steps must the Legislature take
to increase die per diem rate from $8.50 per
day in this particular instance, bearing in
mind tlie particular degree of attention each
child requires?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not have the offi-
cial information on this, but I can assure the
hon. member that the home is not near bank-
ruptcy. There is no intention of moving the
JUNE 4, 1968
3845
children and the movement of the children
will not be necessary nor permitted.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is not the
situation as I understand it.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Was that a question,
Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker did not hear any
comment.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I did, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Attorney General. Since the OPP
have taken over policing in Blind River, how
many of the town's former police force are
still awaiting jobs as they have been assured?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I am informed that of the five man
force, three have obtained employment and
two are unemployed. I might say that when the
mayor and council of the town of Blind River
requested that the Ontario Provincial Police
take over the policing some eight or ten
weeks ago, it was mainly because of the fi-
nancial condition in which the town found
itself, with a budget of some $52,000 for
policing.
The mayor and council told us that they
would assist us in every way to find employ-
ment for the members of the town police
force. We pointed out the problem of taking
over on short notice; it was arranged that
notice would be given in advance as possible.
We undertook to give each of the members
of that force a thorough consideration as
members of the provincial police force. This
has been done.
Actually, the conditions for joining the
Ontario Provincial Police were relaxed to
some degree, but none of the men qualified.
Three, according to the mayor to whom I
talked today, have employment, and two are
unemployed. He informs me, and I will not
use any names, that one man lacks desire to
obtain employment, being more concerned
with making statements to the press and
radio stations. The other man has a bit of a
health problem in his ovenveight condition,
but the town oflBcials with whom we have
been continuously in touch on the matter,
are attempting to assist. I have taken some
time to expand that answer. I hope that the
other two who still remain can get employ-
ment.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East has a question from yesterday, and also
one today.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I have
a question for the Attorney General. Is the
Attorney General aware that the scene of a
fatality is frequently altered prior to the
arrival of investigating oflBcers, the coroner or
mine inspectors? And will the Attorney
General take measures to insure that the
practice of improving conditions on an
accident site prior to investigation be stopped
immediately?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
heard the suggestion made but at no
time have I received any evidence which
would support such an allegation. The
persons making these statements have never
been at an accident site to observe the pro-
cedure followed. Investigating mine in-
spectors and coroners have never seen any
evidence at any mine fatality that any
material, substance or structure has been
tampered with prior to their arrival. If the
hon. member has such evidence I would
appreciate receiving it as soon as possible. I
presmne that he has not such or he would
have made it available by this time.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview
has a question from yesterday.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial
Secretary. Will the Minister advise why no
disciplinary action was taken by the liquor
licence board against the Westmorland hotel
after the recent conviction of its former
manager on the charge of keeping a common
bawdy house at the hotel for nearly three
months last summer?
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the
licensee of this particular establishment will
be called before the board in the latter part
of this month to show cause why the licence
in question should not be either cancelled or
suspended.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister
of Trade and Development. In a press report
in the Globe and Mail on Monday, Jime 3,
Mr. Robert Bradley, executive director of the
Toronto housing authority, stated that Toronto
leads North American cities in housing short-
age. Would the Minister advise if he will
approach the following agencies for housing
loans: The international development agency;
the American federation of labour; the CIO.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I will take the
3846
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
question as notice and get the information for
the hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the
Minister of Education. Whereas many
thousands of university students must pay
room and board, either in residence or living
out in private rooms where they attend univer-
sity outside of their home city— and that is a
substantial extra charge for education against
a large segment of our Ontario people— what
steps can be taken, in an arrangement with
Ottawa, to permit this living expense to be
allowed as a tax deduction for parents or
students themselves?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is properly
directed if the hon. member wants a personal
reaction from me. At the outset I would say
that, of course, in our own student award
programmes we take into account, in the
calculation of financial need, the cost of room
and board of students who have to leave
their own communities. I think it is fair to
state that this question of deduction or allow-
ance for this cost on income tax has been
brought to the attention of the federal author-
ities on a number of occasions.
I can only express a personal point of view
here in this House, Mr. Speaker, and to me
I would think that this should be considered
as a possible legitimate allowance or tax de-
duction when calculating income of people
with respect to children in the school system.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if I have the oppor-
tunity after the 25th— depending on what
happens on that great date— I would be quite
prepared to make my personal views known
to the federal Minister who will be in charge
because I think that it is to me, at least, a
very logical request.
There may be some very good reasons why
it should not be done but I, Mr. Speaker, of
course, am not in a position to indicate what
these would be.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question— may I say that in view of the fact
that education is your responsibility and that
there is a great discrimination here—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Income tax is not.
Mr. Sargent: Education costs are your
responsibility, is that right? Then it is a
great discrimination to get-
Mr. Speaker: Orderl The member will
please recall that no matter how he feels, or
what he wishes to say, he will observe the
courtesy and deconun which are so necessary
in this House.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister of Agriculture
and Food can do it but I cannot do it.
Mr. Speaker: And any interruptions directed
to the Speaker are directed to the rest of the
House, not just to the Speaker in person. I
would respectfully request that the member
bear this in mind. He has the freedom of
the House; he has much more freedom than
many members and—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, what—
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Speaker is
on his feet the member will remain quiet in
his seat. He will have an opportunity to dis-
cuss the matter thereafter if he wishes.
If so, the member who asked the Minister
if he would accept a supplementary question,
would ask a supplementary question and not
make a speech, he certainly has the freedom
of this House for that purpose.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
the hon. member for Grey-Bruce would not
intend to insult the Minister of Education
except in a very subtle fashion, which would
be hard to recognize.
I shall endeavour to answer the supple-
mentary question.
Mr. Speaker: I might point out to tiie
Minister that the same words that I directed
to the member apply to the Ministry too,
who are members of this House.
The member will please place his supple-
mentary question.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister agree,
education being his responsibility, and as this
involves millions of dollars to people in out-
lying parts of the province, that he could give
those involved some protection insofar as a
tax deduction against their homes or real
estate or a provincial tax deduction allow-
ance or rebate? This is very important to
millions of people in this province.
Mr. Speaker: Order; The member has
asked his question.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not
really sure that this poses a question. As I
indicated to tlie hon. member, in the calcu-
lation of the awards to be made to the stu-
dents, the cost of transportation and lodging
is calculated in the award that is made and
the funds that are then payable to the student
come from the consolidated revenue of the
I:
JUNE 4, 1968
3847
province. I think this is an equitable dis-
tribution of the funds. The hon. member, in
his preamble to the supplementary question
before certain matters were brought into
discussion, was indicating that perhaps this
discriminated against, shall we say, the tax-
payers of the province.
I think in fairness— and far be it from
me, I would be one of the last to defend the
present federal administration— I do not think
that it acts in a discriminatory fashion in this
province more so than any other particular
jurisdiction, except from the standpoint that
we perhaps have a higher percentage of stu-
dents enrolled in universities than is the case
in some other provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Sargent: We are still no farther ahead
then. I have a question for the hon. Minister
of Agriculture and Food. Would the Minister
advise if his department plans to take any
action to regulate the use of antibiotics in
food producing animals in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. . Speaker, in reply
I would say that in order to obtain reliable
information pertaining to the distribution and
use of drugs used in the treatment of live-
stock in Ontario, a survey is currently being
conducted by the Ontario Department of
Agriculture and Food. With the wide usage
of antibiotics, much of the information secured
will pertain to antibiotics.
We work very closely with the food and
drug directorate of The Department of
National Health and Welfare, who are con-
stantly concerned with matters pertaining to
the adulteration of food and, therefore, any
steps that we would take in governing the
use of antibiotics in food-producing animals
would be guided by standards set by the
directorate and would be quite in keeping
with safe human consmnption standards.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister answer a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will try, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that this
is already in the FBA in the States-they
already have regulations in force now protect-
ing the people there in this regard— how long
will it take us to get into the act here then?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Perhaps there is not
the same wide use of such antibiotics in On-
tario. The matter is under review.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a further
question?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, very respectfully,
again you have taken the questions and have
cut them down to nothing, and it is hard to
get any sense out of this. It is to the Prime
Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The member should be
advised that the question which he is now
going to ask is to be read by him as it was
originally received in the Speaker's office.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I will stay with the
question, Mr. Speaker, but you must realize
in the supplementary I can only ask what I
was going to ask anyway. So this is a comedy
we are going through.
Mr. Speaker: Order! I would like to point
out to the member that for some considerable
time, the questions coming from his pen have
not been in accordance with the rules. I
have accepted them and, on various occa-
sions, discussed with him or the secretary
in charge how they should be amended. This
morning several questions came in from the
member and several were sent back for
rewording and they have been asked.
This particular question is now being asked
as it was originally received in my office.
I received it myself and, therefore, I know
of what I speak.
If the member feels that it is not properly
worded, then I suggest that the problem is
his, and I also suggest to him that supple-
mentary questions, as far as possible, should
be included in the original question so that
the Minister may be prepared to give an
answer that is not off the cuff.
The member now has the floor.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Prime Minister advise
if he will give financial assistance to the
development of the north shore road from
Owen Sound to Wiarton, in Keppel township,
as a summer student employment programme?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I have
made it clear, in answer to several other
questions, that it is not the intention of the
government to develop any make-work pro-
grammes for students this summer. This par-
ticular road is the responsibility of the local
municipality; if they choose to repair it, or
resurface it or do any other type of work
on it, it will receive the standard subsidies
and they can employ whoever they wish to
do it. No supplementary question.
Mr. Sargent: You could not answer anyway.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury has
a question.
3848
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of personal privilege in a matter affecting the
privileges of tlie House. Yesterday, tabled in
this House, was the report on the problems
of the Ontario council for the arts which, sir,
contains the statement which may redound
in unsalutary fashion upon the members of
the House, and that statement says, and I
quote that, "the report was printed by order
of the legislative assembly of Ontario", and
as a member I wish to make it perfectly
clear that I, nor indeed do I think any mem-
ber of my party, had anything to do witli the
printing of this piece of psychedelic flap-
doodle that came out under the aegis of this
organization. I have very great respect for
the chainnan of that council, and I seriously
doubt whether he had a great deal to do
with it either.
And I say, sir, that it is of such a nature
as to be incomprehensible to the ordinary
sense of reasons. It indicates at one and the
same time serious and unwarranted imposi-
tion on the public purse, and aspersion upon
all hon. members, and an indication of how
much its authors misunderstand their func-
tions.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): You are against culture.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Lands and Forests. Is the Minister aware
that American tourists are bringing minnows
in from the United States? Is this against
the fish and game laws of Ontario, and if
so will the Minister correct tlie situation?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in replying to the
hon. member for Thunder Bay: Yes, I am
aware that tourists are bringing live bait
into Ontario. This is contrary, of course, to
section 17, subsection (b) of the Ontario
fisheries regulations. Whenever we are able
to ascertain when this happens, we do take
corrective measures, and if the hon. member
is aware of certain information we would
be very pleased if he would make it available
to us.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question to ask of the Minister of
Agriculture and Food. Is the Minister pre-
pared to extend crop insurance purchase
one week to ten days for corn, soya beans
and white beans due to the delay in planting
of those commodities because of excessive
rain in southern Ontario during the last week
of May?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first of
all I think my hon. friend would agree that
in most cases in southwestern Ontario, this
is probably the earliest seeding on record.
There may be a few isolated instances where
the crop has not been planted, but insofar
as soya beans and white beans are concerned,
tlie deadline for insurance of these crops is
several weeks away yet.
As far as the deadline for com insurance
is concerned, it is tied directly to the heat
units in the various zones for planting pur-
poses for the various varieties. While there
may have been some difficulty in completing
the corn planting in parts of eastern Ontario
and, in fact, some parts of central Ontario,
the general feeling of the Ontario crop in-
surance commission, who deal with these
matters, is that the deadline should not be
extended.
A farmer knows in making his plans what
fields are going to be put into corn, and if
he intends to put insurance on these fields
he has all kinds of opportunities to do that.
I would not feel that there is any real neces-
sity to extend that deadline at the present
time.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Spence: I understand that some of
the farmers understand the stopping date
for insurance for com in southwestern On-
tario is on May 31. Is that correct? ;
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
give you the exact date because I have a
feeling it varies throughout Ontario, and ^
I would not want to commit myself on that *
without finding out.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East has a question for the Minister of
Mines.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, before I put
this question to the Minister of Mines, I
would like to clarify with the Attorney Gen-
eral that the question which I submitted to
him today was first submitted on Thursday
and has no relevance to the question I am
asking the Minister of Mines now, outside
JUNE 4, 1968
3849
of the fact that this is further information
I received since that date.
To the Minister of Mines: Is the Minister
aware that evidence presented at the inquest
into the death of Raymond David Tomson,
following an accident at Copper Chff plant,
made it quite clear that the scene of the acci-
dent had been altered in spite of tlie instruc-
tions contained in The Department of Mines
handbook, stating that except for the purpose
of saving life, or relieving human suffering, no
person may interfere with the scene of an
accident until the investigation has been com-
pleted? Does the Minister intend to have
charges laid against International Nickel
Company for interfering with the site of the
accident at the Copper Cliff plant which
resulted in the death of Raymond David
Tomson?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence ( Minister of Mines ) :
Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not aware that
there was any such evidence presented and
therefore the second part of the question is
not applicable.
Mr. Martel: A supplementary question. Has
the Minister checked into this?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The transcript has
been ordered, but has not yet been received.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
might I remind the members of the Clerk's
luncheon meetings with respect to rules and
procedure which will continue tomorrow, in
committee room 1, at 12:30 p.m. May I also
ask for the assistance and co-operation of
each member of the House in having their
picture taken for posterity, beginning Mon-
day, and there will be a schedule passed
round to you.
It is my hope tliat we can arrange to have
the sitting for these pictures now in order
that we may have diat record which hangs
out in the hallway, covering the period
since this province became a province on its
own. I am sure that each one of you would
like to have a likeness of yourself as you are
in the House at this time. You will be notified
by the Speaker's office.
The Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On May 30, the hon.
member for Sudbury East asked a question
in two parts. 1. Is it the duty of a coroner
to obtain all information available to him
when an inquest is held to avoid repetition
of similar accidents or fatalities? 2. Would
the Attorney General investigate why Dr.
Pidutti, a coroner in the Sudbury district,
refused to accept evidence in the recent
Stacknic inquest, a fatality at Creighton
Mines from officers of the united steelworkers
of America?
My answer, Mr. Speaker, is that a coroner
who is investigating the circumstances sur-
rounding a death always endeavours to ascer-
tain all the relevant facts for presentation
to the coroner's jury. However, the coroner
endeavours to determine the facts impartially.
It is not his function to obtain the facts from
sources which may have a special interest, or
which may have a particular interest in a
particular aspect of the case.
Dr. Pidutti did not refuse to consider any
irrelevant or material evidence in the Stack-
nic inquest. What he did refuse to do was
to meet privately with members of the union
before the inquest, to hear its view of the
evidence. The coroner was properly of the
opinion that the police investigators would get
all relevant evidence and that other evidence,
if there was any other evidence which per-
sons wished to give and in which they had
a particular interest, they would be present at
die inquest.
He therefore remained impartial, and pre-
sided at the inquest and produced before the
coroner's jury all the relevant evidence. I
would stress again that it is not certainly a
coroner's duty, or proper course for him to
follow, to go to parties prior to an inquest
and hear material which they may put forth.
I think it should all be put forth properly at
the inquest.
Mr. Sopha: Very proper. A very able
coroner.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On the same date. May
30, the hon. member for Sudbury East pre-
sented another question, which was: In order
that all parties have all questions which they
consider important and relevant at a coroner's
inquest asked in the manner intended, would
the Attorney General advise coroners that
direct questioning by all interested parties or
their representatives be permitted?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, and I have in-
dicated this on previous occasions, is that
the law on that matter is quite clear. The
coroner has a discretion to determine who
may appear and be represented by counsel
at any inquest. In the event that the coroner
decides that counsel will be permitted to ask
questions of a witness at an inquest, this is
within his jurisdiction. The McRuer report
makes some recommendations on this mat-
ter which are being considered at this time.
3850
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It has not been my policy to dictate any
particular procedure to any official perform-
ing a judicial function, and I would think
that everyone would agree with me on this
contention. However, in the course of in-
struction to new coroners, we make it clear
tliat they have such a discretion and that it
must be utilized to ensure a full and com-
plete enquiry. This provides persons with a
legitimate interest the right to be heard at
tlie inquest.
I put those remarks down rather carefully,
Mr. Speaker, because I thought that the
record should be very definite on that. And
I would add that I think one can appreciate
that coroners' inquests if anyone sitting in
that room where the inquest is being held
were free to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, the matter would be impossible. The
inquest is conducted almost invariably with
the assistance of the Crown attorney, with
the coroner presiding, and the questions are
directed generally through council or perhaps
counsel is permitted in the discretion of the
coroner to question some of the parties. But
to have any member of the public-
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Any inter-
ested party should be able to cross-examine
through counsel.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: As the hon. member
knows, there is a discretion in the coroner.
Mr. Shulman: There should be no dis-
cretion.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is a discretion
in the coroner to conduct the inquest.
Mr. Shulman: It is a bad discretion.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: As I have mentioned in
my reply, the hon. Mr. McRuer has made
some recommendations and we are consider-
ing them. We have, as perhaps members of
the House are aware, been considering
changes in our Coroners Act.
Mr. Sopha: What the hon. member for
High Park does not understand is what the
coroners' courts are.
An hon. member: He never did.
Mr. Shulman: I have made the same rec-
ommendations for the past five years.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: He turned it into an inquisi-
tion.
Mr. Shulman: I turned it into a place for
people to get justice.
Mr. Sopha: An inquisitor!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On May 30, the hon.
member for Sudbury East asked another
question to which I have the answer. The
question was: Will the Attorney General con-
duct an investigation into the complaints of
local 6500, united steelworkers of America
to Dr. H. B. Cotnam on May 24, 1968, that
investigations of fatalities are conducted by
police officers of the town of Copper Cliff,
who also serve as security guards for INCO,
and may therefore have a built-in bias in
their investigations? If so, when will such
an investigation commence? Will the Attor-
ney General instruct the chief coroner that
only non-INCO employees may be used to
investigate the various INCO plants after
fatalities and underground operations to
assure complete impartiality?
My answer is, Mr. Speaker, that I have
been aware of the views of local 6500 of
the united steelworkers of America relating
to inquests. As a result of correspondence
carried on with the president of the local
and with the chairman of the safety com-
mittee, I arranged a meeting in Sudbury, on
Wednesday, May 22 of this year, between
those officials and the senior officials of my
department. Dr. Cotnam, Mr. Frank Wilson
and Mr. Hills, of the coroner's branch. The
matter of independent police investigation of
mine fatalities was discussed along with sev-
eral other subjects. I should mention, Mr.
Speaker, that there is no evidence that in-
vestigation of mine fatalities by police who
have some relationship with the mining com-
panies have not been impartial and complete.
As I say there is no evidence of that but
as a result of that meeting, we are studying
the matter and reviewing it and taking it
under complete and full consideration. The
matter is open, in a sense, for further review.
On March 25, 1968, the hon. member for
High Park asked me a question to which I
would like to give the answer today.
The question was: On payment of the
proper fee, will the Attorney General release
the sworn testimony of Mr. Murray Mehlman,
as given in the seniority investigations? I
took that statement as notice at the time,
and I have since reviewed the matter in
considerable detail. For my part, I will not
release that testimony given by Mr. Mehlman.
Perhaps I should expand briefly on that.
JUNE 4. 1968
3851
It was an enquiry carried on by the
securities commission. Allegations were made
in the testimony, various persons named; I
think that the principle here is that to re-
lease that evidence now in that type of
enquiry— which was a departmental enquiry-
would actually some years after the enquiry,
bruit abroad names of persons of whom the
allegations made in the testimony were not
proven.
To release that sworn testimony would
allow Mr. Mehlman to publish it. He knows
what he said. He does not need his testi-
mony to refresh his mind. His purpose, I
think, in seeing it is so that he can publish it.
It did not stand up in the enquiry and I
do not propose to release it to him.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs):) Before the orders
of the day, Mr, Speaker, I would like to give
the answer to a question posed by the hon.
member for High Park with respect to the
firm of Ord Wallington and Company
Limited.
I am informed that as a result of the
Ontario securities commission auditor's interim
report, the registration of Ord Wallington
was suspended on April 16, 1968, pend-
ing the clarification of its financial position.
Both the commission's auditors and the firm's
auditors, Messrs. McDonald Currie and Co.
had been proceeding with independent
audits. The facts developed to that peak
were inconclusive insofar as demonstrating
that the public clients were likely to suffer
loss.
At this hearing, Mr. Arthur B. Francis, CA,
the registrant's former auditor, was called by
the firm. Mr. Francis' business was acquired
by McDonald, Currie and Company. Based
on his evidence, the commission's director
concluded that the public interest and the
interest of the clients of the firm would not
be served at that time by preventing the
completion of the purchases and sales made
for clients. The principals purported to stand
ready to inject further capital to ensure the
public clients against loss, and in fact sub-
sequently did provide an additional $25,000
in working capital.
In light of these facts, the director stated
and I quote:
While the company will not be per-
mitted to undertake any business during
the period of suspension it is permitted to
complete the trades for which it has already
contracted and to make delivery of its
securities to its public clients, apart from
ofiBcers, directors and shareholders of the
company.
And that is the end of the quotation from the
director's ruling.
On May 3, after a trial balance as of April
30, 1968, had been taken off, it became appar-
ent that, notwithstanding the injection of the
additional $25,000, there had been no im-
provement. The commission took immediate
steps to ensure the existing assets for the
benefit of clients by issuing orders under
section 26 of The Securities Act, 1966,
"freezing" the assets of the registrant. Sub-
sequently one of the clients petitioned the
company into the bankruptcy under The
Federal Bankruptcy Act. A trustee has been
appointed.
In the light of the appointment of the
trustee in bankruptcy, the commission does
not have any power to require the delivery
by the trustee of either securities or money.
The commission, through its stafiF, have pur-
sued every question put to it by or on behalf
of the firm's public clients concerning the
position of that client. The commission's
investigation continues,
Mr. Shulman: Could the Minister explain
how it could be that one week after the
suspension of such trades, this company
accepted funds from a public client and yet
did not deliver the securities?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Could you give me or
identify the situation you have? If you could,
I would be pleased to look into that as well,
Mr. Shulman: Thank you,
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: 24th order. House in
committee of supply; Mr. A. E, Renter in the
chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
(Concluded)
On vote 2204:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville,
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr,
Chairman, I would like to ask of the Minister
if there are any American-owned freight hues
operating with a licence in the province of
Ontario.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are.
3852
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. B. Newman: There are? When were
they granted a licence?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
be glad to provide the member with a list
of American operators that have licences in
Ontario with the dates of the issue of the
licences, if that is what he would like.
Mr. B. Newman: Yes. Are they allowed to
pick up freight in Ontario and distribute it
in Ontario also?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This would be within
the terms of the licence of some; it is quite
conceivable.
Mr. B. Newman: I would appreciate it if
the Minister would supply me with that
information. He does not have to now; he
can give it to me by letter later on. May I
ask of the Minister— it is on the next vote,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to discuss with the Minister
for a few moments the plight which class K
licensees, the heavy equipment haulers group
imder The Public Commercial Vehicles Act,
Mr. Chairman, find themselves in. And it is
that, as specially licensed movers they find
their business and their area of activity being
steadily and rapidly eroded by carriers of
other classes, principally those in class A.
Three years ago, the K class heavy haulers
submitted to the Ontario highway transport
board a lengthy submission describing to the
board and the Minister the difficulties the K
class haulers were finding in facing competi-
tion which should not have been permitted by
the board from these other classes of carriers.
I want to remind the Minister that, in his
Act, he has set up tliese various classifications
of licence in order to protect such groups
as the K class haulers. The A class carriers,
I understand, cannot haul automobiles; they
cannot haul household furniture and house-
hold equipment; yet the K class haulers find
themselves facing increasing intervention by
the A class carriers, in particular, in their
own specialized field.
The heavy haulers are using flats to move
l:!oilers, heavy industrial machinery, equip-
ment like presses and construction equipment
where the construction firms do not have
their own moving equipment. They supply,
along with the moving facilities, millwrights,
plumbers, electricians, all of the supporting
services required for not only the moving of
this equipment, but its removal from the plant
and its installation in a new location.
Now they want to know why they have not
heard, in the three year period, some answers
to their complaints from the board or the
Minister and I would like the Minister to
comment on the particularly difficult position
that they face at this time.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the K
class carriers are a restricted group with a
very specialized line and they have usually
very specialized equipment. There are not
too many other operators which can carry the
kind of cargoes that the K class carriers are
designed to carry. I do not see the K class
carriers losing too much to the A class carriers,
whose rates are usually a good deal higher
and their equipment not too well suited to it.
I would like to know the specific problem
that is being met by the K carriers and the
particular section of K carriers— that is, the
nature of the cargoes they would carry that
are being affected by this.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, the problem
is, in some detail, that the A carriers do not
have higher rates than the K haulers. In fact
what the K haulers are suffering from are
the common carriers' generally lower rates
of haulage, lower tariffs, so that an A hauler
can simply drive up a flat to the plant from
which the heavy equipment or heavy ma-
chinery is to be removed, and carted off,
and put that equipment on a flat and drive
it off with one of their tractors.
The A carrier does not have to support
the kind of staff and work crews that the K
hauler has to have on his staff and the
K haulers consequently find very, very severe
competition facing them from the ability of
the A carriers to compete more effectively
through lower rates, because of the fact they
do not require these staffs of skilled work-
men, millwrights, electricians and others to
remove the machinery and re-install it else-
where.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate tlie point the member is raising.
The K hcence, of course, does not give the
K carrier an exclusive and an A class carrier
could intrude and pick up that business if it
is available. I expressed the thought that I
did not think too many of the A carriers
would have the equipment to do it. I may be
in error there because I do not think too
many of the A's have, but the A class carrier
could carry that kind of cargo if he were
equipped to do it.
JUNE 4, 1968
3853
I presume what the K class carriers are
wanting, and what the member raises in his
remarks, is that they would like to have
an exclusive that would preclude the A class
carriers from competing in those specialized
lines for which the K class carrier was par-
ticularly suited and licensed. Right?
Mr. Peacock: That is correct, Mr. Chair-
man. I would think that the Minister ought
to provide the same protection, as I said
earher, to the K class haulers as he has
afforded the movers of household furniture,
oflSce equipment and tlie auto carriers who
have exclusive jurisdiction in those fields and
cannot be challenged by the other classes of
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I shall look at it, yes.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, for the last six months,
the Ontario highway transport board has been
calling the class F carriers, the gravel
truckers, before the board for a review of
their licensing privileges. Many of these
truckers have gone to some expense and in-
convenience to appear before the board and
have arranged for representation for their
hearings.
As far as I know, most of them have come
through with an award very similar to the
type that they had held previously, but in the
midst of this, the department makes the deci-
sion that the whole class F arrangement was
going to be changed and many of them
found that the basis of their business had
been undermined by the decision that was
embodied in the Minister's bill passed just
a few days ago.
I wonder how the Minister can explain the
fact that the highway transport board was
undertaking their reviev/ of the situation
while the other part of the department, the
administrative end, was undertaking an en-
tirely different approach to a very serious
problem.
Surely the two arms of the Minister's
responsibility should have been in closer
touch so that the gravel truckers would not
have been put to this inconvenience and
expense.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
review of the F licences involves more than
just looking at those that are licensed to
carry aggregates and road-making materials.
And the review of the F licences where the
licence covers more than just road-making
materials and aggregates will continue, but
the review of those that just have limited
licences for road-making materials and road
servicing and aggregates will not be further.
Mr. Nixon: None of them were called in, is
that so?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would not say none
of them were, I say none of them will be
henceforth.
Vote 2204 agreed to.
On vote 2205:
Mr. B. Newman: Under vote 2205, I would
like to speak on a topic that has been brought
up a little earlier in the discussion, but
relates directly to safety co-ordination and
promotion. And this is concerning noise, and
its effect on the human body.
The Minister stated in respect to a previous
vote, Mr, Chairman, that one of the difiBcul-
ties facing him in securing effective prosecu-
tions against noise-makers was the lack of an
objective means of measuring noise, one that
could be zeroed so that it will give him the
same kind of result in similar noise situations.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stress another
approach to the highway noise problem, in
relation to our total noise pollution problem,
because this relates closely to highway safety
co-ordination and promotion,
I would like to see the Minister provide
a sum of $10,000 added to the grant of the
Ontario safety league for the purpose of
establishing a research fellowship in the
noise environment. And I would like to see
the recipient of this award, which would last
for one academic year, directed to produce
a paper that would have two themes.
The first theme would be the relationship
of the interior sound environment of the
automobile to tlie safety factor. Today, we
do not have only car radios, we have car
stereo and reverberation systems and tape
players, and the effect of these devices, which
may possibly be heightened by temperature
contrasts between the car's inside tempera-
ture and that of the outside air, is to isolate
the driver from the road environment. Add
power steering and power brakes and the
sense of reality is further taken away. I
would like to see a paper produced that will
correlate accident statistics with the pre-
occupation of the senses, particularly through
the swamping effect of sound.
3854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The second theme has already been sug-
gested by the British magazine The New
Scientist, dated May 16, 1968, which in
commenting on Dr. Pearl Weinberger's re-
markable seed growth studies in sound-satu-
rated environments done at the University of
Ottawa, goes somewhat further than Dr.
Weinberger is herself prepared to go in
extrapolating her results.
Dr. Weinberger's story is that human cells
of different kinds have different characteristic
resonant frequencies, like organ pipes or echo
chambers. In her experiments, Rideau wheat
seedlings were found to have a resonant fre-
quency of 5,000 hertz; that is, cycles per
second. When exposed to this sound over a
period weeks, the cells amplify the tiny
amount of energy they receive and it stimu-
lates cell growth. She has grown wheat 300
per cent above normal and has produced a
fourfold crop of grain shoots in her Ottawa
laboratory.
Now she is preparing grain for subsequent
growth on federal experimental farms. It is
no longer fantasy, Mr. Chairman, it is fact.
A few years ago a soft drink bottling
company tried a sound experiment in the
theatre. A frequency was used which stimu-
lated the throat membrane to dry out to
increase cell activity and, of course, the sale
of soft drinks soared.
Now The New Scientist wonders out loud
if teen-age growth is related to continual
exposure to sound of predominantly low
frequency. Children may be growing taller
than their parents, the magazine says, be-
cause their growth cells may be responding
to the endless broadcasting of pop tunes and
the endless auditing of juke box and similar
sounds. In Toronto, CKFH and CHUM may
be responsible for actual physical biological
changes in our children.
So the second part of the paper would
follow this matter up and look for correlation
between continuous exposure to road noise of
a single predominant frequency and the
safety factor.
Are motorists aggressive because of the
exposure to their own muffled exhausts to
any degree? Do long-distance truck drivers
suffer special kinds of perception fatigue be-
cause of the drone of their diesels? Is bio-
logical or physiological damage evident? And
if so, to what degree?
Mr. Chairman, I know that a $10,000 grant
will not even begin to open up this new area
of research. However, Dr. Weinberger's early
work in Ottawa started with a less amount.
This small grant might stimulate further en-
dowments from a great many sources, includ-
ing industry, which must surely be concerned
with the biological effects of noise. If human
beings are undergoing physical changes apart
from deafness because of noise, if the actual
cells of the human race are being affected
because of the highway environment, then
we should know about it.
I hope the Minister will look into this
matter and consider a special grant in aid
for research on the physiological aspects of
sound in relation to highway safety. This,
Mr. Chairman, would come appropriately
under 2205.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
just say that the member's dissertation on
the physical aspects of sound and the work
being done by Dr. Weinberger in Ottawa
intrigues us all. We have a grant here for
the Ontario safety league and I will be
seeing these people. I do not know whether
I can promise him that we are prepared to
increase that grant at this time, but I would
not be beyond suggesting to them that part
of it might be utihzed in some such study
with possibilities of the one suggested by
the member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, with all sincerity that the
Minister look specifically into the effects of
sound in relation to safety. We have the illus-
tration of the motorcyclist, and we look upon
him as being a very hardy breed and tending
to be a little on the pugnacious; we look
upon truck drivers as being real robust indi-
viduals and sometimes we wonder as to
whether the fact that they are driving heavy
trucks, carrying heavy loads, sort of makes
for adaptation to environment as far as they
are concerned. I think studies undertaken
in tliis field certainly could have a lot of merit
in respect to individual safety and highway
safety.
May I ask, while we are on this same vote,
whether the Minister has given any considera-
tion towards having a standard crosswalk
system throughout the province?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the Act
defines the crosswalk and these bylaws for
crosswalks, I think, are all approved by our
department. There is some experimental work
still going on. I know there are variations
being tried, and I think that is necessary
if we are to improve what we are doing, and
if some municipality wants to try a variation
of the existing system that has promise of
JUNE 4, 1968
3855
being a better one than we are using, I do
not think we would want to stand in the way
of it.
Mr. B. Newman: Does the Minister think
that the Toronto system is the best system
he has devised or that anyone has devised so
far?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would not want to put
the Toronto system second to any.
Mr. B. Newman: The reason I bring it up,
Mr, Chairman, is that people coming into the
town for the first time do not have a clue as
to what it is all about. Unless some standard
is set throughout the province, driving is too
confusing. The safety factor has disappeared
from misinformation, or lack of information,
on the part of the public.
May I ask the Minister, while I am still
on my feet, concerning the scramble corner
principle. Has he given any further considera-
tion to its adoption? The scramble corner;
sometimes referred to as the "Barnes' Dance"
signals?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
scramble system is used in some munici-
palities in Ontario and it is useful in some
locations. I can tell you that in my home town
of Ottawa, it may be rather provincial, on
some of our main corners we do have
scramble walks.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, since
it is used, the department should have some
policy on crosswalks. What is your policy on
scramble corners?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, there are just some locations which are
suitable and, where it is and the municipality
desires to adopt it, we are in agreement.
An hon. member: The local option; instant
policy.
Mr. B. Newman: The hon. member here
mentioned that that was instant pohcy.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is right. Under The
Traffic Act there is provision for it.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, the fact that there
is provision for it does not necessarily mean,
Mr. Chairman, that it is going to be adopted
by municipahties. To me, if the Minister in his
wisdom or in the department's wisdom thinks
it is the right thing, then it is the thing that
should be implemented at specific intersec-
tions.
I can see in some downtown areas, I will
not have to say in all, that can be a real
assist to both pedestrian and to the move-
ment of vehicles; and, as a system that we
have today, where an individual makes a left
hand turn at an intersection but the pedestrian
sees the green Hght and crosses— only to hold
back traffic and make for a poor attitude on
the part of the driver as well as the pedestrian.
I think there is a lot of room for improve-
ment in that aspect.
Is the Minister considering legislation pre-
venting jaywalking, on a provincial level?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No, Mr. Chairman, we
have not got a jaywalking law and we are
not contemplating it.
Mr. B. Newman: No intent of introducing
jaywalking laws?
Does the Minister not see any value in the
provincial legislation preventing jaywalking?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
say this, that the enforcement officers would
like it and yet there is a real difficulty in
enforcing it.
Mr. V. M. Singer ( Downsview ) : You have
a section in The Highway Traffic Act that
makes it an ofiFence to walk on the wrong
side of the highway; is that not some kind of
jaywalking law?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We go further than
that. We have ofiFences in The Highway Traffic
Act prohibiting walking on certain roads.
Mr. Singer: That is what I said— yes.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans ( Wentworth ) : Mr. Chairman,
have any discussions been carried out with
other jurisdictions on this continent with an
eye to changing the lighting system, the warn-
ing lighting system, on automobiles?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, this
would come properly under 2203— vehicles.
I have quite a dissertation on that and I was
almost disappointed somebody did not ask
me about it last night.
Mr. Deans: Would you answer it now?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Not if it would take an
hour and a half to tell you, but I would
like to share it with my friend from Wentworth
because I have an excellent article on rear-end
signalling, it is called.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
3856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): ^^r. Ghair-
man, just as important as this vote; from the
great county of Grey we have in the east
gallery, a handsome group called the North
Derby women's auxiliary— glad to have you
here.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oxford.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
I wanted to ask tlie Minister, and I think it
is under this vote, regarding the flashing
lights on school buses. I think you mentioned
that it should be brought up under this vote.
There has been some concern on the type
of flashing signal. I might recall to the
Minister the fatal accident that occurred near
Hickson in our area. It was claimed that the
sun reflected on the windshield of this par-
ticular car and they did not really see the
flashing signals on the bus. Consequently,
there was a fatal accident and I recall that
there was almost another one almost the
same place and under the same circumstances.
An hon. member: School bus?
Mr. Innes: School bus. I wonder if there
is any type of flasher that is being experi-
mented with that would counteract this type
of thing.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
we were dealing with school buses imder
vehicles at 2203 and drivers at 2202, but I
am happy to take the member's question in
this respect.
The flashing light on a bus is, no doubt, a
problem having regard to the fact that many
buses operate on our roads in the late after-
noon and the bus can be seen against a
setting sun; in the middle of the winter you
see the bus against the rising sun if you are
travelling east. This is a problem how to
pick out a light against the stronger light
beyond; it does not only apply to lights from
school buses.
It is a general problem and we have looked
at alternatives to the present mounting. In
New York state they use a semaphore arm
with a light on it. We have done some study
of the use of a panel behind the light that
would block out a bigger area from the sun
of the sky behind and so show the light with-
out that competition. The problem there, in
part, is the amount of wind resistance that the
panel would offer.
I hope that we will have some story on
this with, possibly, a solution from the study
that is being made by the Canadian confer-
ence on motor transport authorities. These
are the senior oflBcers from the motor vehicle
registration departments or areas of all the
provinces; they were given an assignment
and they will be reporting back to this Min-
isters' conference, I think, this summer or fall.
That is a study with regard to the overall
construction of buses, the equipment of buses,
regulations regarding their operation; and I
am sure that they will have a story on lights.
If they can come up with anything better
than we have or suggest substitution of a
semaphore such as New York state uses— some
people think this is better— we will be happy
to give it every consideration. If we can find
a better solution to what we are doing we
will be happy.
Mr. Innes: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
Minister how many accidents actually came
about by reason of such reflection; do you
know?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I have to
say to the member that we would not have
a record. I do not think I could put my finger
on a figure that would identify school bus
accidents in which the failure to see the light
was responsible.
Mr. Innes: But you have had several com-
plaints about that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, we are aware of
the problem. There is no question of that.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help
wonder how the Minister arrived at the fact
that the discussion between jurisdictions on
the changing of rear lights would fall under
the vehicles branch. Why not under the
highway safety co-ordination and promotion?
Surely co-ordination and promotion, this
is what I am talking about— getting together
with other jurisdictions to improve highway
safety in this manner.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is a new connota-
tion to put on the word co-ordination. That
is not what is intended but I appreciate the
member might have thought that was what
it was. Highway safety co-ordination is our
relation with various factors in the community
and government and municipalities that re-
late to highway safety and its promotion.
But the rear light signal system is essen-
tially a part of the vehicle. If he had in mind
that it must relate to other jurisdictions he is
perfectly right because one of the arresting
or precluding factors in developing new safety
JUNE 4, 1968
3857
practices or new safety equipment on cars is
the need to co-ordinate, to get uniform action.
I understand his use of the word co-ordina-
tion in that sense.
It is very true and that is why I explained,
when I rephed to the Opposition critics—
yourself included— following the introduction
of my estimates, that the big diJBBculty in
making fast forward strides in changes in this
direction is limited by what we can do by
way of getting uniform action from other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Deans: Now tliat we have agreed that
co-ordination fits in, what has been done in
this area? Have we been negotiating or dis-
cussing this with the other jurisdictions on
this continent and have we reached any sort
of consensus?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, there
have been some excellent papers done on
this. It is under current study by the CCMTA
and by the American association of motor
vehicle administrators. Our people are mem-
bers on these study committees.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of tlie Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, a matter of
highway safety that does pertain to school
buses— I know we have discussed it to some
extent in the previous vote— has caused me a
great deal of concern. A member of the
Minister's own department was somewhat
critical of recent regulations requiring the
traffic to stop in both directions. I know that
the Minister is aware that this particular
regulation, while a good deal has been done
to advertise it and to enforce it, is still
breached on many occasions. Does tlie school
bus driver have the authority to lay a charge
when a car goes roaring past without obey-
ing the regulation in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
school bus driver could not lay a charge,
he could lay information. I think they have
found good co-operation from the OPP.
Mr. Nixon: It is sufficient, then, simply to
report the licence number of the violating
automobile? Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It would be helpful
certainly and I think that we have had
prosecutions follow up on just that method.
Mr. Nixon: It seems really that there is
a lack of uniformity in the way the drivers
regard this particular regulation. Perhaps the
Minister, in his own experience has seen a
bus come to a full stop, as they are required
to do in the driving lane, with the lights
ilashing; the children then get off the bus.
He keeps the lights flashing, supposedly, to
stop the traffic both ways while the young
children proceed across the road.
It really is sometimes hair-raising when you
see the difficulty on-coming traffic will have
in order to obey the rules. It is really beyond
our competence to say that the regulations
are not perfect in every way. It is the Min-
ister's responsibility to have the very best
information as to what will work in our juris-
diction and what is working elsewhere. Uni-
formity is an important part of this particular
measure but I am very fearful that the
number of accidents relating to the on-
coming cars hitting the children who are
crossing a road witliout any regard to the
traffic at all, that the number of accidents is
going to continue at a very high level.
Now it seems to me that we ought to be
training the children to step down off the bus,
stand at the side of the road and wait until
the traffic is clear and, in their judgment,
they can then cross the road. Otherwise, we
are setting up an artificial situation that has
been serious and is continuing to be serious.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, this is
a matter that has been discussed year after
year and we have sought to get the best sys-
tem. The only change made two years ago
was that in addition to requiring overtaking
traffic to stop, there was also the require-
ment that the on-coming or approaching traffic
likewise must stop when the school bus is
stopped in an over 35 mile an hour area
and has its lights flashing and it is taking
on or discharging children and the approved
procedure is, as the hon. leader of the
Opposition has outhned, mainly that the
school bus stays stopped with its lights flash-
ing while the traffic in both directions stops
—and the children cross in safety.
We have had that law in effect for about
two years. The results, I think, must be
accepted as inconclusive. If there is any
change it is only a very moderate change.
There was not much change made in the
regulation for all the talk that has occurred
since. There has been, this last year, a slight
increase in the number of collisions, there has
been a reduction in the number of children
killed; tiie number of collisions that increased
was not on account of the new part of the
law requiring the approaching traffic to stop.
So how do you put it together? We think
we have done what we have done in an
3858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
attempt to reach the best and most acceptable
procedure and we have used the basis of
continental uniformity as one of our reasons
for doing it.
I argued it myself for some years, that our
system of stopping just the overtaking traffic
was in the main, the better. But in the inter-
est of uniformity we accepted this other.
Now let me say to my hon. friend that
we are doing our best to educate those con-
cerned. We put out, I think, one of the best
advertising campaigns about the school bus
stopping law when it came into effect a year
ago last September. People told me that
driving through the north, every half hour
on the hour every radio in northern Ontario
was broadcasting the story. People from the
north— our own people up north. Letters went
to every school bus operator, every owner of
a school bus operation.
Mr. B. Newman: Were they printed in
other than English?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No. I want to classify
that— I do not think so.
To every school teacher, every principal
and all the OPPs who have been doing the
instruction and—
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not run a full
page ad?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, you
would have to pass the bill for that and there
was an unlimited amount of advertising
material sent home with the children and the
OPP. Our safety co-ordinator officers in every
area of the province have given lectures to
the children and I think it has really had ex-
cellent promotion.
I would like to send this across to the
hon. leader and if anyone else wants one, I
will see they get it because I think it is an
excellent brochure. Would you make note
for one for the member for Wentworth?
We are doing the best we can. I think the
situation is ironing out as people get used
to it. We just have to wait a couple of
years and if there is anything wrong with it,
we have to be prepared to change it. I hope
that it settles down and proves that it is
the best.
Mr. Nixon: Really, Mr. Chairman, the
part of it that is most frightening is that
these younger students, particularly the little
ones under ten, are obeying the regulations
as tliey have been drilled into them.
The bus is standing there with perhaps no
car in the on-coming lane to block other
cars that may come up without paying proper
attention and these children are walking
across, obeying all the regulations that the
Minister has promulgated, and it is under
those circumstances that they are in the
greatest danger since the speading cars com-
ing in towards the bus may very well be
unable to stop or the drivers unaware of
the tremendous responsibility upon them.
As the Minister has pointed out, we still
have those drivers who will pull out around
a stopped bus and accidents that happen
under those circumstances are really unthink-
able. I often feel myself that if the young
children are trained to step down from a
bus and stand by the side of the road, let
the bus go on and then they use their own
judgment in crossing as they must really
when they are on the highways at any other
time other than associated with the school
bus. It might be better in the long run in
training them for a safer approach to walking
on the highways.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the
last number of years, we have brought up
the reflectorization of licence plates and I
would like to, at this time, ask the Minister—
we are under highway safety, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Vehicle licence plates
were in vote 2203.
Mr. B. Newman: All right, let us say the
reflectorization of vehicles anywhere, be it
licence plates, be it simply the back, the
side, the front of a vehicle, but reflectoriza-
tion or even the use of reflector tags as has
been recommended. It was originally adopted
in Sweden and now is in use in most countries
in the world but not used to any extent in
Ontario.
Does the Minister consider tliat reflector-
ized licence plates have some basic safety
advantage or not?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Too minimal to be
seriously considered, Mr. Chairman. Our
study into tliis was very conclusive in this
regard. We checked out the extravagant
claims of a promoter and found that they
were not substantiated with our enquiry
made directly to the motor vehicle adminis-
trators of every state and province on this
continent, and I say that categorically. We
JUNE 4, 1968
3859
stated our position on the basis of that and
this is our position with respect to reflectorized
plates. I made a categorical statement, we
were not considering them.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the signs
on the highways— stop signs and so forth
always use reflectorize materials. Why do you
not require the use of reflectorized materials
on the back of the vehicles?
Hon. Mr Haskett: We do.
Mr. B. Newman: All vehicles— I know but
you require what— nine square inches— 12
square inches? The amount that you do re-
quire is so minimal, Mr. Chairman, that its
effect is lost right there. Why not require a
sizable amount of reflectorizing material?
Mr. Sargent: He does not know. He has
to look it up.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. B. Newman: Would the Minister reply?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Just to correct the
statement of the misinformed member for
Grey-Bruce. I was looking to see if I had
here the safety requirements of the national
safety bureau of the United States, to see
what it said with respect to reflectorization.
They are not calling for or suggesting the use
of Hcence plates that are reflectorized but
they do deal with reflectorization and that is
what we would likely adhere to.
If there is any change to be made it will
be made in that direction. We were discussing
with the motor vehicle manufacturers, three
years ago, the provision of side lights and
now we have them or, in lieu of lights, re-
flectorized materials on the sides and I think
that we are meeting the situation in that
respect.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, I can understand,
Mr. Chairman, that the size of a licence
plate does not give you a sufiicient amount
of reflectorization. But you could require a
sizable amount on all four sides of a vehicle.
In addition to simply vehicles on highways,
I think you should insist that rolling stock,
trains, buses and heavy trucks, likewise have
a sizable amount of reflectorized material
on all four sides. And I would like to say,
while I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, that
the Minister should require trains to have
some type of identifying light. Simply the
white light of an approaching train is prob-
ably not enough warning.
But the flashing light of an OPP car or of
an ambulance is spotted immediately. Why
could the Minister not require rolling stock
or trains to have something like that if they
are going to cross the highways in the prov-
ince of Ontario? The Minister will tell me
it is a federal affair, but he can still insist
that they come along and follow some of
these safety features that we have mentioned.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It is a good suggestion
but I have no jurisdiction.
Mr. B. Newman: If the Minister would
talk to the federal people, I think he and his
persuasive ways would not have any diflB-
culty convincing them that there is the
safety of the people of the province of On-
tario involved and I know they would smile
gently at him and follow this suggestion.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I wfll think of that.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister if
he is going to promote the use of reflecto
tags, especially among elementary school
students? The Minister knows what it is,
just a little tag—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I know, but I am just
inquiring if our safety branch has taken any
steps in this direction. We had a demonstra-
tion of it, in fact we have had a number,
but I do not know if we have taken any
steps yet to put the safety tag programme
into our promotion for school children.
Mr. B. Newman: The Ontario safety league
promotes it, Mr. Chairman. Surely they would
not be promoting it if it was not useful.
May I ask the Minister, in an attempt to
promote safety on municipal roads, that he
consider possibly asking the municipalities or
taking a study in municipahties of requimg,
say, every seventh lot in new subdivisions
to be left vacant so vehicles can be removed
off the streets and parked on parking loca-
tions, but not on municipal highways?
In this way we would not have any vehicles
parked on our roads. Our roads would be
used for the purpose for which they were
built and that is movement of traffic and we
would require vehicles to park somewhere.
As it is today, in built-up cities you do not
have any place to park, but where you had
every seventh lot in a municipality set aside,
you might have somewhere to put these
vehicles.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr, Chairman, in some
European countries they have spots along
the highways, what they call lay-bys, on
3860
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which cars can pull off. This is what I think
the member is suggesting, that this should be
extended into built-up areas, that there should
])e pull-olF areas for disabled ciu-s?
Mr. B. Newman: Well, no, I am not re-
ferring to disabled cars, I am referring to
taking cars right off the road 24 hours a day.
Hon. Mr. Haskctt: Oh, off-street parking
completely?
Mr. B. Newman: Tliat is right.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This we can talk about
with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough). I think that would
be his problem.
Mr. B. Newman: Right.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, a few weeks ago we had the
honour to have the director of highway safety
in our community and he did a very good
job in outlining the projects that they are
undertaking to promote safety. I was won-
dering what recommendations to promote
safety the department makes, say to The
Department of Highways in regard to some
of our two-lane highways which are no
longer in a proper state of construction. Does
this department recommend to The Depart-
ment of Highways what corrections should be
made after a scries of accidents?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
The Department of Highways would have its
own report on the accidents occurring on
their highways and they are very tliorough
and very complete. We have not had any
occasion, I recall, to recommend to The
Department of Highways that they should
imdertake the reconstruction or rebuilding of
a piece of road on account of the incidence of
accidents on it, because they are very well
informed on every accident that happens on
one of the roads under dieir jurisdiction.
But we have excellent liaison with The
Department of Highways with regard to signs
and traffic studies and all the rest. If we
should have information with respect to a
dangerous piece of road that they were not
acting on, that they were not aware of, I can
assure tlie member we would be in conver-
sation with them.
Mr. Worton: Perhaps, Mr. Chainnan, call-
ing it a dangerous road would not be the
right terminology. What I am speaking of is
tlie fact that our speed has increased and we
arc still dealing with highways that have
been established 30 and 40 years. It seems
to me that highway safety has an important
part to play in co-ordination with The Depart-
ment of Highways to promote a better type
of highway, and I am wondering whether this
department is making recommendations to
this effect.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we make
reconmiendations back and forth; we rely on
Highways to make some of the studies that
enable us to set speed limits because the
setting of speed limits is our responsibihty.
So there is this constant liaison both ways
with regard to highways and traffic admini-
stration.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, my colleague,
who was Opposition critic on these estimates
in his remarks in this debate, made quite a
point of the fact that between five and nine
cents per capita across the province is being
spent on safety publicity. I see in this esti-
mate we have a total estimate of $386,000. To
spend between five and nine cents a person
across the province is an insult to us because
of the great number of lives lost.
Can the Minister tell me why he does not
embark upon a programme of a full-page
ad at proper times in tlie year that has some
impact; the way any public relations firm
would do it? This piecemeal approach to it
is rather a waste of money. If you cannot do
a tiling properly do not do it at all. And you
are not doing it properly on this scale.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I appreciate the encour-
agement I get, Mr. Chairman, from my
friend, the member for Grey-Bruce, because I
v/ould like to have a bigger programme. But
let me say to him that the amount of dollars
represented in the item is not the whole story
by any means. The amount of free publicity
and the amount of free time on radio and
television we get is tremendous. Tlie larger
use of advertising space is possible but the
advertising we do is only one factor.
Mr. Sargent: You get nothing for nothing.
You have to pay for what you get. If you want
to get action, you have to advertise. Any time
gi\cn on radio is time they cannot sell, and
you have no listening audience. To have
impact you have to hit it hard and at the
right tiuie and the right season. But the
approach the Minister has is negative and I
think it is a waste of time and money. Either
wash this money out or do it properly.
Mr. B. Nevmian: I have a few other sug-
gestions I wanted to make to the Minister
JUNE 4, 1968
3861
unci one was concerning the schoolboy patrols.
The Minister's pnblication mentions the fact
that they are making a continuing effort to
create interest in patrols in schools through-
out the province. Mr. Chairman, what has
been the drawback in implementing— the
fact that you do not have schoolboy patrols
throughout the school system in the prov-
ince? What stops the Minister from setting
one up?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, it is not
within our jurisdiction to set up the school
patrol. We are happy to give training and
lielp in it but the decision rests with the
school board and with the municipality. We
do not have universal acceptance of it for all
that we do approve of it, and in some places
it has worked wonderfully well. It inculcates
a sense of responsibility and training on those
who act on the patrol and more than that,
it teaches the children in a way tliat perhaps
adult leadership will not. The results of these
school patrols in some places where they have
been used is unbelievably good.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I can
speak from experience in my own community.
It has the schoolboy safety patrol programme
and it is wonderful. I sometimes wonder
why other communities would not adopt this
system, or why the Minister's department
would not forcefully encourage its adoption
throughout the length and breadth of the
province. May I at the same time suggest to
the Minister that just as the industrial acci-
dent prevention association has some type
of award— they use tlie public speaking
method to provide awards to individuals en-
gaged in speeches on industrial accident
prevention— maybe the Minister could imple-
ment some similar type of programme.
It could provide to the youngsters one
year's free tuition to a university or something
of that sort, and really encourage the idea
of safety among the younger students in the
schools.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we do so
in quite a measure and I have made presenta-
tions. But I think that it was on behalf of
the Ontario safety league, the promoters,
and we have the work actively advanced by
our highway safety co-ordinators. I under-
stand there are some 23 schools now consider-
ing adopting the school patrol.
Mr. B. Newman: This is such a small num-
ber, Mr. Chairman, we are only nibbling at
the problem. Up until the time that we get
very serious with the thing, we are not going
to accomplish very much. In reading your
publication under traffic safety education for
adults, I notice that the library loaned about
100 films a week. That is nothing at all,
Mr. Chairman. 100 a week is only 4,000 a
year. Heavens, you should be loaning out
your films at the rate of 1,000 a week.
There should be that much interest in safety
created by your department. One hundred
a week will get around to maybe one school
a year, and that is not enough.
May I ask the Minister to consider the
publication of some of his information sheets
in languages other than the English so that
it could get among the ethnic peoples, and
they likewise could be better informed as to
safety rules and regulations?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I will just add to what
I said to the member by way of correction
that more than 1,000 schools now are using
the school safety patrol. Twenty-three of our
officers are promoting it at this time.
Mr. B. Newman: That amounts to how
many—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: My colleague, the Min-
ister of Education is missing.
Mr. B. Newman: Yes, you see 1,000 does
not mean a thing. If it is 1,000 out of 1,100,
then it is important; if it is out of about
8,000 it is minor.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the Minister if the setting
of speed limits comes under this vote or
have they been discussed?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: They have not been
discussed and they may come under this
vote. We have not discussed them and if the
member has a question I would accept it.
Mr. Spence: We hear from time to time
that you are going to increase the speed limit
on Highway 401. Will the speed limit on 401
be increased this year, and what is the deci-
sion of your department?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is a question that
I answered in the House, I think, a couple of
weeks ago. I said that there have been some
recommendations with respect to increasing
the speed limit on the freeways from 60 to
70 maximum. We have had recommendations
from groups and from interested parties with
regard to trucks and large vehicles, that the
speed should be retained at a maximum of
3862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
60. There is some objection to having a dif-
ferential; and others are arguing in favour
now of having a differential. We are receiv-
ing these recommendations and on the basis
of them, I think before too long we will have
a determination as to whether we are to have
a 70-mile-an-hour limit on the freeways or a
divided 70 and 60. It is right in the middle
at this moment.
Vote 2205 agreed to.
On vote 2206:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welling-
ton South.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister what steps he is taking to
bring about compulsory automobile insurance
in the light of the fact that the figures indi-
cate that there has been a considerable in-
crease in the amount of money that you have
received in the past five years into the unin-
sured vehicle fee fund.
There are two reasons for asking this ques-
tion. One is that I am getting an increasing
number of people who are losing their licence
due to lack of insurance; then they are forced
to pay a $25 monthly payment. I might say
that you co-operate in every way that you
can to accomplish this.
On the other hand, the people who are
paying this money are the people who can
generally least afford it.
The second reason why I am bringing to
your attention is that if a person who has
no insurance strikes me, and I am covered by
collision and my accident is paid for, the
insurance has no recovery from your fund.
Yet due to this accident I have an increase
in my cost of insurance because they have
paid out for that amount of damage to my
car.
I am suggesting that from the figures I got
one month ago from the Minister— and it will
not be perfect— it is high time that you
brought about a compulsory insurance scheme
in this province. We must do our utmost to
prevent a large number of people who, per-
haps due to lack of consideration of others,
pay the $25 fee and then think that they are
covered. Then in later months they have to
deprive their families of some of the neces-
sities they need to carry on, plus the fact
that they cannot continue with their job.
I would like to have your thoughts on
what is developing with this accident claims
fund in the last two years?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
matter of compulsory automobile insurance
generally rests with my colleague, the Min-
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs,
in whose hand the entire matter of auto-
mobile insurance rests. We operate a motor
vehicle accident claims fund that takes over
and compensates victims of motorists who
are not insured. That is the entire purpose
of our motor vehicle accidents claims fund;
that is the limit of its operation.
Mr. Worton: You are not making any
recommendations, Mr. Minister, after the
experience that you had, that it is time now
when you should recommend to the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs that you
should delve into this and see if he cannot
come up with a better plan than we have.
I agree that it had come a long way, but
I think that we have taken one step and we
should explore further, to make it still better.
We will never be able to do away with this
fund, but I still maintain that we are hurting
a lot of people who, in the end, would be
better off if they were asked to pay for
compulsory insurance when they buy their
licence.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I will
leave this with my colleague and we can bring
it up with him when he is discussing insur-
ance.
I would point out to him and the member
for Wellington South and to the House that
compulsory insurance is no cure-all. In the
jurisdictions that have had it longest they
have more people escaping from coverage by
insurance, proportionally, than we have in
Ontario. For the victims of those drivers
who, in a compulsory jurisdiction, have
escaped paying insurance, there is no relief.
If he is hit by someone who has not paid
insurance, or whose insurance has expired or
been cancelled, a hit and run driver, or a
driver from outside the jurisdiction, he has
no satisfaction.
It is to care for those situations that we „
have this motor vehicle accident claims fund. '
It is entirely apart from the system of insur-
ance that is provided on a voluntary or com-
pulsory basis.
Mr. Worton: We cannot do away with this
accident fund. I agree, but I am suggesting to
you that according to your figures in your
report we have gone from $1.5 million in
1963, when I think the $20 fee was brought
in, to over $3 million this year, which would
JUNE 4, 1968
3863
indicate that the number of people taking
advantage of this has doubled.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is not the point,
Mr. Chairman. There would be an increase
in the number but the fee was increased from
$20 to $25 in the interim, and I find that-
Mr. Worton: Only $5 over the last five
years?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes, but I find that the
intake for 1967 for $3,394,000 and for 1968,
$3,297,000, so that there is a reduction in the
fees even with the higher fee and the number
of drivers overall.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult
to understand how the Minister can separate
responsibility and opinion, insofar as this
whole field raised by my colleague from Wel-
lington South is concerned, and say that it is
all up to my Ministerial colleague, the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr.
Rowntree). Now, when we had a select com-
mittee in this House and studied the matter,
it was a committee that depended upon the
civil service advice of The Department of
Transport. Your present registrar of motor
vehicles, who sits in front of you this after-
noon, was counsel to that committee. He was
a very good counsel to that committee because
he came with a background of substantial
knowledge of the functioning of that depart-
ment.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, when we
get into a field that may overlap two depart-
ments that we get one Minister who, in my
opinion, should offer definite leadership in
this field and another Minister who probably
has the mechanical responsibility of carrying
it out. We are tossed backwards and for-
wards and we cannot get the kind of answers
that we are entitled to from the Minister
whose department deals with the matter of
automobiles and injuries on the road every
day. The question of insurance overlaps and
the role of the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs, in my opinion, is only
incidental.
If the House directs that there be com-
pensation without fault, then it will fall the
chore of the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs to carry out that direction
with the appropriate legislation. Surely this
is a matter that touches all of the problems
that relate to the responsibilities of this Minis-
ter.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say that this
Minister has a responsibility to us, no matter
what other of his colleagues have opinions;
he has a responsibility to this House. To tell
us again what his opinions are about the
theory of compensation without fault as
recommended by the select committee as re-
commended by that very illustrious committee
of the benchers of the law society; as recom-
mended by the all-Canada insurance group;
as recommended by Professor Linden, who
has done studies for the Minister; as recom-
mended by all these people that the Minister
has commissioned.
I think the Minister has a responsibility
now to stand up and say either he is running
his department or somebody else is. Is he not
going to answer?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister's opinion on this matter is very
clearly on the record.
Mr. Singer: Well, what is it?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It is that we are running
a motor vehicle accident claims fund here that
takes over in the case of an accident involving
a driver without insurance, and we settle
with the victim in a way that is not excelled
in any jurisdiction I know of.
Mr. Singer: Is the Minister ignoring the
report of that select committee? Is he ignor-
ing the recommendations given to him by
people he appointed himself? Surely the Min-
ister must have an opinion on these things.
Is the Minister satisfied that Ontario does not
need any system of compensation without
fault? Is he satisfied that the courts should
continue to be cluttered up? Is he satisfied
that there should be thousands of people in-
jured on the road who get no compensation
at all?
Is this Minister going to sit here this after-
noon, Mr. Chairman, and tell us he has no
opinion? If he is, he should quit. Surely we
expect from Ministers that they be respon-
sible, and what the Minister has told us this
afternoon is far less than responsible. It is
an abandonment of his jurisdiction and his
duty here to the people of Ontario, being a
Minister in charge of transport, to have an
opinion on this vital issue.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we have
heard from this member year after year after
year praising himself and the committee on
the wonderful work they did when they came
in with a report on compensation without
fault. We have seen that matter analyzed; we
have come to a determination on it, and he
and the House know very well what the
decision is and that we are satisfied that the
job we are doing is being well done and is
3864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not exceeded anywhere so far as caring for
the victim of an accident involving an un-
insured driver.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, maybe we have
an opinion now. Maybe what the Minister
has said is the proper expression of this gov-
ernment's opinion at the present time. Tliey
repudiate the chairman of that committee, the
member for Haldimond-Norfolk (Mr. Allan),
who was the chairman of the committee; they
repudiate the now Minister of Energy and
Resources Management (Mr. Simonett); they
repudiate the opinion of the Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Gomme)— all those three gentle-
men were members of that committee; they
repudiate the opinion of the experts-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Singer: I think this is most appropriate,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It does not come under
tliis vote.
Mr. Singer: Oh it does, it does. It is the
care and attention and concern about people
injured on the roads, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister had no money
to vote for this particular-
Mr. Singer: This Minister never has any
money to vote for the safety of the people in
Ontario. Tliat is the tragedy.
Mr. Chairman: I suggest you take it up
with the other Minister.
The member for Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I agree with
the member for Downsview, I feel that we
ought to have compulsory automobile insu-
rance. I am getting a little alarmed at the
proportion that this fund is reaching. Here
we have a 20.9 per cent increase this year
in the moneys to be voted and we have a
21.5 per cent increase in the moneys that
were spent— the disbursements— out of the
fund. Now how do we equate this? Is this
going to continue to grow by leaps and
bounds yearly and is it going to be at the
expense of the people of this province?
I feel that the reasonable way to deal
with this would be with compulsory auto
insurance and the Minister says that one of
the problems would be making sure that
everyone had it. I think that this is a very
small problem— easily overcome. Auto in-
surance ought to be compulsory and it should
be issued at the time that the licence is
obtained. If anyone should then cancel,
assuming tliat it was not a government-run
operation, if anyone should happen to cancel
that insiuance they would automatically lose
their right to drive.
Hon. Mr. Ilaskett: Mr. Chairman, the
point raised by the hon. member for Went-
worth is a very obvious one. On the face
it appears that compulsory automobile in-
surance means everyone is insured. In fact,
it means that this is not so; that there are
more people uninsured in those jurisdictions
with compusory insurance than we have im-
insured in this jurisdiction where you have
the choice. That is the fact, because there
are more people escape-
Mr. Deans: How can they escape?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: They take more devices
to escape it because in those jurisdictions the
cost of insurance is mostly unduly high. This
is the fact. The state of Massachusetts has
had compulsory insurance, I think, longer
tlian any other and their situation there does
not compare with ours. There the insurance
premium for a comparable situation with
the city of Toronto— say in Boston of com-
parable size— is two to three times as much
for the same kind of coverage, and yet in
that jurisdiction they have more people escap-
ing. I am leaving the matter of deciding
whether a man wants to insure himself or not
to his own choice.
Mr. Worton: You do not force him to pay
insurance?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: No we do not. He does
not pay his insurance, he merely pays into
the funds enough to keep the funds solvent
so that he can-
Mr. Worton: You lock the door after the
horse is gone, my friend, that is what you
do. After he gets in trouble you say now pay
$25 a month and buy insurance, and I do not
think this is just.
Mr. Deans: And that is not all. We are
spending millions of dollars of public funds
administering this. Surely we can do better
than that. Surely it is not such an insur-
mountable problem. What about die Sas-
katchewan plan? Do you not feel that this
type of plan might possibly work in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I would
not care to comment on the Saskatchewan
plan because I have never been able to get
the facts on it. If I knew, I could say yes
or no; but we have not been able to get
JUNE 4, 1968
3865
the story on it. We do not know what it
costs to operate and I do not know that any
jurisdiction that settles with its victims of
uninsured drivers to the efficient way and to
the extent that we do in this province.
The member asked me a jiointed question.
He deals with the amounts on a fund that
keeps growing, and that is u matter which I
think we might look into with some concern.
If you look at the end total of the balance on
hand, and see how it mounts up year by year,
you will find that if I were to go back here
to 1965 there was $13 million; in 1966, tliere
was $17 million; in 1967, there was $21 mil-
lion. You wonder why this is necessary. Let
me point out that the revenue peaked in
1967 and we see a decline of some $500,000
in revenue this year. We find on the reverse
that the amount of claim settlement has been
growing apace and that is what the fund is
for; to see that the innocent victim of an
automobile collision involving an uninsured,
whether it is a hit and run, whether it is
somebody from outside the jurisdiction, some-
body over which we have no knowledge, or
over which we have no control, gets settled
for his claim.
We find that tlie claims paid out in 1965
were $3 million— I am giving you round
figures-$3,300,000; in 1966, $4,100,000; in
1967, $5,200,000; in 1968, $6,400,000; so we
have a very rapidly accelerating outgo.
Now, in addition to that let me say that
we have to take a responsible view of this
rest fund.
In the 1966-1967 fiscal period, tlie report
on the motor vehicle claims fund shows pay-
ments from the fund to a total, I am going
back one year, $5,212,000; an increase of 27
per cent, or $1,100,000 over 1965-1966. Dar-
ing the period the fund balance increased to
this last figure I gave you, $21,005,000.
During the previous period of operation the
unsatisfied judgment fund and motor vehicle
accident claims fund, the latter since 1962
has been the practice in reporting on the
financial status of funds to show only the
claims paid as against the insurance, the in-
come.
It has become increasingly apparent that
an actuarial approach to the financial status
of the fund is necessary. This means that
liabilities should be estimated in relation to
claims created, and identified, but not paid
claims involved in litigation in the courts, of
which the fund has no knowledge, but even-
tually will be liable to pay. At the end of
the last fiscal year, there were 3,145 claims
outstanding which required an estimated
actuarial reserve of $5 million. Tliis estimate
amounts to $1.5 million increase over the
estimated reserves for the previous year. The
reserve fund of some $20 million is the back-
bone of the financial status of the fund.
However, in any financial operation of this
size, there must be an actuarial review in
respect of not only the paid losses, but also
in respect of the dollar value to be placed
on; 1. claims created but not paid, and also
2. the creation of a reserve for the losses
not reported, but which will create a definite
liability on the fund eventually.
Mr. Deans: Is the cost of administering
this fund paid out of the premiimns that are
paid in? This $982,000 is deducted from tlie
premiums that are paid into it by the people
who are paying the $25.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Let me continue with
this-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): What is it
you are reading?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is a synopsis of
the liabilities of the fund.
Mr. Sopha: Prepared by whom?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: By our people, expert
in insurance. We have a very excellent group
handling the fund.
Mr. Sopha: I am going to say something
about that.
Mr. Worton: Can I have an explanation,
then you can continue. The point that I
brought up, sir, is that you said that the
people who buy insurance are not penalized.
I say they are, and the fact that an unin-
sured driver injures me or damages my vehi-
cle, my insurance pays my bill, and in turn
my insurance rate goes up. You do not con-
tribute funds to my accident claim. Now this
is the explanation I would like from you.
How do you say that we are being protected
by this fund? I do not think we are com-
pletely against an uninsured driver.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: You are being protected
against an uninsured driver, but in your case
you have bought insurance in the first claim.
This is purely a matter between the policy
holder and the insurance company. I say that
is purely insurance, and I am not getting
mixed in that, because I am dealing with the
residue.
Interjections by hon. members.
3866
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Haskett: You did not have a very
good lawyer.
Mr. Sopha: I do not know if you had a
good lawyer, but you lost.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: In the fiscal year 1967
over 100 of such loss cases I was mentioning
reached the fund in actions which had oc-
curred as far back as 1962, and in the de-
veloping years of 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966,
but application for payment out was only
made during the period of 1967, and reserve
of one million and one half has been set up
to meet these contingencies. The reserve fund
figure at present, therefore, is appropriate to
the liabilities created each year and would
represent considerably less than many finan-
cial institutions and insurance companies are
carrying as reserve figures as their overall
portfolios.
There are additional factors that must be
taken into consideration and establishing a
reasonable reserve in the operation of the
fund, and these have to be taken into con-
sideration. I think these are very considerable.
1. The enactment in 1967 of the gross
negligence law which will present a very
definite increase in the number of claims,
and the significant potential dollar value to
be paid from the fund;
2. The possibihty of increasing of the limits
of the fund beyond the present $35,000 maxi-
mum, any such consideration must be carried
on in the light of a situation that may develop
within other provinces and within the insur-
ance industry, and
3. The ever increasing dollar value being
awarded for damages in the courts.
I am not unmindful of the present financial
position of the fund as maintained. Claims
can be continued to be handled expeditiously
and the number of outstanding claims main-
tained at a reasonable figure with the dollar
value reserve and the judgment cases which
are in the hands of the legal fraternity
brought more quickly to the fund. There may
always be the possibility sometime in the
future of a review of the uninsured motorists'
fee, but all of that is dependent entirely on
what the tangibles are that I have outlined,
and what they can mean in dollar value
involvement in view of the inflationary trend.
I say, in the light of those facts, I think
it is a very sound and reasonable and proper
operation.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, through you to
the Minister, I should like to know a couple
of statistics in order to put into focus what
I have to say. What are the number of
drivers who pay premiums into this fund?
Perhaps better still, the percentage of mot-
orists?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: While that one is being
sought—
Mr. Sopha: Has any calculation been made
of the amount for an uninsured driver that
has been paid out, as against the amount
paid out by all insurance companies under
judgments in Ontario, for insured drivers?
Has any per capita calculation been made?
You will see what I am getting at very
easily. I would like to have some idea of
the averages of the two groups; all motorists
falling into either one or two categories—
either the insured or the uninsured.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: It will take about five
minutes to get these figures for the hon.
member.
Mr. Sopha: All right, fine. The Minister
anticipated to some extent. I want to say that
my experience with the fund demonstrates
to me how efficiently it is operated, the
courteous manner in which those responsible
for the operation of this fund treat one, and
indeed the seriousness with which they
engage upon the task. In fact, the only
inhibition against the complete efficient ad-
ministration of this fund is the inhibitions of
those who have to hire lawyers in the com-
munity, and the—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is not so.
Mr. Sopha: —lack of awareness that many
of the lawyers of Ontario who are good— and
especially in the field of motor vehicle litiga-
tion—are Liberals; but they are proscribed
apparently from sending the files to anyone
who is not a Liberal.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: May I interrupt the
member for just a moment? I would like to
be able to agree with him. I just find that I
have a great row always over my head from
followers of our party who complain about
the cases all going to Liberals. This is a fact.
Mr. Sopha: Well it is true. I can only
speak for my own community and many of
these are Conservative lawyers who are very
able lawyers.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Weill
Mr. Sopha: They are not all able-ability
in the legal profession in Sudbury transgresses
JUNE 4, 1968
3867
party lines, if you follow me. Some able
lawyers are Liberals, but only the Tory
lawyers get the files from the motor vehicle
accident compensation. There is no lawyer
in Sudbury more capable than my good friend
David Lawson when he gets a file from the
fund. You know that you are going to get
ahead with the settlement of the matter with
all possible despatch, in an atmosphere of
fairness and moderation. But that does not
tie in with all the rest of the Tories in Sud-
bury, and I say it is the only inhibition against
a completely efiBcient administration. What I
really want to say about this fund is that it
has always lagged behind reality, and espe-
cially in regard to the limits. In the pre-
historic days, the limit was a ghastly $5,000
and that imposed tremendous injustice on— a
cruel injustice on— litigates, frequently $5,000,
in those old days, would not pay the medical
bills that the litigant suffered. Sometimes, we
are told, it would not pay his lawyer and he
would end up with a mere pittance. Then
after pressure, the limits went up to $10,000
for one person, $20,000 for all and it was
recognized after a very brief period of time
that that was inadequate. Then, they were
raised to $35,000 for all persons. I am saying
that is not enough. That does not even keep
up with inflation which is going on at the rate
of 3 per cent a year.
I learned from my friend from Scarborough
West (Mr. Lewis) that it is idle and a waste,
of one's time in talking in generalities, espe-
cially when you are dealing in the field of
justice. It is better to cite a pointed example.
Supposing you have five men who are
travelling from Sudbury to Toronto in search
of work. They are in search of work because
there has been a wildcat strike at the Inter-
national Nickel Company and they are going
down to Hamilton, let us say, to seek work
rather than stand on the picket line They are
struck some place south of Parry Sound, by
a drunken motorist who is proceeding in the
opposite direction, not far out of the wet
canteen at Camp Borden. Let us suppose that
two of them are killed— pardon me, let us sup-
pose that three of them are killed. Three of
the workers, all married men, all with chil-
dren, are killed and two of the occupants of
the car survive.
Now there you have three fatalities, leaving
three, five, eight, 12 dependent children; three
widows from whom the income earner has
been snatched by the negligent act of this
motorists. And you have two survivors, very
seriously injured with multiple fractures. What
is $35,000 in a situation like that? It is a mere
pittance and to distribute $35,000 means that,
in fact, the law— in this fund of philosophy
upon which it is based— is, in effect, working
a tremendous injustice.
The late Dean Wright, the great Caesar
Augustus Wright, who departed this life fairly
recently, spent his hfetime in a study of this
matter. He pointed out that the philosophy
of the law in the collective society is directed
toward the spreading of losses. We spread
losses nowadays over the whole of society,
rather than ask the individual to accept the
loss that he experiences and bear it as best
he can. Frequently, if we do that, his Chris-
tian fortitude and his belief in prayer will
sustain him a great deal more than the sus-
tenance that he can wring out of the litigation
in which he engages.
I would think that the Minister and those
who advise him in regard to these matters
will have noticed that the courts are fairly
consistently awarding higher judgments and
properly so. We have lagged behind our
American counterparts in that regard. From
almost every point of view, without belabour-
ing the matter, it would seem to be indicated
that $35,000 is inadequate, and terribly
inadequate in the circumstances that I cited.
That was an actual case, but it is not a case
against the fund. It is a case in which an
insurance company responds but it might be
against the fund because my 15 years'
experience in the civil courts dealing with
motor vehicle litigation tells me that the
uninsured motorist, on a per capita basis, is
involved in far more accidents than tiie
responsible insured individual.
I would think, if any statistics are kept by
that fund at all, that they would demon-
strate by way of statistical proof the validity
of that proposition. These people who are
content to pay $25 when they get the hcence
are a bad risk on the highway and are
involved in a great many more accidents than
their counterparts who have insurance.
From every point of view, I would think
that the time has really gone past when the
limit should be raised.
Let me go back and say a word about that
committee which has been mentioned here
this afternoon. Ever since that committee
reported I have heard an annual reference to
it. Let me tell the Minister, through you, that
I guess I was the only member of tlie House
who was not on the committee who took the
trouble to go before tliat committee and pre-
sent a brief. They did not handle me very well
from the point of view of the adoption of the
recormnendations that I proposed. But one of
tlie recommendations I made to the committee
3868
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
was that the fee be $50 for a person to really
put the bite on them. What does an insurance
policy cost? If you go and buy insurance, it is
going to cost you upwards of $100 for it, so
what is half and a good deal more? So really
what is the point of the token payment; that
is what it is.
It is a token payment of $25, and you put
the individual in the position where he can
act irresponsibly by not having insurance and
you let him off lightly. You let him ojBF lightly
l^y only charging him $25. I would think that
if you want to be realistic about it and take
account of the $6 million that you are asking
this Legislature to vote, Mr. Chainnan, then
a minimum of $50 would be felt to be,
indeed, a very modest amount.
My friend from Windsor- Walkerville tells
me that the Minister wants $1 million more,
$L2 million this year than he had last year.
I say if that is the case then the problem is
becoming very aggravating indeed. We are
now, in the space of one year, being asked to
pay out $1 million more on behalf of
these irresponsible ptx^ple who will not seek
out insurance and really, the burden on the
public purse is intolerable and unacceptable.
I do not know why the Minister is shaking
his head. You are asking us to vote it— $L2
million more than you asked for last year. It
must bear some resemblance to reality.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: To this fund?
Mr. Sopha: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: To tliis fund?
Mr. Sopha: Look at page 137, $6,482,000
my friend from Windsor-Walkerville who has
the documents tells me it was $5,200,000
last year.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is against receipts
of $8 million.
Mr. Sopha: Do not talk to me alwut
receipts.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Tlie House is not voting
money-
Mr. Sopha: Do not talk to me about the
receipts. I am talking about the amount of
money you are asking us to vote you to pay
out on behalf of this irresponsible group
that will not get insurance.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: You are only paying
the operating costs of the fund.
Mr. Sopha: All right. Let you and I stop
and have a little exchange. How nnich do
you get in receipts?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Last year $8,880,000.
Mr. Sopha: From the uninsured?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Some $3,400,000 from
the uninsured.
Mr. Sopha: That is a disgrace. You are
running $3 million in tlie red. How much
did you pay out?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We paid out $5,200,012.
Mr. Sopha: And you got $3 million; you
are running $2 million in the red. I must say
I have always been suspicious of the book-
keeping and financial ability of this govern-
ment, but this is really astonishing. I ask the
Minister quite directly and without—
Mr. Sargent: What is $2 million?
Mr. Sopha: Quite directly and without ^
going out of my way to engage in political
partisanship, what is wrong with the propo-
sition that these uninsured motorists who
look for sustenance from the state to meet
the cost of the damage they do, what is
wrong with them completely underwriting
that cost? I invite an answer to that question.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I will
answer it in part by saying that receipts from
the uninsured and the fund operation with
repayments from the uninsured— on whose
behalf claims were paid would amount to
about $5.3 million, which is just about the
amount paid out last year.
Mr. Sopha: All right. f
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The receipts from the |
regular drivers' registrations were $3.5 million;
the uninsured motor vehicle fees amount to
$3.4 million; repayments by debtors $850,000,
and returns on the fund $1,056,000, for a
total, including the drivers' $1 annual fee, of
about $8,880,000 less the $3.5 million that |
the divers paid would be about $5.3 million
and paid out was $5,212,000. Pretty good.
Mr. Sopha: All right. Let me offer a per-
sonal illustration in order to give point and
focus to what I say. If I pay, as I did a couple
of weeks ago, $270 to insure my wife and
myself, and then this is reflected— I apologize
for using the illustration— but it is reflected
in thousands of homes across this province;
if I pay $270 to make sure that I carry
$250,000 limits on the two cars I am fortu-
nate enough to own, then what is wrong with
the proposition that the individual who does
not choose to have insurance should pay the
JUNE 4, 1968
3869
total cost of the amount that the Legislature
authorizes to pay out on their collective
behalf? What is wrong with that proposition?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Well, that is one
approach to it, Mr. Chairman. But as I
pointed out to the hon. members of the
House, what we paid out was just about the
total amount received, exclusive of what was
paid in—
Mr. Sopha: The Minister has said that be-
fore, and usually I understand the first time.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: —and tliat is what is
being paid out. In addition to that, we have
a fund that is there for the protection of you
and everybody else against the uninsured
motorist.
Mr. Sopha: Yes?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: In order words, you are asking
the three million motorists of this province to
contribute their annual licence fee as payment
for the irresponsibility of those who will not
seek insurance. That is where you have left
yourself.
Oh, yes. Well, what else? Do not shake
your head, what else is the dollar—
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Does the hon. meml^er
not understand that he has protection against
the uninsured motorist from outside the state,
or the province; he also has protection against
hit and run. Has he not?
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Is there any value in it?
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Well, acknowledge it
then.
Mr. Sopha: I have protection and all I do
is insist, as a matter of principle, that collec-
tively everybody who does not have insurance,
all that group, that amorphous mass that do
not have insurance, pay collectively for the
damages and the havoc that they wreak.
Now, what is wrong with my proposition?
With a $2 million deficit-
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Let me tell you, one
thing that is wrong with it is that it perhaps
is not practical. I would take the condition
of the state of Connecticut, where they had
an operation like our motor vehicle accident
claims fund in measure. They had an unin-
sured fee of $75, but they found that there
were very few people carrying it and they
were escaping the payment of it just like the
motorists in Massachusetts were who did not
want to get insured and so they reduced the
fee in Connecticut to $37.50, cut it in half,
and they got about ten times as many unin-
sured drivers without reducing the numl^er
who were carrying insurance.
In other words, there is a cut-off place
beyond which the uninsured will either buy
insurance or escape it, and it is to prevent
the escaping that we set the fee where it is.
It was originally $5, it was raised to $20, now
it is $25, and we are receiving in return an
increasing amount that will go over $1 million
this year-
Mr. Sopha: That is what I was going to
ask.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This year there will be
more than $1 million paid back into the fund
by uninsured drivers on whose behalf pay-
ments were made.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): How do they
escape?
Mr. Sopha: How do they escape? If the
Minister saw to it— and those who assist him
to write the statutes— that those who tried to
escape pay a minimum fine of $50. Did you
know that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Sure.
Mr. Sopha: Fifty dollars is the minimum
fine. There is no discretion in the magistrate
at all, either you produce your insurance cer-
tificate or the fine is $50. And I have got to
tell you the way tlie statute reads: If the
member for Wellington North leaves his at
home he is still liable to $50 because he did
not produce it.
An hon. member: Wellington South.
Mr. Sopha: Wellington South, forgive me;
it is not a question of whether you are in-
sured at all. The way the statute reads, it
says: "will produce when required to do so."
I think there is sometliing in the statute
that you can rush home and get it, there is
some little leeway. You can rush home and
get it and take it to the nearest police station
and show it to them and escape the $50 fine.
So tlie mind boggles when the Minister gets
up and starts to tell us how they escape. If
the fee is $50, if it is $50 to start with when
the fellow does not pay, then the first time
a policeman stops him and asks for produc-
tion of the certificate the government is going
3870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to get the $50. They will get the $50, they
will get $100, because they will get a $50
fine and they will get the $50 insurance
premium.
I would think that Treasury board, over
there, that spends money like it is going out
of style, like sailors on leave in Panama City,
should be approached at the earliest time. It
is a suggestion I make, approach them at the
earliest time and say: "Look, we have con-
cluded that a fair and reasonable fee would
be $50 a year instead of the measly $25 that
we are charging now."
I think that is a sensible suggestion. And
your assistants, your associates, the Minister
himself might well consider whether the
limits might go from $35,000 to something
like $100,000, because I believe completely
—and I want to put it forward as a matter of
experience— I believe in the principle of
spreading losses.
I wonder about the sophistication of the
society— a society that considers itself en-
lightened and sophisticated— which permits a
situation to exist where the widow, the
woman at home getting supper ready— let us
say she is married to an executive who makes
$25,000 a year— and she is getting supper
ready expecting her husband to come home.
He is crossing the street with a green light
and he gets hit by some drunk that just came
out of the Queen's hotel, and went through
the red light. Let us make it as bad as
possible— the drunk went through a red light
and hit him. And let us say that she and
her husband are 40 years of age; she is
limited in this society that considers itself
sophisticated to $35,000.
There has to be something wrong with a
system like that and it will not stand up to
the searching scrutiny of rationality. That
shows you what the limits do! That is not in
this Minister's department; we will turn to
the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs when he comes under review and ask
him about that.
But what is in the Minister's department is
the limits paid out of this fund, and this
fund could begin to lead the way by raising
the limits to a realistic, human amounts such
as, say $100,000. That would be a good
realistic figure-
Mr. Sargent: Geared to the times.
Mr. Sopha: Indeed. It would be geared to
reality and geared to the just society, also.
An hon. member: Right.
Another hon. member: Very true.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Do not get political.
Mr. Sopha: I am not. It is a very cap-
tivating phrase upon which the people of
Canada will rule on June 25. Now I leave it.
An hon. member: And in our favour.
Mr. Sopha: I want to turn to another
aspect and by way of interjection I mentioned
about the Minister being in court in regard
to this fund. The now famous, or infamous,
case, depending upon which way you want
to look at it, is the Minister of Transport
against the Great American Insurance Com-
pany. The Minister lost throughout, he lost
in all the courts and I am not prepared to
make any assessment of the legal talent that
he hired— that is beyond my purview. I do
not know those lawyers at all, I had never
seen their names before, but they lost, all the
way through the courts.
But the issue in the case has not been
corrected by legislation and I said then and
I say again, that it is a not only curious but
rather astonishing situation to see the Min-
ister of Transport in the courts arguing about
the meaning of the legislation over which he
has jurisdiction, instead of doing, what I think
is the rational thing, and changing the legis-
lation.
You know that is the great advantage of
being a member of this place. If we do not
like the rules, we change them! You see, we
have the insurance companies by the neck.
We have got them, because if we do not
like the rules, we change the rules.
What was the issue? The issue was simply
this: Whether an insurance policy attached
if one carried passengers for hire in a motor
vehicle.
It was argued successfully by the insurance
company that the insurance never attached
and this was a case where it was either the
Minister of Transport which paid the money
out of this fund about which we are talking,
or the insurance company— the Great Ameri-
can Insurance Company— paid it. They won
and the Minister paid. And by the time he
got through all the courts that he went to
he paid a great deal more than the original
amount for which he was liable. Not only is
he taking his licking to his pride, but he is
taking an awful one to his purse as a result
of all these lawyers.
Now there is no point in me getting up
and regaling the Minister about losing the
case; I lose lots of them and nobody gets
up and denounces me. Not very often any-
JUNE 4, 1968
3871
ways. But the only point in raising it is to
plead with them to change the law. So to
say simply that from now on, whether the
insured carries passengers for hire in a
pleasure vehicle, which we all own— every-
body owns a pleasure vehicle— shall be
irrelevant to the issue of whether the insur-
ance attaches.
If the insurance companies faced with that
change in the law want to raise their
premiums, then that is their own business.
They may have to answer to the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs, but he
is our paid watchdog in that regard, and he
can straighten them out if they raise them
too much. But for heaven's sake I do not see
the point of all this exercise through the
high court, through the court of appeal. I
forget whether the case went to the Supreme
Court of Canada; I think the Minister quit
embarrassedly before he went to the final
court.
But here is where the injustice is done; that
it is simply this under motor vehicle law in
this province: If you are going to go out and
get in an accident; if an accident is going to
happen to you; if you are a driver on his
way to the happening of an accident, then
you have got to pick very carefully the
person who hit you. You have got to pick.
Because depending on the character of the
driver— that is to say, the insurance character-
that comes out of that side road and hits you,
it is going to be reflected in a very dramatic
fashion on the amount of money that you are
going to collect in the court. So if you want
to have an accident, make sure it is the solid
citizen that hits you.
Mr. Worton: There are 43,000 that are
uninsured.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed, and for heaven's
sake if the injuries are serious, make sure
you do not get hit by one of the drivers
which the Minister protects.
My point is this, that litigation in respect to
motor vehicle accidents is just a jungle, just
a jungle of artificiality surrounding. The time
has come to introduce some rationale to it,
and to proceed from the principle that we
believe in spreading losses. We take the loss
off the individual and spread it out over the
whole of society. And that is the principle
from which the select committee proceeded.
Then if this province really pretends to be
first in the universe as we hear from day to
day, from week to week, then here is an
area in which it can proceed post haste to
bring justice to the many thousands of liti-
gants who seek damages as a result of injuries
and loss that have occurred to them on the
province's highways.
You can have the finest highways in the
world, that is as we pretend to have, but if
you do not do justice to the users of the
highways who are at all times subject to and
at the risk of sustaining heavy losses, then
you cannot say that you are very enlightened
in your approach to the problem. I want to
make it clear that this is an area where I
have some acquaintance, because here is
where I earn my living. These are the prob-
lems which I deal with all the time.
For nine years I have stood in the House
and asked for rectification of some of these
things, because if you have any sensitivity
at all, you have got to feel very wounded
when you see some the injustice that hap-
pens to some of the people who go through
our courts and the disillusionment, dismay
and the cynicism with which they leave. And
how do you really, finally, explain to a
number of litigants injured in the same acci-
dent that they have to cut up only $35,000?
How do you explain that? If their judgments
total $120,000, you have to start applying
fractions, then those people have got to
wonder about the society in which they live
as they— as so often the case after cutting up
the $35,000-are left through physical dis-
ability in a position where they cannot earn
an income.
Mr. Singer: Assuming they do not get
caught by contributory negligence.
Mr. Sopha: Yes indeed. But of course. My
friend from Downsview reminds me of the
matter, that he and I will take up with the
Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs
when we arrive at his estimates.
I leave off where I began, and that is to
say that I am very pleased with the associa-
tion that I have had with this fund. They
do a very good job and they are very prompt.
The promptitude they demonstrate to me in
replying to my queries and doing the neces-
sary things under the statute— I have no way
of knowing— I expect is reflected with every-
one who does business with them and is not
a special consideration, because I am a
member of the Legislature. I rather like to
think that they treat all the applicants that
way.
There is a difference between night and
day from what it used to be in prehistoric
times of 10 or 15 years ago. I give them
every credit for the method which they
employ. Perhaps when all is said and done.
3872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and it is the last thing that I say, that after
the session is over somebody responsible over
there will sit down and read what I had to
say about this and determine by the applica-
tion of the rational processes whether tliere
was not some merit in what I said; and
another legislative session I will stand or fall
on whether there is merit in it; and another
session will see the reforms brought forward
in legislation which I have advocated in my
place today.
Mr. Chairman: The
West.
member for Halton
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): I would like
to agree with many of the remarks of the
hon. member for Sudbury. I think the stip-
end should be at least doubled in payments
to the fund. I think that everybody should
have insurance, automobile insurance, and at
maximum coverage. However, if an operator
cannot afford the premium, maybe because
of a poor dri\ing record that appears to
date, at least his payment to the fund should
be increased.
I do not think $50 is unreasonable. As has
l)een said, it is a rare thing that the good
responsible driver does not have insurance.
It is usually the person that is not a respon-
sible driver that has paid his $25 into the
fund, and on this basis it would seem logical
that the ratio is higher for the uninsured
driver as far as accidents are concerned.
The hon. Minister says that if the fee is
too high, the operator will not bother witli
anything— either insurance or payment of the
fee. I agree with this proposition, but I
think that this can be controlled through
licencing and through enforcement. I think
the main points as made by the hon. member
for Sudbury is that the coverage, the maxi-
mum coverage, should be increased, and that
the fund should be kept solvent. I think, as
he has said, that where we have judgments of
twice as much— sometimes as three times as
much as the maximum coverage under the
fund— it is unreasonable that the victims of
that accident should not be adequately com-
pensated.
I think, for example, that if the payment,
assuming that the fund is pretty well solvent
now, and I believe this was the purport of
remarks of the hon. Minister, if the fee was
say $50 and the compensation was increased
to at least $70,000, tliis would be an improve-
ment.
I would also like to add iny remarks to the
ellect that I think that the fund is well
operated. I think the service is, shall we say,
a speedy service. There is great co-operation
with the members in the department with
those who are involved in litigation with the
claims fund.
Mr. R. T. Potter (Quinte): Mr. Chairman,
I too would like to agree with the member
for Sudbury. I feel that this fund certainly is
not doing efficiently the job that it was
intended to do.
I think that the figure of $35,000 today is
unrealistic. I wonder if instead of suggesting
we increase our rates, that we do away
entirely with the fund and require everyone
to show a certificate of insurance of $100,000
before they get an automobile licence.
I know that they will say this is going
to be hard to administer, but I see no reason
why, if someone notifies the insurance com-
pany that they are going to cancel their in-
surance that they must give four weeks'
notice and the licences of the car could be
picked up within that four weeks. This would
solve much of our problem.
I think we will agree, in this day and age
when there are so many cars on the road,
that many of those who do not carry insur-
ance are old cars that should not be on the
road anyway. If an individual is not prepared
to pay the insurance that will cover him for
$100,000 coverage, then I do not believe he
should be driving a car.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Chairman: On the same point?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir, on this very briefly.
Most insurance premiums in the insurance
business are made up based on experience.
Is there any reason why the amount of
money to be paid out cannot be based on
experience and their fee based on the amount
of moneys needed. In other words, if you
have 143,000 people who are uninsured pay-
ing $25 a year, this brings you $3.5 million
a year. If you double that fee, it will give
you $7 million a year. Is there any reason
why this could not be done, based on ex-
perience?
Mr. Chairman: The Minister.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
just how I could deal with the suggestion
from the member for Grey-Bruce. I do not
know how it would work into the operation
of the system on the basis of experience. I
do not know how he would apply it.
JUNE 4, 1968
3873
Mr. Sargent: You know the amount of
of money you would need to take care of
the number of people who are uninsured.
You base the fee on that.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: That is, you would
adjust the fee each year on the basis of the
previous year's operation. Well, that is a
thought. But I would like to express, Mr.
Chairman, to the members who have con-
tributed to this debate, the various thoughts
they have put forward. Before the member
for Sudbury spoke, I did refer to the need
for solvency in the fund, having regard to
liabilities that were known and unknown and
also with regard to the possibility of increas-
ing the limits of the fund beyond the present
$35,000 amount, in tlie light of the develop-
ing situation. Also, having regard to the erod-
ing value of the dollar with our inflation. All
those things are before us and the contribu-
tion to the debate has been very useful.
Vote 2206 agreed to.
On vote 2207:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, in the area of
transport planning, what is involved in this
amount of $619,000?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
transportation planning division has taken
over the section that was engaged in the
Metropolitan Toronto and region transpor-
tation study that has come to an end, and
on which we will be having reports shortly.
Mr. Sargent: What study?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The Metropolitan To-
ronto regional transportation study. It has
ended.
Now, out of that, I think we will find there
is considerable study and work to be done
by a large number of departments involved.
When the report is made public and I table
it in this House and the members have it,
and it goes into the hands of those engaged
in transportation planning in this area— and
in other parts of the province— and they begin
to see the implications of it and the value
it can be to them, we will have before us
the benefit of that work. But, in the mean-
time, the residue of the nucleus of the staff
that remains in transportation planning is be-
ing distributed gradually into the depart-
ments most concerned with areas of the
work. Their places will be taken in part by
those who will be engaged in general trans-
portation planning, but particularly with re-
gard to the airport section that we have now
incorporated into this section.
And the hon. member will see that for
this year, the major part of the transportation
planning budget of $619,000— which includes
the salaries of that staff— the most of it is
$500,000, apportioned this year to start our
airport work, beginning in the northern part
of the province.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, a year ago, in
other words, you had an airstrip programme.
How many did you build?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, we did
not have an airport Act through last year.
It had just been given assent by this House,
and this is the first money we have had
available for it. Without having—
Mr. Sargent: Running two years behind.
Two years ago, you announced in a Speech
from the Throne that you would have an
airstrip programme.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, a year
ago that was. And this is the story that is
developing— this last year without any par-
ticular moneys for it. We had co-operation
from The Department of Highways, Lands
and Forests and such, and we had three
crews out making surveys originating from
the Lakehead, Sault Ste. Marie, and Timmins,
and working on corridors spreading north
from those three centres. We have provision
here to carry forward and develop our pro-
gramme, beginning witli a few airstrips this
year.
We have not the facilities, we have not
the staff to do a big job yet, but we have a
number of approaches to the subject. One is
we would like to get into the north with some
equipment and get experience building air-
strips in the remote areas that do not have
all-weather landings, or all-weather facilities
of any kind. Places that just are not con-
nected v^rith transportation at all.
Those we give priority to. The next group,
of course, will be the airstrips that are pres-
ently existing, or needing improvement or
where we can do work on land, probably be-
longing to the Crown.
Again, we have provision in our Act also
for making grants to municipalities or other
bodies that want to build, or have airstrips
and want to improve them, and we will de-
velop a grant system with this in mind, a
proportional sharing.
The need to co-operate witli die federal
Department of Transport that has jurisdiction
3874
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in air matters is important, and we are de-
veloping that liaison and endeavouring to
ascertain the extent of their contribution in
these various projects and to learn what pri-
orities they are prepared to give them. Be-
cause in some cases we understand that the
federal government will assume probably the
major part, if not the whole part, of some
airports if they have some body or presence
that can accept the contract on behalf of
Ontario where there is no existing muni-
cipality.
And finally, we have work that we will be
forwarding in connection with ground con-
trols and beacons and this kind of thing. That
is where we are. We are just starting, I am
not representing to the House that we have
any programme under way other than the
sketchy outline of the work we have thus far
done. If we get this estimate through and
the House is generous in voting this amount,
we will try and get ahead with it.
Mr. Sargent: Anything would be better
than nothing in this field, but you must admit
that this is pretty feeble. Your approach to
this very important subject of airport strips.
Repeatedly, over the years, we have sug-
gested that when you are building a new
area of highways in this province that you
allot 2,000 foot strips alongside every 25 or
50 miles. This has never been adopted by
the government, they have just turned their
head. There are so many areas where you
could become a part of our times, but you
are so far behind. Half a million dollars in
this field amounts to about a half mile of
highway at the current expense.
So, we are just laughing at what you are
trying to do; because if you had spent the
whole $500,000 in capital financing this year
in this field you might be effective in building
maybe 10 or 12 strips in Ontario, which is
only a drop in the bucket. And I understand
that your approach to this is in northern
Ontario first, and this is good.
But why do you not stop kidding the
people kidding us? Half a million dollars
in the great north is just like, well I am not
going even to talk about it. So insofar as
transportation is concerned it is just a joke
insofar as flying, private flying in Ontario is
concerned.
The real problem which I would like to
talk about is the fact that in the transporta-
tion needs of Metro Toronto you say you
have this study coming up, the Metro study,
which has been in the hopper for a while.
This in effect has been responsible, I guess.
for getting people to the downtown Metro
area, that is probably what they will end up
telling us.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that
to date these transportation studies have re-
sulted in spending $20 million on a GO
transit system, bringing people to downtown
Toronto. This represents possibly two to
three million you have spend— say $20 million
to date, or $7 per capita— you have spent in
the Metro area on transportation. In the
same area, in the rest of the province, you
would have to give us possibly $60 million
across the province to bring us into line with
the amount of money you spend here in
Toronto on transportation.
Mr. Kerr: The reason is traffic. One word,
traffic.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I respect his
opinion and I think he works for his people,
but there are great problems in transportation
in every area in this province. Every city has
its transportation problems. The Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts) promised this House three
years ago that he would do equal amounts of
spending across the province in this area, and
we have not seen one 5 cent piece. And this
is the kind of stuff that is going on in the
estimates here. You sit down and make up
your budget and no one has any plarmed
approach to the needs of the province. And
I say today, if each municipality in tliis prov-
ince were to come down with the mayor and
the council and say: "On the basis of what
you are spending in Toronto on transportation
and the GO transit, you owe us $7 per
capita," it would mean to the city of Ottawa
probably $15 miUion. It would mean to the
city of Hamilton possibly X million dollars.
And in Owen Sound it would probably mean
about $200,000 to us for our transportation
problems. But these are things that are
wrong, Mr. Chairman, insofar as these esti-
mates are concerned, and asking us to vote
with you, to give you $105,000 for salaries
for transportation planning is ridiculous. What
are you planning?
We had the estimates here of The Depart-
ment of Highways and we had a vote. One
firm got $1.5 million last year for consultants'
fees, one firm got $1.5 million. And what
can they do for $1.5 million? Tell them how
to build better highways? They did not build
the highways, they just got that for consulting
fees. Last year you spent in The Department
of Highways $5.7 million in consultants' fees,
JUNE 4, 1968
3875
$5.7 million in consultants' fees in one depart-
ment. Now you are asking us to give you
today $619,000 for transportation planning,
and you have $500,000 for airstrip develop-
ment—which amounts to about a half a mile
of highway— which is so ridiculous.
So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if you
are going to do an honest job in this area of
airstrip development— in every other state in
the union down there they have laws that
make it mandatory that airstrips be lighted
at night for the sake of the lives it will save.
But nowhere in this province is there a law
which says airstrips must be lighted at night.
It will cost peanuts. But these are things you
could do.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, how
much capital financing is available to a muni-
cipality from you for airstrip development?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the mem-
ber points out clearly that there is only a very
small amount available this year. I think he
would appreciate that if we had come for-
ward and asked for two or three million
dollars this year to start an airstrip programme
with no sophisticated airstrip or airport staflf
available to me— we are just making the tran-
sition now from those that were the nucleus
of the MTARTS staff-he would have every
reason to criticize me for making even a
show of being prepared to spend money
wastefully.
The $500,000 is a pittance, it will help us
get started this year— get the staff together and
get sophistication in the work we are to do,
and lay out the plan. I do not want to jump
in building airstrips without having some plan,
without having arranged the corridors we are
going to use. Then we will be dealing with
the setting up of a programme of grants to
municipaUties. Some of these we have to pay
entirely ourselves, some of them will be very
simple and not too expensive once we get
machinery in— walking machinery in, once the
land freezes up this winter.
Then we will have to deal with these muni-
cipalities which are coming forward to us
and indicate need— the member knows exactly
the situation, and the urgency there is. We
have had 52 municipalities come to us and
ask us to help them with their airports. Well,
this is putting our whole album together and
we want to deal with the federal government
on this because they are the senior partners
in this, and I am not going to tread on their
toes. We want to co-operate with them and
not to try to either elbow them out or take
over from them, and a good piece of
co-operation is being established.
I point out to the hon. member, sir, that
the federal government has a programme for
assisting airports as we can do. It is an all-
Canada programme and it has only $1 million.
I hope that as we escalate the amounts we
put into this, and make available on a
shared basis by way of grants to municipali-
ties, that we can induce our confreres in
Ottawa to go along with us, because I think
it is the kind of programme that is going to
take a particular piece of co-operation
between the two jurisdictions and we will
have to work out a shared programme with
municipalities, the provincial government and
the federal government in some cases— perhaps
in some cases between the provincial and
federal governments alone— and some places
it will have to be purely provincial govern-
ment based.
I am not making any representation that
we have a grandiose plan here, but I think
it is an honest beginning and I think that the
member for Grey-Bruce and my colleague, the
member for Ottawa Centre ( Mr. MacKenzie ) ,
will appreciate the future of this programme,
and how we are getting into it belatedly, but
recognizing the need there is for an accelera-
tion of work in this direction because wheeled
aircraft are coming into their own fast.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth
has the floor.
Mr. Sargent: I still have the floor, Mr.
Chairman. Every municipality of 5,000 people
or more across the province has its own indus-
trial commissions and part of their selling
point, what they are going towards, is their
own airstrip or airport.
To be competitive in today's fight for indus-
try, every municipahty needs landing facili-
ties, at least 3,000 feet for a twin-engine
aircraft. But for the Minister to say that the
Ottawa people have a programme— I might
say respectively, Mr. Chairman, that most
municipalities cannot conform to DOT stan-
dards for a DOT airport. I am not surprised
they have 50 applications and I think you
would have an awful lot more if we thought
there was any chance of getting any help. I
would suggest the way you move in this
government it will take ten years before we
get any money for airports.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. member will appreciate, and think,
would approve of our approach to it, that the
best way to get ahead with this is by develop-
ing a good liaison with Ottawa and developing
3876
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a programme in conjunction with the area
or the municipahty, if there be one, and with
the federal government on the other hand.
We do the job together.
Mr. Sargent: This is so ridiculous. There
are many aircraft flying today with no place
to land, and you are far behind the times.
We are talking about the Metro study. How
long has this been in force and how much has
it cost?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, the
Metropolitan Toronto
study originated i
altogether I would
ivieirupoiiiaii i uiuuiu region transportation
study originated about four years ago and
Mr. Sargent: And you have not had a report
for four years?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: We have had interim
reports but we are bringing out the final
report a week from Thursday. I think the
total cost has been in the neighbourhood of
$2.5 million for the Metropolitan Toronto and
region transportation study; that is what the
province will have put up. Metropolitan
Toronto will have contributed about $500,-
000 to $600,000 in computer time about
$2.5 million for the Metropolitan Toronto and
region transportation study including— that is
what the province will put up, Metropolitan
Toronto will have contributed about half a
million— $600,000 in computer time and we
have had tremendous co-operation from CNR,
CPR, the various departments of government
involved, including agencies like the Ontario
water resources commission and the Toronto
transit commission, tliat the amount of money
1 tell you that was spent on it is only the
output of money and all these other agencies
have contributed their top staff members and
abundance in time and effort.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, to say I am
shocked at cost is an understatement but
who would approve a $2.5 million steady
contract? Who okayed that?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: There was no one con-
tract and the hon. member himself questioned
some of the contracts, over the last two or
tliree years, that were given for various con-
sultants and for pieces of work that were
done on the study. It was a joint effort under
an executive committee comprising the Min-
isters of Highways, Municipal Affairs, Trade
and Development, Transport, and the chair-
man of Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Sargent: How can anyone earn $2.5
million wlicn that represents all the pay of
the members of the Legislature for two or
three years? So this group received more
money for a study for one single problem
than we get for all tlie multitude of things
we handle here in three or four years.
This is a shocking thing and I think there
should be an investigation and an inquiry
into how you people can spend. This year
you will probably spend $20 million in these
studies and findings for consultants and
somewhere along the line someone has to
say, "Whoa and stop tliis nonsense." This is
ridiculous— $2.5 million for a pile of paper
which was of no use anyway.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2207— the member
for Wentworth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I too am a little
disturbed by the fact that upon reaching the
completion of the Metro study, the depart-
ment has not now gone into an overall
Ontario study, a sort of stock-taking as I
mentioned at the beginning, of the transpor-
tation available in this province and what
ought to be done to improve it.
This piecemeal approach that you are tak-
ing, deciding this year we are going to handle
air strip development. Maybe next year it
will be something else. If you have not com-
pleted this it will not be anything else. It is
going to take too long. We must have a study
into the complete transportation of this prov-
ince and surely, under the transportation
planning section of your department, this is
where it should be undertaken. This section
should be the biggest, the most important
section of the whole department instead of
being the tiniest, the tail of the dog. I would
hope that you would take a look at the
possibility, the great need to study the
transportation available in this province and
then to move into the fields where we can
improve on it rather than just to sort of limp
along from year to year, doing one, dropping
off, doing another, with no tie in of any
kind.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, may I
just summarize what we are doing. With
the presentation of the MTARTS report next
week, I am sure it will be referred to all
the departments of government and agencies
concerned for study. It covers— some mem-
bers will realize— the two or three thousand
square miles from Oshawa to Barrie to Ham-
ilton, a very important area to be considered
in the future development of our country.
When this report becomes available, it will
be distributed then for study in all the de-
%^
JUNE 4, 1968
3877
partments and agencies concerned and we
will then be able to use the tools that have
been developed here— not the material, the
data collection that is pertinent to this area
alone— but to use the tools and tlie skills
and the techniques that ha\e been developed
here for transportation studies in other areas.
I would say to the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce that that is what the Prime Minister
had in mind when he said that these studies
would be made in other areas of the province
and I share with him the hope that my area
which I think is one of the critical ones in
need of a transportation study of this kind-
Mr. Sargent: Give us the money. That is
the whole problem.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: This is it, as soon as we
get this study digested, I would hope that
these comparable kinds of studies will be
done in Windsor, Owen Sound and even
Ottawa and I would say to the member for
Wentworth that we are not in a position this
year to utilize this knowledge because it is
going to have to go into the departments
concerned and come back to us.
This branch of our work, this amount repre-
sented in this item will probably accelerate
next year and grow considerably, but it
would have been foolish to have represented
that we would do further studies this year
because I think it will take to the end of this
fiscal year for these departments to come
back to us with the kind of help we need to
make meaningful studies elsewhere.
Mr. Deans: What I am afraid, Mr. Chair-
man, is this that by the time we digest this
study of the area of Metro Toronto, and then
move on to the next area, and to the next
area, it is going to be 20 or 25 years before
we finally get around to deciding what is
needed in tlie north. I would hope that by
next year, the Minister can bring in, in his
estimates, a request for money for a trans-
portation planning department that will be
all encompassing, that will somehow bring
about a co-ordination of the transportation
systems available and needed in this provincx\
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in my in-
troductory remarks I mentioned to the Min-
ister a study of bus commuter services and I
would sincerely hope that he does not wait
for the results of the transportation commis-
sion report but implements some type of
study in some communities having a popula-
tion of from 100,000 to 200,000 people now,
so that we could find out whether a com-
muter service using buses would be a feasible
type of project to alleviate the transportation
problems of a given area. I speak specifically
from my own area because of the geogra-
phical location. As we are a city bordering
the United States, our transportation prob-
lems are unique from those that you will find
in the large metro areas around Toronto. So
I would sincerely encourage the Minister to
get into some type of commuter studies in
any community in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa
Centre.
Mr. H. MacKenzie (Ottawa Centre): I
would just like to take a minute, Mr. Chair-
man, to compliment the Minister-
Mr. Chairman: Order please! I want to
point out to the member that there is one
particular member who apparently did not
understand the Chairman's suggestion the
other day that we would no longer recognize
a list, or employ a list. If the members wish
to speak they will rise and address the
Chairman.
The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say that I feel that the Minister
is being very courageous and moving in
the right direction with regard to his Act
respecting the establishment, extension, im-
provement and maintenance of airports.
There is little question that this is a step
in the right direction. There is also little
doubt that the Minister had to do a fair
amount of talking to get some progress on
it. It is a courageous step and I compliment
him on it.
His integration with the federal Depart-
ment of Transport is surely another step in
the right direction. There is little doubt in
my mind having travelled quite a bit in the
air in this country, and landed on a lot of
airports both here and below the border,
that the federal government has been suc-
cessful in building some of the best airports
in the world. I have not found any yet which
rival the airports we have here in Canada
and, as I say, I think when the Minister inte-
grates his programme with the federal De-
partment of Transport, surely something
worth while should come out of it.
With regard to municipalities and giving
them grants— helping them furnish their own
3878
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
airports— I do hope that tlie Minister in mak-
ing arrangements with municipahties will
ensure the standards are upheld on these
municipal airports. I cannot think of anything
worse than having municipal airports where
proper standards of maintenance, lighting and
so forth are not properly laid down and
adhered to.
I just want to read into the record the
amount of money which is made available
to Ontario from tax on aviation fuel and I
have it here in an item that was published
some time ago, which says:
In the province of Ontario the total
gallonage of aviation turbo fuel and avia-
tion gasoline in 1966 totalled 107,499,105
gallons. For 1968 a 15 per cent increase
can be expected and this is a conservative
estimate. The province takes 3 cents tax
on every gallon of aviation fuel sold. In
1968, the province should expect to realize
$3.7 million in revenue.
Now add to this the revenue which occurs
indirectly from the aircraft industry in main-
tenance parts and that sort of thing and I
think the revenue is there. Surely as time
goes by the Provincial Treasurer will see fit
to provide the Minister with the money that
he needs to progress with his plans with
regard to airports.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to get from the Minister
some indication of what his department has
in mind for transportation planning in north-
ern Ontario.
To hear some members from the Metro
area speak, you would think it was the only
part of the province that had a transportation
problem, that had a traffic problem. There is
very little indication in any of the depart-
mental estimates that anything of a tangible
nature is being done in the north where trans-
portation is the most vital and the most im-
portant issue and where there are such huge
distances between settled communities.
As everyone knows, that is where the vast
stores of natural resources are in the mining
and forest products industries, where we have
a wonderful opportunity to develop and ex-
ploit our tourist potential; it is the only free
area of economic concern that we have
going for us in the north, and about the only
ray of hope is assistance for airstrip develop-
ment and the Minister, in answer to previous
speakers, did not offer anything of a concrete
nature as to what will be done.
He has, by his own admission, had some-
thing like 52 requests from many munici-
palities, for assistance. And I am sure the
Minister— I have spoken to him about it— in
his travels and his canoe excursions through
the north, knows the terrain up there and
knows the problems that we have in regard
to transporting raw material and getting into
remote areas to see what the potential is in
the various areas of concern that I have
mentioned. And $500,000 seems to be a very
insignificant amount if he intends to tackle
this problem in a meaningful way.
There are several areas where they have
makeshift airstrips at present; one case in
particular that I have brought to the Min-
ister's attention was at Nakina. It had just
been vacated within the last couple of years
by The Department of Transport, federal
jurisdiction, and it is being used during the
winter months by the licence holders of air
transport licences.
If it is not taken over within the very near
future, the condition of it will degenerate to
such an extent that it is going to cost a
terrific amount of money to reopen it. Ap-
parently it is quite a large strip; there are
houses there; there are many facilities that
were in use when the airstrip itself was in
use and are still intact. It seems to me that
if the Minister wants to start a programme of
airstrips and designate air corridors in the
north, he should start from a base of air-
strips that are already in existence.
I am sure he knows where they are, and I
would like the Minister, if he will, to ex-
plain just specifically what he has in mind
for this year; if he asks for $500,000 he must
have a definite plan— I do not suppose he
just picked $500,000 out of the hat and said,
"Well, we will spend $500,000 and see what
we come up with."
I do not think any government or any
Minister should operate in that fashion; he
must have a definite plan; I would like to
know what it is. How many airstrips does
he plan to do this year with the $500,000;
where they are going to be located; how they
are going to be operated; and any other
information with regard to this expenditure
of $500,000 that the Minister can give me?
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
reply at this point or does he want to hear
any other speakers? The member for Port
Arthur, I believe, had the floor first.
JUNE 4, 1968
3879
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think this
legislation to establish northern airstrips by
this department is just tremendous, and I am
sure that municipalities will respond with
tremendous enthusiasm— so much so that I
dare say this department is going to have
some very diflScult decisions to make once
the backlog comes because with $500,000,
as you have already admitted yourself,
through you, Mr. Chairman, it is not going
to go too far.
You are going to have to set up a list of
priorities, and I would hope that the people
from the north will have a decision when
you decide on what is going to come first. I
think it would be a wise idea to establish
some kind of a committee of persons who
would be able to generally best reflect the
opinion of people across the north because
there are some areas that will require these
airstrips more than others, and perhaps from
the point of view of need would be more
deserving.
So, I would like to recommend to the
Minister that he establish some kind of a
committee of people in the know, on trans-
portation, and especially in the airline trans-
portation business, to recommend and to
make proper suggestions to him on this.
We are talking about planning and studies
in transportation. It may not seem at first
to be pertinent but I live in a mobile home,
and all people who live in mobile homes are
very strongly dependent on this department
and its laws for moving their homes. Trans-
portation is a feature of having a mobile
home; and it has been pointed out to me
that the length limit on mobile homes can
be drawn along Ontario highways is 60 feet,
and I think that if this industry is going to
expand, and truly serve the needs of people
today, it should be extended to 65 feet, or
67, or even 70 feet, as it is in certain states
of the United States and other provinces of
this country.
I wonder if the Minister is giving any
thought to studying this industry, to see how
it has grown, and to see if it is not now time
to extend the length that is permitted for
mobile homes to be hauled? It occurs to me
that a lot of people living in southern Ontario
and other parts of Canada might be inclined
to come into northern Ontario if they thought
that they could bring their home with them,
or take it back with them if they did not
happen to like the north, or if things did not
work out. The only way to do that is with a
mobile home, and for this reason, I think that
when you talk about the big transportation
problems of northwestern Ontario, you have
got to say that one of the answers to trans-
portation problems is to be found in mobile
homes.
Anything that this department can do to
facilitate the movement of these mobile
homes back and forth across this province, is
going to enhance this industry; it is going to
make it easier for people to own one of these
homes and more attractive; and in a way it
is going to help the housing problem.
I have wandered somewhat, Mr. Chairman,
but I would just like to leave this to the Min-
ister; we who live in mobile homes are very
much dependent on his department, because
the mobility of the home is gone if you can-
not move it. And unfortunately we are con-
fined to a 60-foot length, while we see our
neighbours in certain states of the United
States and certain provinces of this country
living in much longer ones and much more
comfortable ones because the laws of this
province do not permit transportation of a
mobile home over a length of 60 feet. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, it might seem,
Mr. Chairman, that we are talking with spe-
cial emphasis today, but I might say that the
remarks of the member for Ottawa Centre are
very timely because he has just returned from
a trip to the Caribbean, flying his own plane,
and he is knowledgeable of what he speaks;
the member for Northumberland (Mr. Rowe)
is licenced to fly jet aircraft; the member for
Halton East (Mr. Gisbom) made some great
contribution to flying, as in a bill he is put-
ting through the House here; and tlie mem-
ber for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) is an old pilot
of great skill.
I feel that there is an area for knowlege-
able information that can make this pro-
gramme even better than it is when you rea-
lize that this year you will be receiving $3.7
million from the aircraft industry in revenue,
and you are only going to spend $500,000 to
study how you are going to develop this. And,
if ever there was a lopsided arrangement, we
have it here. I think a strong lobby of the
members I have mentioned here could get on
yoiu- tail; maybe you could revise your pro-
gramme. There is a great imbalance here if
you think of the fact that you are receiving
$3.7 million and you are only going to expend
peanuts to back it up. I think that you should
take a new look at it.
3880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The member for Halton
East.
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would just hke to say a few words on
this vote. I would like to congratulate the
Minister and his department on the imple-
mentation of this programme for the estab-
lishment of airstrips. This is the first step, I
understand, by the province of Ontario to
aid in the aviation industry in any way.
The province of Ontario, or a great deal
of it, was built around the aviation industry
in the bush flying and the bush operators.
It is these small bush carriers who are still
doing a great deal to supply, in many cases,
the only means of transportation into some
parts of our province.
These northern municipalities that use air-
craft for their only means of transportation
are presently tied to float-equipped or ski-
equipped aircraft and, of course, this cuts
them off from transportation for a month or
two months spring and fall during the freeze-
up or the break-up. I think it is most impor-
tant that this programme go ahead as quickly
as possible in order to establish, not large
airports but at least landing strips, where
ski-equipped or wheel-equipped aircraft can
service these municipalities.
I think that the $500,000 that is included
this year can be easily expended before the
programme gets very far off the ground. Con-
sidering this, along with the $100,000 for all
of Canada that the federal government have
been supplying for the past few years, I think
this will be of great assistance.
I had a question regarding how many air-
ports were proposed and how many applica-
tions were in. This has already been
answered. I would again ask the question as
to when we propose to start on this pro-
gramme and where it will be.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Chairman, first a
word to the hon. member for Port Arthur.
He is quite correct that the overall length
limit on trailers is 60 feet. There are special
permits issued on occasions, both as regards
length and width of oversized vehicles.
The member for Thunder Bay asked speci-
fically for the outhne of the programme. I
think that I have given it in as much detail
as I am prepared to do at this time.
Among the some 52 municipalities who
have asked for airports, there are a number
that we think will have to be given some
measin-e of priority insofar as they are other-
wise inaccessible, and have no all-weather
communication at all with the outside world.
But among the airports that we have been
considering chiefly are those on the corridors
moving north from the Lakehead, from Sault
Ste. Marie and Timmins. We have looked at
11 of them. We have consideration of air-
ports at Nakina, and Wawa, and Chapleau,
Nestor Falls, Dry den and Moosonee. These
are some of those of which we are looking at
right now.
The important thing is also to get our
people involved in this work, informed on
how we are going to get our equipment in
and when we can get started working on it.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2207. The mem-
ber for Port Arthur.
Mr. Knight: I would like to ask a question
about the possibility of a northern committee
to help in deciding where these airstrips
should be located.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman understood
it was just a suggestion to the Minister.
Mr. Knight: Oh, I see. It did not impress
him too much!
Vote 2207 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates
for The Department of Transport.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, I anticipated that perhaps my
estimates would have been carried by the
time I got from there to here.
In presenting the estimates of the Depart-
ment of Education for 1968-69, I would ask
permission to depart from my normal practice
of providing the House with a somewhat
exhaustive account, and I am sure exhausting
to some members, of the various departmental
programmes. Rather I propose to offer for the
consideration of the hon. members some reflec-
tions on the extensive developments in edu-
cation which are taking place and the
underlying philosophy which in influencing
the evolution of education in Ontario.
I am also providing, Mr. Chairman, a rather
larger document of additional information for
the members so that tliey can base, perhaps,
some of their questions or discussions on the
document which I am not including as part of
my forte speech.
It is most important that we who are so
closely involved with government periodically
JUNE 4, 1968
3881
make an ejffort to stand back from our every-
day commitments and re-examine not only
our functions but our basic assumptions about
the nature of our responsibilities to society.
One thing that emerges from such an exami-
nation is that the role of a Department of
Education in a pioneer, underdeveloped
jurisdiction is quite different from one in a
sophisticated and complex industrial society.
In the early years of this province, the
department became involved in a variety of
activities, principally because in a pioneering
society, it was the only appropriate agency
available. The educational system which was
estabhshed in Ontario was in my opinion a
truly fine one, and the development of this
province over the past 150 years was in no
small measure due to the soundness of that
system. However, attributes which at one time
were advantageous can, I suggest, in a chang-
ing environment, lose their usefulness and
require modification. One such attribute,
necessary in its time, was centralization.
J. M. McCutcheon's book. Public Education
in Ontario, published in 1941, contains an
interesting passage by Watson Kirkconnell:
In considering my fatlier's success, we
shall need to keep in mind the contempo-
rary state of secondary education in Ontario,
for the circumstances were such as to limit
strictly the pedagogic originality of the
individual school. Secondary schools in
Ontario from The Grammar School Act of
1853 down to the present have, apart from
rare intervals of relaxation, been subject
to a rigorous process of centralization under
bureaucratic control in the provincial
capital at Toronto. Apart from a few small
private schools which follow the traditions
of the English residential schools, the sec-
ondary education of the province has been
carried on entirely in high schools and
collegiate institutes, whose curricula, equip-
ment, teachers' qualifications, examinations,
and modes of instruction are all prescribed
and inspected by the government. Such a
system was first evolved by officials like
Egerton Ryerson and George Paxton Young,
in order to rescue unwilling municipalities
from the chaos and incompetence of the
pioneer schools, and its success in this
regard led later bureaucratic experts like
George W. Ross and John Seath to push
ofiicial prescription to a fantastic extreme,
The result, by the time of Seath's death in
1919, was a highly efficient educational
machine, uniform throughout the province
of 3 million people and reaching its maxi-
mum competence in the great collegiate
institutes, where the staffs were made up
exclusively of university graduates, each
department head was an honour graduate
and a specialist, and the plant and equip-
ment measured up to high technical stan-
dards. "Faultily faultless, icily regular", the
provincial system was at once one of the
most uniformly efficient in the world and
one of the most paralyzing to individual
initiative in teacher or school.
This, I stress, Mr. Chairman, was the judg-
ment of Watson Kirkconnell.
In all honesty, we must admit that while
the tradition of a centrahzed system of edu-
cation served the province well, it did lead
to an undue emphasis on regimentation and
conformity. This was, perhaps, a necessary
evil in a pioneer society.
Over the years, The Ontario Department
of Education, to its credit, has played an
important role in the development of local
educational authorities to the point where
they have become responsible agents, capable
of assuming many of the functions which were
hitherto carried by the department. This
evolution has required a fundamental
re-examination of the role of the department.
While it will continue to play a most vital
part in Ontario education, the distribution of
emphasis on its activities will be radically
changed.
At a time when the size of government at
all levels seems to be increasing at a tremen-
dous rate, our aim will be to reduce the size
of the department while at the same time
increasing its effectiveness, measured in terms
of service to education.
In the course of this major shift in depart-
mental policy, many departmental functions
will be decentralized to appropriate authori-
ties. In some areas this process is already
well advanced. A key step was made in this
regard with the establishment of colleges of
applied arts and technology. As the members
are well aware, the province had a well estab-
lished system of institutes of technology,
vocational centres and institutes of trades
which were operated directly by the depart-
ment.
Rather than extend this system of post-
secondary education under departmental
control, it was decided to establish colleges
under local boards of governors. The depart-
mental institutes all have become the respon-
sibility of such boards and in many cases have
formed the nucleus of new institutions.
3882
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In a parallel development, it was announced
in September 1967 that regional offices would
be made more responsive to local needs
through a de-emphasis on regulatory functions
in favour of assistance in educational innova-
tion and experimentation. Department of Edu-
cation subject inspectors were given a new
role as programme consultants available to
schools on request. With the establishment
of the new county and divisional boards of
education, the need for departmental super-
visory staff such as area superintendents will
disappear since the new boards will appoint
their own professional staff.
In reviewing the role of The Department
of Education, I feel that it is necessary to
return to first principles. The fundamental
reason, in my view, for the existence of a
Department of Education is to enable the
government of this province to carry out
effectively its responsibility for providing
wise and appropriate measures for the educa-
tion of our citizens.
It follows that the function of depart-
mental officials is to develop and continuously
review a comprehensive philosophy of public
education. This educational planning— which
must cover an extremely broad spectrum,
taking into account the social and economic
needs of all citizens— is then expressed as
policy in two principal ways: through the
medium of the educational laws, which form
the framework for pubhcly supported educa-
tion, and through the distribution of funds,
which are not unlimited and therefore must
be invested with some wisdom. Being cen-
trally located, the department is also specially
qualified to be a resource centre for new
information and a clearing house for worth-
while ideas emanating from within and out-
side the province.
These are, Mr. Chairman, the three basic
or principal responsiblities of the depart-
ment, and all other involvements, it seems to
me, can only have the effect of diluting the
considerable effort required to do those jobs
well. With the decentralization of many of
the traditional departmental functions to local
authorities which are situated more closely
to the public they serve, departmental officials
will be better able to concentrate on those
responsibilities which they are best equipped
to perfoiTO.
The main condition needed to bring about
this ideal situation is that local educational
authorities should be large enough to be
able to provide a full range of programmes
plus the highly specialized staff of psycholo-
gists, reading consultants, speech therapists,
and others that are required if all children
are to be given the opportunity to achieve
their maximum potential.
Realization of such an aim will call for
co-operation, highmindedness and quite
frankly, some sacrifice. This centralization at
the local level is in no way inconsistent with
the philosophy of decentralization at the
provincial level. We should strive for an
optimum local organization which is close
enough to the local scene to be fully conver-
sant with its problems, yet large enough and
well enough staffed to receive delegation of
responsibility from the department. This
delegation of duties will provide the local
staff and speciahsts with the flexibility and
freedom from artificial constraints which will
enable them to operate at maximum effec-
tiveness.
The point I wish to stress here is that a
distinction must be drawn between "operat-
ing" functions and "policy-making" functions.
I am suggesting that, in a highly developed
and mature educational system such as we
have in this province, "operating" functions
are most effectively and appropriately the
responsibility of local agencies such as boards
of education and boards of governors. The
central Department of Education, on the
other hand, must be responsible for overall
planning.
In order that there should be no uncer-
tainty concerning the positive and vital role
of the department, I would like at this point
to outline some of the basic responsibilities
and priorities of the department which I
see for the future. In an era of change such
as ours, this list cannot be complete and I
assure you should not be regarded as fixed.
In fact, one of the elements required is a
degree of flexibility that will allow the
department to respond to changing realities.
I would sincerely welcome debate and sug-
gestions on this important matter, particularly
as our deliberations on the role of a Depart-
ment of Education may well be examined
with interest in other jurisdictions as well as
our own. The evolutionary process in which
we are participating seems to be a matter of
interest and common experience throughout
the world.
I would suggest that we can best focus the -^
role of a central Department of Education by
investigating some of its broad strategic
objectives and resulting responsibilities. These
JUNE 4, 1968
3883
might be stated as follows, and not neces-
sarily in order of priority.
1. The department is responsible for ensur-
ing that all citizens have suitable educational
opportunities. This involves the setting of
objectives, the provision of leadership and
the establishment and involvement of appro-
priate authorities to implement the necessary
programmes.
Leadership cannot take the form of dicta-
tion from a superior authority to other levels.
To be effective, it must be based on mutual
respect and recognition of the special con-
tributions which can be made by all parties
to the total educational enterprise. For
example, classroom teachers and local author-
ities are particularly qualified to take part in
the development and implementation of new
approaches to meet specific circumstances
with which they are familiar. The depart-
ment, on the other hand, because of its
central location, is uniquely equipped to dis-
seminate locally developed techniques to
other parts of the province.
2. The department should delegate the
operation of institutions to other bodies, for
example, local education authorities, which,
through legislation, are given suflBciently wide
powers to ensure that all educational needs
of society are met.
From this premise, it follows that the de-
partment must encourage the establishment
of authorities suitable for the task; such
authorities as large local education jurisdic-
tions, colleges and institutions, to which
responsibility can be delegated. Such agencies
should be given encouragement to innovate,
with as much freedom from regulation as is
consistent with the central authority's respon-
sibility.
3. The department must provide financial
resources to local education authorities and
establish priorities so that resources which are
scarce may be allocated in the most judicious
manner. Here, the primary needs are analysis
and long-term planning.
4. The department has a responsibility for
research, whether it engages in it directly or
encourages local education authorities and
other agencies to search for fresh approaches
and better educational methods.
5. The department must provide assistance
to local education agencies in the form of
consultative services, proposals and new ideas
for curriculum development, and must assist
in providing suitably qualified personnel.
These suggestions concerning the appro-
priate role of a Department of Education are
based on a number of assumptions. The first
is that the true strength of a democracy lies
in the opportunties which it provides for
individual growth and development, and that
this can best be achieved through the scale
of diversity and flexibility which is only
possible in a decentrahzed system.
Another assumption is that, in educational
matters, locally elected representatives work-
ing with professional teachers can be counted
on not only to maintain existing standards
but to achieve new heights of excellence,
which will ultimately be of benefit to all.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize such assump-
tions constitute an expression of confidence
in our Ontario school system. They are
based on the record of many years in which
a high sense of public responsibility has been
demonstrated by the electorate, by its elected
representatives and by professional teachers
alike. Such public spirit cannot, I say with
respect, be legislated by a government. It
can only be achieved by a society that has
evolved an educational system with depth,
with self-awareness and a clarity of goals.
I would like now to turn, just for a few
moments, to a few instances of the type of
educational activity and innovation on which
we base our confidence in the ultimate suc-
cess of our policy of decentralization.
I feel that such examples are quite signifi-
cant, for this reason. Educational policy
making must always have as its central con-
cern the student in the learning environment.
Hence, there is a need for feedback from
the schools to help us determine whether the
department's philosophy of education does in
fact have validity and viability when put into
practice. This is the focal point around
which all our deliberations must revolve.
That is why I would like to cite several of
many possible examples of the creative
responses which have been forthcoming from
local boards and schools as a result of the
greater freedom to innovate that is provided
by our philosophy of decentralization of edu-
cation in Ontario.
It is no coincidence that many recent
developments stress student involvement in
out-of-school situations. This reflects an in-
creasing and healthy awareness that the
ultimate test of any system will be the extent
to which it encourages growth and participa-
tion among its students, and provides them
with real, as opposed to vicarious, experience
of the world.
Many schools are accomplishing, Mr. Chair-
man, truly remarkable things in providing
students with just such experiences. For
3884
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
example, large numbers of students have
been exchanged over several weeks between
Fergus district secondary school and an equi-
valent French-speaking school in Quebec.
Fergus is the school that managed to send
not just a delegation but very nearly the
entire student body to Expo 67. The students
themselves earned almost $40,000 to finance
the project and parents were specifically asked
not to assist by paying for the trip them-
selves. The principal, Mr. Richard B. Gilman,
described the project in part as follows:
Students were divided by the organiza-
tion committee into groups of their own
choice and over 100 student leaders were
trained for supervision tasks. Four large
institutions were rented in Montreal and
visits were made to plan sleeping accom-
modation, meals and so on. We deliberately
attempted to involve as many as possible
in real organization and we tried to avoid
using those who were already in positions
of responsibility, such as the student coun-
cil or school prefects.
Meanwhile practically every subject de-
partment—and I think this is really highly
relevant— integrated into its courses worth-
while information concerning what students
would see. The English, history, geography,
commercial and language departments
were especially busy and this culminated
in the production of a 34-page tour hand-
book for each student and staff member.
Statistics prove little. But there was a
certain satisfaction when the school re-
turned to normal after 1,300 miles of travel
with two special trains, 160 buses, four
trucks, four cars and 13,000 booked meals
—all made possible through the raising of
nearly $40,000 over a period of eight
months.
Not only had the students gained ex-
perience through the magnificent displays
and exhibitions of arts, science and tech-
nology at Man and His World, they had
also participated in writing assignments,
discussions and historical and geographical
surveys during the school term in prepara-
tion for their trip.
In short, the positive values of the trip
appeared to be fourfold: Knowledge, ex-
perience, morale and community spirit.
Mr. Chairman, the surprising thing to many
of us of another generation is the extent to
which the students themselves organize and
participate in planning such endeavours, and
therein, probably, lies one of the chief
values.
Symbolic of the movement towards in-
tegrating the experiences of an individual
student in school is the project on secondary
school organization that is now in progress
and I think was mentioned in answer to a
question by the hon. member for Peter-
borough (Mr. Pitman) during the early phases
of this House. In the 1967-68 school year,
six secondary schools were encouraged to
introduce modified programmes covering in-
dividual timetables, subject promotions, and
additional optional courses. The modifications
were left sufficiently flexible to allow for a
start to be made in bridging the five-year and
the four-year programmes, as well as in
breaking down the barriers between the three
present branches.
With subject promotion and a credit system
established, these schools were also able to
reduce the demarcation between grades and
thus take a first step toward the non-graded
secondary school.
It may well be and I emphasize this, that
in the future the traditional distinction
between the arts and science, business and
commerce, and technical and vocational pro-
grammes will decrease and that students will
be offered a much wider selection of interests,
regardless of their ultimate choice of career
pattern.
Care is being taken, Mr. Chairman, to
ensure that the students are enabled to meet
the requirements of post-secondary institu-
tions. The department has made provision for
publication of the results so that other schools
and jurisdictions may benefit from the experi-
ence gained. I would be happy to arrange
for any interested member to obtain a copy
of this publication.
In the primary and junior divisions of our
elementary schools, the principle of non-
graded classes is being actively explored by
a significantly increasing number of teachers
and school systems. The ideal of continuous
progress for each child is still an elusive
organizational goal, but at such schools as
Allandale Heights in Barrie, children and their
teachers are coming close to that ideal.
The interim revision of the programme of
studies for kindergarten and grades 1 to 6,
issued during 1966 and 1967, have provided
encouragement for such developments. Grade
designations are becoming less rigid and, in
tlie first six years of school, the kind of
carefully planned "freedom in the presence
of knowledge" that more and more children
are experiencing should no longer be termed
experimental.
JUNE 4, 1968
3885
In the intermediate division, new dimen-
sions and possibilities are being explored in the
schools for kindergarten to grade 6 pupils and
in the senior public schools. Students in these
middle years must be given opportunities for
a wide range of experience across the broad-
est possible spectrum of subjects and themes.
Schools such as the Bertie senior elementary
school at Ridgeway, and Alexander Muir
senior public school in Toronto, are develop-
ing programmes which incorporate theme-
centred activities by students, co-operative
planning by teachers, considerable out-of-
school experiences, and the rapid develop-
ment of cross-disciplinary studies.
School organization, Mr. Chairman, will
be the subject of intense study by my depart-
ment in the year 1968-69. More flexibility
is needed to meet the wider and more diverse
interests of students. Our aim will be to
preserve the best of the traditional methods,
while providing more and more avenues for
the development of each student's potential.
Mr. Chairman, if the members would like
to recess before I conclude my remarks very
briefly—
Mr. Chairman: If the Minister has only a
few more remarks—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think it would take
about another 15 or 20 minutes and I would
not want to upset the hon. members' dinner
hour.
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 106
ONTARIO
Icgijilature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 4, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1068
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 4, 1968
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis, continued 3889
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3922
3889
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(Continued)
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, we had reached page 20 of
my speech at the time we adjourned for some
nourishment and, I gather, some refreshment.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
We did not see the hon. Minister there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I was not there as a matter
of fact.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that in
the intervening two hours, the statement that
I am now presenting, plus the additional in-
formation, has been made available to all
tiie members, and perhaps if you have a
chance, as we get into the individual votes,
you will find a fair amount of material in
the yellow-covered booklet.
Mr. Chairman, continuing our somewhat
philosophical discussion of education.
As some of the basic concepts of school
organization are re-evaluated, one significant
trend seems to be emerging: this is a greater
integration of the school with the community.
Just as schools are making greater and
greater use in the total learning environment
of the resources available in the community,
so the community in turn is coming to re-
gard the schools as valuable public assets
which are capable of serving the needs of
adults, as well as young people, in pursuit
of education as a hfelong need.
An example of this interchange is the im-
proved consultation among, and effective
integration of, community library facilities of
various kinds in a number of centres, to the
benefit of both students and citizens. It has
been common for students and schools to
use local libraries on both an individual and
a group basis. In recent years, a number of
well equipped school libraries have been
made available in the evenings as reference
libraries for both students and members of
the general public.
Tuesday, Jmis 4, 1968
Many schools are being utilized in the
evenings and in the summer for both regular
students and adults. Programmes offered
range from academic and technical to com-
munity service projects, such as swimming
lessons. Much good work is being done, but
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
time has come for even greater efforts in this
direction as continuing education becomes a
factor of growing significance in the lives
of all our citizens.
We are indeed fortunate in this province
to have facilities for public education which
are second to those of no other jurisdiction
in the world. Visitors from outside the prov-
ince and from other countries, including
those that are among the most technically
advanced, have been most complimentary and
the use of adjectives such as "superb"— and
I put that in quotation marks because it is
their terminology, not mine— is not Infrequent.
Second to none.
An hon. member: Well at least they were
polite.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But I think, Mr. Chair-
man, I want to emphasize the next sentence.
Facilities of such quality should not sit idle
and should in fact be in use around the clock,
if necessary, where programmes are in de-
mand by citizens who work during the hours
allocated to daytime courses. I would sug-
gest that school boards should give a high
priority to making maximum use of school
facihties for all citizens.
In relation to the regular school programme,
this department will encourage school boards
to increase summer programmes to cover the
requirements, not only of students who desire
to make up previously-failed courses, but of
those who wish to broaden and enrich their
knowledge, or progress more rapidly through
the regular programme.
I just interject here, Mr. Chairman, I just
cannot see the validity of a student who, shall
we say, passes all but one subject in a given
year and is failed in the total year because
he has missed. And if he can make this up
during, say, a 6-week course during the sum-
3890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mer months, then this may thus make up a
total year. To me it makes a great deal of
Mr. B. Newman: ( Windsor-Walkerville ) :
It took you a long time to realize that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do
not think it has taken the department a long
time to realize it. It is not always easy to
translate tliis to the boards.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the
integration of schools with the community
also involves school students in learning activi-
ties outside the regular classroom, and I would
like to mention just a few of the eflpective
programmes now under way.
In Atikokan, two programmes take students
out of doors. Last September, students
enrolled in the natural resources technology
course surveyed the route through the area of
forest and lake reserved for the Atikokan high
school by The Department of Lands and
Forests. In this project the students have, in
effect, an outdoor laboratory.
This is also the school from which, last
March, the students in the "Outers' pro-
gramme" set out on an all-night march,
altliough the snow was blowing and the
temperature v/as in tiie twenties. By morning
they had reached their destination at a lumber
camp where breakfast, prepared by other
students, awaited them. This part of a pro-
gramme, that that particular school designed
to devolp a spirit of initiative and self-reliance.
During the current year, thousands of
children have left their own schools for resi-
dential schools where education continues out
of doors. Sometimes camp sites become class-
rooms, as happened in Midland; there the
pubhc school board and the YMCA co-
operated in organizing a June camp where
young boys had a chance to examine the
rocks and minerals on Beausoleil island.
Out-of-classroom activities are not limited
to hiking and the study of science and con-
servation. Evidences of the past are just as
exciting as the world of tlie present. In the
summer of 1967, some 41,000 students visited
the restored site of Ste Marie among the
Hurons. Boys and girls from Toronto were
so interested that they took part in archaeo-
logical digs in Huronia. To give more pupils
a chance to dig for themselves, the Metropoli-
tan Toronto separate school board has
secured an option on an Indian site near
Midland.
An indication of tlie eagerness of The
Department of Education to encourage such
activities can be seen in the appointment of an
official in the curriculum section to devote his
full time to gathering information and
developing materials relating to educational
programmes outside the regular school envir-
onment.
More and more, we are learning that the
school building should be utilized for the
tilings that can best be taught there, and that
the entire area of this province, and even
places beyond its boundaries, are becoming
extensions of the school, where students see
things directly, and do things with their own
hands.
In support of this development, the depart-
ment is preparing a memorandum to suggest
ways in which individual parents, groups, and
school boards can conduct educational student
tours. The memorandum will be an explicit
plan for such a tour, with detailed suggestions
to show how maximum learning growth can
be achieved.
I would like to mention two other examples
of innovation from— literally— diousands that
come to our attention. Again this year, schools
in Welland and Lincoln counties, on the Nia-
gara peninsula, have sponsored their con-
tinuing seminars in humanities and science.
Young people from grades 11 and 12 meet
one evening a week throughout the winter for
the "seminar for exploration of advanced
studies." Topics ranging from theology to
astrophysics are discussed by young people
with prominent scholars and speciaUsts from
all over the country.
In Napanee, school children from the area
had a special reason to take pride in the
town's store window displays. In January, a
history fair on the Napanee area was held by
teachers and students of the social studies
programme. The Indian children of Mohawk
Landing and area were more than a little
proud because their display showed their
neighbours what Napanee was like before
the coming of the settlers from Europe.
One of the great advantages of decentrali-
zation is, of course, the scope it provides for
local initiative in developing new solutions to
individual, and often unique, local problems.
One such interesting development has
occurred in Hamilton.
Since September 1965, the Hamilton board
of education has operated an extensive com- '
pensatory programme for inner city children. '
The programme is entitled ENOC, which*
stands for educational needs of the older city.>
Four schools are currently participating ier"
the programme, which includes junior kinder-'
gartens planned to meet the needs of this
younger group; special emhpasis upon reading
JUNE 4, 1968
3891
and language skills using specifically trained
teaching personnel assisted by parents and
volunteer teacher aides; extended guidance
counselling; reduction of pupil-teacher ratios;
the use of additional audio- visual equipment;
and participation in a broad range of field
study trips.
Every effort is made to acquaint parents
with the many phases of the ENOC pro-
gramme and to encourage their support and
active participation. "Read-to-me" and the
"Let-me-read-to-you" programmes encourage
children and their parents to become inter-
ested in this phase of the project. Parents are
invited to the school frequently to hear about
the work of a certain grade; to see the results
of children's work; to be guests at assembly
programmes; to view a film which their chil-
dren are seeing; to assist with field study
trips; to help repair books and assemble read-
ing materials; and to construct visual aids.
Such visits lead to a mutual understanding
of the goals of both teacher and parent and
promote a feehng of affinity for the school on
the part of the parents. Schools concerned in
the ENOC programme periodically distribute
newsletters to keep parents informed about
developments in which their children are in-
volved. It is also hoped that parents will
continue, at home, some of the activities and
interests which they see being promoted at
school.
The Hamilton board of education has given
recognition to the fact that the ENOC pro-
gramme's success depends primarily upon the
influence of enthusiastic and dedicated teach-
ers who understand inner city pupils, and
their parents, and the strengths and weak-
nesses of their cultural background. Such
teachers must be prepared to try different
approaches in order to make school more
interesting and relevant and therefore more
profitable. A concerted effort is being made
to provide meaningful in-service programmes
which will enrich the children's background
and renew the enthusiasm of the people in-
volved. ENOC is only one of a number of
programmes of this type which are being
conducted in various urban centres.
I would like to refer, briefly, to a very en-
couraging phenomenon in which the schools
are involved, and that is the expansion of
cultural interest in this country and in On-
tario, particularly in the last 15 years. Never
has so much interest in the arts been shown
in the schools as at the present time. Plays,
motion pictures, art in its various forms, and
ballet are all being actively practised in
schools. One has only to observe the cultural
renaissance in society at large to realize that
our school programme is one of the main
stimulators of the new enthusiasm. In recog-
nition of this highly important manifestation
of change in Canadian hfe, the department
has appointed an outstanding teacher to de-
velop programmes in fine arts.
The primary difference, I guess, between
what is happening in the schools at the pres-
ent time and what was accepted for a great
many years in Ontario's earlier history has
been in the field of curriculum.
During the early period, there were com-
paratively few changes in the course of study.
Dr. Egerton Ryerson's earlier syllabus of sub-
jects for elementary schools comprised 19
subjects, most of which were simply not
taught. After he retired, this vast number
was substantially cut, many of the subjects
being transferred to the secondary level;
some of them were left for the universities. ■
There was, for many decades, a strong bias
toward classical subjects, which proved hard
to alter because of the immense prestige these
subjects had in English-speaking education
everywhere. Languages, some of which had
been dead for centuries, were taught to be
read, not spoken. Mathematics was conven-
tional, addicted to formulae, theorems and
logarithms. Geography was lists of places
and products; history was tied to kings and
battles; spelling was words you would never
hear again. ,
It is a far cry, Mr. Chairman, from those
conventional days to the present curricular
ferment. The purpose of the major and con-
tinuing reforms of the curriculum has been
to bring the benefits of varied educational
experiences to the innumerable varieties of
temperament, interests and abilities in On-
tario's 1 million, some 8 thousand, young
people. The programme of reform is well,
under way, but it will continue into the
future as long as the growth of knowledge
and the demands of change persist. It is
impossible to believe that curricula will ever
again stay unchanged for long periods, as
once was the case.
Hon. members will recall that there was a
basic revision of the secondary school pro-
gramme a few years ago, a reform which has
had substantial effects on the ratio of student
retention in the Ontario schools. The pro-
gramme itself is being worked over and con-
tinuing improvements are being made to in-
crease its value. One of its chief merits has
been to open up new fields of study. These
new fields of study represent additional
3892
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
options which greatly enrich the educational
offerings of our schools. It is our hope that
many of these "new" subjects may be added
to the optional selections in grade 13.
It would take hours to describe the vast
activity in curriculum in this province, Mr.
Chairman, and while I recognize the mem-
bers would be very tolerant, I do not really
intend to get into that in great detail. I am
submitting, as I said at the outset, some de-
tailed information in printed form for you.
One of the key features of this activity is that
present-day courses are not prescriptions from
which deviation would be a perilous policy,
but rather outlines, supported by suggestions
for resource material to which teachers and
students can turn for either broad or intensive
treatment, as they might wish. The result, it
is hoped, will be better informed, more
closely interested pupils and students, whose
future life will be given permanent benefit
by training in how to find out what needs
to be known.
We would all agree, Mr. Chairman, that a
modernized curriculum by itself, necessary
and desirable as it might be, is so much the
better with good teachers. Active steps are
in progress to give effect to the very complex
requirement of raising the educational quali-
fications for admission to the teaching profes-
sion in Ontario. In time, it is hoped, virtu-
ally all teachers of all grades will have at
least a basic university degree or its equiva-
lent. The modern world demands a great
deal more varied and extensive preparation
for the significant function of teaching than
was acceptable in the simpler days of the
past.
It is relevant, I think, Mr. Chairman, at
this point, to comment on the developments
in teacher education in this province.
Hon. members will recall that the decision
was made to terminate the summer school
route for the training of secondary school
teachers next year. Consequently, the last
classes to enter the two-summer programme
will do so this summer, and these candidates
will complete their work in 1969.
The great majority of secondary school
teachers will in future enter programmes re-
quiring a longer period of training, largely
through the provision for practice teaching in
regular school classes during the school year.
This policy was adopted after consultation
with representatives of the Ontario teachers'
federation, the Ontario school trustees' coun-
cil, the association of directors and super-
intendents of education, and the deans of the
colleges of education. Other interested
groups also made representations advocating
the same change. All accepted the fact that
there would be some difficulties— and there is
just no point in minimizing it— but there will
be some difficulties in terms of the supply of
teachers for secondary schools, and all agreed
that they would assist in the development of
plans to meet the situation.
I am pleased to be able to say that Mr. Tom
Boone, who is the director of education in
Etobicoke, and who served as chairman of
the joint committee that recommended ter-
mination of the summer course route, has
agreed to undertake the duties of chairman
of a new committee representative of the
same organizations. This committee will con-
sider new and additional programmes de-
signed to provide suitable routes for the edu-
cation of teachers at this level.
Associated with new programmes is the
necessity to provide additional facilities to
accommodate more students for a longer
period of time. In this connection Althouse
College in the University of Western Ontario
is wholly operative, and is capable of pro-
viding for double its present enrolment. The
college of education in the University of
Toronto can take an additional one-third of
its present enrolment, and plans are being
developed for a substantial addition to the
present facility. The advisory board of the
college is participating in the discussions
regarding the expanded facilities there.
McArthur College in Queen's University,
Kingston, will begin operation in September
of 1968, with an initial enrolment of 200. It
will be accommodated in classrooms within
the university and in administration facilities
provided in temporary quarters on the uni-
versity campus for that purpose. In the mean-
time, the university will proceed with the
construction of the new McArthur College
building on the west campus. When this
facility is completed, it will provide for 600
students and the temporary quarters being
provided now will be utilized by the uni-
versity for other purposes.
Discussions have been held with the
officials of the University of Ottawa, and I
am pleased to be able to announce that
approval has now been given for the uni-
versity to proceed with the planning of a
college of education to accommodate 200
French-speaking students entering the second-
ary school teaching field who will staff, in
particular, the new French secondary schools
within the public system. This college will
also provide accommodation for up to 400
French-speaking candidates for the ele-
JUNE 4, 1968
3893
mentary bilingual schools. Teachers for this
latter area are already being trained in rented
quarters provided by the university on its
campus.
Considerable progress, Mr. Chairman, has
been made in the area of the training of ele-
mentary school teachers. During the year, I
announced that the minimum standard for
admission to teachers' colleges, effective in
September, 1969, would be 55 per cent in
grade 13. If the number of applicants con-
tinues to increase, it is quite possible that the
objective of 60 per cent for admission can be
reached one year later, in 1970, rather than
1971 or 1972 as originally contemplated.
Courses in the teaching of French, to
English-speaking students, have now been
established at eight of our teachers' colleges.
A total of 284 students, whose ability to speak
French met the required oral admission
standards, were enrolled in these courses in
September of 1967.
It will be recalled, Mr. Chairman, that a
special course for candidates who already held
a bachelor of arts degree and who wished
to teach at the elementary school level was
established a few years ago. This course is
attracting an increasing number of applicants
and 241 were enrolled in the past year, a 26
per cent increase over the previous year.
In all, the enrolment in the teachers' col-
leges increased by 5 per cent for 1967-68
and reached a total of 6,853 candidates. The
number of graduates is suflScient to relieve
some of the pressures that have existed in
particular areas in the past, and permits the
conclusion that, combined with the lower
birth rate, the situation of teacher supply at
this level will steadily improve. These de-
velopments will permit a gradual increase in
the academic requirements for certification
towards the minimum objective of a uni-
versity degree for all teachers.
In this connection, it is relevant to point
out that a new college to train elementary
school teachers is under construction on the
main campus of Brock University and that
in September of this year, the college will
occupy space in the main buildings of the
university until the new college is ready in
July, 1969.
Tenders have been called for a new col-
lege on the campus of Laurentian University
at Sudbury, to train bilingual teachers for
elementary schools. Construction will begin
this summer, and it is expected that the new
college will be ready for occupancy by the
end of 1969. In the meantime, the college is
occupying space in the main buildings of the
university. Many advantages to students are
already evident as a result of the close
association which location on the university
campuses makes possible.
A decision has been reached to provide a
new college for training elementary teachers
as part of the educational centre to be de-
veloped in North Bay in conjunction with
Nipissing College, an off-campus college of
Laurentian University, and Cambrian college
of applied arts and technology, which will
also incorporate a regional school of nursing.
This centre will permit the provision of many
of the auxiliary and ancillary services which
could not be made available to the institu-
tions if they had developed as separate
entities.
During the year, there have been numerous
discussions with several of the universities
towards finalizing the transfer of the admin-
istration of the teachers' colleges to the uni-
versities. Discussions have also been held
with the subcommittee on teacher education
established by the committee of Presidents
of Ontario universities, and a further meeting
has been scheduled for the very near future.
It is anticipated that it will be possible to
resolve any remaining problems involved in
the transfer of teacher education and that,
shortly, agreements giving effect to the trans-
fer can be concluded for several of the col-
leges. Provision has been made in the
estimates to permit them to be financed
through the universities as soon as agreements
are signed.
Preparation of teachers for the field of
special education is an important element in
our teacher education activities. Last Sep-
tember, I announced the appointment of a
new officer to the teacher education branch
who would devote his full attention to
special education problems. This officer has
reported on a broad range of colleges and
universities in the United States which offer
an organized sequence of special preparation
for those engaged in the education of excep-
tional children of all types-gifted as well as
handicapped. Some of the fields deal with
gifted children, testing, evaluation, limited
vision, orthopaedic cases, neurologically im-
paired children and so on. An interim report
from this officer, on his investigation up to
this point, indicates that 20 different centres
offer programmes which could be applicable
to Ontario conditions. More programmes
offering elements suitable for Ontario teachers
will, no doubt, be found available in the
future, as the officer continues his studies.
One very important outcome of his work to
3894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
date, concerns the development of clinics with
an interdisciplinary approach to the diagnosis
and educational handling of exceptional chil-
dren. From the knowledge acquired in these
continuing studies, it is already possible for
the department to provide guidance for de-
veloping programmes of similar types in this
province. At the same time, our own regular
summer courses in the fields concerned are
being constantly updated. In addition, dis-
cussions are being held witii a view to
providing an institution for the preparation
of teachers in the area of special education.
This, Mr. Chairman, is illustrative of the
whole condition of education, tliat is, to the
extent one can do it in a relatively short
period of time. It needs intensive examina-
tion, revised methods, higher standards, and
new outlooks. Our civilization, in its present
phase, owes its character and direction to
research. Recognizing that educational re-
search lagged far beliind other forms, we
have established the Ontario institute for
studies in education. This institution, which
has university status and is affiliated with the
University of Toronto, combines many forms
of educational research with graduate studies
in education, and research and development
in curriculum. It is reaching the point where
its productive value will be increasingly evi-
dent, and it is our hope that it will remain as
it is— virtually unique in world education.
The broad review and rethinking that the
age of change has imposed on all our social
institutions has deeply affected education. We
are increasingly conscious that the old ways
and old forms fall far short of meeting the
challenges that are rising with such force in
our country, as in almost all the others.
The problems of ignorance and poverty are
the new frontier of social action, and in the
effort to meet these problems, educational
systems have, in my view, a profound re-
sponsibility. Hon. members may be assured
that we are keenly aware of the crucial need
to find solutions that will in truth and reality,
open to the victims of these social deficiencies,
the opportunity for a better life.
Schools, I suggest, by themselves, are not
the sole ansAver to ignorance and poverty,
and broad policies will have to be developed
to achieve what is necessary. In all countries,
including the wealthy democracy to the
south, effective solutions to these problems
have been difficult to find.
This challenge points to many elements of
growth and experiment which still face us.
How can we open to the underprivileged the
resources and tlie privileges of a vigorous
society? These ways we must actively seek.
But just as important are the needs which are
emerging from the technological revolution,
which is rapidly providing North American
society with an increasing degree of leisure.
I have already referred to the cultural renais-
sance Ixjcoming so obvious in Ontario and,
indeed, in Canada, as exemplified in the
triumphant success of Expo 67. It is apparent
that new steps must be adopted to assist
our people to find useful, enjoyable and ab-
sorbing ways of living the new life of leisure.
This, like the problem of poverty, is not ex-
chisively an educational responsibility, but
education can, and will, play a substantial
part.
In such a programme, it may be assumed
that a considerable expansion of library serv-
ice would have a priority. Along with books,
other forms of communication— including
records, tapes, television, museums, art gal-
leries, concert halls— would play their several
parts in the cultural enrichment and intel-
lectual growth of our population. The basis
of a far higher civilization than has ever
existed, I suggest, is within our grasp. This
is the challenge of the last third of this
remarkable century.
Mr. Chairman, in the midst of our unques-
tionable educational advances at all levels
and of tlie nation-wide cultural activity of
which I have spoken, all who share responsi-
bility for education have to ask themselves:
What is their common purpose? Stocking the
minds of our pupils is not enough; we have
to be concerned not only with their intel-
lectual development but with their values. It
is impossible, today, to consider education
divorced from values.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): It was im-
possible in any day.
Hon. Mr. Davis: In our search for progress,
we could not do better, I believe, than be
guided by some words of Sir Alec Clegg, one
of the leaders of educational thought in
Britain today. They were spoken when he
was our Commonwealth visitor in 1966.
Progress must indeed mean that new
peaks will be reached as the centuries
pass but educationally it is just as impor-
tant (in my view more important) that many
now floundering should be able to master
the heights now attained only by the few
and these will be heights of compassion,
of courage, of integrity, initiative and of
tolerance as well as heights of the intellect.
JUNE 4, 1968
3895
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, it is an honour
and a dehght to share the enthusiasm of the
House tonight with the hon. Minister of Edu-
cation. He has had an opportunity to dehver
to us, this afternoon and this evening, his
view of some of the higher slopes and, in
fact, peaks of the education system as he
sees it during the past year, and as he pre-
dicts it for the year that hes ahead. Natur-
ally, it is his responsibility to be objective
and, his nature to be optimistic. His natural
tendency for modesty was lost at least on two
occasions, perhaps three. I lost count at one
stage, during which he indicated that once
again our department and our educational
programme was leading the world and, of
course, we have come— it was at least twice
—and I will draw them to the hon. Minister's
attention during the less formal part of our
deliberations.
But, Mr. Chairman, we know, that for the
money we are investing in our system, that
we can expect it to be one of excellence.
I know that the hon. Minister may perhaps
get his reaction to the efficiency of the edu-
cation system from what he learns around
the breakfast table at home, at least as much
as from the officials that pass on their views
to him. It is when you hear the discussions,
from the groups that assemble there day by
day, about what went on the day before and
what they are expecting in the day to come,
that we realize, that while there are these
outstanding examples of progress and en-
lightenment in the system that we have de-
veloped in the province, that there are still
a good many run-of-the-mill schools like the
Minister probably experiences in some areas
in his locality— as there are in mine— where
every-day teachers are working with every-
day students in a programme in which they
are trying to overcome a good many educa-
tional drawbacks that I believe leadership, at
the provincial level, could do much to elim-
inate.
Sonne hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Nixon: Now it may seem crass of me
to begin my remarks by drawing your atten-
tion, Mr. Chairman, to the costs of the pro-
gramme that the Minister is administering
during the coming year, because we know
that in his dual capacity, with two depart-
ments, he does command the largest single
vote that this Legislature has ever been asked
to approve for a department or a Minister.
We know, beyond that, that his policies and
attitudes, and his approach to modern edu-
cation, imposes itself, if I can use that phrase,
on the financing of education derived from
funds raised at the local level. I have taken
a moment to gather these figures together,
Mr. Chairman, and in connecting the various
estimates involving education, we find under
this department, a grand total of $876,364,-
000; and under The Department of University
Affairs, $285,982,000; plus grants paid by the
Provincial Treasurer— I suppose these cheques
go out under the direction of the Minister-
first, from the education capital aid corpor-
ation, $175 million; and university capital aid
corporation, $174 million; making a total of
$1,511,346,000.
Mr. Chairman, this, of course, does not in-
clude $7 million for industrial training voted
to the Minister of Labour, and $660,000 for
teaching costs to the citizenship branch of
the provincial Secretary's office. To this, I
believe it is proper to add the expenditure of
$600 million raised by municipal councils to
finance their half of the cost of education.
The policies of this department, then, and
the direction of this Minister, control $2.1
billion to finance the maintenance and expan-
sion of our educational system for 1968-69.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He is yawn-
ing, too; he is yawning.
Mr. Nixon: It approximates $300 per capita,
but that is not a meaningful figure either.
When we consider, however, that in this
coming year the Minister's policy is going to
have direction of the expenditure of $2.1
billion, we realize that, without doubt, his
responsibility is one of the most important in
Canada and, undoubtedly, the work of this
department is the most important responsibil-
ity that we have as members of this Legisla-
ture. So, I want to take some time tonight to
offer my views on matters that I do not
believe are covered specifically by votes in the
estimates that we will be perusing for some
time following this evening, and to gather
together some of my thoughts in this matter
which I consider the chief responsibility of
the province of Ontario.
While the figures that I have read to you,
Mr. Chairman, are startling in their impact
on our budget and economy, the real story is
told when we look at the predictions for
future education costs. Based on the work of
D. M. Cameron reported in the Ontario Jour-
nal of Educational Research, Autumn, 1967,
predicting costs to 1975, the costs of public,
separate, and secondary schools are expected
to increase by 120 per cent over 1965 to a
total of $1.7 billion. This is simply the direct
costs of elementary, secondary and separate
3896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
education. With the Smith committee pre-
dicting our post-secondary costs, will be seven
times larger in 1975 than in 1965, it is obvious
our future commitments will be impossible to
meet with the tax base and distribution of
public funds remaining as they are.
I want to emphasize that the future of edu-
cation, more than any other provincial respon-
sibility, rests on the reform of our tax system
and the federal-provincial fiscal agreement
that must be arrived at before the end of
1968. Our decisions on these matters must
hinge on the transference of a greater share of
the costs from the property tax base to the
provincial revenue base.
In my view, federal involvement is some-
thing that is going to become more direct in
education in the future than we have ever
thought possible up until this time. There is
no doubt that federal responsibilities are for
equality of opportunity in the broader sense
than we see it here. And while federal pro-
grammes in the future may be designed in
such a way, and I am sure they will be, that
they will not interfere with curriculum and
day-to-day operation of the education system,
I feel sure that there will be some sort of a
programme within the next ten years which
will provide funds to equalize educational
opportunity across Canada. This will put
Ontario in the position which we have occu-
pied historically, in paying a large share of
these funds. It is a responsibility that we
must accept as citizens of Canada, ahead of
our citizenship in this province, in this par-
ticular regard.
But, you know, some very well known
educators have been talking about federal
involvement increasing in intensity in recent
months. Mr. Stanbury, who has been a federal
member for some time, and Mr. Lowes, who
is attempting to become a federal member in
the next few weeks, are both talking on
precisely the same wavelength, and I suppose
that wavelength represents an up-to-date one
in this regard, when they talk about a federal
office of education. Both of them, I believe,
are shying away from any direct involvement
other than the federal responsibility which
already exists for Indian education, and cer-
tain other programmes involving the financ-
ing of our universities and manpower training
efforts.
But I would predict that the feelings among
provinces that have been so strong for 100
years against federal support financially for
education programmes, are going to deterior-
ate rapidly when we approach the tremendous
financial burdens that lie in the immediate
future. I am talking about an increase of 120
per cent for ordinary costs, and at the post-
secondary level increases in costs amounting
to 700 per cent.
This means that when our negotiators
travel to Ottawa some time in the next few
months, and when our select committee on
tax reform is listening to the submissions from
many sources in the province that are going
to require additional funds, they must cast
their minds over the broadest view of financ-
ing and see that this is, in fact, developing
into a CO operative responsibility in which no
level of government can be excluded.
But we as Liberals want to reinforce our
position that the present heavy dependence
on property assessment to meet education
costs must be abandoned to provide real
relief of tax burdens at the local level, and to
finance in an orderly and efficient manner
this greatest responsibihty.
Mr. Chairman, there have been many pro-
grammes that have been mentioned in the
Minister's brief remarks, or abbreviated
remarks, that are bringing about some far-
reaching changes in the approach to educa-
tion. I have already accused the Minister of
having his views on education shaped by
perhaps the response from his own family;
I understand there are five of them in the
group and there will be plenty of advice
coming to him around the table. But, he is
probably aware of the fact that his new ap-
proach to examinations has released a good
number of these young people from school
at the end of May.
We now find that the schools are relatively
empty, practically abandoned for a full three
months of the year. Therefore, I welcome his
remarks, which were probably introduced into
his statement for this very purpose, to assure
us that the school plant— if we can use that
phrase; it is not an attractive one, but one
that is usually used in this regard— may be
used on a year-round basis and in hours
longer than the ordinary nine-to-four basic
time.
I believe that there is a great deal that
can be done to improve the utilization of the
schools, and I want to talk about it in some
detail at this time. One area in which re-
search can produce real results in the utiliza-
tion of schools and institutions during the
summer months. We are all aware of the
problems— wrong-size furniture for adults,
special workshop areas and machine tools to
be safeguarded, laboratory equipment to be
kept inviolate and so on. As a former science
teacher myself, I know what it is like to
come into the laboratory on Monday morning.
JUNE 4, 1968
3897
or after a night school, and find that precious
equipment has been used for purposes never
designed, and these are problems that the
education officials are very much aware of.
Nevertheless, the problem would seem to be
more difficult in the area of 24-hour use of
the building, than it would in tlie case of
year-round use during more normal waking
hours.
I can frankly see no reason why we cannot
undertake substantially greater utilization of
school buildings, which represent such a great
capital investment. None of us would coun-
tenance our hquid assets lying idle in the way
we allow our schools to lie idle for a quarter
of the year. Just as we would put our money
to work, so we must put our schools to work
all the time, I want to see summer schools,
for pupils who have failed their grades dur-
ing the regular school year, become the rule
rather than the exception. Progressive boards
have introduced this in years gone by, but
there are a good many areas which still-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: —such as the area represented
by the hon. member who is barking from the
back row, where the educational opportuni-
ties perhaps have not been as progressive in
liis case as some others. But in this particular
area surely the days when school boards are
not prepared to have these summer schools,
and export their young people to other com-
munities for this assistance, should be long
gone.
So I would say beyond this that there is
no doubt we should see adults moving in and
out of schools with ease and without that
kind of self-consciousness that still affects so
many of us even today. Our schools should
be supermarkets and not cloisters with regard
to education. They should be open and a
lively part of the community. In such revital-
ized institutions I would expect to see a con-
tinuing succession of classes in language in-
struction, in art, in physical education and in
the practical mastery of the English language
skills in speech and written expression.
And beyond this, I would look to each
school to have a lively liberal arts pro-
gramme—if it would assist the Minister in
any way we can say progressive. There should
be a programme ranging from discussion of
great books, music appreciation, new maths
-all sorts of progressive courses that could
be available to the whole community. All this
could happen. The public is ready, eager to
learn, bored with superficial amusements and
the consumer atmosphere, and ready for the
in-depth experiences that education can offer
in modem settings.
In these circumstances, it is absurd that
for the greater part of every day and for
three months of every year our schools should
stand empty and idle. We have to plan our
affairs differently in the future. The ultimate
responsibihty for the voting of education
moneys hes with this Legislature and we have
a heavy responsibility with regard to this
estimate.
We have this present opportunity to make
clear the feehngs of the House in this im-
portant matter and I sense the attitude on all
sides is that we can make use of our expen-
sive, super school plants in a more effective
way than has been possible in recent times.
Having the schools open for a greater part
of the year and having adults using them
more would also have another effect. We
have also noticed how very many more people
are motivated towards the vocational than to
the liberal aspects of education because they
can see the end or tangible reward of effort
in the vocational area more clearly.
Feeling comfortable in the learning situa-
tion, we are told, is associated both with
higher motivation to learn and with better
learning outcomes. But the very presence of
adults in the schools might well have the
long-term effect of predisposing them in the
direction of a liberal education once voca-
tional needs have been met. This will antici-
pate the predicted course of work and
leisure patterns in the years to come.
We ought to be showing many more people
how to be usefully idle rather than bored.
Once the immediate challenge of upgrading
through vocational courses is over, it is essen-
tial that the schools retain the interest of
their new adult pupils for more modem fea-
tures of education. To do this they will have
to be hives of activity with lots of interesting
bits of completed work lying around to be
admired and to set up motivation of this
second order.
During the last few years, we have been
treated to a programme— an organized pro-
gramme on the part of the department, the
whole educational system— to impress upon
our young people and others the need to
assign values to technical education, at least
as high as those previously assigned to aca-
demic education. I sense that the pendulum
is beginning to swing back and that the
Minister should be emphasizing once again
the need for a strong core of liberal arts
3898
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
subjects, not only in the secondary and ele-
mentary section of our system but also at the
colleges of applied arts and technology.
These are matters that we have discussed
before, but it is too easy to over-emphasize
the technical aspects of education in response
to such reports as have been available to
educators at all levels. I do hope and recom-
mend to the Minister that when we are em-
barking on a somewhat new approach to
education, a retreat from centrahzation, the
establishment of the department as a resource
centre rather than a directing centre, tliat
these resources can have at least as much
emphasis on the importance of academic
instruction and the appreciation of this
approach to education as the other.
This is perhaps the way that we shall move
into French language instruction for a good
many people who do not see the immediate
need for it in their daily lives in predomi-
nantly English-speaking Ontario. We have
been treated in this Legislature— at least in
the facilities provided for the various mem-
bers—to at least a taste of modern language
instruction and I am told that it is very
effective indeed.
And programmes such as this in the school
systems across the province, pertaining not
only to French but otlier languages— and the
Minister is well aware that competent teach-
ers in these other languages would be readily
available from the communities in so many
parts of Ontario— would be a basis for a core
of liberal education that could make use of
the schools more efficiently than at present.
The amalgamation of school boards to
become effective in 1969 will undoubtedly
further increase the costs that I recounted
to you, Mr. Chairman, at tlie opening of my
remarks. No area of the new jurisdiction will
settle for less than the best already achieved
by other boards in the new school divisions.
We will see the universal acceptance of
kindergartens, special facilities for students
with perception and other learning problems,
better transportation, more high-priced super-
vision, and better facilities for tlie education
of the retarded, all adding heavy cost in-
creases to an improved system. The Minister
promised us in his remarks tonight that the
size of his own department was about to
decrease. We will keep careful measure of
this, of course, because as he decentralizes
his responsibilities we can see that the growth
of supervisory staff is going to be tremendous
in the county boards.
And we want to see this balanced and
more than balanced by a decrease in similar
staff under the direction of the Minister and
his top officials. But the better facilities are
something that we all look forward to.
Equality of opportunity costs real money and
it is our job to see that the money is not
only available but that it is spent with the
maximum care and ejBBciency.
First, before the new school divisions arc
established, the department should establish
standard accounting procedures and supervise
them with a continuing general audit. This is
one area in which tlie dispersal of the Minis-
ter's responsibilities is unnecessary, since the
large bulk of the funds are voted by this
Legislature and he has direct supervision of
the policies that use those funds. Surely then
he can require standard accounting pro-
cedures and auditing procedures that would
vmdoubtedly make use of the computer facili-
ties that are already in tlie department and
growing in their usefulness.
This will permit efficient methods worked
out by some boards to be shared by all and
it will looint out the relative inefficiencies of
the 100 boards supervising education in
Ontario. There was a time, of course, when
schools were rated by the number of students
who got certain standings in grade 13 or grade
12 levels. When departmental examinations
were abandoned at the grade 12 level, it
came to be a rating of some importance as
students would accept their grade 12 matricu-
lation and go out into the world of further
education or the world of work, and the
status of the matriculation depended upon
the particular school involved. This is some-
thing that I believe will recur again on a
financial basis. We will be able to rate the
education programmes that are estabhshed by
tlie new county boards and compare them
with the costs associated with the pro-
grammes. This rating will have some great
significance indeed for those of us here who
are called upon year by year to vote such
tremendous sums of money.
Second, the facilities of the centralized
purchasing branch of the government should
be available to tlie school boards for their
equipment needs. This is particularly true for
the establishment of new services and techno-
logical facilities in setting up and expanding
libraries and the purchasing of textbooks. I do
not want any misunderstanding here. I am
not suggesting that the textbooks, in their"
establishment or approval would be restricted,
but that surely the purchase of these features
of modem education would be better done in
JUNE 4, 1968
3899
large quantities. The Provincial Treasurer's
centralized purchasing agency in the govern-
ment might very well be brought into play.
And third, a greater effort is needed to cut
building costs by standardizing plans on a
module basis. I will have more to say about
this in detail, but the Minister, year after year
has in his own inimitable way pooh-poohed
this approach. There has been some sort of a
holy attitude that would indicate—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: The interjections are very
valuable and I for one appreciate them. Mr.
Chairman. The attitude in the past has been:
"Yes, we will look into this." As a matter
of fact a whole branch of the department has
been set up to look into this in what I feel
has been a superficial way, but it took the
school board of Metropolitan Toronto, under
distinguished leadership, to actually accomp-
lish the modem approach to this problem that
could have saved us tens of thousands of
dollars over the last 15 years. Now the
school board in Toronto has really under-
taken research that has been proved to be
meaningful—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Partially financed by The
Department of Education.
Mr. Nixon: Partially yes, and mainly
financed by the Ford foundation from the
United States. As a matter of fact, they paid
more than you did.
So, I would say to you that I do not hesi-
tate, Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate— as I
admit I have sometimes in the past— to say
that there is a field for real economy in a new
approach to the governance of school con-
struction. I believe it is there. I believe the
government— this government and this Minis-
ter have wasted public funds because of
inactivity in years gone by and I—
An hon. member: He should resign.
Mr. Nixon:— and I call on him to remedy
that particular position.
Fourth, I believe that we can harness tlie
kind of interest that was exemplified by the
Ontario chamber of commerce some days ago,
in providing management experts to take an
objective look at the values that we are
receiving from our $2.1 billion. I would sug-
gest that these external management consult-
ants, people who are knowledgeable in busi-
ness procedures, could work through a select
committee of the House or the standing
committee. This could, by the approval of
the Legislature, meet in the period between
sessions— if such a period eventually develops.
We could use those people, in business and
in the community at large, who have expressed
the same kind of fears that the chamber of
commerce has expressed and who want to
have a hard, objective look at the expenditures
that are taking place.
We cannot, under these circumstances in
this House, undertake an extensive audit. We
have given this responsibihty to the provin-
cial auditor and to the committee on public
accounts— which, I am told, has just com-
pleted their 27th meeting of the session. But
to undertake a careful examination of the
expenditures this department, I believe, is
something that is required, is overdue and is
something that could be undertaken by the
standing committee in the way I have des-
cribed.
Fifth in this particular list of recommenda-
tions, Mr. Chairman, I return to the point I
made earlier. An established policy that will
put the school buildings, libraries and other
facilities into year-round use. With the end of
grade 13 departmental exams and a promo-
tion policy that releases students from writing
final exams at the secondary level, if they
achieve 60 per cent or better, we find the
secondary schools and community colleges
deserted for two to three months of the
year. There are exceptions, but in general,
you can shoot a cannon down a main corridor
of any of these schools tomorrow morning and
not hit anybody.
Now these schools are, relatively, out of
service and out of use for at least two months,
and under the new promotion policy, for
almost three months of the year. There is a
change here that surely can be worked for an
improvement of the efficiency of the system.
Mr. Chairman, with the staff at the colleges
of applied arts and technology being organ-
ized by the civil service association of
Ontario for bargaining procedures being an
accepted and strong decision on their part,
I believe still, that a single professional organ-
ization representing the profession at all levels
would strengthen the involvement of teachers
in the consultation that should precede policy
decisions by the Minister. His efforts in this
area have been seriously inadequate.
It should be basic that those experts and
those involved in education must have a full
opportunity to state their views before new
policy is imposed on the system.
The Minister is not using the facilities that
are available to him in this matter. He should
encourage the amalgamation of teachers' pro-
fessional organizations such as the elemen-
tary teachers', now divided into men's and
3900
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
women's organizations, as well as on a reli-
gious basis. He should consult the OSSTF,
the Catholic teachers' organization, the col-
leges of applied arts and technology and the
university organizations, so that their recom-
mendations on policy will reflect a balanced
overall view of the system.
No one objects to the maintenance of the
present multiplicity of organizations for bar-
gaining and other internal purposes, if that
is the wish of the people concerned. But the
Minister's concern is with the professional
aspects of teaching and I would submit, Mr.
Chairman, that the community, the profession
and the Minister, in his responsibility, would
benefit from this cohesion and coherence of
recommendations from the profession.
I also believe the Minister should insist
that these and other recognized organizations
receive an annual invitation to present their
views to the standing committee on educa-
tion. These should be convened early in each
session, not just when legislation is sent to it
by this House.
I also submit to the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, that he should use the elected members
of the House in select committees relating to
education. There has not been such a select
committee on education for many years. He
has a full array of royal commissions and
ministerial committees that have been exam-
ining the aims and objectives of education in
the province; the teaching of religion in the
schools; the improvement of grade 13— a
whole panoply of subjects, including teacher
education.
The members of this House have only, I
would say, a limited and inadequate oppor-
tunity to investigate the educational pro-
cedures in the province under the direction
of this Minister. I would submit to you, Mr.
Chairman, that this has been inadequate in
the past and it should be improved; it would
be in the future surely.
I am not making any political predictions,
it is a little soon for that; we will do that
maybe a year or two from now, but I would
submit that this Minister, more than any
other, is the one who ignores the members
of this House. He ignores the involvement
and the communication that can be accom-
plished by the individual members. He has
not given us the opportunity that select com-
mittees should give to become expert in edu-
cational matters and involved in procedures
and policies.
My final recommendation in this regard,
Mr. Chairman, is that it is the Minister's
responsibility to see to it that these consulta-
tions are not just head-patting procedures to
soothe groups who do not agree with his or
the government pohcy, but a meaningful
advance in the democratic process.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on
that subject. The Minister is a master at
soothing these people who, perhaps, come
before him or he travels out to visit, who
have objections to his policy. He is an able
politician. There is no doubt about that. I
have accused him of being an amateur psy-
chologist and even a psychiatrist on some
occasions. But, surely he must accept his role
of being the leader in the development of
meaningful consultation with all parts of the
educational establishment, with the citizens
of the province, before the imposition of the
policies that have been the earmark of his
particular responsibility in recent days.
Mr. Chairman, I beheve that the Minister,
the member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman),
and myself, are of one mind in our desire to
see continuity in the school system, as chil-
dren progress— ideally at their own speed, but
practically in groups of equal ability— through
the school system right up to grade 13 and
perhaps even beyond. Continuous progress
has so many advantages that administrative
barriers must be bulldozed out of the way to
allow this kind of development to take place.
But what I want to advocate today is the
downward extension of this desirable con-
tinuity, right into the nursery schools and the
day nurseries in many communities in this
province.
The day nursery programme, under the
direction of the Minister of Social and Family
Services (Mr. Yaremko), does not really fill the
need for good facilities for the young families
of working mothers. A similar programme
associated with the school system could pro-
vide neighbourhood facilities for younger
children at public expense— a programme that
would meet the needs of our rapidly changing
economy, with its work force including both
parents in so many cases.
More important, however, it would provide
the great impetus to education that properly
planned programmes for pre-grade school-age
children must develop. I am not recom-
mending exclusively a baby sitting service at
public expense. The Minister would agree, I
am sure, that, with modem techniques and
modem knowledge, the young people who
are even of pre-kindergarten age in many of
the centres that are characterized by inade-
quate home life, inadequate community
facilities— many of these young people would
JUNE 4, 1968
3901
benefit tremendously if, in the school system
itself, we could provide the facilities that I
have described.
I want to see proper staflF qualifications
being extended right through— a head start
type of programme, not all at once, but as
we can aflFord it and in the communities
where obvious advantages would be forth-
coming.
I notice some enthusiasm from my hon.
friend, the member for Scarborough East
(Mr. T. Reid), who has expressed on many
occasions his feeling that programmes of a
head start type to partially compensate for
the inadequate home life and community
facilities in the centre city situation— that
this is a matter that we could deal with
through an expanded appreciation of the
school system.
I do not want to anticipate the debate on
the estimates of The Department of Uni-
versity Affairs. However, the public is quite
clearly looking at education as a whole, as
we should in this House, and not in the
fragmented form that this department has
endowed. And, since we have in the one
Minister the embodiment of university affairs
and the total educational picture, I want to
use this opportunity, rather than a later one,
to relate the present stance of our universities
to the desire of the public to gain access to
these institutions of higher learning more
readily, and particularly by transfer from the
colleges of applied arts and technology.
The committee of Presidents of the uni-
versities of Ontario, in its announcement of
May 16, took a forvv'ard step. But it was a
timid one, and one that will not satisfy the
legitimate aspirations of the people of
Ontario, to share the opportunities that are
only obtainable today through access to
higher education. When people are refused
higher education, they are condemned to a
permanently lower standard of living. Be-
cause, while we favour advanced techniques
of discovery and learning at one's own rate at
the lower end of the spectrum, there comes
a moment of truth when society imposes its
iron will and demands paper qualifications.
At the moment this critical point seems to
be hovering around grade 13. For many stu-
dents it is in the colleges of applied arts and
technology that the sudden realization strikes
that is is not enough to be good at one's job,
one must also have formal academic dis-
ciplines in hand to make the grade in the
present social structure and reap the rewards
of conformity. This is unfortunate, but it is
abundantly true.
The announcement of May 16 says that the
universities of Ontario are, in general, pre-
pared to consider for admission tcl second-
year courses students who achieve hjgh stand-
ing in three-year programmes at IVyerson, or
one of the colleges of applied arts and tech-
nology. Thus the typical transfer stud^mt will
enter community college after grade 12,
complete a three-year course there with high
marks, if he i^ going to proceed— and I would
presume it would be in only a few of the
selected courses— then take a two-year course
at a university to receive a general bachelor
of arts degree. It will only take him one year
more than the majority of degree bound stu-
dents who take grade 13 and then a three-
year university course. So in this connection,
I believe that the consent of the presidents
in their attitude as we presently understand
it is an improvement. Their statement says:
Some universities will expect first class
standing from students to be considered,
others will expect high standing. Some
will base their consideration on the stand-
ing of a student in the final year of his
three-year programme, others on his stand-
ing throughout the programme.
So there is by no means a clear academic
pathway leading to degree situation.
Now I do not want to impose on the uni-
versity's prerogative in this and yet the Min-
ister himself is aware of the danger in the
system, at all levels, of becoming compart-
mentalized. He has even referred in his own
remarks to that programme that we used to
call the Robarts' plan, becoming somewhat
compartmentalized. That he is prepared to
move away from the old three-stream ap-
proach to one which will provide what, I
suppose, might be called by some— a cafeteria
approach— in the options and subjects that
are available. It seems strange that we have
come to the point where we talk about the
Robarts programme as the old programme,
but I suppose with the passage of time even
that phrase would fit into the category.
The new provisions as expressed by the
university presidents will also allow a second-
year student of high standing in a community
college to transfer to a first-year programme
in university.
In the light of changed conditions in our
society, I am not convinced that this reply
goes far enough. I would be the last one to
want to water down high academic standards,
or make degrees available off the shelf, but
for legitimate aspirants to academic standing,
the climate is still too frosty for my liking.
3902
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Surely we now have to face the reality of
a different kind of matriculation— the matri-
culation of endurance, perhaps, and certainly
of maturity. This was recognized after World
War IL The veterans who had the will to
further their education, did not meet the kind
of closed door that some of our graduates of
the community colleges may well encounter
still, unless public opinion asserts itself. For-
tunately I think that it will. There is a differ-
ence between legitimate academic freedom
and autonomy on the one hand and, perhaps,
academic snobbery, or a hold over of that
attitude, on the other.
We here are agents and we are spokesmen
for the vast community of would-be learners;
as they pay their taxes, to some extent they
pay their fees. The balance of fees must, of
course, still be paid individually and there
must be individual ability, of course, before
entrance qualifications can be recognized.
But no one has the right to slam the door in
die face of the honest student who may have
come to admission standard through a late
or unusual route, or through self-help along
unconventional lines.
Matriculation is surely maturing, and most
of all in reasoning power. We all come to it
in different ways. There has to be some new
way of measuring the ability of the student
to transfer from the level that the community
college can offer him, to the greater possi-
bility of tlie university. There cannot be just
one transfer level; there must be several, so
that no one who can ultimately make a con-
tribution to society is denied the opportunity
of so doing.
I do not want to emphasize just the trans-
ference from community college to university.
The same is true, I submit, of graduates from
the ordinary grade 13 course, or newcomers
to our country who had their education in
another atmosphere entirely. The new de-
partmental approach to examinations has left
the student and his acceptance at university
at the mercy of a subjective rating.
The old-fashioned final exam used to be a
place where a failing grade could be re-
couped through extraordinary effort or a
super application of a good intelligence that
had l:)een occupied with other matters dur-
ing the year. I do not want to dwell on this,
but I can think of situations where, after
repeated warnings of failure by the teacher
and the principal, and so on, a student was
able to get good passing standing simply by
the open door of the final examination, which
really no longer exists in that form.
The new approach tends to force students
into tlie conforming mould from which
teacher approval is gained. Our efforts to
establish an acceptable objective assessment
of students' readiness and ability for post-
secondary work must be increased. This
method, or preferably series of methods,
must open a door for mature students and
those who have continued their education
along less recognized lines.
Specifically, then, the elementary and sec-
ondary system must provide each student
with the most objective personal rating as a
basis for admission to post-secondary institu-
tions. A broader approach to transfer and
admission is needed, that would set out stand-
ard procedures, so that anyone may be
tested, interviewed and rated, to allow stu-
dents of any age with any background to be
individually assessed. In this way all the
doors to further education can be kept open,
as I believe they must.
Mr. Chairman, you might not beheve it,
but both the Minister and myself have been
endeavouring to keep opening remarks to a
minimum, realizing that the more informal
discussion of the estimates is the place where
specific matters can be discussed. But I do
feel that this is a time where I can agree
with the Minister, when we talk about the
superb schools we have in the province.
Superb in that we no longer have the old
institutions with the oiled floors, the creaking
stairs, the incandescent lights, and the dedi-
cated teachers.
We now find teachers with better profes-
sional training, perhaps on the average, than
they have ever had. They have, I suppose,
a very reasonable acceptance of their re-
sponsibility as teachers and as citizens. It is
different from what it used to be, and for
this I suppose we can say, "Hear, hear." Even
the Minister and myself, and all the other
members of the House who still feel that
they can understand the young mind— that
they are not like those moss-backs who are
separated from the new generation— must
eventually come to the point that, in fact, we
are separated from the new generation.
The rate of change is faster even than
politicians realize. All of us, as we grow old,
are joining that old gang that we used to
hear say, "where will it all end?"— "who is
going to balance the budget?"— and this sort
of thing. We find ourselves associating more
than we used to with this kind of an attitude.
It is something, I suppose, that we must be-
ware of.
JUNE 4, 1968
3903
Certainly when Marshall McLuhan, who is
evidently back in town, predicts that the
student revolt is going to get down into the
secondary level and predicts, facetiously no
doubt, that the secondary schools will be in
flames as will the Pentagon; I guess he has
not really applied it to Queen's Park yet. He
is giving a kind of a warning, a warning that
the attitudes in the education system are
changing perhaps more rapidly than any of
us realize.
It is diflBcult to keep in touch with these
attitudes, even around the breakfast table,
as the Minister may perhaps appreciate, and
it is our responsibility to see that the system
is in fact up to date, and is in fact meeting
the needs for the young people who are not
going to move into our world, they are going
to move into their own world which will be
very different from ours.
It is a warning that is important— that the
Minister and those members of this House
who have special responsibilities in education
must be careful that we do not grow old
too soon, ond smart too late. It is an easy
thing to see the sun shining on the upper
slopes of the education system. It is easy
to overlook the third-rate and fifth-rate edu-
cational opportunities that are found in so
many communities in this province.
We are delighted to be called upon in this
House to vote huge sums of money to support
a system that we trust is the best that money
can buy, but the time has come when we
must go on something more than trust. We
must have assurances that are based on
objective and independent examinations, we
must see to it that the milieu— a word that the
Minister himself used the other day— the
milieu of education, as it extends out into
the community from the school building
itself is, in fact, meeting the needs of modem
students for a modem world; not our world,
but the world of tomorrow.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, it gives me very great pleasure
to take part in this debate on the estimates
of The Department of Education. One could
not help but be impressed, and pleased with
the comments which the Minister made both
this afternoon and this evening. It is very
good to see a progressive thmst being taken
towards the ending of some of the more
Neanderthal aspects of our educational
system.
I wonder if I might comment for a moment
on what the Minister said this afternoon,
because it does bother me. It bothers me very
greatly, because I think in the two documents
which he presented to the House there is
great hope and great expectation, but one can-
not help but wonder at the method by which
these expectations are going to come about.
The thing which bothers me is this. Along
with all these many programmes— one can
scarcely describe them all— but along with
this, is the concept of decentralization, where-
by The Department of Education will be— I
think I am paraphrasing the remarks of the
Minister— will be the research and planning
agency, and also, of course, the agency for
distributing funds. Whereas the local boards,
the enlarged local boards, which the Minis-
ter has provided for in the recent legislation,
will have, in essence, the main role for carry-
ing out these programmes.
I think there is something basically danger-
ous about this concept, and I do want to dis-
cuss this for a moment. I am not sure how
you can expect people at the local level to
carry out the kind of exciting new revolution-
ary programmes which have been suggested
in sections of this report when, indeed, they
themselves are only being brought along now
to accept some of the implications of the
programmes The Department of Education
has put into effect in the last five or ten years.
I do not see how you can plan at the centre
and leave it to the local community to carry
out those plans. Now you can use the carrot,
you can use the grant stmcture, I realize
that, but certainly in many many areas, this
has not been the case. I am concemed that
the planning is going to be entirely at the
centre for one thing, because I do not think
that the local community wall carry out plans
that they are not themselves a part of. I
really worry about the division which the
Minister has indicated is going to take place
in the implementation of the plans and the
planning that takes place beforehand.
I have a great deal of faith in local auton-
omy, and I am with the Minister on the fact
that you cannot impose progress, you cannot
force local autliorities to bring in exciting new
programmes, exciting new curricula and new
administrative procedures and so on. You can-
not impose them, but I suggest to him also
that you cannot decentralize the power and
then expect these local authorities to come up
with the same answers which the department
wishes.
In many of these areas I think there will
have to be a degree of push or pressure, a
degree of— well I think almost the use of the
"stick" is going to be necessary in some cases
to force local authorities to move in some
3904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
areas. In other areas I realize, and the Minis-
ter knows— I have suggested in the past— local
authorities have been ahead of The Depart-
ment of Education in going into new pro-
grammes and so on, and I am concerned about
this trend.
For example you have got a number of
commission reports coming down, in the next
few months. The Hall committee report, I
suspect, will be coming down very soon. The
Keiller Mackay commission report will be
coming down; the Minister has just announced
that we are going to have another commission
on the training of secondary school teachers,
and the implications of all these reports, is
that you cannot train secondary school
teachers in the province, and then send them
out into local jurisdictions which have no
relationship in terms of their philosophy, in
terms of their curricula, and of their whole
milieu to the institution which created that
teacher. I suspect, indeed, that much of what
the Hall committee is going to say is already
in this report. I suspect the Minister's speech
is almost the Hall committee report. That is
just a guess. I would suspect that a great deal
of time has moved on.
At the time when the Hall committee was
set up, the things which the Minister was
saying this afternoon would have been
regarded as extremely revolutionary, but,
you know, the fullness of time— as the Minister
says— the fullness of time has wrought these
changes, and now these things do not appear
quite as revolutionary and as unacceptable
to the professional as perhaps it was some time
time ago.
I want to leave that point in the Minister's
mind— this problem of the decentralization of
authority and control at a time when you are
trying to encourage revolutionary change. At
a time, indeed, when time itself demands
revolutionary change, because the leader of
the Opposition commented on the whole
problem of the new generation and the gen-
eration gap, which is widening and is con-
tinuing to widen. The demands of a gener-
ation which in many cases can be seen per-
haps most efiFectively at the centre, rather
than on the local scene where it appears they
may be undermining local authority and the
ways that things have been done over the
years.
Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that I
have, on the opening remarks on the Minis-
ter's estimates, I would like to do as the Min-
ister did this afternoon. I was very pleased
to see that we had discussed the whole ques-
tion of philosophy rather than a piling up of
all the activities of the department over the
past year. And I wonder if I might this eve-
ning continue that same activity of the Min-
ister, seeking to establish the philosophic
basis on which we are working. And at times
my remarks may seem rather philosophic,
even esoteric, but I suggest that in the first
session of this Legislature it is not amiss that
we should talk a little about the philosophy
with which we are going to judge all the esti-
mates that come after. Perhaps it is impor-
tant just to state the obvious, that the kind
of education system that we create reveals,
perhaps more than in any other area, what
we believe about the individual, and what
we believe about the individual's relationship
to his society; what we really believe about
society itself.
Obviously if we look upon the individual
as an economic unit, we will reflect this in
our teachings to the individual. If the indi-
vidual is looked upon merely as a unit to be
conditioned and pressiu-ed, whether it is to
produce good citizens or to produce good
consumers, once again this will be reflected
in the kind of educational system that we will
construct. If the educational system is starved
of support, particularly in certain areas, it
tells something about the priorities of that
particular society, and indeed it is a very
good way to measure the quality of that
society.
In criticizing this department, I am aware
of the fact that I am dealing with a depart-
ment which is led by a very able Minister
backed by a great many able and well-
trained assistants. I think that the value of
these estimates will not be, I am sure, eitiier
from the point of view of the Opposition, or
the Minister, in finding great difl^erences of
opinion in terms of the progress. I think that
what we may very well find is what the
priorities are and where the first priority of
the government is placed, and where is placed
that of the Opposition members.
Also, I think that it is an opportunity to
discover as to whether the estimates as they
are set out in this House really carry out
these priorities which the government itself
has stated. Someone said that it was very
easy to be critical of education. In fact,
Edgar Friedenberg said: "I do not know why
I am called a critic of the education system.
Being a critic of the education system is like
being a critic of cancer."
Well, I think that there are some aspects
of that quote which bother me, because I
think of a cancer as being largely destructive,
and education as constructive. There is also
JUNE 4, 1968
3905
an interesting concept there because cancer
in some ways is an uncontrolled, undisci-
plined, unchecked growth which in itself can
be destructive. I would suggest that this is
one of the major dangers of this department.
There was a time when I complained rather
bitterly— as someone who, indeed, felt the full
impact of the department in my position in
life— that the department never seemed to
move and it was like a great big huge dino-
saur. If you build a big enough fire under
the tail, then about ten years later, it might
move a few inches. I think that this element
of the department is gone. I think that it has
a new image of being quite progressive and
that it is moving. But I suggest to you that
even this movement can be self destructive,
unless that movement is somehow directed
and unless there is a full realization of the
inter-relationship between every decision that
is made within the educational system.
You cannot play around with grade 13,
without it having a very serious effect upon
the university world. You cannot play around
with grade 13 without it having very great
implications in all the grades leading up to
it, and I think that these are some of the
areas where there has been, I suggest, a lack
of sensitivity in the past.
Sometimes decisions are made too quickly
without sufiScient consultation with other
people who are concerned and without the
full recognition which this decision might
have in modifying existing programmes or in
creating the need for trained personnel who
simply are not available. We have no right
to demand perfection of an educational sys-
tem. I do think, however, that we do have a
right to demand relevance.
I want to suggest a few areas where at
least the educational system should have com-
plete relevance and I think that is what we
will be doing as we probe these estimates.
Now certainly one aim which the Minister
of Education has indicated to the Opposition
on many occasions is his belief that the edu-
cational system should provide equality of
educational opportunity. In fact, I think that
this is the major reason why he has placed
Bill 44 to reorganize the entire school juris-
diction of the province of Ontario
What does this really mean? If it just
means that there should be facilities and pro-
grammes that are available to every student,
then I think that there is a very real differ-
ence of opinion. If, however, he means, Mr.
Chairman, that this department is responsible
for overcoming those handicaps and dis-
advantages on the part of young people so
that they can fully receive those opportun-
ities, then we are in agreement.
The great irony of the educational system
in this jurisdiction and in nearly every other
jurisdiction is that most of the public money
spent on education ends up in the hands of
those who are of the upper incomes. It is
far more likely that a student from a home of
professionals will graduate from high school,
will graduate from university, will do graduate
work, go to a medical school and may benefit
to the extent of some $20,000 to $25,000 of
public money, while on the other hand, a
student from a deprived home, culturally, or
economically, may very well quit at the end
of grade 10 at the worst. I would suggest
that undoubtedly the reorganized programme
has to some extent lengthened that for at
least two years to the end of grade 12. But
at best, he will go on possibly into a four year
programme and a college of applied arts and
technology.
We are talking about equality of educa-
tional opportunity. I suggest to you a reor-
ganization of our system. I am pleased to
see that we are going to see a far greater
degree of movement and flexibihty and
motion in the three-pronged reorganized
programme. Perhaps these will disappear.
They have already begun to in some experi-
mental schools I know.
I am very glad to see that, because in many
cases, what is happening is that those who
are culturally or economically at a disadvan-
tage, are inducted in a programme which
places them out of the stream of receiving the
greatest degree of educational opportunity for
the ability which they have, for obvious
economic reasons. I think that it would be
unfortunate. I would hope to see that sociolo-
gists would be able to take a look at the
student population of the province of Ontario
in five or ten years, and I would regard this
as a major victory for social justice in this
country if we could find that at least a com-
parable percentage of students who are in
university in a college of applied arts and
technology and even those who are dropping
out are from the full range of income levels.
I think that this would be a major step for-
ward, to recognize that indeed, not only are
the facihties being provided, but that every
young person is going to the facihty for which
he has the ability and in which he can gain
the skill he needs. In order to do this, the
money must be placed at the bottom of the
scale. We are working at the other end of the
3906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
scale. Our province of Ontario student aid
programme, the student bursary — these are
largely at the other end of the scale in their
efforts to provide an opportunity for those
who do not have the economic advantages
of others who are in the system. But the point
remains, that if the young person is not shored
up in terms of motivation in the early years,
then the game is up.
He never does go on to university and he
may very well not go on to a college of
apphed arts and technology. That is what I
mean by a recognition of the responsibility of
this department to give grants to special
classes, pre-school classes for those who are
culturally deprived. Now the leader of the
Opposition has called it the—
Mr, Nixon: Head start programme.
Mr. Pitman: —the head start programme.
I think it is called the bootstrap programme
in some parts of the United States.
Now in the United States, of course, there
is a particular problem because they are
virtually trying to stop the burning down of
their cities through a problem which obviously
has to be dealt with. But I suggest to you,
in the name of justice — not simply in the
name of stopping future chaos— this province
has an opportunity now to move ahead in this
particular area; to train special teachers for
this kind of war. They may very well not be
the kind of teachers that need the academic
training which is proposed for those who are
going into elementary and secondary schools.
I do not think we have begun to use the
medium of television. Television goes into
nearly every home in Ontario and if this could
be a medium by which The Department of
Education could provide opportunities within
the home along with specialized services
which would have to accompany that kind of
an impetus, I think that this province would
be making a tremendous step in terms of
progress of education in this country.
I know that there are exciting things being
done in the intercity schools and most of
them, of course, are in the city in which this
Legislature is to be found.
But, unfortunately, these are isolated cases.
There are rurally deprived students too. I
know that the Minister hopes that this new
legislation may do something about this, but
it will have to take more than this legislation.
It means special grants, a special impetus.
There are even suburban culturally deprived
people as well. Well, I hope that this will
be an area for a major initiative of this
department.
But perhaps the worst gap of all is involved
with emotionally-disturbed children. I remem-
ber reading just a short while ago, a comment
by the trustee for the Toronto school board,
William Ross, who said that the report which
is presented to the Toronto school board
stated that there were 1,100 children waiting
to see a school psychologist as of January 31.
And he indicated there may be 1,900 by the
end of the school year.
Toronto school trustee, William Ross, said
that there is no way the board of education
could ever provide the services needed
by children with learning and psychiatric
problems.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the
place that we can deal with emotionally-
disturbed children first, is the place where
tliey are all to be found eventually, where
they can be identified, where the degree of
emotional disturbance can be assessed, where
at least preventive measures can be taken,
where indeed it can be decided if the emo-
tionally-disturbed child will do best in an
ordinary school setting, or in a special class-
room, of whether it may very well need a
residential school setting in order to provide
the equality of educational opportunity for
that particular kind of child. Just as The
Department of Education has shown its con-
cern for retarded children, I am hoping that
the department will not feel it necessary to
wait until all the emotionally disturbed chil-
dren are organized under committees or under
the society for emotionally disturbed children
or something of this sort; but indeed, the
department will find it possible to move
ahead on this in a much more obviously
necessary way.
It seems to me that equality of educational
opportunity is a major problem which the
Minister faces. This revolves around the
whole question of the larger units. There is
every opportunity, I would suggest, for the
larger unit to produce this kind of educational
opportunity but I am wondering how the
Minister is going to be able to provide that
educational opportunity, that equality, in some
of the areas of this province; particularly,
areas in this province where the tax base
simply will not allow it.
Now I realize that in the introduction of
this bill and in the committee dealing with
this bill, he has suggested that we can round
the tax base over a larger area and provide
stability of tax base. But the great problem
is, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the
great problem is that in many areas the urban
society itself is finding it difficult to provide
JUNE 4, 1968
3907
the kind of educational services it wishes and
to talk of dissipating that base over a larger
area is simply unrealistic.
I know the grant structure was raised this
year in a minimum sort of way, but until
there is a realistic recognition that we can no
longer support education through taxation on
property, we can never really solve the
problems which we are going to face in this
country and in this province,
I might just quote from an article by Mr.
Harold Greer:
No end to education cost rise— buried in
the technical papers which accompanied
the Ontario Budget this week are three
pages of text and two tables of statistics
which spell nothing but gloom for Ontario
taxpayers. There is no escape in this life-
time they say from the ever-spiralling costs
of education. The poor taxpayer who has
been hoping that the load will become at
least rapidly lighter as the economy grows
and the birth rate declines can forget it.
The budget projection show that, as far as
the eye can see, education costs will far
outstrip economic growth.
In recent years, provincial spending for
education of all levels has been increasing
at an annual rate of about 25 per cent.
With this budget it has now passed the
one billion mark— $1,260 million to be exact
or 41 per cent of all provincial expendi-
tures. The projection shows that elementary
school enrollment, which this year stands
at 1,392,000 pupils, will continue to rise in
absolute terms until 1971, after which very
slight declines will take place. But that is
not the area, of course, where the great
expenses will be found in education.
Today's annual operating costs per
student in the province for example are,
$482 for elementary schools, $1,027 for
secondary schools, $1,800 for technological
colleges and $2,970 for universities. They
are expected to rise during the next eight
years to $729 for elementary schools,
$1,687 for secondary schools, $2,980 for
technological colleges and $5,497 for uni-
versities. These are increases of 51 per
cent, 64 per cent, 65 per cent and 85
per cent respectively. Combined with the
enrollment this means the total operating
cost of the elementary schools in 1975-1976
will be $1,040 million, an increase of 55
per cent against an enrollment increase of
2,4 per cent; of secondary schools $943
million, up 99 per cent against an enroll-
ment increase of 21 per cent; of techno-
logical colleges $330 million, up 850 per
cent against an enrollment increase of 467
per cent; and of universities $668 million,
up 185 per cent against an enrollment
increase of 54 per cent.
Those figures are pretty terrifying when one
thinks of the taxation base on which educa-
tion is being supported at least at the
elementary and secondary levels and I think
that perhaps these statistics, more than any
other statistics that we have seen in this
House, would establish the fact.
In some areas, the larger units will not be
able to provide the kinds of programmes that
are suggested in the Minister's speech and
in his accompanying report. In some areas,
where an urban area is looking after a region
which up until now received 95 per cent of
the cost of education, the larger unit, unless
the province takes over an increasing amount
and places that taxation on other sources, is
going to be able to give the equality of
educational opportunity. Perhaps, at one time,
placing the education costs on an immobile
population and agricultural society made
some sense; but today it makes no sense
whatsoever.
What I am afraid of, Mr, Chairman, is
that there is going to be a backlash. The
Premier was out speaking in some part of
Ontario and he mentioned the psychological
effect it would create to have these taxation
bills arriving in each home so that the person
could see just how much they are paying for
education. Well, I am wondering if we may
not very well be over-psychoanalyzing the
Ontario taxpayer. I am wondering what he
is going to think when he sees that it is his
education costs which are undermining his
economic viability as an individual in this
society. When he sees these costs spiralling
and sees no hope by which he can come out
of it.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of
the major dangers to the very projects the
Minister has put forward. Most of the projects
that he is suggesting in this report-I will not
say that they are entirely experimental, I will
not say that they are not repeated in many
other areas-but I think that he has in some
cases taken an example from what could be
called a more progressive area, in a school
with a more progressive principal or admin-
istrator. And I am sure he would not want us
to generalize and indicate that the examples
that he gave were to be found right across
this province.
If that is what he wants to see right across
this province, and unless this province is ready
to take up to 80 per cent of the cost of edu-
cation, and place that cost where it belongs-
3908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in more progressive sources of taxation— we
have no hope of having the kind of educa-
tional system which the Minister has placed
before us in this speech.
I hope the Minister is spending a great deal
of his time before the Treasury board, before
the Cabinet, indicating tlie serious situation in
which this government will find itself, and
this Minister will find himself, unless there is
some recognition of the obvious nature of this
demand.
I was very interested in the Minister's com-
ments which were found in the Globe and
Mail, I am not sure of the date, in which he
made a rather interesting comment, interest-
ing observation: Ontario industry will have to
start allocating money each year for the prime
purpose of keeping Ontario-trained men and
women in the province. And he goes on to
point out that the greatest resource is talented
creative people. He went on to ask: but could
industry be encouraged to go into partnership
with the government in education and re-
search.
He did not spell it out, but he thought
federal tax incentives might be the answer.
A subject on which federal and provincial
governments— all interested in productivity-
should be able to reach agreement.
Well, there is one step forward, I tliink, and
the Minister's thinking is indicated in that
article. I would hope that we might well find
other sources. Obviously, income tax is a far
more sensible, a far more progressive way of
collecting taxes for education than the one
that we have at present.
Now, in terms of relevance, not only do I
think that it is relevant to the Minister's aim
of a society in which education is equally
available, but also I think it has to be the
kind of educational system which must be
relevant to a more free and open society. I
think one of the great fears of parents in this
province, as the Minister has undoubtedly
found in the last number of weeks, is that a
great many people— and they are not just
trustees, or former trustees, or soon to ^e
former trustees, they are parents— fear that the
enlarging jurisdictions may very well cut them
off from some degree of being able to exert
pressure and influence upon the education of
their children.
The Minister has indicated that these local
areas will have so much more opportunity to
provide for the differences, for the regional
differences, and so on, that in essence, it could
mean a greater degree of influence by parents
within a school area. But, I suggest, to you,
that this has to be structured so that there
must be local councils related to each individ-
ual school in these larger areas.
I know the Minister will tell me that I must
read his speech to the home and school asso-
ciation. I suggest to you that home and school
associations speeches are very excellent, and
encouraging them to move ahead and giving
them more money is all to the good, but, 1
suggest to you, that it has to be structured. I
suggest to you that it must include parents, it
must also include students, and I suggest, as
well, that this local advisory council to each
individual school should also include teachers.
So often these are people who are forgotten
when it comes to making suggestions.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I am not quite sure of
the implications of the Minister's interjection,
but I suggest to the Minister that it will be
very, very necessary that we have this kind of
opportunity in each individual school if we
are going to be able to carry out these new
programmes and make them relevant to that
school, and to tlie kind of free and open
society which we are talking about.
As well as that, I have suggested that we
desperately need some dialogue, and a mean-
ingful one, that will include students. Now,
I was very interested that an organization,
which I am sure the Minister would not only
applaud, but I am sure that he would en-
courage, are the Friends of Zac Phimister,
former Deputy Minister of this department.
In the memorial for Mr. Zac Phimister, it has
been suggested that they might very well con-
sider providing some kind of conference for
young people, to encourage young people to
help in the administration of their own schools.
If I might just read a paragraph or two of
this memorial. This is the Deputy Minister:
He envisaged a degree of responsibility
offered to, and accepted by, the young
people in the schools. Though he himself
was a part of the schools run by an authori-
tarian hierarchy, he had been profoundly
impressed by instances seen in his travels,
of schools virtually run by their students,
with highly successful results. He encour-
aged this objective in his contacts with
Canadian teachers, and made a speech to
the Ontario secondary schools headmasters'
council in 1966.
I am confident that there are men in this
room who could push this concept of stu-
dent responsibility further and develop,
over a period of years, a tradition of self
government and participation in school life
which will do much to ease the burden on
the teachers and create a sense of responsi-
JUNE 4, 1968
3909
bility in the whole student body. It would
have far-reaching eflFects on the attitude of
students to schools, both while they are in
attendance and after they leave.
I would hope that in future, as Mr. Barry
Lowes suggests— to quote another educational
authority— that students will have far more of
a role than of simply choosing the colour of
the crepe paper for the annual dance. They
are going to be involved in basic decisions,
along with parents, and along with their
teachers, in what the kind of curriculum will
be in that school, and the kind of adminis-
trative procedures in that school; that they
will have some input instead of simply being
the objects of the educational process and
simply being put upon, so to speak, by every
other sector in the educational spectrum.
Well, I realize the Minister will say that
this is not his responsibility, and to a large
extent it is not, but I would suggest that it is,
through the bulletins that are under the direc-
tion of this Minister; the directives that are
sent out; the teacher training; the principal's
training courses which are still in the hands
of the provincial government; the kind of
philosophy which permeates each of the juris-
dictions under his control.
Thirdly, I would suggest that this depart-
ment must be relevant to a technological
society.
Now we are, I think, in a society of which
we have a great many depersonalizing forces.
We see them all around us, on our television
sets, in advertising, and I suggest that one of
the major roles of an educational system will
be that of trying to combat depersonalization.
And I would only quote to him the comments
of a man within his own department,
Bascombe St. John:
I sometimes think we ask our schools to
do much too complex a job, that we should
be seeking, with urgency, to simplify,
integrate and co-ordinate the knowledge
that we impart. Far too little thought is
being given to subjective, or to the means
of realizing it. If education is going to have
a significant future, an answer to the
problem of the individual in the mass
society will have to be found. And there
is not much time.
I see many of these programmes where this
very end could come as a result, and I can
only hope that the Minister will provide the
kixKls of grants and the kind of impetus
pipeded.
I come back again to this decentralization,
because I have seen, so very often, men who
have made an impact from coming from the
department and going into the local area. I
know inspectors are a bad name, but I can
remember very great men— George Gray, men
like Robert Wallace, men like the man who
will be sitting in front of the Minister very
soon this evening. They have made a very
great impact on education, by their influence
from the centre going out into these areas,
and I am very concerned that that influence
not disappear.
To carry on to the relevance to this tech-
nological aid. It has many implications. I
think it means lowered teacher-pupil ratios.
It means using teaching machines not simply
for the sake of saving money, but in order to
provide individual instruction for individual
needs. Educational TV is going to have to be
brought in with the greatest care and sensi-
tivity so that there will not be any effort to
find ways of replacing teachers, or providing
larger classes, or any of these depersonalizing
aspects which educational TV can produce,
and has produced. I have seen this at another
level. A technological society means a chang-
ing society, and many of the things which the
Minister has suggested would, I hope, provide
for a kind of flexibility of mind.
I hope that the Hall committee, which I
understand is dealing with the grades 1 to 6,
at least in part, will come out with a curricu-
lum which will make some kind of meaning
to young people in the grades 1 to 6. So
much of what is done in those early years,
which are perhaps the most important years
of a young person's educational life, are so
completely meaningless. We teach them
history before they have any sense of time,
or any sense of causation or have any sense
of human motivation, and we call it social
studies. Yet we fail to teach them languages
which most educational authorities would
indicate could be taught at that age with
some meaning and some efi^ect and, indeed,
with some enjoyment on the part of the
students.
I suggest it is time to re-shape the whole
curricula. Get rid of the old subject boxes
and let us try dealing with information and
with experience. Now, I am going to try not
to use the name of Marshall McLuhan;
these kids may never have heard of Marshall
McLuhan, but they are of Marshall McLuhan,
and they do see present experience, a con-
tinium; they do not divide your experience
into little boxes as we do in schools. They
have been to Expo and they can see what
exciting ways that information can be a part
of their experience. They watch their tele-
3910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
vision sets and they have seen the onrush of
events in terms of knowledge acquisition.
And I suggest to the Minister, that this may
he the case in a fev/ classrooms, but in many
classrooms this kind of experience is not
there, and I would suggest that before that
kind of experience can be theirs, there must
be a massive retraining of teachers far beyond
the kind of training which has been done in
the sort of haphazard Saturday morning way
by various organizations and various agencies,
and even by the department itself.
I do not know how it can be done; by a
rotation basis, by providing special grants or
the local bodies to allow certain number of
teachers to go out for retraining, but it must
be done. We cannot put new wine in the old
bottles which, in many cases, happen to be
sitting at the front of classrooms across this
province. And I think this is a major respon-
sibility which I hope will remain in the hands
of the department and the Minister's officials,
because this is something which the local
boards and local jurisdictions cannot look
after.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I suggest
there are a number of things which this
department must do if it is going to be able
to deal with the rise of expectancy which has
come about as a result of the Minister's legis-
lation in this Legislature, and also as a result
of the speech and the documents which he
brought before the chamber this afternoon
and this evening. First, as I say, a major
refinancing of education. Second, the taking
over of the entire cost of educating groups
such as the emotionally disturbed. Major
efforts to reach culturally or economically
deprived young people at an early age. A
major overhaul of curriculum. Destroying
subject-orientation and ignoring the tradi-
tion-bound and meaningless material which
inhabits so much of the curriculum. A massive
retraining of teachers by the department.
More action on teacher training in the provin-
cial universities. A more effective use of
personnel.
I would suggest that one of the areas where
the educational system has so much human
wastage is in administering schools where, in
many cases, you have people with graduate
degrees phoning up mothers of children who
are not present in school. And, I suggest, we
need to completely pyramid our idea of edu-
cational personnel, with perhaps a principal
and a whole team, which would include
people who could look after certain aspects
of education where fully-trained teachers are
not necessary. A far greater use of teachers'
assistants, and even parents in the educational
system. I suggest, to you, that these are the
only ways that we are going to be able to
carry out the kind of hopes that have been
suggested here this afternoon and this eve-
ning.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just to deal
very briefly in reply to some of the observa-
tions made by the leader of the Opposition
and the member for Peterborough, may I say
at the outset— and I say this most sincerely-
that I think their comments tonight, for the
most part, were really very constructive and
indicated an awareness not only of the com-
plexities of the problems that we face col-
lectively in the field of education, but also
recognition that the solutions to the problems
are not always readily or easily found.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that I
appreciate this, as I say, for the most part,
constructive approach to these estimates be-
cause, as the leader of the Opposition has
pointed out, and I think with great validity,
it is not just the sums of money involved
v/hich are, let us face it, staggering. It relates
very basically, to the direction that really can,
and should, be given to the total community.
And I think this is becoming, increasingly, a
responsibility of an educational system, what-
ever jurisdiction it may serve.
At the same time, I think it is necessary
to point out two or three areas where I am
not in complete agreement with some of the
suggestions offered by the members opposite,
and I am sure that these observations will be
taken in the same spirit of a constructive
nature that I think has been demonstrated,
so far, in this discussion.
I think, Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed
out, to the leader of the Opposition, that we
as a department— and I think the total educa-
tional community, if one can use this tenu-
is really keenly aware not only of the prob-
lem of the provision of physical plant and its
cost, but the whole question of greater utili-
zation. I think this is inherent really in the
opening statement that was made, but I think
at the same time, Mr. Chairman, we must be
very realistic in our assessment of these prob-
lems and understand that once again the
question of utilization or greater utilization
is not easily determined.
It has been suggested to me on several
occasions that perhaps we could use the phy-
sical plant 12 months a year; the students
could go to school for prolonged periods of
time, or you could even introduce a semester
system at the secondary level. But the leader
JUNE 4, 1968
3911
of the Opposition I tliink is well aware of the
implications, shall we say, of a semester
system at the secondary level; of the impact
it might have from an economic standpoint
on, shall we say, the tourist industry, the use
of the summer months so far as family holi-
days are concerned.
Of course, if you move into a semester
operation and this is what we have found at
Ryerson and at Guelph University, you also
get into the question of the provision of addi-
tional staff. And when you provide additional
staff for, shall we say, a semester type of
operation, then you negate some of the sav-
ings you might experience by utilization of
the physical plant for a longer period of time.
I think— and I like to think I am relatively
objective— that there is a growing interest and
desire on the part of the local school authori-
ties to more fully utilize the school plant, and
this is extending into the summer months
through the use of summer courses to assist
those students who have some difficulties in
one or two subjects during the current aca-
demic year.
Mr. Nixon: Would the Minister know what
proportion of boards provide summer school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot tell the hon.
member, but I shall endeavour to get the
information. We do not have statistics relat-
ing to this yet but we shall have when the
divisional boards are created. I think it is
fair to state that there are not enough areas
doing it, but once again you get into the
problem that some of the students who might
wish to participate, get involved again in the
traditional holiday situation. And some other
students wish to work and sometimes have to
put work ahead of a continuing educational
programme. This is something we experience.
Mr. B. Newman: Are there extra grants to
boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, there is no extra grant
at this stage.
Mr. B. Newman: That is one of the reasons
why the idea is not spreading.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not think so; at
least my experience has been that it is not
related to the cost or the question of grants.
It really has been related in many areas to a
question of interest. Once again, I do not
want to be over-optimistic but I do not think
there is any question that the provision of the
larger units, particularly in the rural or less
urbanized areas, will expedite the provision
of summer courses for many of the students
in those communities. It is really in the urban
centres where they presently exist.
I was interested in the approach of the
hon, leader of the Opposition when he was
making a very strong presentation— and I
must say to him, once again very sincerely,
I really found those parts of his speech when
he departed from the prescribed text were
really more helpful than some of those that
were prescribed.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member wanted a
copy of my speech at McMaster and it was
anything but—
Mr. Sopha: The Minister would not give
me one.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh I will; I have asked
that one be provided for you.
Mr. Sopha: You have been holding it in
front of me like a carrot in front of a rabbit
for about three days.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, just one day. Mr.
Chairman, I have to be fair with the hon.
member for Sudbury. He asked for it yester-
day, which was Monday; today is Tuesday,
it has not been three days.
Mr. Sopha: It seems like three days.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not realize your
anticipation was this great. I shall endeavour
to expedite it for you.
Now getting back to the question of, shall
we say, standardized plans, and I think on
this occasion the leader of the Opposition
referred to standardized modular plans— and
I think perhaps he might check his notes,
because this is really quite relevant.
If you will read Hansard carefully— because
we debated this at some length— we are just
as concerned as the members opposite in find-
ing ways and means of reducing the cost of
the physical school plant. Our studies in other
jurisdictions, and I mentioned this, I think,
in the last session, indicate that standardized
plans per se do not hold out the answer, we
feel, to reduction in construction costs. But
what we do feel is there is a possibility— and
the report of the Metro board is not finalized
—the leader of the Opposition is referring to
the first phase of the report which, as I
pointed out, the department is helping to
finance— there is a possibility that the modular
approach-
Mr. Nixon: Choose the right word.
Hon. Mr. Davis: —and we are as anxious
as he is, Mr. Chairman, to see if this is a
successful or practical way of bringing about
some reduction with respect to the construc-
tion costs of physical plant. We just say—
3912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and once again we are keeping this matter
under constant review— that a set of so-called
standard plans made available by The Depart-
ment of Education certainly in this day and
age of change in physical design, does not
hold out the answer that we are seeking.
Mr. Nixon: That is precisely the point I
made. Every time, Mr. Chairman, that this
has been raised the Minister makes this point
and of course it is absolutely true, but there
is always the implication that anyone who
has suggested this is rather—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, not at all. In fact I
was delighted tonight with the leader of the
Opposition's insertion of the word modular,
which I do not think he used last session.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, always—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I am subject to
correction-
Mr. Nixon: Well I know you will check the
record, as you are always enjoining me.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well I will, I will have
a look later on.
Mr. Nixon: Modular apparently is the word
that makes it okay.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do want to touch on the
question of finance and the suggestion by the
leader of the Opposition, which I find not
only intriguing but very contradictory to the
present position of the federal government.
And I do not want to interject— as the mem-
ber for Sudbury is always loath to interject-
any, shall we say, federal election campaign-
ing suggestions at this present moment, but
nonetheless I think it should be made
abundantly clear that the ministers of edu-
cation generally across Canada have been
seeking— certainly had until the very definite
change in policy took place at the federal
level— had been seeking a continuation of
federal financial involvement in education, I
can provide for the leader of the Opposition
specific resolutions passed by the committee
of Ministers of the CEA.
Mr. Nixon: How much are you getting
from them this year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Specifically, we are asking
the federal government to continue, and to
increase, their participation in the technical,
vocational training agreement, which in their
wisdom, they brought to an end as of March
31 just a year ago.
Mr. Nixon: We have the schools; there is
no reason why you should dictate what their
participation should be. How much are you i
getting from them this year, do you know?
Hon. Mr. Davis: We do not know yet. i
Mr. Nixon: It does not appear in the esti-
mates anywhere. j
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we do not know i
because they are not giving anything directly \
to education any more; this is the part that ^
is upsetting. |
I
Mr. Nixon: In post-secondary education It v
comes right to you and you parcel it out as
you see fit?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, this is not correct,
Mr. Chairman. The arrangement is very
simple. We provide to the federal authorities
the cost of our post-secondary education and
they deem this as the fiscal equivalent and
transfer half of that cost to the provincial
authorities. They are not directly involved in '
education any more. They have opted out.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, of course— now just a
moment—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, they have ,
abdicated their interest-
Mr. Nixon: Not at all, they give it right
into your hands— $180 million.
Hon. Mr. Davis: A year ago, Mr. Chair-
man, they were making payments to the
AUCC, to the universities and colleges of
Canada-
Mr. Nixon: That is right, and they now
give you the money so that you make the
same payment.
Hon. Mr. Davis: —and because of the in- j
fluence of the present Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) to satisfy certain constitutional
situations, in his mind at least, the federal
government has opted out of an interest in
education. This is true.
Mr. Sopha: Such ingratitude.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Very in-
different.
Mr. Nixon: Very misleading—
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not misleading at all,
it is factually correct.
Mr. Nixon: Certainly the money comes as
a cheque to you. It may even be made out to
"WilHam G. Davis" for all we know.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I find this very intriguing,
and I really hope that the comments of the
JUNE 4, 1968
3913
leader of the Opposition here tonight find
their way through to the Prime Minister, and
the Minister of Manpower in particular.
Mr. Sopha: Are you sure you got the
cheque from him?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted, Mr,
Chairman, if the hon. member could bring his
influence to bear on the present Prime Minis-
ter and the Minister of Manpower.
Mr. Nixon: You are talking hke the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management
(Mr. Simonett) who made a similar statement.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is highly rele-
vant.
I do agree with the leader of the Oppo-
sition that we, of necessity over a period of
years, require additional financing in the field
of education and if he feels he can have some
success in the next three weeks with the
federal authorities, my blessings to him. Per-
haps after June 25, those of us on this side
of the House may have a little greater influ-
ence.
Mr. Chairman, dealing with two or three
other matters, I think there is substantial
merit, not necessarily in a uniform accounting
procedure, but shall we say some uniform
method of calculation with respect to the new
divisional boards. I do not want to go into
this at great length, but I think there is merit,
not only from an accounting point of view,
but quite frankly I think, in the whole ques-
tion of definitions for data processing pur-
poses. This is one-
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): How
about the control?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think inherent in any grant structure that is
developed on the basis of information, is that
the grant structure relates to expenditures to
assessment. And in this there is, shall we say,
the flexibility of control that the hon. member
is suggesting from the other side of the House.
But I am saying that this suggestion has, I
beheve, some merit.
In dealing with the observations, Mr. Chair-
man, from the member for Peterborough, once
again his observations were basically, shall
we say, philosophical in nature. I found
them really quite constructive and he really
has demonstrated, as did the leader of the
Opposition, many of the assets that we can
look forward to with respect to Bill 44. But
I cannot understand why the gentlemen oppo-
site did not enthusiastically support the bill
at the time it had second reading in this
House.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, the Minister has said this so many times
that I really must ask him to desist. I think
that this is one of the problems that has
changed. As I remember it, Mr. Chairman,
what we voted against was the procedure of
the Minister taking that bill through second
reading before it had been to the committee.
Because of the procedures of this House, we
had to vote for that particular motion in
order to exhibit our concern.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I do not care what
the members in that group do, our—
Mr. Pitman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, the Minister said that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pitman: I hope the Speaker's commit-
tee will deal with this so we may have an
opportunity to vote according to what we
think during the bill-handling procedures. But
in this particular case we were voting on pro-
cedure and not on the bill.
I think the leader of the Opposition and
myself both indicated our agreement on larger
jurisdictional units; we indicated some reser-
vations and concern, and wished to take it
before the committee to have the matter
examined in some detail before the people it
concerned. This is what we were dealing with,
and I do wish, for the rest of this session, that
the Minister will not say that the Opposition
voted against his bill.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York Soutli): Why
does the Minister try to create divisions where
there is unity? I would think he would have
appreciated the unity.
Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I am really
appreciative of the unity I see developing
among us.
Mr. MacDonald: Do not spoil a good thing.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I will not. If the
member for Peterborough is now saying that
he completely supports Bill 44—
Mr. MacDonald: Which he always said.
Mr. Pitman: We voted for it in committee.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am quite prepared to
accept his enthusiastic endorsation and I shall
say no more about it. The other point that he
made—
3914
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We
could have shot the bill down in flames three
times in committee.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is regrettable really
that the member for Sudbury was not here
earlier because once again I must refer to the
remarks of the member for Peterborough
where he suggested there should be involve-
ment; this refers to his remarks, they were not
mine. I agree with him. He suggested there
should be an involvement of the community
with tlie individual schools under the re-
organization.
He even referred to the desirabihty of
"home and school," and I suggested that really
this was contrary to the point of view of the
member for Sudbury East. I recall it well, he
was completely opposed to the home and
school being involved in any educational de-
cisions. I think that my memory is accurate
in this regard.
I understand his point of view, but I dis-
agree with him as I say. It is interesting to
note that this particular group does not have
unanimity on that issue. I agree with the
member for Peterborough, but getting back
to a more serious discussion, the member for
Peterborough mentioned his concern— perhaps
when the member for Lakeshore ( Mr. Lawlor)
has finished his discussion with the member
for Peterborough, I can continue my dialogue
with him, Mr. Chairman; I would not want
to interfere with any conversation that the
member for Peterborough is having with the
member for Lakeshore because I am sure-
Mr. MacDonald: You can talk to yourself
instead!
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I will wait. If I did
talk to myself, it might be helpful to myself.
I might get a very interesting reaction.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, what you call an
educational process!
Hon. Mr. Davis: The concern tiiat tlie
member for Peterborough raised, which I
think is valid, indicates to me his still some-
what traditional approach to these problems.
I will not use the word traditional— it is his
concern about the decentralization of the shall
I say, traditional role of The Department of
Education or a department of education.
I do not think that The Department of Edu-
cation in Ontario is unique in that regard.
I do not think that there is any conflict be-
tween the policy of decentralization and the
desirability of the department to provide
leadership in a genuine sense, in the pro-
grammes that are to be introduced and the
experiments that are to be created and initi-
ated at the local level.
The department in my view can and will
still be involved. We will be involved through
the provision of programme consultants to the
local ofiices. I recognize the validity of the
concern of the member for Peterborough. I
think that this is something that through the
evolutionary period, and I think that this is
the only way you can describe it, we can, as
a department, see that these problems do
not arise.
Quite frankly, we recognize, as I said in
committee and on second reading, that even
under the reorganization there will be some
areas of the province where the local board
itself will not have the resources, because of
economics and because of numbers, to do the
job tliat we think should be done. I said on
tliat occasion, and I repeated here again
tonight, that we shall as a department provide
the resource material and the personnel that
are necessary to see that the type of situation
that the member for Peterborough fears could
not occur. It does not in fact become part of
the problems during this reorganization
period.
Mr. Chairman, I made a lot of notes here.
Perhaps we can pick some of them up as we
go through tlie consideration of the individual
estimates. But once again I say most sin-
cerely that I found the presentations for the
most part very constructive indeed.
On vote 501:
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue
the matter of the use of this gold. I wish to
say in parentheses that this young man who
had control of $2 billion for expenses, must
be so busy looking after the money that he
has not time to really see what is going on in
the field of education, so it is our duty to
inform him of some of the phenomena that
we see in education in the province. It may
also be that he does not use his time to its
best economic advantage. That is for him to
detennine.
Mr. Nixon: That means wasting time.
Mr. Sopha: Well, if he is getting an honor-
ary degree, I will leave that to University
Affairs.
I do not want to become distracted from
what I was going to say. I v/anted to extend
first the remarks of the Minister of Educa-
tion—or the leader of the Opposition, pardon
me— in respect to the use of the schools. One
of the observations that I have made is that
JUNE 4, 1968
3015
in the local community there is little in the
way of involvement of the schools and their
boards with the community in general in any
intimate way, or meaningful way.
The school boards and the regional bureauc-
racy of the Minister, rather give the impres-
sion that they operate on an island unto
themselves, and the community, when it does
come into contact with the school administra-
tion comes in contact on an arm's-length
basis.
One of the illustrations of that can be seen
in the use of the school plant by the com-
munity. I see no reason whatsoever, and I
would welcome argument to the contrary,
why a political party— which form the warp
and woof of our democracy; we here have a
great respect for political parties and we all
belong to one or another — I see no reason
why, when a political party approaches a
school board to make use of the school facili-
ties for a political meeting, that it should
have to pay.
The party makes up a large proportion of
the pubhc, in addition to which, those who
would come to a political meeting who do not
belong to a party, are themselves part of the
public who have paid for the creation of those
school facilities. I treat this almost as arro-
gance, or perhaps dispassionate detachment
on a high plane by the school board, when
they look at the emissaries from the political
parties and say that the rental of the audi-
torium for that political meeting will be $100.
That is a very common figure. I recall a
number of years ago speaking on behalf of
my friend from Oxford (Mr. Innes), in Wood-
stock, and I can very well recall that we had
700 or 800 in that auditorium, and he told
me that the rental was $100.
I wanted to say this for a long time, that
these school boards should be told by the
Minister or by his local people that that is a
totally unjustified encroachment upon the
rights and liberties of others and an unwar-
ranted exercise of their power. When all is
said and done, this school plant does not
belong to the school boards; it is theirs on
trust, and on trust for the benefit of the com-
munity. When this community makes a very
reasonable request for the use of the facili-
ties, then one would hope and think that the
school board would be more than delighted
to make them available.
In this regard I remind myself, since
McLuhan has been mentioned here a couple
of times tonight, that this year marks the 20th
anniversary of my discovery of McLuhan. I
am rather secretly proud of the fact that I
discovered McLuhan before he became a
watchword, or the in-thing. That discovery
was made with his first volume, "Tlie
Mechanical Bride," published I lielieve 20
years ago this year. I recall that in that he
made a great thing out of our fetish for clean-
hness. It is very appropriate to mention that,
because one observes in the caretaking con-
figurations of the responsibilities of school
boards that they make a great fetish out of
the cleanliness, neatness, and tidiness of these
Taj Mahals that we have erected in the com-
munities at public expense. That itself is
reflected in their reluctance in many cases to
let the unwashed into the schools to make
proper use of them because they might mess
them up or in some way—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Is that what the teachers do?
Mr. Sopha: —or in some way detract from
their pristine beauty.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What about the pro-
fessors?
Mr. Sopha: I am putting tliat forward to
you, Mr. Chairman, as a very genuine and
sincere plea, that throughout this province
there might hope to be a change in the atti-
tude of school boards in respect of welcoming
community involvement and community use
of the school facilities which, after all, have
been provided by all of the taxpaying citizens
of the province.
The second matter I should like to raise,
and I think this is the appropriate vote, is
that one certainly must evolve an attitude of
displeasure in witnessing the activities of the
local bureaucracy surrounding the administra-
tion of schools, which has been created by
this Minister and by this department in the
local area. One cannot help but conclude
that that bureaucracy on a regional basis is
a very powerful and very authoritative insti-
tution in the administration of education in
this province.
I have said before and it might bear re-
peating that it is a disillusioning thing about
that bureaucracy to see and to realize that
among those whom you might think were the
most enlightened people, the most progressive
people in their attitude, the most objective
people, there is a political undertow in the
carrying on of their task. In my own case,
I observe, after many years of disillusion-
ment, that if any function was going on, the
local region of administration responsible to
the Minister of Education, when holding any
3916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kind of a clambake, a taffy pull or any other
public function, would never fail to invite the
member for Nickel Belt. He is always there-
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): You are al-
ways invited.
Mr. Sopha: —he is always there and his
very, very handsome good looks are depicted
across the pages of the paper-
Mr. Demers: You never answer your
phone.
Mr. Sopha: Oh yes, at all educational
functions. As consistently as they invite him
to the taffy pull, just as consistently they fail
to invite me and my friend from Sudbury
East. We are never invited.
An hon member: It may be departmental
policy.
Mr. Sopha: It may be, now—
Mr. Nixon: I suspect it is.
Mr. Sopha: —now I am told in the cor-
ridors, by members who support that govern-
ment, that you almost have to have a machine-
gun or a Ijaseball bat to break through the
entourage of the Minister of Education at any
function at which he is present to get into
the ranks of prominence at all.
An hon. member: Does he get his picture
in the paper too?
Mr. Sopha: Always, always. At any public
function it is unheard of, since he became
Minister, that any local member is ever given
the privilege of cutting the ribbon with scis-
sors, or axe, or however they do it, as the
case may be.
I certainly object to the fact that, on sev-
eral occasions, this Minister has been in my
community, opening schools. Well, is there
a school in the province that is not opened
without his presence?
Mr. Nixon: Most of them are named after
him.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. Yes.
Mr. Nixon: We have not had a new school
at Brant.
Mr. Sopha: On several occasions he has
been in my community. Not once, not on any
single occasion, have his local people, his
local lieutenant, ever had the courtesy to
invite me to any of the functions.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Highways (Mr.
Gomme) is not like that at all.
Mr. Sopha: Not once. The Minister of Re-
form Institutions is not like that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are always wel-
come.
Mr. Sopha: But in this area—
An hon. member: It is easy to get in.
Mr. Sopha: —but in this area of govern-
ment functions, that ought to be objective
and remote from partisan politics, one would
expect that these people would be the very
last to engage in such petty political philan-
derings as they do.
Another manifestation of it is this. At a
commencement exercise just nobody is ever
allowed to make the speech of the evening,
except some oflBcial from The Department of
Education.
Now these people working for the depart-
ment, the local inspectors and what have you,
they are the ones that are the centre of the
programme in delivering the gigantic exer-
cise in elocutionary circumlocution on the
occasion of these young people receiving
their diplomas and, invariably—
Mr. Nixon: The same speech.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, it is the same speech. In-
variably, they never promote an original
thought. They begin by quoting what Plato
said five centuries before the birth of Christ
and they end up by quoting what Karl Marx
said a century and a half or a century and
three-quarters ago. They never promote to
the original thought-
Mr. Nixon: Up our way they quote the
Minister.
Mr. Sopha: Oh yes. I would not doubt it.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is there
about this department that it is such ap
inbred outfit? They erect these walls to keep
all intruders and all outsiders out of it and
let nobody break the fortress that they have
created.
The Minister, in the ensuing year, would
do well if he would adopt an attitude of
impartiality and objectivity and change some
of these petty political manifestations that
have crept into this department.
But I want to deal with the third subject
before I sit down. I want to say, very
seriously— having given it a good deal of
thought, that I seriously question this Min-
ister and the Prime Minister of this province,
year after year accepting these honoraiy
degrees from the universities. I question that.
If the Ontario federation of agriculture
JUNE 4, 1968
3917
arrived outside with a prize steer for the
Premier, we would certainly raise an eyebrow.
If the Minister accepted a gift from any other
pressure group, we would certainly open
it to question. I treat this committee of
presidents and these institutions, which are
now deriving, what, three quarters of the
money or 85 per cent of their moneys from
the public purse; I question their offering of
the blandishments to the Minister of Educa-
tion on an annual basis.
The trouble is, of course, that in singing
his praises year after year, he is going to
start to believe it. He is going to start to
believe that he is as great as they say. I say
that against the background that the granting
of the degree itself is a custom so sufficiently
archaic and itself open to question on objec-
tive and intellectual grounds, that you would
think that the Minister would be in the fore-
front to try to abolish this system.
Last Saturday afternoon I sat at Laurentian
University and having heard the president
of the institution engage in a tirade against
politicians — a veritable tirade against
politicians. He condemned the method of
appointment of senators and then noticed no
inconsistency whatsoever when he departed
from speaking terms with common sense and
the university began to confer honorary
degrees. As they read the citations, let me
tell you, those young people who got
their degrees squirmed in embarrassment in
their seats at this constitution of university
functions.
All right, all right. You can have all the
order you want, but I wanted to make these
remarks at the earliest possible time. I say
this, that the Minister, indulging in that every
year, is little less than submitting to an
indirect form of blandishment that is very
close to bribery; it is very close to it on an
intellectual basis. I quoted correctly and as
I see it. Every year he goes somewhere, and
he threatens them in dark fashion. He
threatens them and never tells us specifically
what is wrong with the system or what he
would do to correct it.
Pardon?
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): When are
you going to get invited?
Mr. Sopha: No, I do not want one. I do
not want to be a senator. I do not want to be
a judge. I do not want to be an ambassador.
I do not want an honorary degree. I just
want to be myself. That is all.
No, I do not want to be a bachelor, I have
given that up.
I cannot hope that there will be any
progressive reform, but would say to the
Minister, in extending the remarks of the
leader of the Opposition, I would ask the
Minister to work towards the end of letting
the community make greater use of the school
plant than has been the custom in the past.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, may I just
very briefly reply to the suggestions from the
member for Sudbury. I will not even get
into the question of the universities at this
stage, there will be other occasions. But I—
Mr. Sopha: You would not dare. You know
that there is no answer.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They are very valid an-
swers, but I do not have an answer with
respect to the lack of invitation he receives to
school openings. I am only going by memory,
and I am subject to correction, but if memory
serves me correctly, I have only attended one
school opening in the city of Sudbury—
Mr. Sopha: La Salle Secondary.
Hon. Mr. Davis: —and I think, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. member must recognize
that the regional office does not extend invita-
tions. The Minister of the department— we
do not extend invitations. If the member for
Sudbury was ignored, he was ignored by the
Sudbury board of education— no one else. I
think this is perhaps the area that he might
pursue. Perhaps we should establish a rapport
with the Sudbury board. The regional office
has nothing whatsoever to do with extending
invitations to school openings to officials,
neither does The Department of Education
in this province.
I would be delighted if the hon. member
wishes me to send a letter to the chairman
cf the Sudbury board indicating that the
member for Sudbury feels that he has been
ignored by the local school authority, and
make sure that he is invited to any future
whatever-it-is that they are having. I would
be quite prepared to ask the chairman of the
board to take this under consideration. We
have nothing to do with it, and I want to
make this abundantly clear, and I really only
recall one school opening that I did attend
in Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: Well, let us put the records
straight. Your man Allan in Sudbury, for
whom I have a good deal of respect, for his
intellectual prowess and ability, moved his
office from one part of my constituency to
another part of my constituency. Sort of
intra-mural change— if you get what I mean.
3918
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I pick up the paper and there is Allan and
the member for Nickel Belt snipping the old
ribbon, right on the front page. Oh yes, very
photogenic. But it never dawned on him in
the old entelechy that he was in my con-
stituency—so he invites the foreigner in from
Nickel Belt to cut the ribbon. So it is not
the school board.
Mr. Pitman: He has quite a sense of
humour.
Mr. Sopha: Now what are the orders to
Allan? Are the orders from headquarters to
play up the local Conservative member? Aye!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Play up the local Conservative
member— this is it, is it not? They went up
to the Lakehead. We read in the press that
the member, the local member of Parliament,
Douglas Fisher, who helped with the slam-
bang opening of the school, and the local
member of Parliament— he is sitting in the
94th row, way back below the salt, they
did not even have the decency to ask him
up to the platform.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 501?
Mr. Pitman: I want to refer to the question
of whether the Minister has considered the
possibility of replacing urban schools with
some form of school apartment complex.
This, I understand, has been used in other
jurisdictions to cut down costs. When the
parking lot is empty during the day, as
people have gone to work, it can be used by
the staff. Or the gymnasium and educational
facilities which are free in the evening, late
at night, can be used by the apartment
dwellers. During the day, of course, the
whole building is empty, as these apartment
dwellers go off to their work. It seems to me
that there is some economic viability in this
suggestion. I am wondering whether the
Minister's department has considered this? I
really do not think this comes under this
vote, it probably comes later under planning
or under school building and so on, but we
are on the topic, perhaps we might exhaust
it now.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we
could exhaust it, but I am not sure that we
will. I think really it would come under vote
503. The possibility of having school facilities
as a part of an apartment complex— there
have not as yet, been any specific presenta-
tions made to the department by any school
boards. But we know they have been con-
sidered, and that there is a certain amount of
research and discussion going on in this area.
As far as we are concerned as a department,
we are quite prepared to investigate very
carefully the possibility of this if it comes to
us from one of the boards. There are some
problems inherent in it, and yet it has worked
reasonably well in some larger urban centres.
They have actually put in a school facility
right within a major apartment complex. Now
it did create problems of— I do not say recrea-
tion is the right word— playground facilities,
and so on. Nonetheless it did work, and has
worked in some jurisdictions. I am not sure
that we have reached that point here yet in
our larger urban centres, but we are not re-
jecting the possibility of it.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there are one or
two matters that I want to pursue in the first
vote still dealing with the utilization of the
schools and the grounds. I understand that it
is in Lodon, Ontario, that there is a fairly ex-
tensive summer programme designed around
the school building, the gymnasium, the
library and the playground. There is some
opposition to it because the local recreation
council or commission feels that there is some
duplication.
There is no doubt that the recreation
people should be supervising and giving a
lead to the aspects of the school programme
in the summer months that would make use
of the gym and the playground facilities, but
it really is true that as you drive through the
towns in the summertime, the school yard is
usually fenced and not in use while the city
parks are in use.
It may be a small matter, and yet in a
good many of the cities these would be quite
a significant addition to the recreation facili-
ties. One thing I wanted to pursue further
was the Minister's comments about federal
participation in the payment for education
here.
It is true that the withdrawal of direct sup-
port from the universities was accomplished;
with an agreement that they would pay half-
the ordinary costs of post-secondary educationr
in the province and this must be payable by*
some kind of a cheque to somebody in the
province which is then used to finance edu-
cation.
There has always been a great greynesS
over this agreement, because the Minister has
tried to convince the government of Canadii
that post-secondary education in Ontario in-
cludes grade 13, as well as a string of other
institutions. He should now have surely
reached an agreement of some sort so that he
can predict what the federal contribution to
education in the province would be. "'
JUNE 4, 1968
3919
It is true that the cheque is not earmarked
for specific purposes other than for post-sec-
ondary, and the government of Canada recog-
nizes the Minister's responsibihty in apportion-
ing tliese funds and does not send cheques to
the individual institutions. But surely the
Minister can tell us what the federal involve-
ment would be in our education programme,
in the broadest sense, and what the dispo-
sition of the argument has been in the past
year, and as to our attempt, the Minister's
attempt, Ontario's attempt to broaden the
understanding of post-secondary education so
that the payment is as big as possible.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to confuse this at all, and I shall try to
remain non-partisan. But as I understand the
philosophy of the federal government, they
were seeking to find some formula for the
transference of certain amounts of federal
moneys to provincial jurisdictions. They have
used as the basis for this formula for fiscal
transfer one half the operating costs of post-
secondary education within each jurisdiction.
I think this is one of the basic philosophies
of the federal government that it is a form of
fiscal transfer to be paid into the provincial
jurisdiction and it is not earmarked. Of
course, I have my own point of view, and I
will not get into that tonight, because it is
perhaps a shade provocative, but this is the
philosophy and this is how the plan is work-
ing. The province of Ontario made rather
strong representations to the federal authority
with respect to the question of definition. We
have had some success, but I think it is fair
to state that we are still anxious to pursue
further just what can be included in the
definition of operating grants.
Mr. Nixon: What were the successes you
achieved?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, we have been suc-
cessful in including at this stage grade 13,
because we feel this is the equivalent of
post-secondary education in other provincial
jurisdictions.
Mr. Nixon: They agreed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: And they have agreed.
The question of including furniture, books,
libraries— this in an area we were pursuing
and, we think, with some validity based on
operating costs rather than on capital costs.
Here we have not achieved the same success.
I shall endeavour, in that this is the first year
of the fiscal transfer, to get before the end of
the estimates— or perhaps it would be more
appropriate really to do it in the discussions
in The Department of University Affairs— a
projected revenue from the federal govern-
ment with respect to post-secondary edu-
cation.
But I must point out this is a projected
figure because, once again, they are requiring
very detailed information from the provincial
jurisdictions including audited statements from
the universities as to their actual operating
expenses. I am not sure— and I just say this
very casually— that they should be so involved
in the last dollar and cent, because it is very
difficult to get these figures on a projected
basis to allow for adequate planning as de-
tailed perhaps as they wish it. But we are
prepared to do it. But I cannot give the
member any accurate figure because of the
detail they require at this stage. It is an
estimate.
Mr. Nixon: In general terms, then, the
government of Canada will provide a trans-
ference of funds equivalent to half the costs
of operating our entire post-secondary plant,
including grade 13. And the Minister's ac-
countants cannot give you a ball park figure
as to how much that would be?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, we can come reason-
ably close and I will endeavour to get this
during the estimates of The Department of
University Affairs. I have that approximate
figure.
Mr. Nixon: But it would include grade 13
and the community colleges which come
under The Department of Education? Byerson?
Hon. Mr. Davis: All post-secondary insti-
tutions-
Mr. Nixon: All teachers' colleges?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Teachers' colleges we are
including because we believe these are post-
secondary and, in fact, they are faculty of
education situations in other jurisdictions, so
we took the position that there is no problem,
that they also be considered.
Where we have run into the difficulty,
because it really should be under another vote,
is in the area of manpower training and the
question of qualification— the federal position is
that a person should be out three years before
they qualify. This has led to some compli-
cations with our existing progranmies, but
perhaps we could deal with that under an-
other vote.
Mr. T. Reid: May I follow up on this
item, Mr. Chairman?
3920
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to have on the record the
policy as stated by the federal government in
1966. I think it would help clarify the dis-
cussion now taking place. I think it is very
germane to our discussions of the financing of
primary and secondary school education in
Ontario because, if the federal government
makes increased grants available to manpower
programmes, universities and other forms of
post-secondary school education, this surely
should release some provincial resources that
would otherwise have been made necessary
in the areas for secondary school education.
The point is simply this: that the Prime Min-
ister of Canada set out federal government
policy on education at the federal-provincial
meeting in Ottawa in the last week of Octo-
ber, 1966. This is a short quotation directly
from that statement:
The federal government recognizes that
education is and must remain within the
provincial jurisdiction.
However:
Certain interpretations have been placed
on the scope and meaning of the word
education which in our view-
that is, the view of the federal government:
—are not valid. Specifically, the federal
government believes that the training and
re-training of adults for participation in the
labour force are well within the scope of
federal jurisdiction. They are manifesta-
tions of the federal government's respon-
sibility for national economic development.
A week later, the federal Minister without
Portfoho, at that time John Turner, stated
in an address entitled "A Second Canada,
Education is Everybody's Business" — an
address he made on November 2, 1966, in
Toronto. He made the following general
statement, which I interpret as a follow-up
to the federal-provincial agreement in late
October, 1966.
This is what John Turner said at that time.
He reiterated his government's interpretation
of the constitutional responsibility for educa-
tion under The British North America Act.
He stated that the word "education" means
"the imparting of knowledge through a
standard curriculum during the period of
childhood, adolescence and youth." Given
this definition, he added that the provincial
authority over education does not— I would
like to repeat, does not— preclude the federal
government from operating within the follow-
ing four fields:
1. Training and retraining related to skills
and employment, since the provision of full
opportunities to Canadians to acquire the
tools and skills they need for earning a living
is a national responsibility.
2. Research or the pushing back of the
frontiers of knowledge, since research prior-
ities are national in their implications and
scope for the Canadian economy, the so-
called brain drain, the health and welfare of
Canadians and for the ability of Canada to
compete in world trade.
3. Aid to individuals as distinct from aid
to institutions, since the welfare of individuals
is a federal responsibility.
4. Culture— and as the Minister knows, the
line between education and culture is a fuzzy
one— since culture can be a national problem
in a national context.
I would like to state that— I know the
Minister will correct me if he thinks my
interpretation is wrong, but I think my inter-
pretation is correct— that at least this was an
attempt to clarify the constitutional issue, to
draw lines between federal responsibility and
provincial responsibility in a number of areas
relating to education. Whether or not in the
long run it will prove otherwise or not, and
I am on record publicly as having some reser-
vations about it, at least the attempt was
made.
So surely we should be able to get from
the Minister of Education a fairly clear
statement of what, for example, the federal
government grants to Ontario in these areas
that I have mentioned, of education, man-
power training, research and so forth. What
the transfer of funds from the federal govern-
ment directly to this government or directly
to the universities themselves, would have
been in the coming fiscal year under the old
terms, that is, before October, 1966. In other
words, I think it should be possible for
the Minister's experts to do this type of
calculation.
Second, I think it would be very instructive
for the Minister if he would try to calculate
again what the new fiscal transfer is now,
because there was a quid pro quo in this.
The federal government would get out of
certain fields and make it up through an
additional fiscal transfer, so that the provin-
cial governments could continue to run its
manpower training programmes.
I would like to know specifically— I know
that the Minister might not be able to provide
it tonight-whether he can give me and the
Opposition some idea of whether this province
of Ontario is ahead in terms of federal trans-
fers, federal grants to all these areas I have
mentioned, is ahead now or next year, com-
JUNE 4, 1968
3921
pared to the position we would have been
in if the rules of the game had not been
altered. And can the Minister make a clear
statement on that and can the Minister give
us some idea of the methods used to calculate
these two figures? Then I think we would
clear up once and for all whether or not the
federal government is more derelict in its
duty towards education in a broad sense
today than it would have been if it had not
tried this redefinition,
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is
very difficult because the— shall we say, the
ground rules were changed, not only with
respect to the involvement of the federal
jurisdiction with provincial jurisdictions, but
their own ground rules with respect to man-
power training have also been altered. It is
very difficult for me to give the hon. member
any accurate figures as to what the position
is today, compared to what it might have been
if the existing programmes had continued.
We face a very difficult area where we
could speculate because, under the former
federal-provincial agreement, I think the
provinces— and I think the other Ministers
would share this point of view— had every
reason to expect that there would be a con-
tinuation of capital support. Under the
present fiscal transfer they are only including
operating expenses; there is no credit given
for capital expenditure. And the entire college
of applied arts and technology programme,
which was developed here in this jurisdiction,
I think with every reason to anticipate some
capital contribution from the federal govern-
ment, is now being financed entirely by the
provincial jmisdiction. And this applies as
well to the other provinces.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult
to say what the position would have been
if the existing arrangements had continued
because we could not say two years ago what
the capital requirements would be of the
community college programme.
As I say, the ground rules with respect to
The Department of Manpower and its own
payments have also altered and the regula-
tions of who can participate in the programme
have changed, so it makes it very difficult.
I can provide for the hon. member our
estimate as to the total amount of the fiscal
transfer we anticipate receiving for the 50
per cent of the operating costs of post-second-
ary institutions, but it is almost impossible
to give him a figure that could compare the
contribution this year with what we might
have anticipated our contribution would have
been under the former arrangements.
Mr. T. Reid: I am glad the Minister put
it that way, for the following reason: He left
the distinct impression in my ears, and I am
sure those of other members of this House,
that the federal government had somehow
left the province in more of a lurch than the
province would otherwise have been in. I
will check Hansard on this, Mr. Chairman. I
will refer the Minister to the specific section
where he made the statement. He left the
distinct impression in this House, to my hon.
leader and to myself, that the federal gov-
ernment had somehow shirked its responsi-
bility in this field from what it would have
been otherwise.
In answer to my question when I asked
him if he would present these figures— I did
it purposely this way— he stood up and said
that he could not possibly know. I ask the
Minister this. Either he cannot calculate it,
or he says the federal government is shirking
its responsibility, or he says that the federal
government is contributing just as much or
more than it otherwise would. But if he
stood up, and Hansard will bear me out on
this, and said that these are impossible cal-
culations to know, then he is shirking his
responsibilities as Minister of Education in
the province by putting the onus on the
federal government without having the facts.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member is anxious to pursue this argument—
and I would be delighted to do so— if he is
prepared to accept certain, shall we say,
conditions— one of them being that the federal
government was prepared, as every provincial
jurisdiction anticipated that they would be, to
continue the existing federal-provincial agree-
ment with respect to technical and vocational
education— I have no hesitation in saying that
this provincial jurisdiction, and I think that
it would be true in the other jurisdictions,
feels that without question it is receiving
less than it would have received under
the previous arrangements. Every secondary
school that is composite in nature that was
receiving $75, and latterly a decreased grant
from the federal government for capital pur-
poses, now has had this agreement terminated
and there is no, shall we say, compensation
for them.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot predict accurately
m the year of 1968 what the total cost to the
community college programme will be over,
say, a 15-year period. I do not know, but I
can give the hon. member some figures. I
say without hesitation that if one could
assume— and I think that one has to in order
to get some sort of rough figure for the
3922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member for Scarborough East— the former
agreements would in fact continue or have
continued on that basis. There have been
no ceihngs or limits imposed, as they did on
the province of Ontario. There is no question
that we are today receiving less than we
might have anticipated under the previous
agreements, but I cannot say how many
dollars. It is very difficult to estimate.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
has already said that he will get some figures
for us on this, I think that that would be
quite helpful.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no question of
what we can anticipate from the federal
go\'emment this year.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to pursue one
other matter, but I would yield tlie floor
willingly to the Premier if he has some
contribution to make to the business of the
House at this time.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Since
this very interesting topic has been exhausted,
I move that the committee of supply rise and
report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed;
chair.
Mr, Speaker in the
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee 1
of supply begs to report that it has come to j
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit \
again. i
si
Report agreed to. |
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, \
I would like to go to the order paper and I
deal with some of the second readings that |
are ready and the House in committee. Then, ^
when this is completed, we will return to '
these estimates. i
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment j
of the House. I
xi
Motion agreed to. |
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock, p.m. I
No. 107
ONTARIO
Hegislature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 5, 1968 |
I
Corporations Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3925 |
Submission of briefs to the committee studying the Hydro report, question to Mr.
McKeough, Mr. Stokes 3926 ■
Assistance with restoration of the Cornwall lacrosse stick factory, question to Mr. \
Guindon, Mr. Kennedy 3927 ]
Gertler report on the Niagara escarpment, questions to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Gisborn 3927 l
Cutbacks in spending due to the gross provincial debt, question to Mr. Robarts, 1
Mr. Sargent 3928 I
Privacy of the individual in the development of central data banks, question to Mr.
Welch, Mr. Sargent 3928 J
I
Glue-sniffing problem, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon 3928 |
Investigation of charges regarding cause of sitdown strike of female prisoners at Don '
jail, question to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 3930 ij
Training Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, second reading 3931 i
Department of Correctional Services Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Grossman, second •;
reading 3931 ^
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3932
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3934 :
Financial Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3934
Department of Revenue, bill to establish, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3934
Public Service Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3941
Ontario human rights code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr, Bales, second reading 3941
Third readings 3941
Securities Act, 1966, bill to amend, reported 3942
Loan and Trust Corporations Act, bill to amend, reported 3943
Insurance Act, bill to amend, reported 3944
Corporations Act, bill to amend, reported 3945
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, reported 3945
Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act, 1964, bill to amend, reported 3948
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis, continued 3948
Recess, 6 o'clock 3969
3925
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon, in the east
gallery, we have students from London Road-
Durand Street public school, Sarnia; St. An-
drews separate school, Etobicoke; and in the
west gallery, from Calvin Memorial Christian
school, St. Catharines. We welcome these
young people this afternoon.
Presenting petitions.
Presenting reports by committees.
Motions.
Hon. D. A. Bales ( Minister of Labour ) : Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, when we were dealing
with Bill 130, I intended to refer it to the
standing committee on labour, and apparently
that was not done. I therefore move that
the orders of the day for consideration in the
committee of the whole of Bill 130, The
Employment Standards Act, 1968, be dis-
charged and that the bill be referred to the
standing committee on labour tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of bills.
THE CORPORATIONS TAX ACT
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer ) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend The Corporations Tax Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the
amendments contained in the bill fall gen-
erally into two categories; those which result
from amendments to The Income Tax Act
Canada, and those which result from the
reorganization of The Treasury Department.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs ) : Mr. Speaker,
on a matter of personal privilege I wish to
make a statement having to do with the
headline and portions of a report on page
B4 in today's "Report on Business" section of
the Globe and Mail and a similar report
which appeared on page 17 in today's two-
star edition of the Toronto Daily Star.
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
The Globe headline stated: "Rowntree says
firm's clients will not suffer." In the body of
the report, Mr. Speaker, the following para-
graph appeared and I quote:
The firm's auditors, McDonald, Currie
and Co., and commission auditors are con-
ducting audits, but there is no evidence that
public clients are likely to suffer.
The Star report stated:
Leslie Rowntree, Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs, replying to a
question from Dr. Morton Shulman, NDP,
High Park, said auditors have found no
evidence that pubhc chents are likely to
suffer.
Mr. Speaker, no such thing was said by me.
I have had no interviews with any reporters
on the subject dealt with in the articles cited
nor have I discussed the matter with anyone
in or outside of this House since I made the
statement in the House yesterday afternoon. I
can only conclude that the statements attribu-
ted to me were somehow derived from the
answer to a question as I gave it and which
dealt with Ord Wallington and Company
Limited, yesterday in the House. At one point,
I said:
The facts developed to that date were
inconclusive insofar as demonstrating that
the public clients were likely to suffer loss.
Because of the very mysterious nature of this
misinterpretation, in that it could give false
hope to concerned people, I wish, for the
record, to restate the answer as given to the
question posed to me by the hon. member
for High Park and which I answered yester-
day. Mr. Speaker, I now proceed to read
into the record from the same document which
I read from in answer to his question yester-
day, and I begin:
I am informed that as a result of the
Ontario securities commission's auditors'
interim report, the registration of Ord
Wallington was suspended on April 16,
1968, pending the clarification of its finan-
cial position. Both the commission's audi-
tors and the firm's auditors, McDonald,
Currie and Company, have been proceeding
3926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with independent audits. The facts de-
veloped to that date were inconclusive
insofar as demonstrating that the pubHc
clients were likely to suffer loss.
At this hearing, Mr. Arthur B. Francis,
CA, the registrant's former auditor, was
called by the firm. Mr. Francis' business
was acquired by McDonald, Currie and
Company. Based on his evidence the com-
mission's director concluded tliat the public
interest and interest of the clients of
the firm would not be served at that time
by preventing the completion of the pur-
chases and sales made for clients. The
principals purported to stand ready to
interject and/or inject further capital to
ensure the public chents against loss and in
fact subsequently did provide an additional
$25,000 in working capital.
In light of these facts the director stated:
"While the company will not be permitted
to undertake any business during the
period of suspension, it is permitted to
complete the trades for which it has
already contracted, and to make delivery
of securities to its public clients, apart
from officers, directors and shareholders
of the company."
On May 3, after a trial balance as at
April 30, 1968, had been taken off, it
became apparent that notwithstanding the
interjection of the additional $25,000 there
had been no improvement. The commis-
sion took immediate steps to preserve the
existing aspects for the benefit of clients,
by issuing orders under section 26 of The
Securities Act, 1966, freezing the assets
of the registrant. Subsequently, one of
the clients petitioned the company into
bankruptcy under the federal bankruptcy
Acts. A trustee has been appointed.
In light of the appointment of the trustee
in bankruptcy, the commission does not
have any power to require the delivery by
the trustee of either securities or money.
The commission, through its staff, has pur-
sued every question put to it by or on
behalf of the firm's public clients con-
cerning the position of that client. The
commission's investigation continues.
That is the end of the statement that I made
yesterday.
There was a supplementary question posed
to me by the hon. member for High Park,
which I undertook to investigate with
respect to its detail, and the information has
been supplied to me by the hon. member, and
I shall be answering that in due course.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, i
so that there should be no misunderstanding j
I would like to state that— I
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Let the mem- \
ber state his point of privilege. '
Mr. Shulman: So there should be no mis- |
understanding, I would just like to make it i
clear to the hon. Minister and everyone else i
in this House that I have not discussed this ]
matter with anyone outside of this chamber, i
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition I
has a question? i
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): 'j
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney j
General (Mr. Wishart).
Mr. Speaker: He is not in.
Another member had one yesterday for |
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme), and I
he is not in. If the Ministers come in we i
will have these questions later. )
There was also a question yesterday from |
the member for Thunder Bay of the Minister |
of Municipal Affairs. Would he place it? |
Mr. J. F. Stokes (Thunder Bay): To the I
hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs: Will the |
Minister agree to an extension in time for 3
submission of briefs from municipalities in
northern Ontario to the committee set up to
study the Hydro report? Is the Minister
aware that only three weeks are left for this i
purpose, when ten weeks was promised when 1
the report came out and the committee to |
study the report was appointed by the Minis- |
ter only last week? |
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni- J
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there is no change ^
in the date originally set out on April 10 for
submission of briefs from municipalities in the ■
Lakehead area by June 28, 1968. Replies to
letters I have received from different muni-
cipalities have reaffirmed this arrangement. I *
may say, I think there is some confusion
insofar as the inter-municipal committee is
concerned; the fact that it has just been set i
up has no bearing on the presentation of |
briefs. The purpose of the inter-municipal
committee really is, as much as anything
else, to look at the briefs that come in relating
to Mr. Hardy's report, and the committee
need not have been set up until after June
28. I am anxious to get on with this job, and
we have set it up, and it will be ready to
roll on June 28.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur
has the floor with a question.
JUNE 5, 1968
3927
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): I would
just hke to ask the hon. Minister what the
rush is.
Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order,
the question was originally not asked by him.
Mr. Knight: I have a question, Mr. Speaker,
for the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.
Haskett). However, I see he is not in his
seat.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South
has a question.
Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of
Trade and Development (Mr. Randall), would
the Minister without Portfolio who represents
the riding of Stormont, inform the House
if the government plans to take any action to
assist with the restoration of the Cornwall
lacrosse stick factory, as a result of its
recent destruction by fire, and thereby alle-
viate what I am told may be a critical short-
age of lacrosse sticks.
Hon. F. Cuindon (Minister without Port-
folio): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for Peel South, I would like to in-
form the House that the Cornwall lacrosse
stick factory was destroyed by fire on Tues-
day morning June 4. This factory manu-
factures 95 per cent of all lacrosse sticks used
in Canada, and in foreign markets. As a
result of this fire, some 90 employees, most
of them Indians, are now without jobs.
As the member for the riding of Stormont,
I immediately contacted the owner, Mr.
Chisholm, and offered him all assistance pos-
sible. Yesterday, I had invited to my office
Mr. Jim Nash, president of Ontario lacrosse
association, to discuss the situation. We both
recognize that there will be a serious short-
age of lacrosse sticks unless some action is
taken at once to rebuild the factory.
I have contacted the Minister of Trade and
Development and I am glad to report that
one of his oflBcials, Mr. McCracken, is pres-
ently in Cornwall to see what assistance can
be given to restore this all-important industry
on Cornwall island.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton
East.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial
Treasurer. When will the Gertler report on
the Niagara escarpment be made available to
the members and the general public?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
probably could, with some justification, take
this question as notice because it did not
reach me before leaving my office. However,
I think I am sufficiently familiar with the
situation to give an interim answer and then
proceed on a notice basis to expand upon it
if required.
The report is now in the hands of a sub-
committee of the regional development branch
of my department. It is expected that their
evaluation process and subsequent recom-
mendations to the government will be avail-
able by late summer or early fall. The
decision, of course, as to the action that is
taken at that time will be determined by the
advice that is given to the Minister and then
translated to the government. If the hon.
member feels that I should elaborate on this
in any greater detail, may I take it as notice
for that purpose?
Mr. Gisbom: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my sup-
plementary question then would be, and I
do not gather from the answer of the Min-
ister that the question can be answered: Will
the public or the members have a copy of the
report before the action is taken on the
report?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
think I would have to reserve any comment
or decision on that until we have received
the advice of the subcommittee of the branch
of the department that is presently examin-
ing the report. I think that is quite appro-
priate under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker,
and will be dealt with in that manner.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. A question to the hon. Prime
Minister.
Will the Premier advise what cutbacks the
government is planning— do you have a ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: There was a question submit-
ted to my office from the member for Grey-
Bruce for the Prime Minister's office and it
was 'phoned, as is the custom— would the
member yield me the floor for a moment?
In order that the House may understand
what happens to these questions— they are
brought in any time up to 12 o'clock on the
day— except Fridays, when they come in, we
hope before 9— and they are telephoned to the
secretary in charge of the office of the Min-
ister on question. The Minister then has the
3928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
telephoned copy which is read back by the
secretary to my secretary to work from.
Finding that some of the Ministers do not
have the same questions as the members had,
I have now instituted the procedure that a
copy of the question as telephoned and in-
itialed is placed on the Minister's desk on
the day the question is to be asked, before
the House opens. So that, if he has not had
a copy of it in his office, he has a copy of
it in front of him when the question is asked
and he can at least take it as notice with
some intelligent comment.
Subject to the aberrations of secretaries
and pageboys this should work, because the
member receives back through his caucus
office immediately after 12 noon another
carbon copy of the question, duly initialed
and marked.
I would hope, therefore, that we would
have no problem, in having the questions as
submitted reach the Minister to whom they
are directed and asked by the member in
tlie terms they were submitted. The member
will ask his question. If the Prime Minister
has not received it, then at least he can take
it as notice.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Premier advise what cutbacks the
government is planning due to the gross pro-
vincial debt of $3.5 billion, which is an in-
crease of more than $450 million from last
year, exceeding income by $1.5 milHon per
day.
What plans does the Premier have for the
financing of these increasing deficits?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, there is really no problem with this
question because it is precisely the same
question the hon. member asked a week or
so ago and my answer will have to be exactly
the same.
The policy of the government in regard to
deficits in financing and expenditures is set
out in the Budget statement put before this
House by the Provincial Treasurer on March
21. If the hon. member will read it, he will
find the ,answer there.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Provincial
Secretary.
Mr. Kenneth Cheng, director of tlie Ontario
statistical centre, suggested a revision of the
law in regard to privacy of the individual in
the development of central data banks. Will
the Minister guarantee the House that com-
puterized information on individuals and
businesses and personal dossiers will not be "
transferred to anyone without the permission
of the individual, and that citizens will be
given their records once a year to check their
accuracy? ;
Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary): Mr. ^
Speaker, it is my understanding that this may .'-
have some reference to the activities con-
ducted under The Department of the Treasury
and the question has been referred to the
Provincial Treasurer for reply. f
Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Treasurer, I
believe, had a copy of it and probably will
take it as notice?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr, Speaker, I
I will have to take some of the substance of
the hon. member's question as notice,
although I can say that certain statutory
provisions exist within the ambit of our taxa-
tion laws that do provide for secrecy.
It conforms, of course, to the statutory
provisions at the federal level and, indeed, I
think, associated with all tax statutes. The
extent to which I will ask the hon. member's
to allow me notice is to examine into the sub-
stance of this question and deal with it in
greater detail on another occasion, if I may
and if necessary.
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
may now place his question.
Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To
the Attorney General: Does the Attorney Gen-
eral now believe that glue-sniffing is taking
on dangerous proportions in Ontario? And
can we expect regulatory legislation at this
session?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would use the
words "dangerous proportions." I do not
believe this matter has reached that stage of
use or effect. I would think perhaps we
might say that the problem has given us con-
siderable concern. It is serious to a degree,
but I am certainly not prepared to say it is
a dangerous problem in Ontario at this time.
No decision has been taken at this time
as to legislation by the province and in that
regard I would point out that a province has
a very limited jurisdiction to control a situa-
tion of this kind. If it were to be regarded
as a criminal offence to use it or to sell it,
put it in the hands of a person, then it cer-
tainly falls witliin the criminal field and is
federal legislation.
If it falls within the food and drug area,
if it falls within the control area of drugs
JUNE 5, 1968
3929
or foods that could be put to a dangerous
use, or might have a dangerous effect,
then it is also in The Food and Drug
Act area of the federal government. The only
areas of jurisdiction where the province could
deal with it would be perhaps in two ways—
the first one marketing. Glue, in itself, is a
common commodity. It is intended in an
innocent, useful purpose and it would be
extremely difficult, as I am sure hon. members
will understand, to limit the marketing of a
common commodity such as glue, butter or
sugar, or whatever one might suggest. The
other way we might get at it, would be
to make it an ofi^ence to be found in an in-
toxicated or hallucinogenic condition as a
result of it. This would be analogous to our
liquor legislation. But again the analogy is not
very good, because alcohol is a substance
which has a special purpose. It is not a com-
mon commodity on the common marketplace
for an innocent purpose such as glue.
So we have a very limited approach if we
are to deal with this matter. I am concerned.
We have discussed this with police chiefs and
police bodies, particularly with the Toronto
board of education, and with certain indivi-
duals who are also concerned. I think that
we all have a responsibility here.
What I would like to point out is that
glue sniffing in itself is simply just a par-
ticular evidence of a symptom which is a
general situation, an attitude which is abroad
at this time. To pass legislation, if we could,
to control its use, or misuse, would perhaps
only lead to the user's discovery of another
substance such as gasoline, or nail polish, or
vanilla extract, or something else that would
be used to create another sensation.
I think that there is a great responsibility
on parents— if I may say so, a primary respon-
sibility—and certainly on teachers. I am sure
that responsibility is accepted. Under present
legislation in the criminal code, or some of
our Acts relating to juvenile persons, we can
bring to the court persons found in a damaged
or dangerous, or intoxicated condition, and
then charge them with an offence.
This is being done. That legislation has
the effect of bringing home to persons who
are indulging in glue sniffing, the danerous
situation in which they personally may find
themselves, and that they may be brought
before the courts and dealt with. If I might,
Mr. Speaker— I have before me a study made
on solvent sniffing, and I would like to quote
from it. It is called "solvent sniffing", and is
a very complete study of the effects, the use.
the prevalence and the legislative attempts
which have been made in various states of
the United States to control this matter. This
is a study from last year which was pub-
lished in volume 39 of Pediatrics in March,
1967.
Mr. Nixon: That might be of assistance,
there are two provinces that have legislation
on that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was going to come to
that. This study was done by the Illinois
department of health and department of
pediatrics, in conjunction with the University
of Utah, college of medicine. The conclusions
of this very extensive and thorough article
are what I should like to quote, and it is
in the last paragraph. This is what they
arrived at one year ago:
Legislation has been adopted or proposed
in many cities and in several major states
in an attempt to control the problem, but
its effectiveness remains open to question.
Mr. Speaker, I can scarcely hear myself.
Mr. Speaker: It would appear that the
microphone is probably not working well,
and there is a considerable undercurrent of
noise in the House. I do not know if the
Minister's microphone is turned to pick up
his voice properly or not, but let us try it
again now, and perhaps the members will
be more silent.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Continuing to quote:
Statutes aimed at restricting distribution
rather than abuse of solvents is made diffi-
cult by the ubiquitousness of substances
which can produce such effects. Thus,
while a particular product such as plastic
cement may be the current favourite, legis-
lation aimed at it alone is not only dis-
criminatory, but may actually be harmful
by forcing the use of alternate substances
which are potentially more dangerous.
Statutes aimed at abuse of the solvents,
namely prohibition of inhalation, with the
intent of intoxication, provide a mechanism
whereby offenders can be apprehended,
and hopefully subjected to treatment, and
may have some deterrent value. However,
if interpreted literally they could be diffi-
cult to enforce, and could technically be
construed to prohibit alcohol, tobacco and
caffeine, as well as glue.
Individual and family treatment aimed
at the underlying disorder offers the best
3930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hope of effecting a permanent cure of the
habitue.
In this country, we have in British Columbia
and I beheve in Alberta, legislation on this
matter. In British Columbia, the legislation
prohibits the use of marijuana and LSD-
prohibits the giving of it to certain persons.
The Alberta Act goes a little further, but
neither one of them, as far as our studies go,
seem to have been effective and do not deal
with tliis problem in any way. All I would
say further, in answer to the hon. member,
is that there are many difficulties in our
approach with legislation. We have concern
and studies are going forward. As I say,
certain court action is being taken which I
think may have a very good deterrent effect.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask
the Attorney General: Would it not be pos-
sible simply to make it illegal to sell the
products— and it could be an extensive list
or a small list of products— to individuals
under a certain age? Do we not have some
sort of legislation about tobacco like that?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We have thought of
this, Mr. Speaker, but if you are dealing
with glue, here is a substance which you
cannot really relate to tobacco. Glue is a
commodity which is in common use for the
ordinary simple purposes of construction of
articles or fastening things together. Perhaps
we could pass such legislation. I have grave
doubts as to how effective you could make
it. A package of glue comes with the model
airplane or model boat in many cases. Is that
to be an offence? Can we enforce such legis-
lation?
All I can say to the hon. member is we
are studying this problem, which presents
many difficulties, and I hope we may come
up with an answer. But it is certainly no
simple matter. As I say, there is an underly-
ing disorder— in the words of this article— of
which glue sniffing is a symptom today, and
if we put glue out of business, then it will
probably be gasoline or extract tomorrow.
Mr. Nixon: Just one last question. The
Minister is aware that the glue is not ordinary
glue as he refers to it, but a toluene-base glue
that seems to be popular.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I am aware.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, the
hon. member for High Park asked a question
in two parts, which I took as notice. I would
like to reply, now.
The first part of the question was: Has
the Minister investigated charges by Matron
Shirley H. regarding the cause of a sitdown
strike of female prisoners at Don jail on
May 19, 1968?
Second: Will the Minister reveal the results
of that investigation to the House?
Mr. Speaker, I shall answer both parts of
this question at the same time. I am advised
that persons incarcerated in the Metropolitan
Toronto jail receive three slices of bread with
their meals. After they have eaten this allot-
ment, they may return for additional bread
if they so desire. This policy is followed at
the jail in order to prevent wastage.
My information is that, on May 19, a very
small group of inmates refused briefly to
return to tlieir cells because they wanted to
be able to take unlimited supplies of bread
in the first instance when the meal was served.
They requested to speak to the assistant
deputy governor. Subsequently, he spoke to
them and they returned to their cells. This
was the end of the so-called "sitdown strike,"
which lasted less than 15 minutes.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not unreasonable
to expect that an hon. member should refrain
from taking up the time of this House with
such an insignificant incident? Endowing a
minor occurrence with the dignity of discus-
sion in the Legislature of Ontario magnifies it
out of all proportion and is an incentive to
disruptive actions on the part of a few hard-
core disgruntled prisoners, some of whom
are to be found in every penal system in
the world. The disruption that can result
from such unfortunate publicity of minor
incidents can only serve to damage the pro-
grammes and security of these institutions,
thereby jeopardizing the safety of the public
as well as those directly concerned.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point
out to you that my question had to do with
charges laid by the matron. The Minister has
not answered my question. He has followed
his usual practice and given us a sermon.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as a
matter of fact, the letters to which the hon.
member referred, I have studied in detail,
and the writer of these letters did not even
mention a sitdown strike.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, that is not
the question I asked. The question I asked,
Mr. Speaker, was: Did the Minister investi-
gate charges laid by a matron? I would like
an answer to my question.
JUNE 5, 1968
3931
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question, Mr.
Speaker, was: Has the Minister investigated
charges by Matron Shirley H. regarding the
cause of a sitdown strike of female prisoners
in Don jail on May 19, 1968? I submit to
you, sir-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Yes or
Hion. Mr. Grossman: And I submit to you,
sir, that I answered that.
Mr. Speaker: If the member for High Park
has any supplementary question, proper to
the original question, I am sure he has the
floor for it. Otherwise, the Minister has
answered the question as he feels he should
answer it, and that is his prerogative.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions) moves second reading of Bill 128,
An Act to amend The Training Schools Act,
1965.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, is this the one that grants
what might be called a ticket of leave, or is
it the following one?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker, this
is deleting from The Training Schools Act all
those provisions which require municipalities
to pay for the transportation of children, and
so on, to training schools.
Mr. Speaker: If there is no further debate,
is it the pleasure of the House that the
second reading of Bill 128 carry?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES ACT, 1968
Hon. Mr. Grossman moves second reading
of Bill 129, The Department of Correctional
Services Act, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
—I am sorry, the leader of the Opposition
has prior right to the floor.
Mr. Nixon: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, I indi-
cated when I rose for the previous bill, but
I was in error, it was on this one that I
wanted to make some brief remarks.
Certainly we approve of the change in
name of the department, in that it would
follow the philosophy of the department,
emphasizing the correctional aspects of the
Minister's responsibility. We have had a
rather full discussion of the work of his
department in the past few days. One com-
ment that the Minister made I thought was
of some particular importance. It might
indicate that this bill contains a consider-
able breakthrough in a problem that has
faced penal systems in many jurisdictions.
It has been raised in the House on many
occasions— the special and unnatural problems
that are faced by inmates of the Minister's
institutions, and the fact that they are lacking
the normal circumstances of family life.
There have been suggestions made that we
might at least study, if not copy, the attempts
in, I believe, Louisiana and Mexico and
some other jurisdictions, at making up for
this unnatural circumstance which is bound
to lead to increased difiiculties in the institu-
tions, particularly for those inmates who are
serving some lengthy sentences.
The Minister indicated in an aside during
his remarks that this bill might in fact con-
tain at least a partial solution to this problem,
and at the discretion of those in his depart-
ment it would be possible to grant a leave
of up to 15 days for specific purposes having
to do with the harvesting of crops and other
family circumstances. I gathered from the
Minister's remarks that these family circum-
stances might be interpreted in a rather
broader light than those which he had listed
specifically, and it is in this connection that
I believe there might be the breakthrough
that I see possible in the bill as it is before
us.
If that is so, I think that it would be a
most commendable circumstance and that the
Minister is giving himself and the officials in
his department some considerable flexibility
in meeting this continuing problem, if I make
myself clear.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, in speaking to the principle of Bill
3932
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
129 I should like to lend my support to the
changes being made. Other jurisdictions use
the term corrections— the state of Ohio refers
to The Department of Mental Hygiene and
Corrections; the state of Oregon, to the
corrections division; the state of Wisconsin
to its division of corrections.
One of the expressions that many of us
heard in our youth, perhaps without under-
standing it fully at the time, was "give a dog
a bad name and he will live up to it." The
truth that is revealed in this saying has led
to the changing of nomenclature in the field
of penology. Young oflFenders seem to replace
juvenile delinquents. Convicts, jailbirds and
the like are now terms that are studiously
avoided by most of those who are concerned
with the rehabilitating of those who run
afoul of the law, and for this reason I believe
that The Department of Correctional Services
is a great improvement over The Department
of Reform Institutions.
At St. Leonard's house, in Windsor, there
is accommodation for 18 guests; not ex-
prisoners, not ex-convicts, not parolees or
releasees— the word is guests. In fact the
insignia of St. Leonard's house sets an admir-
able, if unattainable, standard for the treat-
ment of those who seek its services. The
motto on the St. Leonard's house insignia is,
"Let all guests be received as Christ."
In all human relations, Mr. Speaker, and
in all human communication, the choice of
words is very important. The choice of words
reflects immediately the attitude of the
speaker— of any speaker, not Mr. Speaker— and
hate literature can be identified very quickly
by the choice of vocabulary that is used. I
beheve that this change in name will bring
with it a greater emphasis on rehabilitation,
and it is further obvious that the better tlie
rehabilitation, the better the protection of the
community. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I
support the change of name and am happy
that Ontario is catching up in this respect
with other jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who washes to si>eak in this debate before the
Minister? The Minister, if he has any com-
ments.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think there is too much comment called for
by me. Both the hon. members have agreed
with the principle of the bill. I agree whole-
heartedly with everything they have said in
support of the bill and I am glad that they
are in agreement with it. I might just add
that the comments of the leader of the
Opposition have not gone unnoticed; that the
references which he made to the certain
situations which concern us all, are certainly
involved in the ultimate programme of what
is envisaged in this bill. However, let me
assure the hon. members we will proceed
with a great deal of caution, because the bill
is breaking new ground. The specific refer-
ences the hon. leader of the Opposition has
mentioned, we think will present themselves
in this new programme and perhaps in a
more dignified fashion than in those other
jurisdictions he referred to.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PENSION BENEFITS ACT, 1965
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer) moves second reading of Bill 134,
An Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act,
1965.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I presume this bill is to try to pro-
tect a little more, the pension benefits that
are earned by employees after a certain
length of service and having reached a cer-
tain age. Regardless of what happens to the
company, does this protect the benefits in
case the company does cease to operate?
Does any plan that is approved have -to
make provision that even though the com-
pany ceases to operate, this retirement bene-
fit will become due and payable at the time
that the man reaches normal retirement age?
If so, I think this is a very fine bill to have
as added protection.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
had contemplated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Minister
allow me to see if there is any other mem-
ber who wishes to engage in this debate?
The member for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I was just going to inquire about
(me thing, and possibly the Minister might
be coming to this point in his explanation.
The bill, in principle, apparently is to allow
the commission to take over when it is of the
opinion that the employer has discontinued or
is in the process. I am wondering if the Min-
ister in his explanation might enlighten the
House as to how the commission expects to
be aware of the fact, or the presumption,
that the company is going to discontinue.
JUNE 5, 1968
3933
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
wishing to speak to this bill? If not, the
Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would like, Mr.
Speaker, to make a statement that I hope in
general terms would clarify the questions of
the two hon. members who have addressed the
House. Then I miglit, upon completion of
the statement, deal with the question put
by the hon. member for Kitchener in maybe
more specific detail.
This bill contains two provisions which are
intended to protect the employee's interest
in deferred life annuities in special circum-
stances. The special circumstances are (a)
when a pension plan is voluntarily wound up,
and (b) when an employer commences to
discontinue business prior to winding up a
plan. Under the present Act there was no
question that an employee who was employed
with the employer at the time tlie plan
was wound up was protected, but it was not
clear whether or not the same protection
was extended to former employees who quali-
fied for a deferred annuity but who were
no longer employed. The amendment is in-
tended to clarify this situation, but there has
been no change in the basic entitlement pro-
vision.
It has come to the attention of the com-
mission that in some instances where an
employer is in the process of discontinuing
his business he may encourage his employees
to leave prior to winding up the plan. In
these circumstances such employees may be
losing certain entitlements and indeed— and
I am digressing from the statement that is
before me— there have been one or more
sporadic instances of this; just enough, inci-
dentally, to trigger the amendment we are
proposing here today. Fortunately, there have
not been too many but there could be more.
In order to protect these employees, the
commission has the right to deem a pension
plan wound up. It should be noted, however,
that the employer has the right to appeal the
decision of the commission.
This brings me then to the question raised
by the hon. member for Kitchener. I agree
with him, it is a very difficult thing to define;
it will have to be a judgment decision. I
must say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the
members of the House, that we will have to
rely on judgment decision because it is an
area where there can be very little precision.
But I think this legislation is required to
empower the commission to anticipate these
situations and move in and deem such an
action as being either contemplated or taking
place, to provide the protection that is re-
quired.
Against that, then, we have provided for
the appeal provisions that, if the commission
does anticipate a situation, that, upon exam-
ination or that can be supported by a position
of the employer, in fact is not the case, the
employer then has the right of appeal. I
recognize, Mr. Speaker— and I raised this
same question when the legislation was being
drafted and considered— that it is far from
precise, but I do not know how we can be
precise and give the protection that is
required.
I would like to make a comment about
section 5. I could actually, at this point, go
into an example, if the hon. members who
have posed questions would be interested in
a more specific example. I hope, however,
that I have covered this situation satisfactorily
enough.
While there has been no question raised
with respect to section 5, I just would like
to mention to the House that this has to do
with portability. It has come to our attention
that there is a conceivability that another
province may enact legislation which is sub-
stantially similar to the legislation in Ontario,
but which may differ in one or more par-
ticular aspects.
As an example, when the province of
Saskatchewan enacted The Pension Benefits
Act, they made provision in their Act to
allow regulations to be made which would
exempt females from the requirements of—
45 being the age eligibility factor and ten
years being the vesting period— they exempted
females from this requirement. It would have
been difficult for Ontario to enter then into
any reciprocal agreement, or to designate
Saskatchewan as being a province in which
there was substantially similar legislation,
unless we could recognize the difference and
introduce a regulation which would allow us
to administer pension plans for employees in
Saskatchewan in line with the legislation in
that province.
At this present moment there is no need
for this, as Saskatchewan's Act and regula-
tions are substantially different. However, any
other province could enact legislation and
this section would allow us to designate that
province when there is a difference in the
legislation and provide for continuing porta-
bility.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
3934
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves second read-
ing of Bill 136, An Act to amend The Income
Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want really
to get some information. It could be asked
at another stage.
These, of course, are funds collected by
the federal government, and they are then
abated to us— I believe that is the word that
is used. It has occurred to us on this side
that the necessity of Bill 136 coming in year
after year, is really a basis of agreement,
rather than an enactment of this House. I
wonder if the Minister could explain how he
deals with the government of Canada in this
regard and the necessity of the bill?
Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members
who wish to engage in this debate? The Pro-
vincial Treasurer has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, this
is the form required by the federal govern-
ment, for giving notice to them of our own
intention, with respect to personal income
tax.
I think it would be obvious to the hon.
leader of the Opposition and members of the
House that they need and require time to
prepare their tax return forms and schedules.
If it was the intention of the provincial gov-
ernment to impose a personal income tax in
excess of the abatement percentage, then
notice would have to be given to the federal
government, for administrative purposes.
This is the means of giving them that notice.
I might say that at the last conference of
finance Ministers, this matter was discussed
with the federal Minister of Finance— indeed,
it was advanced by Ontario that it is a
rather restrictive method of giving notice,
doing it in this manner at this time. It
boxes us in to a very considerable extent if
we elect to change our Act.
It was generally concurred in by, I think,
the federal Deputy Minister at that time and
some of his advisors that there could be
another opportunity to give notice if any
changes in this particular area of taxation
were contemplated. I am given assurance
now that they would entertain, say, two
opportunities to give notice a year, rather
than the one.
Mr. Nixon: The other one could be an
order-in-council ?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The means of giv-
ing notice, I might say, were not considered.
The principle was concurred in. They agreed
with us that it was too restrictive, in the
light of circumstances that could change, and
that we might elect to consider these things.
But the means of doing it, other than by this
rather restrictive method, were not con-
sidered.
I think the principle was accepted and I
think we will have an opportunity to work
it out when we confer with them, before too
long, in terms of the renewal of our tax
agreement. They saw some wisdom in the
flexibility of this, so, hopefully, if we can
develop a means of providing this notice
that is not as restrictive and gives us another
opportunity to give further notice, if circum-
stances make it necessary to change the posi-
tion that we now propose in this bill.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACT i
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves second read- |
ing of Bill 137, An Act to amend The Finan- |
cial Administration Act. 4
Motion agreed to; second reading of the i
bill. ;
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves second read-
ing of Bill 138, An Act to estabhsh The
Department of Revenue.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as I understand
it, these two bills separate the responsibihties
of the Provincial Treasurer into two depart-
ments. I have a disinclination to favour the
prohferation of government departments. The
recommendations of the Smith committee on
this aspect did not seem to have sufficient
argument to set up a completely separate
department, except for tidiness and ease of
understanding the administration.
I would surely hope and expect that there
would not be the necessity of a separate
Minister at the provincial level to administer
the new department that is created by Bill
138, and by its companion Bill 137. If there is
any reason to think otherwise, we could per-
haps make more extensive comment at that
time. The reason for separating it into a
separate department, except for neatness of
JUNE 5, 1968
3935
administration, is really difficult to under-
stand.
It would tend, I suppose, to restrict the
activities of the public servants that are
presently in the stafiF of the Treasury. They
would think of themselves as being restricted
only to revenue, and it would take a Cabinet
committee so that they would be in proper
contact, at the top level at least, with their
former colleagues in The Department of the
Treasury. Perhaps I am setting up difficulties
that will not occur, and yet it is not at all
apparent why the greater good of the province
is served by yet another department, in a
Cabinet, in an administration that has grown
over the years to its present large size.
I could stand to be corrected in this, but
I believe that there are now 24 separate de-
partments, which is as big, as far as the
number of departments is concerned, as the
government of Canada, and bigger than any
other provincial administration. I do beheve
that there is an advantage in focusing respon-
sibility in a smaller number of departments.
The Provincial Treasurer may feel that his
responsibilities have grown to the point where
he no longer feels able to handle them, and
yet my expectations would be that one Mini-
ster would continue with both responsibilities.
The Premier (Mr. Robarts) is not present
to add his comments on that eventuahty, but I
would be very glad to hear the justification
that the Provincial Treasurer has for the divi-
sion of his job.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.
Mr. Breithaupt: I would just like to inquire
of the Minister his reasons for the change
from the present standard of The Department
of the Treasury now to be The Department of
Treasury and Economics, with the addition of
this Department of Revenue. It would appear
to me that the function of the Treasury board
would be the major one to be retained by the
Minister as Provincial Treasurer. I am wonder-
ing if he would explain the necessity for the
establishment of a separate department wdth
respect to provincial revenue, would he en-
lighten the House as to the retained functions
of Treasury and his expectations of this as a
separate department?
Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering
why the Minister is in such a hurry to intro-
duce this change of organization prior to the
white paper being prepared by the select
committee on taxation? This has already been
observed to be following a suggestion in
the Smith committee, which as the hon. leader
of the Opposition mentioned, is not very fully
supported. I feel that there could be a little
more care given in the decision of whether
it is necessary to set up a separate department
in this phase, which is so often followed by
increased overhead. We already see some
duplication— in fact, considerable duplication
of effort-on the part of The Treasury Depart-
ment in connection with The Succession Duty
Act, and corporation tax work, where, par-
ticularly in connection with succession duties,
we find work being duphcated that has
already been done by the federal authorities,
and resulting in considerable delay in release
of estates. It seems to me that the whole
matter of the study of this separate depart-
ment, as recommended by the Smith report,
should be held over until we get a report
from the select committee on taxation.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, much of what has been said I
would agree with, particularly in the queries
that have been put to the Minister as to
exactly what is in the government's mind.
What puzzles me about this move is that it
strikes me as being to some degree a parallel
of the kind of thing that the government did
in the instance of separating out The Depart-
ment of Transport from The Department of
Highways. You had a department whose main
job was to build highways, so you separated
out the routine detail, and you created a new
department that was going to be given a real
raison d'etre in terms of doing planning of
transportation, real research work. What has
happened? The research work has disappeared
from The Department of Transport. I am not
objecting to that; it has come back into your
department to a considerable extent, into the
Treasury but what is left of The Department
of Transport?
What are you doing in this case? You are
separating out the routine aspects of raising
revenue from the whole budgetary, research
and economic aspects of the department. It
seems to me that we are getting such proh-
feration here that we are going to end up with
an unwieldy bureaucracy— an unnecessary
number of departments. We have already
suggested from this side of the House, in the
instance of The Department of Transport, that
if it is not going to be a really meaningful
department, let research go where it really is
going— to the new Department of the Treasury
—and put Transport back as a branch of
Highways. I am tempted to venture the pre-
diction that this will be half a department at
3936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
best, dealing with routine matters such as the
collecting of revenues.
I think that we reach a point, somewhere
around 20, in terms of Cabinet Ministers,
where you begin to get depreciating returns.
When you have added two or three more
departments I think that you are creating an
imwieldy bureaucracy.
An Hon. member: Too many chiefs.
Mr. MacDonald: There are a lot of chiefs
that tliey want to put to work, and maybe
that is the purpose. Maybe it is the same as
with Indians. Every time we get a new pro-
gramme it is to provide jobs for the whites,
and not to serve the Indians. Maybe in this
instance it is to provide jobs for the Tories
and not to serve the people of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook ( Sarnia ) : Mr. Speaker,
I would ask you, along with myself and my
colleagues on this side of tlie House, to cast
your mind back to al^out eight weeks ago.
We were debating here the elevation of
the motor vehicle fuel tax, and The Gasoline
Tax Act. We spent probably eight hours of
one day in this House putting to the hon.
Minister the question of the regressiveness of
these taxes and imploring him to take a more
vigorous attitude in the more progressive tax
field available to him. He said, and I believe
rightly so, "You must bear with me, if you
would, because we have the Smith report,
but we have not had the opportunity of
digesting it fully."
I did accept that premise at that time,
as much as I was opposed to the regressive-
ness of those taxes. But to elaborate here for
just a moment on what my hon. leader has
said, one week after the government has
established a select committee to investigate
this very report, here we have it establishing
a new department of the government.
It is almost incomprehensible to find that
the Minister would take this position now.
Surely to goodness it is incumbent upon
him to listen to the brief and read the briefs
and get the report of his select committee
before he vmdertakes a step of this con-
sequence—the establishment of a new depart-
ment of government and all the consequences
thereof.
I ask him to relate this, for example, in
connection with transport. The hon. member
for York South has mentioned The Depart-
ment of Transport. What about the revenues
through The Department of Transport? Are
they to be channelled eventually through
The Department of Revenue? One example,
again of an undue proliferation of govern-
ment, something that the leader of our party
has taken issue with strenuously.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any further debate
before the Minister replies? The Provincial
Treasurer has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Again, Mr.
Speaker, witli the indulgence of yourself
and the members of the House, I would like
to put a statement on the record, and possibly
comment on some of the questions and
observations that have been raised.
The two bills before us provide for a
fundamental change in the organization of
this government, and my preliminary remarks
will cover both pieces of legislation. I hope
to provide the hon. members with the
rationale behind tlie organization, or reorgani-
zation. Our objective is to provide for greater
specialization and proficiency in our financial
and economic operations, in recognition of
the pressures resulting from a rising level of
governmental involvement in our social and
economic evolution. Our growing revenue
requirements, particularly in the area of
priority investments, intensified the need for
application of a greater degree of scientific
research and skill to our financial manage-
ment and revenue administration.
I digress from this point at this particular
mcment, and I say this is not new. I have
made these observations from very shortly
following the time of my appointment to
this present portfolio. It became apparent,
\'ery early in tlie responsibilities that were
assigned to me a year ago November, that
this was a great necessity. Indeed, shortly
following that, statements were made which
explained to the public, while the House was
not in session, that the very substantial
restructuring of the department had already
been made as far back as December 15.
Mr Nixon: The Minister's predecessor had
lots more problems.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
think I will regard that as l^eside the point
for the moment.
The Budget statement and accompanying
papers which I presented to the Legislature
this spring— and, indeed, for the year previ-
ous—outlined the sobering problem ahead of
us in meeting tiie prerequisites of this rapidly
maturing jurisdiction. And I digress again to
say that I think that we have placed before
the members of this Legislature the budge-
t:
JUNE 5, 1968
3937
tary, economic and matters facing the gov-
ernment in more detail, the supporting
material, than has ever been done before.
I do not say we are perfect yet, Mr. Speaker,
but we are moving in this direction.
Two distinct areas of organization delineate
tliemsclves among the present operations in
Tile Department of Treasury. One is required
to ensure that the thrust of our fiscal activi-
ties contributes optimum benefits to our
economy and maximum advantage to our
people. The other is necessary to provide for
fair and efficient administration of our revenue
legislation. So sensitive and critical, in my
opinion, are both of these functions that the
government believes each merits singular and
precise attention by a separate department of
this administration.
Under the legislation before this House,
The Department of Treasury and Economics
will undertake the responsibility for recom-
mending and implementing broad government
poHcy on revenue and expenditure pro-
grammes. Its title retains the traditional
designation for the financial heart of a gov-
ernment, and recognizes the importance of
its role in the production and distribution
of wealth and associated benefits in this
province.
The Department of Revenue will concen-
trate on the equitable and proficient adminis-
tration of taxation statutes, and other revenue
legislation which may be assigned to it. This
specialization acknowledges the right of the
public to receive just treatment in the enforce-
ment of laws required to finance the services
this House deems necessary, and desirable.
While T believe the reasons for the division
of tliis responsibility are evident, I am pleased
to cite specific recommendations and pre-
cedents on which the hon. members may
make their own judgment.
I refer to the report of the Ontario com-
mittee on taxation, and I quote a portion of
paragraph 7, of chapter 25, which sums up
the concern of the committee for a change
in organizational structure, and I quote:
Among the possible structural alterna-
tives, it is our considered opinion that a
separate department in which the main
revenue responsibilities are brought to-
gether offers the greatest advantages. Such
a department would facilitate the consoli-
dation of assessment collection and appeal
procedures for all major revenues statutes.
While consohdation might admittedly be
possible within the structure of an existing
department, a revenue department would
emphasize by the very fact of its distinct
departmental status responsibility for effi-
cient and equitable administration of tax
statutes.
In addition, separating tax policy formula-
tion from tax administration would enhance,
in the public eye, the importance the govern-
ment attaches to revenue raising policy. It
would enable The Treasury Department to
concentrate its attention on broad questions
on fiscal and economic policy. We note that,
to all appearances, experience with both the
federal Department of National Revenue and
The Department of Revenue in the province
of Quebec has been highly favourable.
This recommendation is similar to the con-
clusion reached by the Glassco commission
after its comprehensive study of operations
at the federal level. The hon. members of
this House who have urged the government
to follow this guideline in refining our pro-
vincial operations, I would hope would wel-
come this further development.
The concern expressed by the Smith com-
mittee for preservation of civil rights relating
to taxation has been much more thoroughly
explored by Mr. Justice McRuer. His report
presented to this Legislature a few weeks
ago, gives added weight to the recommenda-
tion of the Smith committee.
The Department of Treasury and Eco-
nomics says the pohcy recommending arm of
government must assume a vital role in four
broad areas of immediate and urgent concern.
Paramount is the reform of provincial tax
structure to which the government is dedi-
cated. Closely associated is the rationalization
of the intergovernmental taxation arrange-
ments, which I believe is critical to the
realization of both national and provincial
objectives.
The third challenge relates to the direction
and restraint of government expenditiures
toward priority investment and economic
viability.
Finally, the government wishes to acceler-
ate the management and supervisory pro-
grammes which have been estabhshed to
improve efficiency and effectiveness of its
activities and administration.
The hon, members will be aware that the
economic component of the government
organization joined The Treasury Depart-
ment late last year in the first move toward
restructuring our financial administration.
Our economists are working closely with the
Treasury board secretariat to provide a uni-
fied organization dealing with an economic
3938
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
financial and fiscal taxation policy and
federal-provincial afiFairs.
This new structure will be linked inti-
mately with the Cabinet committee on policy
development, established by the Prime Min-
ister earlier this year, by consolidating the
Cabinet committee on economics and finance,
and the Cabinet committee on regional de-
velopment. This consolidation also recognizes
the need to apply scientific control to the
development of policies.
Perhaps I can best describe the organiza-
tional flow in relation to preparation of the
annual Budget. The Cabinet committee on
policy development will meet in advance of
the budgetarial review process to recommend
basic guidelines on expenditure and revenue
programmes for the coming year. The result-
ing decision of Cabinet will be implemented
by the Treasury board during its con-
sideration of departmental estimates. The
Department of Treasury and Economics will
provide the supplementary staff for both the
determination and implementation of govern-
ment policy during this process. The statisti-
cal and analytical research required for the
formulation and assessment of alternatives
will be supplied to the policy committee of
Cabinet by the economic component of the
department.
Treasury board, in its surveillance of ex-
penditure and managerial operations, will be
assisted by the Treasury side of the depart-
ment. The integration of these input and
output procedures within the department
will ensure a co-ordinated approach to the
broader aspects of government activity.
This outline I hope will serve to relate
the general relationship of the new Depart-
ment of Treasury and Economics to govern-
mental operations. Members will have an
opportunity to review the more detailed
organization when the estimates for the pres-
ent Tresury department come before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope and trust that
these remarks will place this legislation in
perspective for the hon. members. I believe
this development is both realistic and requi-
site in the refinement of our organization. It
demonstrates this administration's concern
for the financial challenge facing us and our
determination to resolve it with effective use
of scientific and technological resources.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to comment briefly on
some of the questions that have been pro-
posed by hon. members, may I—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order before the Minister goes on.
A number of times we have attempted to
come to grips with the most efiicient proce-
dure in dealing with second readings. With
respect, I think the Minister has violated
what I thought was the appropriate approach
—namely, if the Minister has a statement in
addition to a statement that he may have
made on first reading, that he give it first.
This is not precluding conclusion of the
debate, but what you have done in effect,
is to have explained your understanding of
the operation of the bill at a time when we,
in the Opposition, are cut off. We cannot
even get up and ask a question.
I would think that if that statement had
been made at tlie beginning of the second
reading, then we could have taken it into
account when we asked questions. Tihat
being the case, Mr. Speaker, I have one
question I want to throw in before the Min-
ister replies.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might say that at
the beginning of the debate on the previous
bills and on this one, the Minister endea-
voured to get to his fee. But, not knowing
what he had, and going on the agreement
that the Minister would speak last, I gave
the floor to the Opposition. So, in order that
we have the matter properly dealt with
today— yes, I am confirmed in what I was
about to say by the advice of the Clerk of
the House, who is most experienced in these
matters.
What I was about to say was that we
would still endeavour to abide by the pre-
vious agreement, but that I saw no objection
to the leader of the Opposition— or the leader
of the New Democratic Party or indeed, any
member who had engaged in the debate-
asking the Minister, in this instance, if he
would clarify for the member any part of
the remarks made by the Minister.
In other words, I would not like this to
be a precedent so that we can continue the
debates hereafter, but I think in this instance,
it is quite in order.
So the member for York South has the
floor and tlien, if any of the other members
who had engaged in the debate, wish to ask
a question it will be quite satisfactory.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not know whether
I understand you or not, Mr. Speaker, but
in my view— and I am not being argumenta-
tive—the statement the Minister just made
was an appropriate statement to make at the
i
JUNE 5, 1968
3939
beginning of second reading. When we
respond over here, we put questions and the
Minister replies.
Mr. Nixon: Well, if I may speak to the
point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
has the floor at the moment.
Mr. Nixon: It was on the point of order,
Mr. Speaker, and it perhaps would be even
more useful if the sort of statement that the
Minister has made would be made on first
reading, as part of the introduction of the
bill. It would then be on the record for us
to consider as we approach second reading
and the consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
just simply wanted to observe that I have
no quarrel with what is being proposed here
today. I simply felt that I was keeping within
the rules that had been prescribed by the
chair. I have no objection to this at all. None
at all.
Mr. MacDonald: No, no, the rules— as
prescribed by the chair, and as discussed by
the party leaders— are: The Minister makes a
statement on first reading, if he wishes to
make a further statement on second reading
he does so. Otherwise, he says, "I have
made my explanation of the bill in first read-
ing."
The Minister, on this occasion, has come
forward with further elaboration which— in
my view, not being argumentative, but in my
view— was appropriate for the beginning of
the second reading. However, we have sorted
it out. I hope that we are back on the track.
The first thing I wanted to—
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order please! May I
just be sure that there is no misunderstand-
ing. I think that the Minister did try to
make that statement and I indicated that he
should retain his seat, because I did not
know the type of statement which he was
making. I think it is a complete misunder-
standing. The member for York South has the
floor.
Mr. MacDonald: The question I wanted
raised with the Minister, in attempting to get
a picture of exactly what the government is
going to do in separating out the revenue
raising in this new department, is in reference
to the special statutes that come under this
department as set forth in section 4. It lists
The Corporations Act, and so on— there are
13 of them.
I am interested in noting these, but what
I am even more interested in is what remain-
ing statutes or revenue raising activity, is left
scattered with departments through the rest
of the government. It would seem to me
that the sole justification of this department
is that it would clean up this untidy business
of so many departments being involved in
the collection of money for the government.
If it is all going to be centralized in The
Department of Revenue, then at least I begin
to get on your wavelength and I understand
the rationale. But my specific question to the
Minister is: Is The Department of Transport,
for example, still being left with some collec-
tions, such as licence fees? Are other depart-
ments, like Social and Family Services, left
with collecting revenues because it happens
to be done in their offices? Whether it be the
ofiices of the Minister of Social and Family
Services, or The Department of Transport,
does the money then go directly to The
Department of Revenue rather than being
circuited through that department?
This is the kind of thing I would like to
get a clear picture of.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I
realize that there may be some irregularities
in this in terms of second reading. I attach
enough importance to the legislation before
the House, to ask you to permit a little
dialogue in this respect. But I will not take
these questions in order.
I think the hon. member for York South
has put his finger on it. And I think what
he suggests supports the reason for the
division of the department. There are a
number of things which I dealt with in very
general terms. I will attempt to be more
specific.
A select committee has been set up to
pursue the recommendations of the Smith
committee report— and the terms of refer-
ence provide for this— to examine the briefs
that have already been submitted and to hear
more presentations as they travel throughout
the province, if requests are made in some
formal manner.
However, I would remind the hon. member
—and remind the House— that we started the
process of this examination immediately upon
publication of the Smith committee report
and we have done exhaustive studies on it
in an internal way. We have set up a central
task force to examine these things, I am
mixing my observations to the hon. member
3940
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for York South to some extent with com-
ments for the hon. member for Samia.
I cannot for the life of me see that what
has been proposed here to bring a repre-
sentative group of the members into a study
of this important thing, needs to either negate
what we have done or to stop that process
going on at the same time because they are
two difiFerent kettles of fish, I suggest.
There is the administrative problem asso-
ciated with these things and I think only the
advisors to government can examine this. I
do not think that becomes the function of
the select committee, nor do the terms of
reference prescribe it. I am not trying to
generalize on this situation too much, but
again, I go back to the observation of the
hon. member for York South on that. I think
the hon. member for York South has put his
finger on the reasons for dividing this depart-
ment.
Let us examine the 350 recommendations
of Smith on the one hand, and some of the
recommendations of Mr. Justice McRuer on
the other. I do submit to the House that then
the whole function of the revenue adminis-
trative side, as a collaborative and a support-
ing arm to the revenue policy-making side
which will still be vested in the Provincial
Treasurer will become a very important joint
responsibility. I suggest that, if we are going
to pursue this in the kind of detail required
to reach the kind of conclusions that we all
must reach— to accomplish the taxation reform
that I have already stated to this House and
that myself and the government are com-
mitted to, I suggest this is going to make it
much more possible than it would otherwise
have been.
Mr. MacDonald: What revenue collection
is left with other departments?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I am coming to
the point of the revenues collected by other
departments, and I suggest again if I may,
that you have to start some place. I think
this is a function that once these statutes or
these bills are approved by this House and
the functional aspects of the two departments
get under way, then the examination of the
very problems that the hon. member has
made reference to— and appropriate refer-
ence to— can be dealt with in much more
finite detail. Tliis will enable us to reach
earlier and more sensible conclusions than
would otherwise be the case.
If we are going to continue in this province
to mix revenue policy and administration all
the time, I say to the House, you are going
to find it very difficult to pursue this thing
in terms of the speed, the essential speed that
is required. I am not trying to gild a situa-
tion, here, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly
about this. I feel very strongly about it or
obviously I would not have proposed the
legislation to the House.
I would like that to be accepted as fair.
Now I do not know whether I have answered
the hon. member's question in sufficient de-
tail. We can come back to this when we
examine the estimates. But, generally, we
felt it would be better to pursue the matter
by the more definitive situation. I say that
with all sincerity to you, Mr. Speaker, and to
the hon. members.
Reference was made, I think, by the hon.
member for Kitchener, to the functions of
Treasury board. I think he will find, if he
examines the amendments to The Financial
Administration Act, that the role and the
functions of Treasury board have indeed
probably been strengthened in the amend-
ments that are proposed in that respect.
I think I have touched, if I may so, in
sufficiently general terms to the question
raised by the hon. member for Samia as to
why this is being done in advance of the
white paper and the work of the select com-
mittee. I have at least stated to you, sir, and
to the House, the reasons that prompted us
to proceed with this legislation. As far as
research is concerned, pretty well the total
economic research of the government is now
centred in the research branch of the The
Department of Treasury and as a result of
the change implemented late last year when
it was transferred to The Treasury Depart-
ment.
The only remaining aspect of research that
is left with certain departments— and I think
quite appropriately— is applied research; re-
search as it has an application to the depart-
ment itself— broad, general economic research
now is all concentrated under the chief econo-
mist, who is also presently the Deputy Pro-
vincial Treasurer, Economics and Finance.
I think it only remains then for me to make
a comment on the observation of the hon.
member for Samia again about our discus-
sion during the passage of the tax legislation
through the House a few short weeks ago—
reference to the regressiveness of taxes; wait
for select committee report again. I can only
assure him again, in very general terms with-
out being precise, that these are the very
things that prompted this more finite split
of the functions of The Treasury Department.
X
1
JUNE 5, 1968
3941
To get into further detail on that, Mr.
Speaker, at this time, I think we might get a
little bit beyond the discussion of the prin-
ciple of the legislation so, for detailed pur-
poses, I would propose to be available for
discussion of this when we get down to the
examination of it in House in committee, if
you like, or under the estimates of the
Treasury.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, one matter that
you might permit me to question the Minister
on. Does he believe that the divided juris-
diction will require the services of two Min-
isters?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I would have to
say to that, Mr. Speaker, that, in the fullness
of time, the government will, in its great
wisdom, make that decision and make its
views known to this assembly.
Mr. Speaker: Has either of the other two
members, who engaged originally in this de-
bate, a question of tlie Minister at this time?
The motion is for second reading of Bill
138. Is it the pleasure of tlie House that the
motion carry?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves second
reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend The
Pubhc Service Act, 1961-1962.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I had hoped that the Minister would give
some further explanation to this amendment
to The Public Service Act than is in the
explanatory note.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any otlier member
who wishes to speak? The Minister has the
floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: The explanation,
Mr. Speaker, would be that one of the pro-
posed amendments in this bill clarifies the
responsibilities of the civil service commis-
sion regarding salary recommendations, and
it is complementary to a companion section
in The Financial Administration Act, and
bears reference to that amendment which
provides that persons appointed to the offi-
cial side of the joint council shall be respon-
sible to Treasury board. It clarifies that.
The joint council is a forum made up of
representatives of management on the one
hand, and staff on the other. I would rather
not pursue, in detail, the reasons that make
this necessary, but I can assure the House, it
needs some clarification, and that is the pur-
pose of this amendment. The civil service
commission, in support of this, will continue
to make recommendations concerning salary
ranges in each classification, unless the salary
range is subject to negotiation under the
provisions of section 19(a) and 19(b) of the
Act. There are certain elements of The
Public Service Act where matters of negotia-
tion are not included. In all the other classi-
fications, the civil service association of
Ontario acts as their bargaining agent and
has representatives on the staff side of joint
council for that purpose; even pursued to
such an extent that if negotiation fails, the
process of arbitration follows. I think the
hon. member is quite familiar with that.
This is for the purpose of clarifying the
legislation in both Acts— The Financial
Administration Act and The Public Service
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
1961-1962
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill 133, An Act to
amend the Ontario human rights code, 1961-
1962.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. Pilkey: Just a simple question. This is
just incorporating this as part of The Employ-
ment Standards Act, is tliat correct? I gather
that from the explanation-
Mr. Speaker: The member will complete
his question and then if other members have
questions, they will ask them and the Min-
ister will answer them in turn, I would hope.
Is there any other member with a question,
or who wishes to engage in this debate? The
Minister has the floor,
Hon. Mr. Bales: The hon. member is quite
correct. The provision is included in The
Employment Standards Act and is expanded
there.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 112, An Act to estabhsh the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
3942
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Bill 122, An Act to amend The Phannacy
Act.
Bill 123, An Act to amend The Medical
Act.
Clerk of the House: The 8th order; com-
mittee of the whole House, Mr. A. E. Reuter
in the chair.
THE SECURITIES ACT, 1966
House in committee on Bill 50, An Act to
amend The Securities Act, 1966.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, perhaps the hon. Minister would indi-
cate to the House as to why he feels the
extra member is necessary, and why it is
increased from four to five members?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree ( Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs ) : Because we
want to make provision, and be able to have
a proper balance of representation on the
securities commission itself.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Lawlor: With respect to subsection 2
of the section, the reference, in the side
notes, says that it eliminates certain powers,
and goes over to item 2 of section 5 which,
in return, refers over to section 21, subsection
4 of the existing legislation which, insofar as
I can see, is exactly in the same terms as the
new section being set out here, the repealed
item 2. Since section 21 is incorporated in
tlie existing item 2, why is it felt necessary
to repeal item 2 and substitute what is al-
ready there?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would almost like
that question in writing. It is a technical mat-
ter, and this is the form in which the amend-
ment was provided by the legislative counsel,
and we in the department accept their advice.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. D. M. Deacon ( York Centre ) : In con-
nection with section 5, Mr. Chairman, I am
concerned about the matter of ability to post-
pone hearings. It seems to be that somewhere
—maybe I have the wrong part of the Act
here— but somewhere, they can take action
without a hearing, and could indefinitely post- 1
pone it in 15-day periods without giving— \
Mr. Lawlor: Section 6. |
i
Mr. Deacon: Have I got the wrong section? i
Section 5 agreed to. J
On section 6: I
Mr. Deacon: Section 6 is the matter. I
would like to see some limitation put on i
the number of periods of postponement of |
hearings. Has the Minister any comments on |
this matter? I
Hon. Mr. Rovmtree: No, the matter was at |
the legal bills committee for discussion. I am J
not prepared to recommend an amendment ^
as suggested. ^
Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to. 1
On section 13: f,
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in connection a
with section 13, there is no provision in here J
for appeal in case someone who is trying to '
get a prospectus approved is stopped by the
director and feels it is being arbitrarily pro-
hibited. It seems to me there should be some
basis of appeal to the commission or higher j
authority in case of the director arbitrarily |
refusing to issue a receipt for a prospectus. ^
I think provision should be put in here for 1
that. 1
Mr. Lawlor: Section 12; the member missed
the boat. i
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: If we are reading
from the same document-
Mr. Deacon: I am getting my numbers \
mixed up, I guess, from the old printing. '[
i
Sections 13 to 23, inclusive, agreed to. |
On section 24: «
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, under section i
24, will it provide for mechanization of J
the matter of salesmen's licences and their ?
termination, so that the department can notify ^
salesmen in future when their licences have i
expired? ■■
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is our ultimate
intention, but at present I think the rules
provide for certain information and certain
documentation, which requires this amend-
ment to enable us to get into the sales forms
and that sort of thing. But on the broad
point which it appears the hon. member is
i
JUNE 5, 1968
3943
speaking about, it is our intention to carry
this process right into the area he mentions.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 50 reported.
THE LOAN AND TRUST
CORPORATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill 59, An Act
to amend The Loan and Trust Corporations
Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Deacon: Section 2, sir. Mr. Chairman,
I think it is objectionable in section 2, sub-
section 1, to have this provision about proof
that there exists a public necessity for a trust
or loan company or for an additional trust
or loan company. I think this type of clause
is conducive to practices which are not in
keeping with private enterprise and the
desire to keep service good by competition. It
is very difficult for any body or board, or any
group coming in, to prove there is a public
necessity for a trust company. I think the onus
should be on the other parties, and the
wording of the clause should be changed so
that it is up to existing trust companies to
prove that there is no need for an additional
company, and the onus is upon those who are
now providing service to prove that there is
no room for anyone else or any need for
anyone else.
Mr. Lawlor: The last of the free enter-
prisers.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The question here has
to do with securing the initial approval lead-
ing to letters patent for the corporation of a
loan or trust company, which insofar as
Ontario is concerned, occupies the prime seat
and place in the category of institutions
which may truly be described as financial
institutions. The historical base has been in
this area of establishing proof of some need,
and it is in this area that we have extended
the basic capital requirements to $1 million.
It is part of the policy of this government
that this position should not be changed. I
do not know what the future will hold; maybe
the future will bring about a change in the
total chmate. I am trying to answer, but the
hon. member is not listening.
Mr. Deacon: I am sorry, Mr. Chaiman, the
pageboy just spoke to me. I am interested
in your comments.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am not limiting the
right of change in the future, but I am saying
that in today's economic plans, it is not the
policy of the government to change— other
than is so stated here— the conditions of in-
corporation.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be
quite sensible to require adequate capital
requirements and have provision for inspec-
tion to ensure that proper reserves are being
maintained, but that does not in my view
change this basic philosophy: Where some-
one wants to set up a business, and believes
as a result of a study that it is worthwhile
for him and others to risk their moneys in
such an enterprise, why should they be pro-
hibited by means of having to prove to
some body, the public necessity for it, when
we are not dealing with a monopoly or a
pubhc utility type of operation. There is no
duplication of wires or pipe or something
like that involved here; it is a matter of
additional services to the public, and it seems
to me so very important that we do not
pursue further than we already have—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, the
member must know, from the months past,
tliere can be no greater concern to the mem-
bers of this Legislature or the government
than any financial institution that has to do
with public funds, in the sense that loan
and trust companies do. I do not think they
are comparable to industry whatever, and
this was surely established a year ago in the
spring of 1967 in this very Legislature, by the
members of the official Opposition party as
well.
Mr. Chairman: Sections please.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite
understand. I was not in the House a year
ago, and I am not familiar with the reference.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This matter was
settled in the House a year ago.
Mr. Deacon: In other words, Mr. Chair-
man, the Minister is saying that they do not
want to change this philosophy of approach
that a company must prove pubhc con-
venience or public need for the establishment
of these companies. This is despite the fact
that similar institutions, financial institutions
which take public funds, do not have to
prove this need. Investment companies and
3944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other corporations that are accepting pubhc
funds for investment are subject to proper
scrutiny, surprise audits and things hke that
to ensure they have financial capabihty and
backing sufficient to look after the public
funds. Surely the same thing should be true
in trust and loan companies.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Lawlor: With respect to subsections 2
and 3 of this section; it raised, on a second
reading, the question of using as a base for
the 20 per cent aggregate that they must
maintain and retain at all times for payments
out, a number of forms of security which are
liquidable set forth in the 1966 amendment
to the Act. These two subsections are de-
signed to extend the range of the aggregate
holdings of the company so available, and I
suggest to the hon. Minister, through you,
Mr. Chairman, that the credit from a char-
tered bank of Canada is a highly tenuous—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have already ex-
plained that this is to be covered by regula-
tion. The matter was not raised in committee,
the legals bills committee, but I gave an
undertaking to the House, I believe, on the
occasion of second reading that the condi-
tion would be a written irrevocable credit for
a loan from a chartered bank of no less a
period than three years.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 59 reported.
THE INSURANCE ACT,
House in committee on Bill 60, An Act to
amend The Insurance Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Deacon: I am not so sure whether
this comes under section 2 or section 3.
There should be some provision in here for
advising the superintendent of insurance
when there is cancellation of any driver's in-
surance. It would be put in this Act here,
and I suggest that this is not now covered
l)y the Act. I think that the wording of this
sr-ction could be changed to provide for that.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are speaking now
about section 2 which has to do with— sec-
tion 2 or 3 are both probably what the hon.
member is making reference to.
Section 2 has to do with tlie wording— the
present wording— of the loss of a licence on
an ipso facto basis. This was all debated in
second reading, by the way, and that type of
situation from a legal point of view, and a
point of view of equity, leaves no provision
for legitimate or bona fide error or at least
an honest error. That is why section 2 of
the Act is in. I do not think there can be
any difficulty there.
Section 3 goes on to the area of increasing
the amount of the deposit, is that right? Did
you have something under section 3? Some-
times I find it rather confusing, Mr. Chair-
man, when the current pattern of showing
amendments is to give the amendment and
then to repeat the old section as it is now
going to read in the future.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Lawlor: On second reading I raised
tlie point about the postponement of this—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: This is second reading.
Mr. Lawlor: —on the postponement of the
compensation without clauses under part 4,
which is a rather elaborate section added into
the bill a couple of years ago, in The Insu-
rance Act, and which provides enormous
benefits. It is a crying need throughout the
North American continent, and no less here.
The Minister's reply, as indicated in the
note, is that it was to bring uniformity in
legislation across tlie country. I question
that, first of all— the need for that uniformity.
I tliought tlie Minister was perhaps a little
offhand at that time in his reply, and I press
hini a little harder today. First of all, why
do you feel you actually need uniformity?
Why cannot you give leadership in this
matter in this country? If you do insist that the
uniformity is in order, then have you any
idea, can you give us any anticipated date
whereby the various provinces might have
set a deadUne or a goal date of some kind
in which this legislation will come into
being?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have no further in-
fonnation to offer the House other than that
which I gave in some detail and not in any
offhand manner on second reading. As a
matter of fact this subject raises a matter
of principle.
JUNE 5, 1968
3945
Mr. Chairmaji: Section 5?
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 60 reported.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
House in committee on Bill 107, An Act
to amend The Corporations Act.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 107 reported.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT
House in committee on Bill 120, An Act to
amend The Secondary Schools and Boards
of Education Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On secti n G.-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, on section 3: The first
section is a very long one there. Just before
the bill is reported, there has been some
thought expressed that the provision of the
Act in general or the bill in general, that will
transfer title to property to the school boards
without any compensation might in some
specific areas have a somewhat unfair result.
Surely public funds over the years have
been involved in the establishment of tliese
schools for retarded children and so the
transference of the title without any discus-
sion would be quite in order.
Is the Minister aware of any circumstances
where large private donation and capital in-
volvement of a type other than the charitable
funds would be involved in any of the schools
whose title would be transferred without
compensation?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, I would not be in a position
to account for the large number of schools
involved. I am sure that there may be one
or two instances of this. I think that the
bulk of them of course have been receiving
the 50 per cent grant from tiie province. A
number of the schools have been additionally
financed through funds made available
through municipal or county councils, and
I would think that perhaps the majority,
whatever balance is left, through public
subscription.
Now, whether there are individual situa-
tions, where individuals per se make sub-
stantial donations to the association of the
school purposes, I really cannot say, Mr.
Chairman. I can only say that this question
for the transference to the school adminis-
tration was discussed with the Ontario asso-
ciation for the retarded. This question was
explored and they are in agreement; but this
is really the only equitable way, or profitable
way, to bring this about.
Mr. Nixon: No doubt anyone who did make
a substantial contribution was very interested
in the work of the education of the retarded
children, and accepts the principle of the
bill most enthusiastically.
One other comment that I had wanted to
make, and a question to ask, was that the
responsibility of the department, in its largest
sense— the Minister expressed it again, I
believe, yesterday— is for the education of
all children.
In the past there has been the proviso
that the children be educable— if that is
the proper use of the word. The Minister is
no doubt aware that there have been border-
line cases where it has been diflBcult to
determine whether the young person, be-
cause of mental retardation, in fact came
under the jurisdiction of the local board of
education, or some other jurisdiction. With
this bill it means that there will be a larger
proportion of the young people in the prov-
ince who would come under tlie jurisdiction
of the local school board, because they will
now have the facilities for the training of
the mentally retarded.
Of course, this simply moves the boundary
line a little further from its original position.
There will still be those people who perhaps
cannot even be educable in the sense that
they would benefit from attendance at these
schools. Is the Minister aware of any problem
involving children who are suffering from cer-
tain mental dijfficulties that would still put
them outside the jurisdiction of the depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, who can
say? You have to get into the question of
determining all of the children who may, or
may not, fall under this category.
If the hon. member looks at the definition
section, he will see that the definition is
liroader than it has been in the past. I think
that the only point that could be made is that,
with the progress that has been made in the
last eight to ten years with the retarded
3946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
children, we should always keep a very
flexible approach to this question of defini-
tion. As programmes improve, or techniques
become more sophisticated, perhaps the
definition can be altered so that we can
incorporate more children into the pro-
gramme.
It is a very complex area and, from our
standpoint, we are interested in having as
many children in the programme who can
benefit from it, and this is what the definition
is really saying.
Mr. Nixon: On the other end of the Min-
ister's jurisdiction there is his involvement
in the Ontario hospital schools, and I suppose
that this would give the spectrum that would
cover the individuals that I have in mind.
There was some considerable concern
expressed in the standing committee having
to do with the integration of this type of
education with the regular school system,
and the possibility that the facilities would,
in fact, be in the same schools.
The problems arising from that are pretty
obvious and I know that tlie Minister's
people, or advisors, are very sensitive to the
regulations that would cover this. I wonder
if the problem has been raised in the discus-
sion that the Minister has undertaken before
the introduction of bills?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this
problem had been discussed. Actually it is
not a recent discussion; it has been deliber-
ated in many other jurisdictions and I think
that it is fair to state that there is a divided
school of thought on this. There are those
who quite sincerely feel that the student
should be in a separate physical facility and
there are those who feel that, over a period
of time, they should be integrated into the
same physical plan.
I think that we have reached a point here
in Ontario, because of the policies that have
existed, where at least from the beginning
stages the bulk of these children will con-
tinue their educational programme in the
existing physical plant. I think that the ques-
tion of whether or not, over a period of
years, tliey should become integrated physi-
cally with the regular school environment
is something that must, of course, be studied.
I really am not in the position here, Mr.
Chairman, to say what the specific thinking
is. Because, as I say, my view of it is that
there is still no concensus for unanimity for
what really is the best approach. I think
that this is something that will evolve over
a period of time.
I recall some of the discussions. In the '
United Kingdom, for instance, they are mov-
ing towards an integration of these facilities i
with the regular school programme. Yet the ^
experience in some other areas would indi- \
cate that, perhaps, we are not moving neces- i
sarily in that direction. j
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, 1 cannot say I
at this point. We have to start from the ^
existing situation, which is in a separate j
physical plant, in most instances. Whether j
they should be integrated and so on is some- \
thing that I would not like to prejudge at •!
this point. ^
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peterbor- j
ough. \
•i,
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if I could probe the ]
Minister's mind in one or two areas, in regard 1
to the implication of this bill? \
As the Minister knows, all sides of the 1
House are in favour of this legislation and, \
of course, the association has indicated its
interest in seeing it passed. I am wondering, \
though, if there have been discussions be- ]
tween the Minister and the association— and, .^
of course, the people in his own department i
—in relation to the implication of placing ]
the needs of retarded children into the full ":
spectrum in such a way that they will now ;
have to, in a sense, establish their right to
these funds within the local setting. ^
Up until now, I think there has been a I
growing awareness of the problem of mental \
retardation and I think that they have not •
been finding it diflficult to find funds from
local sources. Then, of course, they have ]
been helped by the increasingly generous
grants which have been coming from The
Department of Education. .|
What I am just a little concerned about \
is that now the mentally retarded associa- j
tions will have to, in a sense, vie with all \
the other priorities at the local level. I am
wondering if, in view of the discussion that
we had last night, in relation to the whole
business of decentralization, and the placing
of the impetus and the pressure at the local ]
scene rather than at the centre, just what
the role of the department will be in rela-
tion to ensuring that mentally retarded chil-
dren will receive a decent break and will
be at the top of the priority list. What help
will the department be to local boards? I
imagine it will be giving some guideline, at "
least, to curriculum of personnel, some guide-
lines in relation to the developing pro-
JUNE 5, 1968
3947
gramme— in a way which it has not been so
far.
I am wondering, as well, whether the grant
system will, in a sense, be the carrot to the
local board to do all that it can for mental
retardation. I think these are the kinds of
aspects which demand some kind of assur-
ance from the Minister.
I notice, for example, and I am wondering
why, the Minister organized the committee
which will be reporting to the local divisional
board, with six members. Three will be from
the board and three will be from the associa-
tion. If the association is smart, what they
will do is elect one of the appointees from
the board as chairman so that they will
always be able to out-vote the representa-
tives from the board, but I am not sure that
this will always happen.
I am wondering why this number of six
members has been chosen— three and three
from each side, rather than perhaps giving
the associations an upper hand at the com-
mittee level where, indeed, they will be able
to move to the board level with fair assur-
ance that their views are going to receive a
great deal of acceptance at that level.
I would like comments on the financing,
the role of the department in the programme
and the guidelines which are going to be set
out, and the organization of the committee
and its relationship to that board.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just trying
to deal briefly with all the items raised by
the member for Peterborough I think if the
member recalls the statement that I made on
introduction at first reading of this bill, I
indicated that with respect to the programme
itself there is no question now that these
schools will be coming under the administra-
tion of the divisional boards, and that we
can improve not only the scope of the pro-
gramme but obviously we can move into the
area of teacher qualification to a greater
extent than in the past. These are really the
two prime ingredients as I see it within any
programme. If we can look after those, I
feel that we can make some genuine improve-
ment in the total programme.
With respect to finance, I am not in a posi-
tion, Mr. Chairman, to indicate exactly what
the position will be. There is no question
that the retarded programme will receive
special consideration, but what the rate of
grant will be or the proportion of grant, I
cannot say until the grant regulations are
available for 1969. Obviously, this type of
programme will come under the field of spe-
cial education where the grants are already
substantially higher than the normal rate of
grant. There is no question that this can be
controlled by the grant structure in this
province.
Mr. T. Raid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Min-
ister one specific question. I am sure it will
evoke an answer.
I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the
retarded child aged three and four, and I
would like to ask the Minister whether the
present legislation would allow a four-year-
old, for example, to participate in one of
these special classes? If the answer is "no"
to that, perhaps the Minister could let me
know what happens in this province to a
three- or four-year-old retarded child?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the legis-
lation does not deal specifically with the age
level of the child as far as admission is con-
cerned. The policy, and I am subject to cor-
rection here, would permit admission of a
child at four and a half or five, but I am
not sure. It depends too on the birth date
of the child, and once again, here is an area
where I think we must retain some flexibility
and assess after it has been in operation
within the school system for a year or so.
I would be quite prepared to explore this
further with the hon. member after we have
had some experience with the progranmie.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
clarification. Could the Minister, and I realize
this is somewhat outside his particular area,
tell me what educational programme is avail-
able to a three-year-old or a child under the
age of four and a half in this province? Are
there private groups that look after these?
Do these groups receive grants from the pro-
vincial government? Will these groups, if
any, have a cutback in their grant because of
this legislation? What is the situation for a
three- or four-year-old retarded cliild?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the
child is not, shall we say, in one of the
Ontario Hospital environments or schools, as
I recall it, there is no specific provision now
under our legislation for payment of grants.
I do not beheve the local authorities are
administering programmes for children under
five or four and a half. There will be no
reduction if there are private programmes
going on now, because these have not been
receiving any departmental support— at least
not through The Department of Education.
5948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Whether they have through The Department
of Social and Family Services, quite frankly,
Mr. Chairman, 1 do not know.
Sections I to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 120 reported.
THE ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES CAPITAL
AID CORPORATION ACT, 1964
House in committee on Bill 127, An Act
to amend The Ontario Universities Capital
Aid Corporation Act, 1964.
On section 1:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the Minister if financing at Ryerson has
been carried out by direct grants instead of
having access to the university capital aid
corporation in the past?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the Mini-
ster has just replied that Ryerson is being
added to the Ontario universities capital aid
corporation for purposes of financing. This is
the Provincial Treasurer's—
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is right. Really I
was directing my question to the Minister of
Education although it should more properly
have gone to the Provincial Treasurer. But
the development of Ryerson up until now has
been carried on just by direct grants from
The Department of Education?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. Right.
Mr. Nixon: Is the institution still considered
to be associated with the department, and
in any way different from a community col-
lege?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I guess it
gets down to a discussion of what one means
by different. It has its own board of gover-
nors, and the board of governors is serving a
comparable purpose to the boards of govem-
nors of tlie community colleges. But it is set up
under its own Act, whereas in the colleges the
appointments are made by the council of
regents, and the name and so on is designated
by the Lieutenant-Governor in council. The
concept is really similar from the standpoint
of, shall we say, function of the board of
governors. But they are not exactly the same
because Ryerson is set up, as the hon. member
I am sure recalls, by a special Act of this
Legislature, whereas the colleges are set up
under the amendment to The Department
of Education Act.
Mr. Nixon: My point really is that if we are
going to undertake a fairly large investment
in capital plant for the commimity colleges
—and the Minister just last night was com-
menting on our unexpected and heavy re-
sponsibihty in this regard— and if he is
prepared to give Ryerson access to the
universities capital aid corporation, why not
the community colleges as well? Would that
not be a more convenient way? If the cap-
ital aid approach is useful for capital ex-
pansion for the post-secondary level, why
not include the community colleges?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I beheve
we made this amendment last year. If I
recall correctly, we are financing them.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 127 reported.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
certain bills without amendments and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report cer-
tain bills without amendments and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The 24tli order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
(Continued)
On vote 501:
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the at-
tention of the Minister, the unusual situation
that took place in my community during the
last elections for the board of education. We
had an individual running for the separate
school board who was a public school sup-
porter and was elected— was put in oflBce
by acclamation, actually. Yet by the same
token an individual who is a separate school
supporter is barred from running for the
public school board. Does the Minister plan
on introducing legislation so that the repre-
sentation for both boards— separate school and
public school— would be on the same basis?
JUNE 5, 1968
3949
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, under Bill 44, as I recall the
provisions of the bill, separate school rate-
payers will be able to be elected to the board
of education. They will be elected representa-
tives and can, in fact, become chairmen of
tlie boards of education under the amend-
ments to Bill 44.
Mr. B. Newman: Even in municipalities
that-
Hon. Mr. Davis: This principle will also
apply in the designated cities.
Mr. B. Newman: In other words, a separ-
ate school supporter could run for either
separate school or public school board?
Hon. Mr. Davis: He can run for the board
of education, and of course he can vote on
matters that relate to the secondary school
panel, but he will also be eligible to serve as
chairman of the board.
Mr. B. Newman: This, then, eliminates the
problem that was existent in North Bay and
the city of Windsor?
Hon. Mr. Davis:
Mr. Chairman.
ild think it would,
Mr. B. Newman: All right, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Might I
ask the Minister when I should make remarks
concerning "head start" type of programmes?
Would the best place to do that, Mr. Chair-
man, be under the vote 516, on tlie ele-
mentary school grant?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
think the hon. member could do it under
votes 507 or 516. I think either spot would
be appropriate. I think vote 507 would also
be quite in order from my standpoint— that
is the programme branch where we discuss
matters of curriculum and so on. I think
either place.
Mr. T. Reid: In that case, Mr. Chairman,
my undertanding is that we will discuss this
type of programme under vote 507.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, last night we were dis-
cussing the federal involvement in the
financing of education, and while we may
pursue that on some other occasion, I did
want to ask the Minister if he does not feel
that the council of Ministers of Education
might not be well s'erved if the council in-
cluded a representative of the government of
Canada, and as something other than an
observer, who could be present in the dis-
cussions that must take place at this par-
ticular council? I said, last night, that I would
predict that the government of Canada would
have to accept some responsibility for the
equalization of opportunity with regard to
education, and I would say further, when
this change does come about, it will have no
impact on Ontario other than that our fed-
eral taxes might change to reflect the fiscal
transfers that would be made by the govern-
ment of Canada under those circumstances.
I would agree that these transfers are pres-
ently inadequate.
I tliink that Ontario, however, is not in a
position to benefit largely by a federal pro-
gramme of equality of opportunity. While I
am not prepared to agree with the Minister's
assessment that our system is the best in
the world in so many regards, I am prepared
to say that a federal representative on the
council of Ministers might very well assess
what equality of opportunity might entail.
There seemed to be many areas in which
the government of Canada might involve
themselves in the theory of the council of
Ministers of Education. The government of
Canada was moving tentatively— as a matter
of fact, I believe there was at least one pri-
vate bill before the Parliament of Canada with
regard to a federal office of education which
would have some co-ordinating function, as
well as just administering the very small edu-
cation responsibilities that the federal gov-
ernment has.
I sensed, at the time, that the provincial
Ministers moved rather swiftly and definitely
to organize themselves to the exclusion of
the government of Canada. I may be wrong
in this. Nevertlieless, they are not included
in the council of Ministers, other than that
they might be invited to observe, or to give
some specific information.
I feel that if the quality of educational
opportunity across Canada is going to become
meaningful, and if this council of Ministers
is going to do tlie best possible job, then
there should be a full-fleged federal repre-
sentative tliat can sit around the table and
take part in the discussions, with responsi-
bility of the government of Canada resting on
his shoulders.
3950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, in dealing
with this item briefly, I think one must
understand the background, or the concept,
of the council of Ministers. It was formed to
give some leadership and direction to educa-
tional problems as they relate to national
situations, but also, of course, to co-operate
to exchange information and ideas, and work
together more closely than has been the case
in the past.
It is also understood, Mr. Chairman, that
no member of the council, or no participating
province, is bound by the decision of the
council of Ministers. I mean that this is some-
tliing that must be left up to the individual
provincial jurisdictions, and I think, Mr.
Chairman, at the present moment at least,
there would be one, perhaps two or three
provinces that would not be enthusiastic
about this— and perhaps at this stage there
is no need— for a permanent representative
from the federal government on the council
of Ministers.
From my standpoint, and I am speaking
entirely as the Minister from this province,
I have never hesitated, nor do I hesitate
now, to discuss any matter that could be
helpful to the educational programme of this
jurisdiction with any federal agency that
would have some interest in this regard.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, and I do
not want to get back to last evening's dis-
cussion, because perhaps it was headed into
an area that was not really too constructive,
except to say that I regret the member for
Scarborough East is not with us. I am sure
he will be back, but really, I was not arguing
with him as much as I was agreeing with
his leader. Agreeing with his leader, that as
1 see the question of finance in the field of
education over a period of years, we will
need an increasing amount of support or
assistance from the federal government. I
was really tending to agree with the leader
of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister's comments take
me back to other circumstances and I find
them— I do not like them, I should say. But
if we are really concerned about the involve-
ment of the federal government, I think that
the council of Ministers might work at it a
bit more. And I know that the Minister of
Education for Quebec would, perhaps, ex-
press a different view, but that does not mean
that we cannot put ourselves on the record
as favouring the inclusion of the government
of Canada, and it might very well come about
sooner than the Minister thinks. But if we
are going to have federal funds in the form
of fiscal transfers not earmarked for educa-
tion, but at least designated in their amounts
related to some programme which would
bring about equality of opportunity a little
nearer to reality, then I think this council of
Ministers would have to act in co-operation
with the government of Canada, and not sort
of as a separate group that would present a
brief to the government of what would
amount, really, to demands, and sometimes to
recriminations for extended support, or even
continued support.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to pursue this ques-
tion of the role of the council of Ministers,
but I would like to do so, leaving out the
suggestions, that have been made, that the
federal government become involved in this
matter. I think that one of the most unfor-
tunate things that has happened to education
in this country has been the "in and out"
aspect of the federal government in the whole
area of education. I would say that one of
the most damaging steps that took place in
education in Canada, took place a couple of
years ago when the federal government
backed out of the programmes which had
been carried on previously, and which looked
as though they would give great hope, both
to the universities and to those who were
concerned with manpower training and re-
training of individuals. I think this was
unfortunate, and perhaps we will come to
talk about this in greater detail. More than
unfortunate, I think. It was disastrous for
the educational policies of many of the prov-
inces. And, as far as I can understand, the
present Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has
been adamant on this point, that he is not
interested in federal programmes which
would in any way deal with the federal role
in education.
Now, I think that this is a role-
Mr. Nixon: He is interested to tlie extent
of $175 million.
Mr. Pitman: That is a pretty minimal con-
cern, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I
hope we are not going to get into money
once again, but I can tell you that one only
has to speak to the people in the universities
and one only has to talk about manpower
training, to find out to just what an extent this
was a disastrous step taken by the federal
government in this country.
Mr. T. Reid: There are unused department
of manpower grants in Ottawa.
JUNE 5, 1968
3951
Mr. Pitman: I am going to deal with this
matter, Mr. Chairman, with relation to the
Minister in his role in the council of Ministers.
It has been quite apparent that the Minister
of Education of Ontario has been, in a sense,
pushing this matter. The very fact that it is
such a large grant in tliese estimates, the very
fact that an office is being established in
Toronto— even if it is only on a temporary
basis— the fact that Ontario appears to be
the major thrusting agent, I think gives the
Minister an opportunity to do something
really quite exciting with this particular
agency.
I am suggesting that the one area where
we, in Canada, lag sadly behind is the area of
educational research. I realize we will come to
the Ontario institute for studies in education,
and we will undoubtedly deal with this mat-
ter in the Ontario setting, but I would like to
deal with this on the national setting. In the
United States, as the Minister well knows,
because of the defence priorities and because
of the Russian sputnik, there was a tremen-
dous surge of educational research that took
place four or five years ago. As a result of this,
the United States government at the federal
level— and I am suggesting this could be done
through the council of Ministers at the inter-
provincial level— established the educational
research information centre in Washington.
The advantage of this was, of course, that
anyone in the United States would find out
what research was going on in any area of
the educational world. They could find how
far this research had gone and what implica-
tions that research had to the education sys-
tem within each individual jurisdiction. Then,
of course, right across the country, research
and development centres could be developed
in co-operation with this educational research
information centre.
Of course, I would suggest to the Minister
that this is a matter which very well might
be placed within the universities right across
the country. I think we are moving now to
placing teacher education in each of the
universities in the Ontario jurisdiction. I
think teacher education has been associated
with universities in many of the other provin-
cial jurisdictions.
I would suggest that there might very well
be a viable place for a research and develop-
ment centre which would do basic research
and relate the more pure research of the
central agency of your information centre,
and begin to place it into actual performance
in the various regions of Canada. And beyond
that possibility, within the larger educational
units which the Minister has placed before
this Legislature, you might find a place to put
a regional educational laboratory because it
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the greatest
problem is getting research into the laboratory
of the classrooms.
Really, the only laboratory that makes sense
is the classroom and the individual teacher
trying to deal with the day-to-day problems
of his or her class and trying to find out the
implications of the research that is being done
in these other more esoteric areas. I think
there is a pattern here which might very well
have some viability in this nation of ours. I
put it to the Minister that it is perhaps not
enough to just simply exchange information.
This council of Ministers can be one of the
most exciting developments if we can use this
as an area to produce educational research.
In Canada, a comparatively small proportion
of our educational dollars are placed into
research. And we have so many problems, we
still do not know what young people can learn
best at various ages.
We still do not know what subjects really
make sense to young people and there are a
great many other areas, so many areas in
guidance, so many in the sciences that we
do not know very much about yet so far as
education is concerned. We know so little
about adult education and various means by
which you teach adults, teaching methods
and teaching facilities and subject matter.
I suggest to the Minister that this is the
kind of a project which the council of Minis-
ters could very well take over and provide
perhaps an exciting era in the area of educa-
tional research in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the
Minister this? It appears to me that in this
vote 501 the amount has risen by 31.6 per
cent in this past year. I am wondering if the
Minister could explain the reason for this
tremendous rise in the activities of that office?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, obviously
one of the significant items is the amount for
the council of Ministers of Education.
Mr. Pitman: Were there any other reasons
for this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, the amount for the
programme's cultural exchange will, I beheve,
be some $35,000 higher, and then just the
general increase. But the major item, of
course, is the amount for the council of
Ministers.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could also ask
the Minister— this perhaps is related to the
3952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
council of Ministers— whether The Depart-
ment of Education has decided whether it will
support the testing service which was devised
to go right across the country? I realize there
is a tremendous jump expected by the prov-
ince of Ontario— I think ten times tliat which
was previously requested in another year—
and whether the Minister has decided yet
whether he intends to support this or whetlier
we will carry on with the Ontario institute for
studies in education in their testing pro-
gramme?
Hon. Mr. Davis: There has been no decision
on this matter yet, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitman: Is there any deadline for that
decision, when it has to be made in order to
plan the tests which will be carried on in the
schools across the country?
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a deadline, obvi-
ously, with respect to the federal programme.
We have the provincial programme in any
event. I cannot tell the hon. member when
this deadline may be, but as far as we are
concerned, we will be resolving it some time
in the very near future. It will be done prior
to their commitments having to be met.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask
also about the programmes of cultural ex-
change. Included in this, would there be the
teachers from France, who are being brought
over here to take part in the educational pro-
gramme, or would they come under some
other vote?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it all de-
pends. There are, shall we say, two areas
here. The teachers who are coming over and
will be employed by individual boards of
education will be paid by the boards. We
have also set aside funds for students and
teachers who may be here participating in
some departmental or general programme.
But actually the bulk of the teachers, as I
understand it, will be employed by the indi-
vidual boards of education.
Mr. Nixon: Also on this vote, I do not be-
lieve there is any place in the education esti-
mates where there are fimds set aside for the
centennial museum.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the moneys
appropriated for the centennial science centre,
I believe, are all in the estimates of The
Department of Tourism and Information.
Mr. Nixon: I would ask the Minister if he
is still serving on the board of the centre?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister is.
Mr. Nixon: I would also like to ask if the
staff of the department are involved in the
preparations for the opening of the museum?
I do not mean the formal opening, but the
opening as far as getting the displays in shape
and even the part that will be available next
year for public use. Is this entirely separated
and under the full jurisdiction of the centen-
nial centre board or are the Minister's ad-
visors involved in it as well?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, from the
educational or academic point of view, Mr.
Penny, of The Department of Education, has
l)een acting as the liaison oflBcer between the
educational department— particularly curricu-
lum—and the board. We have an advisory
educational committee to assist in the devel-
opment of this aspect of the institution and
Mr. Penny is the liaison officer between the
centre and the department.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, my question to the Minister
has to do with the usage of schools after
school hours. I would like to know if he has
a report yet or is there something coming up
reasonably soon on the research being done
on the Duke of York pilot project of the
after-four programme and the lunch pro-
gramme for the children of parents who
work?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
the hon. member did not have an opportunity
—and perhaps she was just as fortunate— to
listen to all the remarks yesterday. The Duke
of York programme is, to a degree, unique
here in the city of Toronto. But the informa-
tion is available to the city of Toronto board
of education, as it will 1^ to the others. There
are other school boards doing similar types
of programmes. I would refer to the ENOC
programme in the city of Hamilton. The
inner-city schools are involving parents in the
evening. I really cannot tell the hon. member
that the programme at the Duke of York
school will, by itself or of itself, become the
programme, in the city of Toomto.
This is something that the city of Toronto
board must determine. We know of tlie pro-
gramme, and we are quite enthusiastic about
it. Whether it has application in other
areas, quite frankly, we do not know at this
point.
JUNE 5, 1968
3953
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask if my understanding is correct that
it is being researched by the department?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we have a
report. I do not know that it would be fair
to say that we are researching it as a depart-
ment, but we are obtaining a report on it and
of course so is the Toronto board.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Fine. Could I ask if the
Minister would comment on his view on lay
supervision for lunchtime periods in public
school, and after four?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not hear the ques-
tion.
Mrs. M. Renwick: On lay-person super-
vision for lunchtime periods in public school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman: I really
expressed this point of view on several occa-
sions and I have said this to the teachers'
federation and perhaps there is not unanimity
in this regard. In areas where we are short
of qualified staff, I think that there is a role
for, shall we say, teachers' assistants or what
have you involving lay personnel for certain
tasks within the school system. This is my
own personal point of view, and of course it
is being done in many areas. As I say, some
of the professional teachers may differ with
this point of view.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
ask the Minister if he is familiar with the film
"To Touch a Child" and the experiments in
Flint, Michigan?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry, I did not hear--I heard Flint, Michigan-
Mrs. M. Renwick: I just asked the Minister
if he was familiar with the Flint, Michigan,
programme and the film "To Touch a Child,"
which very carefully covers this after-four
period of school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe that I am familiar with the film, "To
Touch a Child." I am familiar with some of
the programmes in Fhnt, Michigan, but I
am not sure that they relate to the point that
the hon member is making.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I go, Mr. Chairman, to
the field of day nurseries. I would like to ask
how many junior kindergartens there are iin
the Metro area. Since this is going into pre-
school education, I would like to ask the
Minister if he would care to pass comment
on his deparment's taking over pre-school
education completely in the province, re-
moving it from The Department of Social
and Family Services, since it is not neces-
sarily of custodial care.
Hon. Mr Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member is aware, I know, that The Day
Nurseries Act is under the jurisdiction of The
Department of Social and Family Services,
and I think that this is where it is being
administered. I am not prepared to comment
on just what the future may hold for this
aspect of the programme. I am really not in
a position to do so.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask for an
answer to my question as to how many junior
kindergartens, taking in the four-year-olds
or three- and a few months classes that we
have in Ontario for the metropolitan area?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, our infor-
mation does not show this. I will endeavour
to find out from the Toronto board of educa-
tion tlie number of pre-kindergarten classes
that they have and get this information for
the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbiuy East): I am
not sure whether this will come up under this
vote, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know
why in Ontario, a separate school rate-
payer can pay his taxes toward the separate
school or the public school, but on the other
hand, a non-Catholic who might want to
send his student to a separate school cannot
pay his taxes and enrol his student in a separ-
ate school.
It seems to me to be a bit unjust, and this is
particularly so in the case of mixed marriages
in Ontario, where if the father is a non-Cath-
olic, there is extreme hardship in getting the
taxes diverted to the separate school system. I
think that it should be very flexible, and that
people should be able to pay wherever
they want. This would not harm anyone and
I think that it would relieve a lot of the
difficulties faced by people in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as I under-
stand the law, unless he is a Roman Catholic,
he cannot be a separate school supporter, and
this is the law. I know that the hon. mem-
ber does not necessarily agree with this
position, but this is the law.
Mr. Martel: I know that this is the law,
but I want to know why it cannot be
changed. There is tremendous hardship if
3954
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the husband is a non-Cathohc and they want
to send their children to a separate school.
There is tremendous hardship involved. They
have to sign the house over to the wife and
a whole lot of rigmarole. Why should a man
not just be entitled to pay his taxes wherever
he wants?
I was just waiting, hoping that the Minister
would sf)eak on this. One more issue, then-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He
was hoping you might announce some change
of policy.
Mr. Martel: I would like to know, through
the Chairman to the Minister, apparently
there was a curriculum development com-
mittee set up in the Sudbury area just
recently. Is that not right?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to check this. We have a large number
of curriculum development committees and
I would not be surprised if there was one
in the Sudbury area, but I would have to
check tliis for the hon. member.
Mr. Martel: I would like to pursue this,
just a bit. I would like to know who was
recommended for this committee, who made
the recommendations, who received the
appointments, what his qualifications were,
who was turned down, the qualifications of
the individual turned down, and why he
was turned down.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, with great
respect, I will have to determine whether
there was some other application, or the
question of qualification, maybe. The hon.
member is pre-supposing, in some parts of
his question, the answers to the first part of
his question. I think that if the hon. member
would like to prepare for me a specific ques-
tion in writing, I shall endeavour to get an
answer for him.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to return to the original problem that I
brought up with the Minister at the com-
mencement of these discussions, and that was
concerning a public school supporter being
elected to a separate school board. Can a
separate school supporter be elected to a
public school board, and at the same time
deal with problems relating to the elementary
schools?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a separate
school ratepayer will be elected to the new
divisional board of education and will deter-
mine, or be part of the policy-making group
relating to the traditional secondary school
area. As was explained in the House and
in the education committee, they will not be
dealing with decisions relating specifically to
the public school area.
Mr. B. Newman: But the public school
supporter can have that authority as far as
the separate schools are concerned? So there
is discrimination there in relation to the
responsibilities of a separate school supporter
and the public school supporter.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure that I quite understand the hon. mem-
ber's question. I hope that I have answered
the position as it will be after Bill 44, and
that is that a separate school ratepayer can
be elected, and in fact will be elected to a
divisional board, and can even become chair-
man of the board. I gather that the hon.
member is referring— and he would have to
give me some specific information— to a situa-
tion in Windsor, where I gather a public
school supporter has been elected to the
separate school board. Is the hon. member
suggesting that this is not legal or—
Mr. B. Newman: No, I am simply sug-
gesting that if a public school supporter has
the opportunity and right to be elected to a
separate school board, then the separate
school supporter should have that same right
to be elected to a public school board. He
does not have that same right. No, he cannot
act on elementary school problems.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But he has the right to
be elected—
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, why not
equalize both, though? Why not make it so
that both have exactly the same opportunity?
Why not amend the Act so that The Public
Schools Act will read exactly the same as
The Separate Schools Act, or vice versa?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman: I do not
want to limit the debate in any way, but
there will be amendments to The Separate
Schools Act and perhaps tliis would be an
appropriate time to discuss this matter rather
than during the estimates. I have no further
comment to make until we deal with The
Separate Schools amendment Act.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, all I can
say is that you are still discriminating against
the separate school supporter by not giving
him the same opportunity as the public
school supporter.
Mr. J. E. BuUbrook (Samia): Mr. Chair-
man, in connection with the question from
JUNE 5, 1968
3955
the member for Sudbury East. I understood
the retort of the Minister to be, "That is the
law", in connection with separate and pubHc
school opportunity and availability. I would
like to direct a question to the Minister,
Mr. Chairman. Do you feel that the law
should be changed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
when the hon, member has been a member
of this House longer, he will find that I am
and always have been quite prepared to look
at any situation where the law should be
changed. You will find several amendments
coming forward even yet. At this particular
session I am not prepared to say offhand at
this particular moment whether that par-
ticular law should be changed.
Mr. Mattel: Is this discrimination?
Mr. BuUbrook: You are not prepared to
take a position in connection with this. Is
that it?
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, this has
been a problem that has been going on for
years. How long do we wait before we get
action from the Minister? This is nothing
new at all. Mr. Klien from North Bay has
been asking for this change for year after
year, or for many years, and there still has
been no action. It was at least seven years
ago, and more than likely your department
heard of it, if I heard of it.
Mr. Martel: Sir, I would like to pursue
this one step further. In northern Ontario
there is one town that only has a separate
school, and the business people in this com-
munity, some of them, are non-Catholic.
Where do their taxes go— their school taxes?
They cannot pay it to the separate school;
where does the business tax go?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I wonder if the hon.
member could tell me the municipality, then
I might be able to find out for him?
Mr. Mattel: It is in northwestern Ontario.
It is just business tax from tourist industry.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, but if you could
give me the name of the municipality I shall
endeavour to find out for you just where it
does go.
Mr. Martel: I will submit the material to
the Minister.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 501. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
we could just get a bit of information? I
notice that under the main office there is
an estimate for conferences, and I was won-
dering if the Minister might have on hand
what conferences would take place under the
main office and for what purposes?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there have
been, over the years, several conferences
sponsored by the department and I anticipate
there will be two or three conferences in
this coming year, relating to various aspects
of education. The bulk of them will come
under here, although there are, as you will
see— for instance under vote 503, the schools'
business administration branch— there are
workshop seminars that are related there.
But the conferences that the department
has had in the past years, and will have in
the next year, will come under this vote.
I cannot say at this particular moment just
what topics will be covered in these. I would
think three or four conferences; the hon.
member will be informed of these as they
develop.
We plan one sometime after the CEA
meetings, which will take up a good portion
of the early part of September. I will let
the members know, just as soon as the topics
have been determined, as to what we will
discuss at these various gatherings.
Mr. Pitman: These are organized by the
main office of the department and not in
connection with other groups outside?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, that is right. I think,
quite frankly, we will be allocating a portion
of the sums to seminars that will be held
in the fall, with respect to Bill 44. We are
going to be doing this, as the hon. member
knows, in conjunction with the Ontario school
trustees' council, and the other trustee groups
and federations, and I think we would use a
portion of these funds for those— conference
might not be the right word, it might be
seminars, or what have you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 501. The member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: We are getting into the
wider use of the schools— the greater use of
the schools and school facilities. I would like
to ask the Minister if he is considering hav-
ing recreation departments in communities
as a branch of boards of education? Seeing
that recreation is leisure-time education, in
my estimation the recreation authorities
3956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
should come under the direct control of the
board of education in a community.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
say, certainly, that there must be much closer
co-operation— I said this, I guess, really in
my preliminary statement— there must be
much closer co-operation between the edu-
cational and recreational authorities, and
much greater use of the school facility.
I do not reject at all the suggestion made
by the hon. member. I would have to give
it some thought as to whether the educational
authority would be the best one to administer
the recreational programmes. Certainly I
agree there has to be the closest relationship.
I would like to give this matter some study,
because to me it has the basis of a very good
idea. But I really would not want to say it
sliould be, without a study of it.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister
then if he could have the members of his
staff give it some study, so diat when we
come into the House next year, we will have
a decision as to whether recreations should
he a function of a municipal council, or the
function of the board of education?
Vote 501 agreed to.
On vote 502:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the departmen-
tal business administration branch must, I
suppose, provide the leadership for the local
boards in setting out their procedures. I
mentioned in my remarks last night that we
really ought to be moving towards some im-
position—no, it does not.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the depart-
mental business administration branch really
relates to the internal administration of the
department. I think the matter that the hon.
member perhaps would like to raise would
be under the school business administration
branch.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chainnan, would this
be the appropriate vote to discuss private
business colleges and their relationship to the
department?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not think it
would be, Mr. Chairman; let us see if we
cannot find an appropriate vote. Perhaps
under vote 507— it seems to be a vote where
we cover a multitude of situations.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 502. Tlie member for
Wentworth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
imder The Public Schools Act, in section 8,
it defines public school visitors. I wonder
if the Minister has considered adding school
trustees to the list of people eligible to enter
public schools? School trustees at the present
moment are not allowed to enter without
permission from the principal.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that there has been some suggestion that
we should delete the entire section with re-
spect to school visitors, rather than add
people to it.
Mr. Deans: Well, if I could follow it up.
Does the Minister not feel that it might be
in the best interests of administering the
school systems if school trustees were to be
allowed to enter schools at any time, in order
to keep a check on what is going on with the
spending of taxpayers' money, without having
to have prior approval?
It is something like a notice of motion in
the House. You have got to tell the Minister
what you are going to ask him before you
ask it. The same thing is true of school trus-
tees. They have got to inform them that they
are coming before they come, and I think
they should be able to go in at any time.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess one would have
to define what we mean by— and you might
ask some of your teaching colleagues— by
being able to go into the school.
Does this mean that the trustee goes into
each individual classroom to observe the les-
sons, or to look at the physical school plant,
or really what is the intention of the visit?
This is why there has been no amendment
made, because there have been some very
valid suggestions that we just take out the
question of school visitors.
I think the practical approach the trustees
take is that they have been visiting the
schools. We have really not had any repre-
sentation, to any great extent, from the
trustee organizations that they be in fact
legislated the right to enter the school.
Mr. Deans: I have had this matter raised
with me. A trustee wanting to visit, or hav-
ing to visit, two or three schools in order to
check up on conditions that were reported to
this particular trustee by parents.
It seems rather foolish that the trustee
should have to phone ahead and make an
appointment with the principal of the school,
in order to let this person be able to enter
the school to see if the complaints are justified
JUNE 5. 1968
3957
or otherwise. You can imagine the length of
time it takes.
The school trustee's position is one that is
done in his spare time, more or less, and it is
very difficult. This person may have to take
time off work to go and view the conditions
in the school, and they would like to be able
to go when they are able, rather than when
the principal sees fit to let them come in.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 502.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, on this question, I really think the
Minister's answer, originally, was just a little
bit facetious, to say that maybe we should
stop those that are now eligible to enter
without so-called permission. I would not
care. I think it might be a good idea to re-
move the right of MPPs, and MPs, and
judges to enter at their will, but I do not
think anybody abuses it. But we have had
occasion, and it might depend on who the
school trustees are, what political party they
represent. And let us not kid ourselves. As
the hon. member for Wentworth has said
we have had reason to question this section
where a lone NDP school trustee has been
given a hard time because she answered
reports from parents of children as to condi-
tions and facihties, and other things; and she
went into the school, and was chastised by
the chairman of the board and by the board
of education administrators.
I do not think that any persons that have
the integrity to stand for school board, and
they are elected as trustees, are going to
abuse their rights; and I do not think they
would walk into a classroom just to observe
the operation of the classroom without clear-
ing it with the principal, and getting the
okay from the particular teacher.
But in all sense of fairness, and recognizing
an elected person's rights, the school trustee
is elected to be a school trustee.
If you want to remove the sections that
give the MPP the right, it would suit me,
because I always contact them and get per-
mission, and give the reasons why I would
like to visit them. But, just to say that maybe
we should stop anyone from having the right,
is not going to help the matter at all, and I
think that consideration should be given to
school trustees, elected in dieir particular
areas, to having that right.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Just to correct tlie impres-
sion, I was not at all being facetious. We
have had representations to delete the section
with reference to visitors. These representa-
tions have been made for the last two or three
years, and the hon. member will notice that
I have not introduced legislation to delete
the right of those enumerated in that section
to attend the schools.
Mr. Chairman: With regard to visits.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry.
Mr. Chairman: The member for—
An hon. member: Some of us maybe
should—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the Minister to supply to the members of the
Legislature, a list of Ontario scholars, annu-
ally, so that we have the same opportunity
to inform ourselves of them, as some mem-
bers in this House have been in the past?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will give
this matter some thought, and the hon. mem-
ber might raise it again in the estimates of
The Department of University Affairs, where
this really would be the appropriate place to
consider this.
You see, we are in the position now, where
the Ontario scholars really will be those
recommended by the individual schools. It
will be quite a different procedure and situ-
ation from what has been the case in the
past. I would have to give this some thought
as to whether, in fact, it could be done prac-
tically.
Mr. Nixon: Are you going to continue to
write?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I just have one
point of comment on the matter of visiting.
I hope that you do not delete this entire sec-
tion. I think that—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Your colleague said go
ahead.
Mr. Deans: Well, he can say what he likes.
I am speaking for me.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right.
Mr. Deans: This is one advantage of
having a voice of your own, you can speak
for yourself.
3958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Better get together over
there.
Mr. Deans: I hope they do not delete this.
I hope that they change it to include these
people, but I do suggest that you might
delete subsection 2. I do not think that
either the school trustees or anyone else, a
judge or a clergyman or anyone else, should
'be able to go into a school and give such
advice to the teachers and pupils, and others
present, as they deem expedient. I do not
think that we need that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I hate to think of some
of the advice.
Vote 502 agreed to.
On vote 503:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to make one or two remarks upon school
administration. I think that this may be one
of the most important areas that we may be
speaking about on these estimates,
I think that we are standing at the cross-
roads in terms of how we wish to administer
our schools and, as I intimated last night, I
think there is a tremendous amount of human
wastage, in the way we administer our
schools. I suggest to you, sir, that as well
we are not reflecting the kind of free and
open society v/hich, I am sure, the Minister
would wish to reflect. And if I might take
two or three specific areas.
First, I would suggest that in setting up the
boards of education, I think it is unfortunate,
perhaps, that there was not one or two
places left on each board for teachers. I
think this has been suggested as a means of
dealing with the situation. I think the
Ontario secondary school teachers federation
suggested that there should be, perhaps, two
places on every board of education for
teachers, to provide, in an advisory capacity,
another dimension in educational policy.
Mr. McCaffrey, the president of that body,
said that educational policies of enormous
significance should not rest in the hands of
one man. I am sure that the Minister would
not wish to be recognized as the one man.
There are other ways by which this could be
done, and I know that The Schools Admin-
istration Act will be coming before this House
for a certain amount of discussion. I do not
want to precede that Act, but I am also
aware of the fact, that there are people in
the Minister's department who are un-
doubtedly working on the Act at the present
time.
So, I do hope that the Minister will con-
sider very seriously, the possible role of the
teachers' advisory committee, in relationship
to the divisional jurisdictions that he is
creating at the present time, as well as
those unaffected.
I am not sure that that is the answer
either, but I think that what we should be
doing is finding a consultative process. It
might very well be that a consultative com-
mittee in each school with definite representa-
tion of teachers and parents, as well as
students and administration, is the answer.
But, I do suggest to the Minister, that at the
time when he is making such a revolutionary
change in the administration of schools across
this province, that this is the time when this
new breath of fresh air should come into the
kind of influences and the kind of openness
which we wish to find in the administrative
procedures in our schools.
So, I do put this to the Minister as hard
as I can, and at this particular point in this
Legislature, that this is something which he
must be particularly concerned about. As
well as that, I do bring to the Minister's
attention, another matter which undoubtedly
will come up under The Schools Administra-
tion Act. And one which I hope will be
resolved, because I think it is also an im-
portant aspect of the work of these boards.
And that is, of course, that there should be
one person in charge of the educational
policy of each divisional board. I know the
Minister has been around this track already
in the committee and I am sure he is going
to go around it again and again— but I was
very interested to read, just lately, a paper
prepared by a district high school board, and
if I might just read one or two sentences
from this, in the literature: The Rejection of
Dual Responsibility and Dual Control is
Uniform.
Violation of the unity of command prin-
ciple is one of the most common and one
of the most frustrating problems appearing
in organizational structures. The problem
is, of course, not in the theory but in the
practice where the lack of unity and pur-
pose, and lack of clarity and delegating
and using authority is very common. As a
result, the persistent misuse of talents,
buck passing and confusion produce a
nightmare of bureaucracy and empire
building.
And he goes on to point out how unaccept-
able it is for a teacher. It could even he,
as he suggests, the possible reason for civil
disobedience— if such a procedure was
JUNE 5, 1968
3959
brought in as a result of the changing juris-
dictions that the Minister has brought before
the House.
So, those are two things that, I suggest, we
must clarify, and make definite, and make
provision for— the role of teachers in an advis-
ory capacity, but in an effective advisory
capacity. We must make sure that there is
a unity of command in the administration of
these school boards. I bring a third point to
the Minister's attention on this estimate, that
now is the time, also, to deal with the problem
of what we call student power, but w^hich I
prefer to call student responsibility.
I think the Minister is aware. We do not
have to go into chapter and verse of the new
feehngs among young people, that tliey should
have a share in responsibility for what is
going on in the schools, not just for the
periphery but for the actual important matters
of curriculum and administration of the
schools. Not the full responsibility but a part
to play. And I do suggest to the Minister, that
at a time when there is an opportunity for
vast change, this is tlie time— before there is
any solidification of any continuing kind of
role, either for students or teachers or within
the administration set up— this is the time to
move to provide for this kind of an impetus
in our educational system.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, my comments
are directed chiefly on the need for, in my
view, the imposition of standard business
procedures, in the business practices of the
newly constituted boards. I believe this can
be done in a very reasonable way. I believe
the department is moving out of the imposi-
tion of its views in curriculum and programme
matters, and occupying a situation where it
is a resource facility for the local board. The
large bulk of funds going toward the financing
of education— in grand total more than $2
biUion this year, under the Minister's direction
—would justify, I believe, a very searching
look at the way the business procedures of
the various boards will be carried on.
In another vote, we are providing for
elaborate and expensive computer facilities,
and expansion, really, of those facilities tliat
are already established; and I think it could
be a reality that the boards— the 100 boards—
as they are established, could be compared on
a regular basis, using computer facilities.
I would like to hear the Minister's com-
ments on that matter again. And also, if I
might refer to a point raised by the member
for Peterborough about the unified demand
in the local board situation. My own strong
feehngs are that there must not be a duahty
in the representation of the administration to
the board, and I further feel that there should
be a single person with academic extraction
being the chief officer representing the busi-
ness, the implementation of board policy. This
is my own view, and one that I know we can
argue about when the amendments, that the
Minister promised, come before the commit-
tee, and before this House.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just very
briefly, I am very curious to know what the
hon. member means by "academic extraction".
Mr. Nixon: He is not a primarily a business-
man, but an academic.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. I agree with the hon.
member on the question of the desirability of
improved administrative practices, and I think
this does provide us wdth the opportunity. We
have already sent some prehminary material
from tlie branch to the various ISOC com-
mittees, not laying down any hard rules at
this point.
Mr. Nixon: I would not be afraid to lay
down some hard rules.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, because we want to
do some further analysis ourselves, with lay-
ing out some general areas. We think this
makes sense at this point, and will be further
refined during the discussions with the ISOC
committees in the fall. We are also having
some other studies made that I think will be
helpful to us and I am in complete agree-
ment. I think we can bring about a rationali-
zation of the administration and, of course, it
does relate to the provision of computer facih-
ties both wdthin our centre and the regional
approach that I think we can take.
This is obviously one of the advantages that
will flow from the hundred board structure
rather than the difficulties we were facing
with the concept of regionalization of com-
puters for 1,500 or 1,600 boards. It was really
a very difficult task. We can now see real
daylight in this regard. We are getting along
in the area of definitions.
Our people related to data processing have
been in consultation with some of the larger
boards, and I think we can work out a system
whereby, as the hon. member says, we can
—certainly on a far more regular basis— be in
a position to know exactly what is happening
from an administrative point of view. Also, we
will be able to get some insight into the edu-
cational programme that is going on within
the various school districts.
3960
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: A point of curiosity. Are the
classrooms still provided with the standard
registers with all the little lines?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there are
still records of attendance. I cannot honestly
say whether they are exactly the same as the
ones used by the hon. member when he was—
Mr. Nixon: I will venture a guess that they
are.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I could not say, because
I have not seen the register as of that date,
and as of today's date. I will try to dig one
out.
Mr. Nixon: Just a comment about this. We
are talking about efficiency. I think we are
talking about using modern facilities, includ-
ing the computer that is at the Minister's
disposal and that so many boards have been
installing. And we can expect the remaining
boards to have these facilities almost im-
mediately. I always remember the rigidity
with which the department required the at-
tendance figures. Of course, it is necessary
that they be accurate and precise, because
the grant system as it has been operating
from that time until this, was based directly
on pupil attendance— days' attendance.
But I understand that the old method of
drawing one line in a little square for each
student each day is still required and that,
if the teacher does not do it in the classroom
—as I understand many of them still do-
then someone is hired down in the office to
do it. It just seems ridiculous that we cannot
use more modem techniques to account for
the presence of students for attendance pur-
X>oses and for grant purposes.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I share the hon. member's
point of view. I tliink we can, Mr. Chairman,
make some very real progress with a more
sophisticated approach to the question of at-
tendance and enrolment.
Actually we are altering the registers be-
cause we are moving to enrolment rather
than to attendance for gi-ant purposes. Of
course, there may be some relevancy to hav-
ing attendance figures for other purposes. I
do not know. But I quite agree. I think there
must be, and will be, better ways developed.
The teachers— as was the hon. member's ex-
perience—had to devote perhaps too much of
their professional capacities to bookkeeping.
Mr. Nixon: Well, leading on that, just one
other point. The Minister has indicated that
the grants are going to be based on enrol-
ment rather than attendance.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They are now.
Mr. Nixjon: And therefore you can pay the
grant on the basis of the present year's en-
rolment and not last year's attendance.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is the average en-
rolment. It does not—
Mr. Nixon: For the present year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, for the average enrol-
ment for the past year.
Mr. Nixon: This is a point that of course
has always given some difficulty. You base
the grant on last year's requirements as far
as the number of students involved, rather
than the requirements for the present year.
You are always a year behind time. And
where your grant may i>erhaps accommodate
for this, there is always the feeling amongst
boards that are rapidly requiring their school
attendance, that the department is not doing
its fair share under these circumstances.
Going back to those computers. There is
no reason why you cannot have an up-to-
date indication of what the enrolment is.
You talk about the grants being based on
average enrolment. I think you can do bet-
ter than basing it on last year's average en-
rolment.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we esti-
mated enrolment, and I quite agree with the
development of the divisional boards, I think
we can look forward to the day when we
can move to the current situation. This is,
from my standpoint, hi^ly desirable.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if I might ask the Minister— exactly what are
the functions of tlie consultative committees
in the territorial district?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, these were
groups organized to work on the question of
larger units in the northern part of the prov-
ince, because they did not come under— I
guess it was Bill 54. This was a provision
made for the payment and organization of
consultative committees in the northern part
of the province, to develop programmes for
larger units of administration.
Mr. MacDonald: Specifically, Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask the Minister: Does this have
any relationship at all to education for
Indians?
JUNE 5, 1968
3961
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not.
Mr. MacDonald: Just in the administration?
Fine, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
there is not a kind of affliction involved with
Indians in this matter because I understand
that, in some cases, some of the smaller
boards in the north, because they were small,
because they were dealing with perhaps a
few schools, did try to provide for a place
on the local board for representatives of an
Indian community. Ver>' often Indians there-
by had a representative of their own on a
local board.
I am wondering if the creation of the
larger units in the north will make it very
unlikely that an Indian representative will be
able to sit on one of these boards to look
after the interests— and influence the board-
on the peculiar position and problems of the
Indians in dealing with the educational sys-
tem of this province.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We do not believe, Mr.
Chairman, that Bill 44 will alter that at all.
Most of these— in fact the majority of them—
are in areas that will not be aflPected by the
larger units of administration.
Mr. Pitman: In other words, these Indian
people will be ably represented on selected
or non-elected boards as in the past.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Since the provision for
facihties is quite an expense to communities,
and it leads them sometimes to develop fairly
large-sized schools, has the Minister's depart-
ment reached a decision as to the maximum
size of a facility or a minimum size of a
facility for maximum efficiency, both on the
elementary level and the secondary level?
Should we be having schools with 2,400
students or is 1,000 students sufficiently large
enough? Or should our schools be like some of
the schools in the United States where there
are as many as 4,000 students attending?
Should we be busing into the elementary
schools in municipalities and constructing
fewer schools but larger in size?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is a
difficult area to explore. I do not think you can
have any rigid rule with respect to physical
plant or the size of the unit. One can look
forward to perhaps certain administrative effi-
ciency or cost efficiency and you get into the
problem of the educational effect of a larger
unit.
I have representations from the member's
own profession fairly regularly that there is
some danger in getting the high school units
or the secondary units too large. With respect
to the composite schools, or the comprehen-
sive programme, a minimum of 1,000 students
—with exceptions where the geographic nature
of the area just will not sustain it.
We feel this is a basic figure where there
is the optimum or most economical running
of various shops and technical facilities within
that type of accommodation. And, Mr. Chair-
man, merely for me to predict what should
be or even to state what should be optimum
or maximum or minimum sizes with the
changes that are taking place in programme,
the obvious changes that will be taking place
even in design— really I cannot be of much
help to the hon. member in this regard.
I think these are things that we will have to
determine as best we can as the educational
programme develops and changes. I just can-
not say that 2,000 is an optimum number. It
may be optimum from an efficiency stand-
point. There may be some educators who
would say this is really too large for an edu-
cational environment at a secondary level and
that these are the balancing factors. I really
cannot say to the hon. member. We can tell
you what the minimum should be vdth respect
to the secondary programme. I would not be
prepared to say what maximums might be
reached.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, as I cross
the border and visit the city of Detroit I do
get disturbed when I see schools handling as
many as approximately 4,000 students. Being
in the profession myself, I would dread the
thought of having to get back into a class-
room of a school where you would have
approximately 4,000 students. Having taught
in one with as many as 2,300 students, I know
discipHne was a much more difficult problem
than it is in tlie school that handles 1,100 or
1,200.
But referring to tlie elementary level, Mr.
Chairman, has the Minister arrived at some
maximums and minimums as far as size of
plant are concerned? Or number of teachers?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, once again
we get into decisions tliat must be related to
the geographic needs of positions of the com-
munity. We like to look at, say, a 12-room
school at the elementary level as being a
3962
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
minimum— but obviously you cannot always
have a 12-room school.
Mr. B. Newman: What is the ideal school?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Who knows what is the
ideal? We look at this as being a minimum
if it can be achieved— but it cannot in many
areas of the province. To say what the maxi-
mum would be is once again difficult because
you get into the concept of having grades 1
to 7 in one school facility and grades 8 and
9 in another. To come down and say rigidly
that we should have X number of students in
all elementary schools and Y number of stu-
dents in the secondary— does not take into
account the changes we can foresee in the
educational programme or the economic and
geographic situations within the divisional
board areas. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have
to retain a high degree of flexibility.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I notice that
under vote 508 we do have school planning
and building research and school plan
approvals. I do not want to get into what we
have already discussed, but I do have a
question at least as to the future of these two
important areas of the school business
administration branch.
In the decentralization plan, I am wonder-
ing to what extent the school planning and
building research and the school plant
approvals sections will tend to do less. If,
indeed, there will be decentrahzation, is the
Minister assuming that local boards will have
more freedom to decide on the size of the
gymnasiums they want to have and the size
of tlie various areas of the school?
Is the department going to leave it to local
authorities to decide, for example, what kind
of facility can best accommodate the kind of
educational programme they want? Because
I do not think we can separate them— the
educational programme and the facility.
I do not think you can leave the faciUties
at the centre and say we are going to
approve of certain-sized rooms and certain
kinds of rooms and not others. If the local
community decides, taking in hand the power
the Minister has given them, that a certain
kind of educational programme is necessary,
that we need movable walls, deskless rooms,
if we need three gymnasiums or one gymna-
sium, if we are going to have team teaching
then we need different sizes of rooms, if we
are going to use television in a certain way-
then it means a tremendous flexibility will be
necessary in the way in which schools can be
designed and the grants and approvals which
will take place.
I am wondering, in view of the announce- \
ment of the Minister just what will be the .\
role of these two sections of the department ''>
in view of that philosophy expounded last \
night? i
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps 1
the hon. member would like— I am not recom- '■
mending that he does this— to look at the t
amended capital grant regulations that were {
made available roughly a year ago. He will j
find that we are moving to a unit accom- '•
modation factor rather than just straight -
classrooms and much of what he is suggesting i
is now available to the boards. I
Mr. Pitman: Much, but certainly not all. ;
Hon. Mr. Davis: Right. We see a further ■
decentralization, but at the same time this '
will continue to act as a resource centre, an ;
area where we can co-ordinate the various '■
activities that are going on in the whole area 1
of school design at the central authority. I ;
think this is still a function that must be J
part of the department's responsibility. >
But much of the flexibility in what the {
hon. member says is really now available, i
not to the full extent, but far more than it i
was in the past. I can think of two or three j
schools that are in the process right now *
that the member would find quite intriguing. >
Mr. Pitman: Is there any difficuty though i
in getting the grants in these kinds of ex- |
periments?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, the grants are related
to a unit accommodation factor, in other -'
words-
Mr. Pitman: Well, what about rooms that
are— for example, if a jurisdiction decided :
they needed rooms for different purposes, not '
so much a matter of space and unit accom-i ,
modation but a totally different purpose, say
a gymnasium. In other words, they might
want to have a programme of a great deal
of utilization, auditoriums, gymnasiums, more
peripheral kinds of areas which perhaps the
department has not given quite the degree
of recognition to as it does to these class-
room sizes?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it is a
question of the degree of financial support.
Mr. Pitman: It is the same thing.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not quite the same
thing because we have not discouraged some j
boards who wish to go beyond what the
regulations of the department would allow
JUNE 5, 1968
3963
for— say a third gymnasium when our regula-
tions only permit two. Some boards have
done so. I think perhaps it is a shade early
to predetermine what this evolutionary pro-
cess will bring about. I just recognize, as the
hon. member does, the desirability of de-
veloping in the approach to physical plants
all the new technology and the new con-
cepts that are obviously becoming available.
And we will give the local authorities as
much leadership and at the same time allow
them as much responsibility as will make
sense.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, the Minister invites opinions so I
feel I should not let this opportunity pass
without saying that, in my opinion, when
you get past the thousand pupils in a school,
you are doing many of the pupils harm. They
become mere ciphers, mere cogs in a machine,
and many of them lose their individuality—
almost, one might say, their identity. From
an educational standpoint if not from an
economic one, I say that smaller schools
should be in vogue.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I was reading
with much interest a publication of the Scar-
borough board of education, which outlines
the study of the programme that has been
operated by the metropolitan school board
entitled, "A Study of Educational Facilities",
and I am very impressed with what has been
achieved by this particular study according
to this article. It indicates that it was a $1
million study and when I mentioned this
yesterday the Minister was quick to chime in
and say that some of that had come from
the department, which is good.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have one of the first
copies of the report. Do you want the full
report, I have it upstairs, it is very good?
Mr. Nixon: The interesting part is that a
large share of it was paid by an American
research outfit that gets its funds from the
Ford foundation. Really the Ford founda-
tion has been doing as much for educational
research in the province and in Canada as
any arm of government.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They sold a lot of auto-
mobiles.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but the foundation is con-
siderably divorced from the automobile sales-
room now and I know the Minister is aware
of that. I think it is worthwhile, Mr. Chair-
man, that the Minister realize that one-third
of the project was financed by educational
facilities and laboratories of New York, a
non-profit organization within the Ford
foundation, and substantial grants we have
been told have been received from The De-
partment of Education, although the amount
is not indicated in the balance borne by the
Metro school board. But the basis of their
research was very much along the line that
has already been described here as one of
the necessities. That is the emphasis on
flexibility and the ability of the organizers of
the school system to change the arrangement
of rooms to meet changing requirements on
very short notice.
The studies of educational facilities or-
ganization has undertaken the responsibility
to provide 25 schools for occupancy in 1970
and 1971. In other words, it is not a group
of experts sitting around a table batting
ideas back and forth. This, I sometimes think,
is the chief activity of those who are financed
under vote 503, which has been in the esti-
mates for many years without the develop-
ments that we might have expected, along the
lines that have been achieved since 1965
under the auspices of the Metro school board.
I want to quote briefly from this publica-
tion, as follows, and I quote:
Muriel A. Clark, chairman of the Scar-
borough board of education and a member
of the SEF advisory committee, said dis-
cussions are being held with industries all
across Canada. Ten master systems are the
key to the tendering basis, said Mrs. Clark.
These are structure, atmosphere, lighting,
ceiling, interior space division, vertical
skin, plumbing, electric, electronic, case
works, roofing and interior finishing. By
mass producing these items, Mrs. Clark
says, it is hoped that a much superior, more
efiicient and adaptable school building with
long-term value can be produced for less
cost.
What an admirable goal these people have
set for themselves, and how unfortunate that
the Minister and his advisors were not able to
accept a clear-cut goal like that some ten
years ago, and do some of the work that the
Toronto school board, the Metro board, with
the co-operation of organizations listed in
this pamphlet, have been able to achieve. It
appears that they are actually going to
achieve something.
I quote further from this publication:
Scarborough's board chairman believes the
nucleus of personnel from the technical arm
of SEF wfll be retained after the study is
completed.
3964
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
One of their jobs will likely be to study
the possibility of schools in apartment build-
ings. Now this has been referred to by the
Minister and others in this House, as one
of the possibilities for the future. Yet they
go on to say that they are undertaking re-
search into the building of apartments on
school lands, witli the school established at
the lower level, and tremendous revenues,
particularly in the high utilization area of
the cities, would accrue to the leasing of
the other facilities.
I feel that the imaginative approach here
is going to be beneficial to all of Ontario,
and to other jurisdictions beyond this, but I
cannot help but feel, Mr. Chairman, that the
department has been lax in meeting its re-
sponsibilities for the last few years. I do not
want to repeat what I have already said, and
yet this feeling comes through very definitely,
when Metro Toronto, by gathering support
from a number of sources, by talking to in-
dustrial experts, has been able to divide the
construction of schools into the kind of ten-
dering that is going to give flexibility and
efficiency at low cost.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to get too involved in this. It really
bears out a point. I will come to it. I will
assure you that the department has not been
completely oblivious to some of these prob-
lems, but it bears out the point I was making
earlier, and in the preliminary statement.
One reason we believe in this philosophy
of decentralization and initiative and creative
activity on the part of the board, is that we
do not operate schools. We are not in that
position, except with the schools for the
deaf, the schools for the blind; we do not
operate schools in that sense. We could not,
without building up a bureaucracy which, I
think, the hon. leader of the Opposition
would then tend to question.
Mr. Nixon: You have a $228,000 bureauc-
racy.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right, but we do
not have the personnel who are involved
in the day-to-day operation of the school
system— who can conduct the type of research
and experimental programme that is being
done by the Metro board.
I think one should point out that there
is a Minister's committee on school design,
initiated by The Department of Education,
that was very directly involved in the initia-
tion of that particular project. That goes
back into the history of it a couple of years.
and I think it clearly indicates that the de- :
partment perhaps has some responsibility, or
should be given some credit for the initiative \
that was taken. ;^
Mr. Nixon: All the credit that is due.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that is right. j
Mr. Nixon: From eight years ago! Look at =
tlie money that would have been saved; most j
of your— i
i
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there are |
some studies that are taking place today, ]
and have taken place in the last two years,
or three years— some are going on in the |
state of California, I believe in Macdonnal j
Industries and so on— with utilization of com- \
puters and actually designing physical school
plant, ^
This could not have been done ten years I
ago. The technology was not sufficiently pro- j
gressed to do some of these things ten years i
ago. \
Mr. Nixon: What Toronto is doing could |
have been done 20 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I question that the re- }
suits of that report— and I have read it rather ]
carefully— could in fact have been done 20
years ago. I would not want to argue with
my hon. friend, but I would ask him to read
the report in total. If he still thinks it could
have been done 20 years ago, I would be
delighted to discuss it with him. I really do
not think it could.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 503. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: On this matter of school de-
sign, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just
ask the Minister— I noticed tonight in a
recent publication of The Ontario Depart-
ment of Education, I think it is called
"Dimensions," by Bascom St. John.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I agree. Yes, that is
right.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Bascom St. John wrote
an article on the mini-school— one of the con-
cepts of Paul Goodman, in the United States.
I am just wondering if this is a flyer being
put out by The Department of Education to
get general reaction, or whether this is just
allowing Bascom St. John to have the free-
dom to write on whatever subject he wants
in that particular publication. ,,
JUNE 5, 1968
3965
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure whether this is the appropriate vote for
a question or answer in this regard.
I think what he said indicates very clearly
that, as far as we are concerned, as a depart-
ment and those of you who listen to our
senior oJEicials on occasion will recognize,
we give scope and encouragement for creative
educational thought.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. Chair-
man, there has been considerable discussion
here this afternoon in relation to the unifi-
cation of school boards, and so I thought that
perhaps I might also be permitted to say a
few things about that,
I would like to call the Minister's attention,
once again, to the rather considerable repre-
sentation which has been made to him in
writing, and through myself, from the repre-
sentative of rural school boards and rural
municipal councils who feel that they will
not have sufficient representation under the
formula of representation which is now pro-
posed by the department. I would just like
to emphasize it once again, through you, Mr.
Chairman, to the hon. Minister.
In this connection, I think it would be
pertinent to add that with all of this marry-
ing that is going on up at the Lakehead
these days, that is proposed for the Lake-
head, the people are starting to wonder
whether they are in front of a great big
government whisk broom or something.
Mr. Nixon: Shotgun!
Mr. Knight: I will not use the term "shot-
gun," I will leave that up to some of my col-
leagues in the north.
But it does not seem to me, if you stop and
seriously analyze what is happening here,
that the people do not seem to have too
much to say in these matters. They want
more time to consider these things, and when
they say, "well, all right, that is what you
are proposing— now here is what we would
like to add; this is how we would like this
thing altered," they do not seem to get very
good reaction.
I do not like to take a poke at the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough)
while he is not here, but this matter is all
related— this business of amalgamation. I
hasten to state that I am very much in favour
of the amalgamation that is proposed by the
government. I commend it for taking the
initiative and finally getting something done.
Certainly, as a news editor, I have had a
lot to say over the past nine years and, I
would hope, have had a lot to do in helping
to change, to elevate, the attitude of people
in the Lakehead area toward this necessity.
But at this point I must honestly support
these people from the rural areas of the
Lakehead, who I think, will have about three
voices on the new board of some 18 mem-
bers representing about 22 townships, and it
just does not seem to be adequate to me.
They do feel that they are relinquishing
something here, something of their authority
and control over their children. They are
not balking against that I do not think, they
just want to make sure that they have a loud
enough voice on that board. So I would like
to urge the Minister to acquiesce to their
request and perhaps he could tell me whether
he has made some decision on this request
at this point one way or the other?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I really
think we are back into a discussion of Bill
44, and perhaps the hon, member did not
have the opportunity. I quite honestly do
not know whether he is on the education
committee where it was discussed. I think
the bill, as it was finally approved with
enthusiasm by the education committee a
few days ago, will be—
Mr. Pitman: Do not start that again.
Hon. Mr. Davis: One must retain a sense
of humour on occasion. The bill that was
passed as satisfactory by the education com-
mittee the other day will be substantially
considered by the committee of the whole
House when it is called sometime in the
fairly near future.
Vote 503 agreed to.
On vote 504:
Mr. Nixon: I notice that the maintenance
requirements here have expanded by a factor
of five. Are you renting more facilities or
what would account for that increase?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, these
funds relate to a transfer of the regional data
processing centre that is being developed
from the Ontario institute for studies in edu-
cation into the education data centre.
Mr. Nixon: You mean tliey were purchased
by the institute in former years, and you are—
3966
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, they were physically,
I would say and the financing of the regional
data processing centre was part of the budget
of the Ontario institute. This has now been
taken out and made part of the education
data centre for the department. That ac-
counts for the large increase.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: I understand that one of the
major roles of the education data centre will
be to provide data for the new divisional
boards, and I am wondering whether this
will cut down in the future the cost in terms
of the fact that you will not have as many
boards to service as you have at present?
There is something like a 60 per cent
increase, explained by tlie Minister, I realize,
in this reorganization and this change of
allocation from the OISE to here. But is there
any hope that this might begin to come down?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not think, Mr.
Chairman, that tliis vote itself can be expected
to reduce over a period of years because,
while we will be dealing with it, it will ease
our task and expedite information. We will
still be deahng with the same number or,
shall I say, an increasing number of students,
so that if the data centre is relating informa-
tion to the level of achievement of X number
of students at certain grades, we are still
talking about the same thousands of students.
Even though we are talking about a substan-
tially reduced number of boards, we are
talking about the same number of schools, so
that the input into the hardware must relate
to the numbers of factors involved. This will
not reduce itself because of the reduction of
the units of administration.
Should we get into questions of information
as it relates to a total board jurisdiction,
obviously there will be a reduction both in tlie
input and the cost factor. But I think this
will be relatively slight compared to the type
of information that must be accumulated on
a total provincial basis.
Mr. Pitman: How much of this data is
available to public authorities, either to mem-
bers of the House or to universities or to
bodies such as that?
I am interested. I will not try to throw a
curve. I am thinking in terms of what the
Minister just mentioned in his reply— the suc-
cess rate of students in all the schools across
Ontario. Data of this sort will be particularly
interesting to a university which is concerned
with admission requirements, with the kind of
marks and the kind standing being given at all
the schools across the province and with the
disappearance of the grade 13 examinations,
I am just wondering whether the entire pro-
ceeds of this data centre will be available to,
say, the university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think, Mr. Chair-
man—and I am speaking without giving it very
much consideration— that the total statistical
information, the bulk of it, will be available
for public consumption.
I would question— if it gets down to indi-
vidual students or their marks, or their rate of
progress— whether this should not be kept
confidential, certainly with the individual
school, whether one would release this for
public information, or whether really it is of
any interest on a total public basis. But as
far as total figures for tlie entire province on
these areas, we anticipate the vast majority of
them will be for public information.
Mr. T. Reid: Would the Minister make
available, some time in tiie next six months or
so, a paper which will lay out the ground
rules regarding the information which he
has stored on his computer— the criteria and
such matters as that? What types of material
will he make available to the universities;
what types of material will he let no one have,
including other government departments-
like the police, under The Attorney General's
Department?
In other words I think tliat the time has
come for a very clear statement on the use
of this very personal data about student
behaviour— perhaps even his background, if
you are using information for student aid.
This type of tiling. I think the time has come
now for this government, and particularly the
Minister of Education, to come out with a
very clear statement on what is going to
remain confidential to his own department
from other government departments, particu-
larly The Attorney General's Department, and
what is going to be made available to univer-
sities, colleges of applied arts and technology
and perhaps to business men who might write
and say: "Please give me the dope on Jones."
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I might just
say something before the Minister answers. I
want to stress the comments made by my hon.
colleague as being extremely important. The
Minister is aware of the fact that one of my
advisors attended, what was that, the inter-
provincial school information system confer-
ence that—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Minister's information sys-
tems committee.
JUNE 5, 1968
3967
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that was what it was. And
we had quite a chat when he returned as to
the tremendous potential of the data pro-
cessing and the availabihty of information
most extensive in detail to anyone who knew
how to extract it from the computer. And the
point raised by my colleague is such an impor-
tant one, because over the years of students'
attendance in pubhc systems, the information
tliat would be catalogued in the computer,
would make the most elaborate Gestapo dos-
sier look like just backyard gossip. And all
of that information would be there for proper
use. But the responsibility that those people
who safeguard the information have would be
very large indeed.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I gather, Mr. Chairman,
from the leader of the Opposition's remarks,
that he does support the point of view that
there certainly is a substantial amount of
information that should be treated on a confi-
dential basis. I am not sure that I can agree
with the member for Scarborough East that
within six months I would be in a position to
define what should and should not be. I think
this may be a shade premature, but I would
hope that given say four or five months'
experience with the new divisional boards
after January 1, we will be in a posi-
tion to at least give much information or
definition of the various areas. I would be
quite prepared to do so— I think it is quite
important. But certainly whatever we say
six or eight months from now could change
in a year's time as other areas of information
perhaps are available to us. I would endeav-
our to do this, but I may not be able to do
this in six months.
Mr. T. Reid: I understand that, Mr. Chair-
man. I would just like to make two further
observations.
One, I think the Minister of Education of
this province has the responsibihty to instruct
the school boards of the province about the
types of information they can record about in-
dividual students. I am talking about liberties
in our society; the liberties of the individual;
the rights of individuals in our society. And
I just say this, for I feel very strongly about
this. The Minister of Education of this prov-
ince must spell out specifically what the
Hamilton school board for example is allowed
to collect and what it is not allowed to
collect.
And second, I think he must be aware that
if there are regional computers, storage cen-
tres such as I believe there are in Hamilton,
that he has a direct responsiblity— enough of
tliis resource centre guflF. You have got— the
Minister has got— a direct responsibihty to
make sure that the information on those mem-
ory brains is secure. If he has not got that,
then probably the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) has.
And third, in his OAvn computer, he must
know who has got access to the information,
so that no one in the department can walk
in who is not authorized to do so and get that
information out of the computer.
I am concerned, the leader of the Opposi-
tion is concerned, about the individual liberty
of a young teenager in our society. This
directly threatens their individual liberties.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There are no arguments.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 504. The leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister can
tell us if all of the new school divisions will
be economically in a position to put in fairly
sophisticated computer facilities, or will many
of them have a direct linkage to the de-
partmental?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman: I cannot
say what the technical procedures will be.
Whether they will have a direct linkage to
the department or whether we will have, as
the member for Scarborough East suggested,
two or three regional or five or six regional
terminals. I do not know about this point.
But there are a number of the new divisional
boards that will not have, in my view, the
economic, or even the student resource, that
would justify a single installation for that
board itself. There will be a number of
them.
Mr. Pitman: I have a short question. I
assume that even though this has been
changed, as far as the estimates are con-
cerned, the hardware is still really at lOSE,
and you are using the computers that are
there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there is a
sharing of hardware, really. Geographically, a
good portion of it is now on Cumberland
Street, which is behind the physical location
of the Ontario institute, and there is a shar-
ing at this point of some of the hardware.
But I gather that the demands for time may
be such, over a period of years, that there
may be completely separate installations; I
do not know. I think that this is the way
that it will develop.
In other words, our education data centre
will, I think, be more of a resource and
3968
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information gathering type of installation,
whereas the institute will more directly be
related to the area of research.
Vote 504 agreed to.
On vote 505:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think that it
was last year that we had some discussion of
the liberation of the Minister's bureaucracy.
He assured me at taht time that he was not
going to take on any more supervisory staff,
because I had gathered in the years gone by
that the number of new appointments had
been astonishingly large.
With a somewhat different emphasis on
the role of the department, the respon-
sibilities for many of these jobs are going to
be given over to the county boards, and he
now is able to predict that the numbers in
his department will decrease in the next few
years. His predictions come, of course, just
one step behind the changes in the depart-
mental policy which make these things
possible.
I believe that, under this vote, he might
give us some specific information as to the
changes in the staff that are under the direc-
tion of the department itself, and what he
predicts, in the next year or two, as the
responsibilities in the county divisions, or the
divisions of jurisdiction will increase, and a
good many of the people who are now em-
ployed by the department will find employ-
ment with the county boards.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, in that the
member did raise this with me a year ago,
even without the change taking place under
Bill 44, we have had a reduction in Septem-
ber, 1967, of ten positions in the inspection
area. I thought this would be very good
news to the hon. member, and I just wanted
this information for him. We anticipated—
Mr. Nixon: You have not got the statistics
on how that branch has changed in the last
three years?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. Let us go back to
April, 1964, 304 positions. April, 1965, 327;
April 1, 1966, 343; April 1, 1967, 343; Sep-
tember, 1967, 333. We have started the
downward track.
Mr. Nixon: Can you extrapolate that and
make some predictions?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I was just going to
get to that next part. I just recalled this
question from last year, and I just wanted to
have this because I know you would be still
interested.
Mr. Chairman, we think that the majority
of the supervisory personnel— that is the term
that we would all understand— our former
departmental inspectors, a number of our
area superintendents will become the em-
ployees of the new divisional boards.
I cannot predict at this stage, Mr. Chair-
man, just what the total percentage of these
people will be and who will obtain employ-
ment with the new divisional boards. I can
only say at this stage that it will be a sub-
stantial majority.
Mr. Nixon: What is the total complement
of those under the jurisdiction of the depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The total complement for
1968 and 1969— and this includes everyone—
is 3,141. It is a drop from 3,891 last year.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask the
Minister one or two questions about this
group of people who are being phased out of
the role that they have previously held in the
department?
You say that most of them will most likely
become employees of the new school juris-
dictions. What I am really wondering is what
assurance these people really have tliat hey
will have jobs in the new jurisdiction? In
some jurisdictions, do they not find it almost
impossible to get jobs, in view of the fact that
they have to remain within the department
structure acting in advisory capacities to
the new boards, and the interim committees?
In other words, is there every indication
that the people who have given this kind
of loyalty to the department and to the Minis-
ter and who have, indeed, very deeply influ-
enced tlie life of education in this province,
will have employment at the level and salary
and status that they have previously held
with the department?
Many of tliese, I think, came into the de-
partment from roles outside, in other juris-
dictions, expecting to spend their lives as a
member of the Minister's team, so to speak.
This very real change in the philosophy of
the department and its very real redirection
has a very unfortunate effect in the careers
of some of these people. I am wondering
what the department is doing to see that
sheer simple justice will be adhered to in
regard to those who have been employees
JUNE 5, 1968
3969
of this department over the last number of
years.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is one
of the very difficult problems of being a
Minister, in that you get to know a number
of your staff reasonably well, and you cannot
help but admire them and respect the con-
tribution that they have made. This does not
make some of the decisions any easier for
any Minister.
I do want to— and it will not take us much
past 6 o'clock— to take this opportunity, be-
cause I did not in the preliminary remarks,
and I really think that I should pay very
genuine tribute to these people who have
worked so well and for a number of years for
the department. I am sure that the members
opposite would join me in expressing these
wishes to these individuals.
I can only say that it has been an area
of some concern and regret for myself and
for the senior officials of the department, but
these are the decisions that have to be made.
I should also point out that we have had
some very constructive discussions with our
former inspectors on several occasions. They
have been not only helpful, but very con-
structive, and completely in support of what
we were doing. I think that we were right
in this decision, Mr. Chairman.
We have said to any present employee of
the department in this category that they
shall remain with the department in some
useful capacity, at a level of salary no less
than they presently earn, if, for some reason,
they do not find employment with one of
the new divisional boards.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 108
ONTARIO
legisflature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 5, 1968 ]
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis, continued
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to
3973^
4008 1
i
3973
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
(Continued)
On vote 505:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): As I
understand it, the Minister said this after-
noon that they were cutting back ten mem-
bers of his staff who had been under the
impression they have apparently a life-long
job. At the same time, I understand that the
department is also making further appoint-
ments for various inspection jobs.
Could it not be possible to involve these
ten who are being removed from a job into
one of these appointments without appoint-
ing somebody new who has already got a
position, possibly as a teacher somewhere?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I follow the
hon. member. As I indicated to the leader
of the Opposition, we have ten fewer posi-
tions in the area of supervision this year than
we did last year and I anticipated that a
majority of those who are presently in this
area of responsibility in the department will
become employees of the new boards. There
have been some additional staff taken on with
respect to, shall we say, programme con-
sultants.
There have also been a limited number in
the area of the separate school system and,
once again, it will depend, Mr. Chairman, on
whether we move into larger units of admin-
istration for the separate school system.
Because if we do then, I would think once
again the majority of the people involved in
separate school inspection will move into the
larger units of administration as well.
Mr. Martel: But I am just wondering;
there are people who are going to be out of
a job now, as a result of this move whether—
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Chairman, as I
thought I explained to your colleague, the
member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman), a
decision was made. But while we anticipate,
as I say, the majority of our supervisory per-
sonnel moving to positions of responsibility
with the new divisional boards, we have
made it clear that for those who do not
obtain employment or perhaps do not wish
to go, there will be positions available for
them in The Department of Education.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, the Minister was
referring to the fact that some of his super-
visory staff will be moving into the jurisdic-
tion of a county board. I think it is a
progressive approach— that we get away from
the older attitudes of the inspectors— and
while the Minister's department will no
longer have people by that name, or even
with that function, by the time the next esti-
mates come around, it may very well be that
some of the county systems or some of the
school divisions will be emphasizing this
aspect more than they ever have before.
I wonder if the Minister's communication
with the boards has been to the extent that
even the supervisory staff that they will be
taking on should have a function that is a
little broader than just the inspectorate func-
tion, and that they are there as resource
people, very much as the Minister sees the
function of the department on a broader
scale?
We have talked on many occasions for the
need to emphasize the professional status of
teachers and, in my view, it is very difficult
for an individual teacher to take this seriously
when his operation is under the immediate
sort of oversight that the old fashioned ap-
proach to inspection has. And if he is going
to have someone in the back of the room
commenting on his day-to-day activities, I do
not think we can expect him to take the
responsibilities for course development and
freedom in the curriculum and its application
that we would normally like to see go on
with a more progressive approach.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we know
traditions die hard but we anticipate that the
3974
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
divisional boards, as some of the larger boards
have now done, will adopt the philosophy
that we have introduced into the depart-
ment.
The traditional concept of inspection is
disappearing and these individuals will act as
resource people to assist the teachers, not to
inspect them in that sense of the word. We
really feel that this will become the
philosophy of the divisional boards as they
become established. And certainly, we will, as
a department, make every effort to see that
this becomes the approach.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 505. The member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I am anxious to find out from the Min-
ister what will happen in the areas, par-
ticularly in the north, where they have been
excluded from a recognized board of educa-
tion, or unit, that will come under a board
of education particularly, in places like
Macdiarmid which is within close proximity
to a recognized school unit but is excluded
from it. Now how will it be supervised with
regard to The Department of Education? It
will not come under the board. Will it be
under the direct supervision of The Depart-
ment of Education?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We
shall, for a number of areas in the province
which, because of the fact they are not
part of a larger unit or even in some instances
where the unit itself is not what the educa-
tors today term viable, still have a number
of personnel who will act as resource pro-
gramme consultants. We shall still have these
personnel available to this kind of board.
\'()te 505 agreed to.
On vote 506:
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, on vote 506, I would like to remind the
Minister of the exchange we had some time
ago about the distribution and methods of
publishing some of the publications of the
department. I think I asked specifically about
the speech by Dr. Clegg, and the Minister
replied that this was produced by the de-
partment. I gathered it was run off by the
government press and so forth.
My question at that time was: ^^'as the
Minister considering the possibility of hav-
ing this type of publication run off by a com-
mercial publisher who would sell the book
to make a profit? This would have two addi-
tional advantages. One, I think, the circula-
tion might be wider. Secondly, the cost to
tlie government might be less.
I was wondering if the Minister had any
additional comments?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have no
additional comments at this point but I did
make a note of the hon, member's suggestion
and we are exploring it. I think it depends
really on the type of publication that we
would be making available, as to just how
widespread an interest might be created. But
the idea we thought really merited further
consideration and we are doing so. But 1
have nothing more specific here this evening.
I should point out that we will get into
a discussion of this and there are certain sums
indicated in another estimate with respect to
the Hall committee report. I am very hopeful
that this will receive large distribution and
perhaps could be marketed for general con-
sumption on a slight repayment basis. Any-
way, as far as the investment for the publica-
tion of that report is concerned, I am not
sure yet.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 506. The member for
Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, some time ago
I made a few remarks regarding the reading
of the magazine Dimensions and I indicated
at that time that although much of the
material that the department sends out is
excellent material, the greatest majority of
it is not read and I think it is simply because
the teachers do not have time to read it.
I am just wondering of the advisability of
con'inuing to produce this material unless
there is time for teachers to read it. I was
wondering if the Minister would consider a
survey of some sort whereby we would de-
termine whether or not this material was
actually being used or whether it was a waste
of money? I think the material itself is good
but as I said, I do not think much of it is
being read, having been in school for quite
some time, and it might be a waste of money
because of no opportunity to read the
material.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
really sure that a survey would, in itself, be
an answer to this.
My own reaction is that perhaps I do not
talk to as many teachers as the hon. member,
but I do chat with a number over the course
of a year and the response I have received,
at least, is that the information coming from
the department is read— I do not say by the.
I
JUNE 5, 1968
3975
majority— but by a substantial number of
them.
Mr. Martel: I just cite an example: In con-
sulting with 25 odd teachers during the
Easter week, there was only one who even
knew what Dimensions was. Now there is
other material that comes from the depart-
ment. It is excellent but I am just citing this
example.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Chairman, if
the hon. member was talking to some of his
colleagues at Easter with respect to the
publication of Dimensions, one reason they
may not have had a chance to see it is that,
I would think at that point perhaps, there
had only been one or two publcations of
Dimensions up to that time. Perhaps three
at tlie most, I would think.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 5C6. The leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: I think I asked the Minister
how his annual report is progressing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the annual
report is in the hands of the printer. It has
once again— and I think the hon. member
will see this when it is available— been al-
tered. I have to say this is obviously going
to be substantially altered again next year.
We have endeavoured to make it not only
more readable, but we have removed some
of what we felt was irrelevant statistical in-
formation. But nonetheless we have added
more statistics that we hope will be helpful
to the hon. members.
It is just almost impossible to compile it
from the returns of the boards in the leng'ch
of time that is available. I think that we must
face the fact that next year, there will be
further difficulty. Hopefully the year after
that, by the reduction of the number of
boards, we should be in a position to have the
report available at an earlier date.
Mr. Nixon: I like the innovation this year
that the Minister has separated, from his
opening remarks, a general survey of the work
of the department. I think that this is really
designed to be bound in as one unit and prob-
ably reprinted in a little more elaborate
fashion, and sent out to a fairly large mailing
list across the province.
I am always impressed really when I talk
to my friends on municipal councils and o.her
forms and responsibility, that sitting right on
the mantelpiece, there is an autographed copy
of the opening statement that the Minister
makes year by year, bound much more elabor-
ately than the one that is available to us here.
But I would suggest that if the annual report
is going to improve its function, it should be
available for the discussion of the es.imates.
I knov/ the Minister's sentiments in this.
He agrees to some extent and he is often
critical perhaps that we do not make more
use of his report than we do. But one of the
most important uses of the report is to let
the members of the Legislature know what
has gone on in the previous year before we
are asked to vote these sums for the year
following.
I can sympathize with the problems of
putting together the report in the form that
it has taken in the last few years. It contains
all sorts of irrelevant material that is loaded
into that rather heavy volume. I would like
to see the Minister undertake the sort of
report that formed the supplement to his
opening remarks.
He could get it prepared in fairly good
time, as I am sure that this one was, and make
it available to the members of tne Legisla-
ture before die estimates are brought before it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask in subsection 5 of vote 560, films and
television, about the inclusion of an expendi-
ture for the reproduction of the movie "A
Place to Stand."
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think that there is anything in this vote for
reproduction— is this the right term— of that
film. I would have to say this though, it is
certainly worth reproducing.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to ask if I might
Mr. Chairman, if in addition to "A Place to
Stand," the Minister of Education might get a
camera crew and put the camera atop the GO
train as it goes from the Guildwood station
to Union Station and photograph that place
to stand along the tracks in Ontario.
Vote 506 agreed to.
On vote 507.
Mr. W. G. Pitman ( Peterborough ) : I notice
that in this estimate there is $65,000 set
aside for the radio broadcast. These would
be the school broadcasts, I take it, that are
heard over the many stations across the
province. Is that true?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the hon. member
is on the wrong vote.
Mr. Pitman: I am sorry, that is for tele-
vision I see. This is just promotional
3976
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
television? It has nothing to do with curricu-
lum or programmes.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not have any-
thing to do with it. There is one film that
was produced with respect to community
colleges and perhaps some of the hon. mem-
bers have seen it. We may be doing two or
three more like it. This was some six or
eight months ago. This does not relate to
the regular radio broadcasts in the school
system.
Mr. T. Rcid: I understand that this is the
proper time to bring in this discussion of
Head start type of programmes, so I would
like to take the opportunity of doing this.
This is something that I have been con-
cerned with for a number of years. I have
read with interest some of the Minister's
statements in this area, and I would like to
question him in detail on it.
I would like at this time, however, to give
the reasons why we feel that The Depart-
ment of Education, under the leadership of
the Minister, should become very actively
invoKed in what might be called pre-primary
programmes for the culturally deprived chil-
dren in Ontario.
We think this is a function of his depart-
ment and as I should outline, there is certain
advantages to it. I would like to then present
my remarks on: "Why Ontario needs a
Head start programme under the direction
of the Minister of Education as opposed to
the direction of the various boards of educa-
tion.
I think one should start by saying that we
must begin at the beginning in education;
this is the place to start.
Primary, and particularly pre-primary
school education is the area in which a
greater departmental concern and new pro-
grammes, as well as an upward shift in
expenditures, could have the greatest long-
nm individual, social, economic and political
return.
On the one hand, there is the question of
preparing individuals for the world of work
and of maximizing their contribution to eco-
nomic growth in this era of a permanent
scientific and technological revolution— popu-
larly called "the age of automation". For
this goal, an additional $1 million— a greater
concern, a n^-w programme l>y the Minister
—but an additional $1 million invested today
in prc-priin try st hool education could rcciucc
by at least several million dollars the (^xpc n-
diturcs which will be necessary to train and
retrain many of today's four- and five-year
olds 15 years from now for the radically
changed world of work of 1983.
If, in other words, the approach to pre-
paring individuals for the world of work had
a deeper and longer run perspective in deci-
sion-making than it has at present in the
Minister's department, Ontario would have
a much more rational and efficient allocation
of funds today.
On the other hand, there is the belief that
it is good for an individual, however gifted,
to be able to develop and use the gifts with
which he was born. And, related to this, is
the belief that social and economic barriers
which stand between a child and the devel-
opment of his inherited creative, intellectual
and physical gifts ought to be eliminated.
For this goal, an additional 1 million
spent today in pre-primary school education,
particularly Head start programmes, could
reduce by several million dollars tlie amount
that would be spent on programmes to
counteract alienated teenagers ten years from
now in 1978.
The conclusion about these two goals is
that there is no valid dichotomy between
training individuals to be productive factors
of production and their education as unique
human beings with unique gifts at the pre-
primary and primary school level.
Turning my remarks to the question of
what I call manpower wastage in Ontario,
I would like to say this. And I would be
quite willing to provide the Minister with
footnotes for the statistics.
In Ontario today a great deal of the intel-
ligence, creativity and other inherited abilities
of a vast number of people is being wasted.
At least one of every four non-farm Ontario
families lives on an annual income of $4,000
or less and more than one of every two farm
families lives on $2,500 or less. At the very
]nost, 20 of every 100 children of such fami-
lies in the age group of 19 to 24 are attending
a regular day-time school or university. Now
if only 20 of every 100 of these children
were born with the al)ility to pursue such
education, then the argument that there is
massive wastage of the talents of Canadians
in Ontario would lose much of its validity.
But such is not the case. Since it is likely
that more than 50 of every 100 young people,
19 to 25, whose parents have annual incomes
of $7,000 or more are still pursuing full-time
school or university studies, then one-half of
the young people whose parents have in-
comes of $4,000 or less can be judged as
1
JUNE 5, 1968
3977
having been born with the capacity and the
capabihties of pursuing such education. In
my opinion there may be more "born bright-
but-poor" young people not involved in for-
mal education, informal study in this prov-
ince than there are actually studying. This
participation gap is evidence of a massive
wastage of manpower resources in Ontario.
The federal government's Department of
Labour noted in a case study in Ontario in
the 1950's that:
It is quite clear that children from
middle class and professional homes enjoy
a higher survival rate in the educational
system than would be predicted from an
examination of patterns according to which
intelligence is distributed among students.
Such findings merely underline the wast-
age that is occurring among the bright
students who drop out of school not because
of lack of intelligence or academic poten-
tial, but for economic, psychological and
social reasons.
In 1962, the central advisory committee on
education in the Atlantic provinces made this
conclusion and then compared it to the state
in Ontario. They concluded that:
There is no doubt that in all four prov-
inces many students who should go to
higher education fail to do so, and there
is serious loss of student potential— abovit
half of the students in those four provinces
who could be reasonably classed as of uni-
versity calibre do not proceed to either
university, to teacher training or to nursing.
And then the study notes that:
It is clear that the wastage is at least as
serious and probably more serious in On-
tario than it is in the Atlantic region.
The evidence noted above is based primarily
on studies done in the 1950s and on the
DBS census of 1961. However, in 1965-66,
the Canadian union of students did a sample
survey of Canadian undergraduate students
which verified the conclusions of earlier
studies that university students are "by and
large not representative of the Canadian class
structure but rather bear the characteristics
of the middle and upper classes of Canadian
society".
The study gives as an example the follow-
ing: The study concluded that only 35 per
cent of Canadian university students were
from blue collar or working class families
compared to 64.1 per cent of employed
Canadians who held jobs that could be classi-
fied as such.
And those statistics relate to Ontario, with
a slightly smaller gap, but the gap is still
there, and it is a very large gap. Now, Mr.
Chairman, many people and some people,
including I believe some members, perhaps,
of The Department of Education find nothing
starthng in these comparisons. They claim
that children bom into the lower socio-eco-
nomic strata in Ontario— for example, low-
paid manual workers— are biologically inferior
in their inherited abilities, particularly in
their thinking powers, to children born to
parents who are at the other end of the
socio-economic spectrum— for example, high-
paid corporation directors.
Theirs is an hereditary assumption which
may have some validity in a half-dozen iso-
lated rural areas in Canada in which a great
deal of family intermarriage has taken place
over generations, but it is nonsense when
applied to a province such as Ontario.
There is little evidence to support the
claim that the range and distribution of in-
telligence of a group of children born to
parents who have not gone beyond grade 8
and who bring home annual incomes of $4,000
or less is any different from the range and
distribution of inherited capacity of a group
of children born to parents with university
education who bring home annual incomes
of $7,000 or more.
The number of children bom with the
capability for higher education is the same,
regardless of the social, educational and eco-
nomic background of their parents. And this,
Mr. Chairman, I submit, is the only possible
premise to adopt in the formulation of public
policy. It is unequivocally the operating
principle of the United States war on poverty
as proposed by President Johnson in his
message preceding The Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, the president
noted:
The young man or woman who grows
up without a decent education— in a hostile
and squalid environment— that young man
or woman is often trapped in a life of
poverty. He docs not have the skills de-
manded by a complex society.
He does not know how to acquire those
skills. He faces a mounting sense of des-
pair which drains initiative and ambition
and energy. The war on poverty, including
their Head start programme, is a stmggle
to give people a chance.
Mr. Chairman, I would like next to turn to
the reasons for some of this wastage. There
3978
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are many reasons for the present wastage of
human potential in Ontario. The concern in
my remarks is concerned with the poverty
environment argument only. It is now a
platitude to say that it is the home environ-
ment which stimulates a child to develop the
gifts with which he is born and stimulates
his desire for learning and knowledge.
There are tremendous differences between
the home environment and attitudes of a
poverty home and a well-to-do home, besides
the definitional difference of annual incomes.
Thelma McCormack, a York University
sociologist, comments as follov/s:
The poverty syndrome is produced not
by economic deprivation but by a pattern
of social relations symbolized and main-
tained by income differences. Being poor
means being powerless, being treated in a
variety of contexts throughout one's life.
The old left called these people the "lum-
penproletariat" to suggest that they were
not just poorer than most but outcasts.
The probability is high that their chil-
dren will be outcasts too. Everything con-
spires against them. With few exceptions
their fate is sealed before they ever walk
across the threshold of schools which
would have failed them in any event.
One essential aspect of the poverty syndrome
Mr. Chairman, is that poverty homes produce
too many children without adequate words at
the age of four and five. Such children have
not had the opportunity or the encourage-
ment to pick up the basic skills of comuni-
cation and understanding of language that is
largely a prerequisite for success in senior
kindergarten and grade 1.
All later learning will be influenced by this
lack of basic learning— having names for
things is essential in the learning process.
The average child from such a background
will have difficulty and constant frustration
from the demand of a typical primary school
programme. He cannot cope with the change
and expectations about what he should
achieve and is baffled and feels inadequate.
No wonder the desire grows to escape
from the virtual imprisonment which school
comes to represent as he experiences failure
year after year. Instead of eight or ten years
of primary school curing the basic linguistic
handicap of such a child, he has either left
school for good or if he lasts through second-
ary school is likely reading at a level approxi-
mately three and one half years below the
expected grade 9 level.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Who wrote
that?
Mr. T. Reid: I will refer you to three
articles which I wrote myself.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
That will put you in your place.
Mr. T. Reid: Because he literally cannot
read the secondary school arts and sciences
textbooks of grade 9, it is likely that he will
shift into the stream, labelled in this prov-
ince as "science, technology and trades",
"business and commerce" and "occupational".
In too many cases, the choice is simply to
get out of the tough reading courses of the
university-geared arts and science pro-
grammes. A great many gifted children from
poverty homes end up in courses below the
level of their actual intelligence because they
appear to lack the abffity. Most do not get
into the academic stream leading to univer-
sity and many other kinds of post-secondary
school education.
Most provincial D?partments of Education
in Canada have recently re-organized the
secondary school curriculum. In Ontario
the revision instituted in the early 1960's, the
so-called Robarts plan, is resulting, and will
likely continue to result— unless there are
policy changes— in an extraordinary perver-
sion of intent. Although it was clearly not
planned as such, it is turning out to bs
"class" legislation in the sense that it en-
ccurages children from lower income homes
to say out of the five-year stream leading to
university and reserves places in that stream
for the sons and daughters of the well-to-do.
This is happening because the re-organiza-
tion of the secondary school curriculum was
not bickcd up by a barrage of other educa-
tional measures designed for the very young,
disadvantaged and poor children and their
pa-en's. The re-orginization is accentuating
rather than diminishing the enormous gap
between those who can and do read and
communicate intelligently — between those
who can and do communicate in the language
cf the school— and those to whom the printed
word and the standard techniques of com-
munication in the school setting mean very,
very little.
Mr. Chairman, several provincial depart-
ments of education have also expanded non-
university institutions of higher education,
particularly the junior college. Excellent ex-
amples of these are the community colleges
established in British Columbia and Alberta.
JUNE 5, 1968
3979
A somewhat different trend has taken place in
this province. Ontario recently established the
colleges of applied arts and technology,
which are merely a logical extension of the
secondary school re-organization plan.
The CAATs in Ontario will, unless sub-
stantial pohcy changes are made by the
Minister by the 1970's in effect seal the fate
of the culturally disadvantaged pupil who
survives four years of secondary school in
watered-down streams, particularly in the
stream labelled "four years arts and science."
The principle of "separate but equal educa-
tion" is now institutionalized in post-second-
ary school education in Ontario: Instead of
the colour of one's skin bsing the distinguish-
ing characteristic, poor or well-to-do family
background becomes, in general, the de facto
entrance labels. The two plans together in
this province, progressively close the door to
re-entry to the top level of academic educa-
tion after grade 8 to those many teenagers
who are placed at an absolute and at a com-
petitive disadvantage because of the accident
of birth.
This brings me to the priority in education
today in Ontario and it must be in the area
of primary and pre-primary school level.
Many educators and learning experts accept
the validity of the following two statemen+s:
The first one is contained in a report by the
Toronto board of education.
Our present knowledge of the develop-
ment of learning abilities indicates that
the pre-school years are the most impor-
tant years of learning in the child's life. A
tremendous amount of learning takes place
during these years: and this learning is the
foundation for all further learning.
A further statement by Jerome Bruner sup-
ports this concept:
It is not surprising in the light of this
that early opportunities for development
have loomed so large in our recent under-
standing of human mental growth. The
importance of early experience is only
dimly sensed today. The evidence from
animal studies indicates that virtually ir-
reversible deficits can be produced in
mammals by depriving them of oppor-
tunities that challenge their nascent capa-
cities.
A child bom into a slum has its intelligence
deteriorate absolutely. It is on the basis of
this premise, as applied to humans, that the
advocates of pre-primary school education
for children born into the "poverty syndrome"
largely rest their case. For example, the
Head start programme in the United States
rests:
On the assumption that an organized
programme of enrichment, preceding kin-
dergarten or first grade schooling, will have
an important positive effect on the educa-
tional and social development of children
living in conditions of poverty.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let us ask the question,
what is being done in this province and let us
see how we stack up against the rest of
Canada. Here are some hard statistics.
Quite often the statistics are not available
for Ontario, only available for Canada. I do
not apologize for it at all but I would sug-
gest that the Minister should look into it so
we could have better statistics with which to
make our criticisms of the department.
In Canada, the number of five-year-olds
increased by 50 per cent between 1951 and
1964-from 301,000 to 454,000. The number
of five-year-olds in school is estimated to
have increased over the period by almost 200
per cent-from 92,000 to 271,000. This means
that the percentage of five-year-olds in school
almost doubled— from 31 per cent in 1951 to
60 per cent in 1964. These results are praise-
worthy and in Ontario these results are very
good, too, when we look at that cold hard
fact.
A deeper look, however, reveals some in-
teresting facts.
1. The Dominion bureau of statistics states
that in 1964, 19 per cent of all the five-year-
olds in British Columbia attended public and
private elementary schools compared to 96
per cent in Nova Scotia. I believe, in this
province, depending which statistics one uses,
that Ontario, while not at the 96 per cent
level, is at about the 75 per cent level.
2. In the Ontario public school system in
1964, only three of every 100 pupils in rural
townships were in kindergarten compared to
over 12 of every 100 pupils in cities.
3. In the city of Toronto, which has one
of the most extensive systems of junior
kindergarten classes in Canada, the following
statement was a major conclusion of a study
in 1965 by the research division of the
board of education: Junior kindergarten—
v/hich can be classified in the category of the
Head start programme— is most available in
areas characterized by low socio-economic
and educational levels of the parents.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the selec-
tion of the areas in which the junior kinder-
gartens would be established was done on
the basis of the lov/ income areas. The reason
3980
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for this was that the children from the lower
socio-economic strata mic^ht benefit by the
extra year in schooling, for some of the rea-
sons I have mentioned, for the report con-
cludes they are not the children who are
sent to junior kindergarten. What that
means, Mr. Chairman, is that although the
junior kindergartens were purposely set up
in those schools where the income level of
parents is low in the city, the children who
ended up in those junior kindergartens were
from the wealthier people living in lower
income areas. The programme did not on
the whole get to the kids who really needed it.
4. In Ontario, the number of five-year-olds
in kindergarten in the public school system
increased by 40 per cent between 1956 and
1961; the increase in the Roman Catholic
separate schools was 107 per cent. Looked at
from a diff^erent index calculated from the
Minister's statistics, kindergarten enrolment
to total elementary school enrolment, the in-
crease was 10 per cent in the public schools
betv/een 1956 and 1964 and 98 per cent in
the Roman Catholic separate schools.
So the rate of increase in the enrolment of
five-year-olds in the Roman Catholic separate
schools was greater than in the public
school system, but one of the reasons for this
was the Roman Catholic school system started
from a lower base, so it should be noted that
in 1964, 9.5 per cent of the pupils in public
school were in kindergarten and 8.6 per cent
of the pupils in Roman Catholic schools were
in kindergarten. The final fact before I
interpret them, is this.
5. That in Ontario there are about 157,000
five-year-olds. Ten years from now there may
be 183,000; an increase of 26,000-17 per
cent— so we have come up with a growth
factor there too.
Various interpretations can be given to
these facts. One set of tentative conclusions
could be the following. There are vast
provincial opportunity gaps for five-year-olds
to attend school. Within each province
there are vast regional opportunity gaps for
five-year-olds to attend school particularly in
Ontario. V/ithin areas in which junior public
school kindergartens for four- and five-year
olds are widely available, the children of the
lower socio-economic strata are vastly under-
represented.
In Ontario the Roman Catholic separate
schools made a much greater relative thrust
at the pre-grade 1 level over the last decade
than did the public school system. Over the
next decade there could well be a 17 per
cent increase in the number of five-year-olds
in Canada and in Ontario. There could, of
course, be a dramatic downward shift in the
birth-rate; we cannot calculate that yet.
The children who will be in their early
twenties in 1985 in Ontario are already bom.
The vast majority of the 25 per cent of the
five-year-olds who are not attending school
are from poverty and low-income families;
children who were born behind the eight ball
of disadvantage; children who need preferen-
tial pre-primary school education if they are
to have a meaningful chance to develop the
abilities with which they were bom and
have an equal chance in competition in
school against the children from more
affluent and advantaged homes.
In the world of 1985, it is doubtful that
very many of these children will feel like
worthwhile citizens and independent mem-
bers of society. Their process of alienation
started the day they were bom and little is
being done in this province before they are
five year old or even at the age of five to
help them lift themselves up. Virtually noth-
ing is being done for them when they are
four years old, an age which some learning
experts state is much, much more potentially
productive than five.
I would like to turn, Mr. Chairman, to a
concept of poverty, education and tech-
nological change, because it is tied up with
this programme very drastically.
It is difficult to predict what the effects of
the new technology will be on Canadian
society, particularly in education and the
world of work. Nevertheless, the following
speculative view represents a state of affairs
that might come about, particularly in
Ontario.
The evidence of an extremely wide gap be-
tween the level of formal education reached
by the children of the relatively well-to-do in
this province and the level reached by the
children of the poor has already been noted,
as has been other evidence indicating the
sheer magnitude of the under-representation
of children from low-income homes in
Ontario's educational institutions, particularly
in grade 13 and in post-secondary school
institutions.
Regardless of the reasons why children
b(^rn into low-income homes in this province
do not occupy anything near their share of
places now available in the final years of
high school and beyond, the clear fact is that
they do not. It can be argued that what the
new technology is beginning to do is to
freeze those conditions in our society which
tend to perpetuate the sons and daughters of
the poor in the cycle of poverty, and to
i
JUNE 5, 1968
3981
perpetuate the sons and daughters of the
middle-class and wealthy in the cycle of
middle-class and wealth.
The basic reason for this as the Minister
well knows is this ossification could be that,
for the first time in the history of man, edu-
cation is placed squarely between man and
the work which is his acceptable and moral
means of livelihood. Thus, the children of
the poor tend to be the drop-outs from ele-
mentary and secondary school education.
These under-educated members of the
labour force are increasingly becoming the
unemployed. The unemployed are the poor.
The children of the poor are the school drop-
outs and so on. Even if the average child
from a low-income home survives to second-
ary school in the province, he ends up in
an academically watered-down, technically,
commercial or arts stream for two to four
years to prepare for a low-grade and low-
income, and often a personally unrewarding
job— particularly if he happens to be born
quite bright.
In the industrial economy in the pre-
1960s, he probably managed to get a steady
job and considered himself fortunate to have
achieved the same low-income category as
his parents. Today, and in the future world
of automation in this province, however, the
likelihood of the average person with such an
educational background securing a steady job
will be much less. Instead he will join the
ranks of the occasional labourer and eventu-
ally take his place as a welfare recipient,
possibly before he is 25. If his children have
only the opportunities he had to make his
way in life in this province's education sys-
tem then the saying, "If they're poor now,
they will never be anything else," will con-
tinue to tell the story from one generation
of school drop-outs to the next.
The other cycle is the reverse. The chil-
dren of the relatively well-to-do stay in
school— some of the less able enter and
scrape through our university. The highly
educated are the employed who receive good
middle-class salaries. The children of the
middle-class stay in school. The average
child from the middle-income home will get
into the academic stream in secondary school
which has an "open door" to universities. '
He will end up with a good job and a good
salary to enable him to hand on a middle-
class life to his children. The shift from the
industrial age to the age of automation will
certainly affect his life but it will not cut his
job and income out from under his feet.
Unless, therefore, Mr. Chairman, the hnk
between drop-outs from education and young
people from low-income homes is broken
before the full impact of the new technology
makes itself felt in the world of work, auto-
mation could virtually eliminate social mobil-
ity from one generation to the next in this
province. The poor and their children will
not only be alienated from education but
will, as a direct consequence, be alienated
from participation in the productive process,
and fail to receive any income from such
participation. This could mean increasing
alienation of such individuals from society.
This speculative view of the new tech-
nology and opportunity should be considered.
It could happen. However, if the right poli-
cies are pursued by this Minister of Educa-
tion today, it need not happen and the
possibility need not exist.
What then, Mr. Chairman, should be done?
In some of the better financed and socially
concerned school board districts in Ontario,
the need— and hard-headed economic returns
—have been identified and action taken. The
city of Toronto has been mentioned already—
an outstanding example of a school board
which is trying to fight its war on poverty
without a moral or financial commitment
from other levels of government. Another
example as the Minister noted in his intro-
ductory remarks is the ENOC programme in
Hamilton, Ontario. ENOC stands for the
educational needs of the older city. The
Minister knows about it but just because
there is one such programme in this province
that is no reason to beat his chest.
T|he ENOC programme is designed to up-
lift many of the children in the older, poorer
areas of the city who are greatly handi-
capped by circumstances — unemployed
fathers, broken homes, inferior housing con-
ditions, large families, lack of parental con-
cern and interest. For example, only half the
parents attended the school open house com-
pared to an almost complete turn-out of par-
ents at a school in a middle-income area in
the same city.
The ENOC programme includes a kinder-
garten for four-year-olds, not five-year-olds,
with emphasis on remedial English, teacher
visits to the home of each child, medical
examinations for each child and in some cases
dental examinations— because they believe
that "children whose teeth hurt cannot study"
—and trips and excursions in order to
broaden the experience of the children and
to increase their vocabulary.
3982
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I
Surely, if disadvantaged children in Ham-
ilton, Ontario, have this chance, similarly
disadvantaged children throughout Ontario
should also have an equal chance. And it is
not just a meaningful chance to develop their
individual potential; it is a meaningful
chance to become trained and educated to
make their way in life in the world of work
of the age of automation; it is, Mr. Chair-
man, manpower training at the beginning
which this province has shirked.
In summary, the first public-policy prin-
ciple that must be accepted in Ontario by the
present Minister of Education is that of
universal accessibility to education. The first
programme to achieve genuine accessibility
to education is one which makes it possible
for children born into low-income homes to
have as good a set of initial communication
skills as children cf equal inherited ability
from well-to-do homes. Ontario's kinder-
gartens are certainly not even attempting to
do this. Many children from low-income
homes have been born into a poverty syn-
drome and again I repeat they need pre-
ferential treatment in education, not simply
equal treatment. Equality of opportunity
does not mean equal treatment; equality of
opportunity in this province, at this level, in
a Head start programme means preferential
treatment. This is not happening, particularly
in the rural areas and small towns of Ontario.
Furthermore, Ontario's private nursery schools
have children v/ho are mainly from well-to-do
homes where the exact opposite ought to be
true. Quite simply, without universal oppor-
tunity before kindergarten and grade 1,
universal accessibility to education for a child
to develop the gifts with which he was born
is impossible. The hard fact which has been
recognized in the United States but not in
this province, not by this government, and
not by this Minister of Education, is that
five-years-old is too late for the underprivi-
leged child to begin schooling.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Minister specifically, whether the statement
he made in this House last year is true. I
will read it directly from Hansard and see
whether he was just mouthing phrases this
time last year.
I quote from Hansard, May 17, 1967,
pages 35:6 and 3537: There is another inter-
esting point here, but it is a subsidiary point
to the one I want to make. I am concerned
with the statement of the Minister's intention
at that time. He said:
It is the feeling of my ofRcials that it would be
unfortiinfite if any prog ammc designed to assist our
children in this same area—
Before that the Minister refers specifically
to the Head start programme.
—should be undertaken without the detailed and
thorough planning so necessary to success.
I continue with the quotation:
During the next year—
That is starting from May 17, 1967 to the
present time; in fact the year lapsed May 17,
1968, the Minister said:
—this whole area will be the subject of study and
research with the objective of designing methods and
procedures to ensure equality of opportunity for chil-
dren who do not enjoy the same advantages as some
of their more fortunate classmates.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister was referring
to many of the statements I have made. He
continues:
An international conference on the subject—
This question of early educational oppor-
tunities for the culturally disadvantaged at
the age of four.
—of this type of programme was held at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education during this past
year under the joint sponsorship of that institute and
of the policy and development council of my depart-
ment.
So the Minister has had a conference. He
states that he is going to do something about
it and finally, Mr. Chairman, he said:
I am pleased to announce that Dr. Carl Breiter,
one of the outstanding authorities in this field in the
United States, who took part in the conference, is
joining the staff of the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education in the fall.
And that is for specific research into the
area of what might be called loosely Head
start programmes. I would like to ask the
Minister therefore, Mr. Chairman, what
action, if any, he has taken to provide equality
of education in a meaningful sense instead of
in a sense of sheer rhetoric for the children
in this province— to have to be born into
disadvantaged homes, and there are many of
them, to ensure that they have their chance
to make their way in this so-called province
of opportunity where a lot of people do not
have a place to stand, let alone a place to
lie down.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
reply to the question?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
will reply, perhaps not quite in the same
manner or the same length as the member
for Scarborough East-
Mr. Nixon: It is an important subject
nevertheless!
Hon. Mr. Davis: —and I shall endeavour to
do so in a way that I hope will indicate that
JUNE 5, 1968
3983
this matter is not being ignored in this juris-
diction at all. I must point out to him that I
have read very carefully his articles relating
to this subject and other fields. I think they
started in about 1965. I have read a great
deal of the hon. member's material.
I have even read some working papers of
a particular conference where the member is
suggesting, and I think he is right, that edu-
cation can also inculcate social and personal
values in more direct ways. I assume that
he is the author of this document referring to
nursery schools.
For example, a nursery school teacher
could have a small model canoe in the class-
room suspended from a ceiling and sit five-
and six-year-old children— this is not the four-
year-olds, I guess there are the five- and six-
year-old children in it, saying, "Now when
you grow up to have leisure time, you can
enjoy yourself paddling a canoe on one of
Canada's thousands of lakes and rivers. This
is, I think, part of the working paper pre-
pared by the member for Scarborough East
to the Liberal policy discussion. I forget
whether it was two years ago they had this
and he goes on to say-
Mr. Nixon: I do not remember seeing you
there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?
Mr. Nixon: I do not remember seeing you
there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I was not invited to
attend.
Mr. Nixon: You are welcome to attend.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Am I really? I was not
invited to attend, and the hon. member, the
author, goes on and says it is noted before
teachers and parents can educate for social
purpose since the—
Mr. T. Reid: You agree with that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought this related to
the Head start programme. We are talking
about five- and six-year olds and the social
and personal-
Mr. Nixon: Get to the point.
Hon. Mr. Davis: —the social and personal
values that can be inculcated through the
school system and I think this does. How-
ever, I will not go through the whole work-
ing paper.
But let us deal with some of the statistics
and let us—
Mr. Nixon: It might do you good.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have read it very care-
fully. I would say that the hon. member
presents— I do not say necessarily in this
particular area, but in some areas- some very
worthwhile thoughts. I would be the last
to say not.
Mr. Nixon: Let us have some answers.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also suggest that
they are not all irrelevant. There are some
worthwhile thoughts, no question about it
But let us look at some of the statistics
here in the province of Ontario. There is a
great tendency, and I guess I am guilty of it
on occasion, Mr. Chairman, to compare. This
is perhaps how one makes an analysis of this
jurisdiction with others. So let us look at the
figures. The hon. member has indicated that
kindergarten, while in itself is not suflBcient,
is nonetheless a very basic ingredient in any
educational programme and then he suggests
that it should move down to the four-year-
olds. Let us look at the five-year-old position
here in this province.
In September of 1967, there were 136,233
children enrolled in kindergartens in Ontario;
I refer only to those in the separate, public
and the pre-kindergartens. They represent—
Mr. Nixon: How many five-year-olds are
there in—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get to that. They
represent 86 per cent of all the five-year-olds
in the province of Ontario. This is in Sep-
tember of 1967. Eighty-six per cent-136,233.
Mr. Nixon: DBS figures?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, this is not DBS. I
recognize that this is one of the problems
that we have when we get back to statistics.
I am giving you the information that I have
and think is relevant and hopefully up-to-
date.
Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, your statistics
are not available to us.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, because this is even
more up-to-date than the Minister's report
will be. However, the hon. member, I am
sure, wants these up-to-date statistics. Taking
the enrollment of public senior kindergartens
only, in 1966 we served 86.9 per cent of the
estimated five-year age group in our cities
and town and urban townships, and 60.7 per
cent of those in rural villages, townships,
unorganized townships and Crown lands.
3984
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Let us see if this is not a pretty high level
of educational service. In 1956 we had only
58 per cent; that is 11 years ago, since we
used September, 1967, as the base. In 1956,
we had only 58 per cent of our five-year-olds
in publicly supported kindergartens in On-
tario. By 1961, there were 71 per cent and,
as I say, by 1968, 86 per cent.
From a kindergarten enrollment of only
70,280 youngsters in September of 1956, we
have grown to 136,233 in September of this
past year.
In absolute numbers— I am not an econo-
mist, and I am sure the member for
Scarborough East would understand this
terminology better than I— this is an increase
of almost 94 per cent in an 11-year-period.
I would suggest that he might search the
statistics because I would like to see figures
for other jurisdictions, as I am sure there are
some where the same absolute percentage
increase has been substantially higher than
in the province of Ontario.
I think you have to determine the starting
point when you are talking about operation
Head start, because it really varies from state
to state, I have some very slight knowledge
of it.
In October 1966-the latest date for which
I have available figures— in the United States
there were 244,000 five-year-old children.
Only 62 per cent were enrolled in kinder-
gartens and schools.
Mr. T. Raid: What about the best states?
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, I will get to
California, Michigan, Nevada, and every other
state and I hope to do it in a very short time.
I listened very patiently to the hon. member
for Scarborough East; I think that he will
acknowledge this, and I thought that some of
it was very worthwhile.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Of the total enrollment of
2,641,000 children, 82 per cent were served
by public institutions. The rest were in fee-
paying private schools. Taking the country as
a whole, their service is less extensive. I think
that this is fair and accurate, both to cities
and towns and to the rural areas.
This is taking the total jurisdiction of the
United States. The Americans, as the hon.
member will know, divide their statistics into
three categories— the central cities; the outside
central cities— I am sure that he is aware of
this— and then the rural areas. Including both
the public and private kindergartens and
nurseries in 1966, they enrolled 70 per cent
of their five-year-old children in their first
two categories and not quite 50 per cent of
those in the rural areas. I am sure that there
is some objection.
The leader of the Opposition has already
suggested that a valid comparison is not with
the United States as a whole but with indi-
vidual states. Perhaps this is right. Now,
taking publicly enrolled kindergarten enroll-
ment only— as a percentage of the five-year-old
age group and comparing it to our level of
82.7 per cent for the last year— in October
1966, New York state enrolled 72.7. This is
a fairly close and neighbouring state of the
union. I guess that there are not many closer.
Only three states exceed our level, they are
California, Michigan and Nevada.
Mr. Nixon: There is a difference of a full
year.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I would say with
respect, Mr. Chairman, that there would not
be. I think that even the economist, the mem-
ber for Scarborough East, would acknowledge
this— there would not be a substantial altera-
tion in percentages.
Mr. T. Reid: When I finish this, I shall
endeavour to clarify it for the hon. member.
I do not guarantee that I can, for him, but I
shall try.
Mr. Nixon: But your figures are for 1967.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is right, 1967, and
1966. I acknowledge this and I also suggest
that I am not a statistician and that the per-
centages would not alter that much. There
may be some. Virtually every elementary
school-
Mr. Nixon: There would be a substantial
difference.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure that the member
for Scarborough East is finding this helpful.
Virtually every elementary school in Ontario
has a kindergarten. 98.3 per cent of the
elementary schools in the province of Ontario
have kindergartens. This is I think, and once
again I cannot get the statistics on this for
the hon. member, substantially higher than
the national average in the United States.
Mr. T. Reid: You sure take care of the five-
year-olds.
Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, Mr. Chair-
man, the area where we still have difficulties
relates really to matters of geography. I think
that the hon. member must be fair in recog-
nizing this. With 60 per cent of our rural
children enrolled, I think we can really say
JUNE 5, 1968
3985
—and I say this as objectively as one can in
my position— that we have made very real
progress in the rural areas of this province.
There is no doubt in my mind that with the
establishment of the larger units of adminis-
tration tliat we can increase tlie 60 per cent
factor in the rural parts of the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to
have a copy of whatever is new in the hon.
member's address so that I can pursue it at
greater length. It was not included in the
three articles that he wrote previously. I
would appreciate receiving tliis when he has
a few moments to prepare it, because I think
that it could be helpful.
Deahng with the concept of operation
Head start, I can recall certain statements
made by the hon. member a year ago. I am
not going to read a letter by David Brison
from the applied psychology branch of the
Ontario institute of studies in education with
respect to the hon. member's views and the
position, as this gentleman saw it, with
respect to the United States. While there is
some conflict in point of view, I think that
there is a fairly factual analysis of the diffi-
culties that our American neighbours have
had with respect to operation Head start. I
think that there is a tendency, Mr. Chair-
man, for sorne people, in taking statistical
approaches to this situation, to tend to ignore
the very real influence of the learning environ-
ment.
The people I discussed this with from time
to time say there is no question that opera-
tion Head start has had some measure of suc-
cess. They have also discovered, and I think
that this is relevant in some jurisdictions at
least, that in the United States unless there
is an on-going programme for these young
people, if the youngster goes back into the
mainstream of the educational programme in
that state or city jurisdiction, then much of
the value of operation Head start is dissipated.
We have recognized this and we are study-
ing and have made some real progress. We
have had personnel visiting jurisdictions in the
United States and studies conducted within
the institutions on the basis that much of this
relates to the qualification and the talent of
the teacher at the primary level. I think that
this is one— and this is a personal point of
view— of the main characteristics in whatever
type of compensatory programme is devel-
oped for junior kindergarten, or the term
used by the hon, member— the culturally
disadvantaged.
It must relate to the qualifications and the
training of the teacher who is going to deal
with these programmes. There is no point in
saying: "Here, let us open up a class for 50
culturally deprived youngsters" and then put
them into an environment where the teacher
does not have the skill to do it. This is
where they have had difficulties, I say with
respect, in some jurisdictions to the south of
us. Tliis is something we are trying to avoid
here in our approach to this problem.
I think, in the alterations that are taking
place in the programmes for the primary
school specialists, that we can come to grips
with this. At the same time I think we must
also be very realistic and accept the fact that
while wc have been, I think, given some
insight into these situations, the answers are
not as clear cut as the hon. member would
suggest. This concept that these youngsters
are being deprived and this reflects itself
through the elementary to secondary system
and then of course into the post-secondary
system, Mr. Chairman, there is a degree of
relevance in this. I do not say that it is not
true, but I say that it is quite unfair and, I
think, improper to suggest that the situation
here in Ontario is as it is painted by the hon.
member.
I take exception to it, because I think not
only does he exaggerate it I think he empha-
sizes without any question the negative
aspect of it.
I go to the state of California where, let
us face it, their figures are higher than ours.
I would ask the hon. member to see, and I
think I am relatively close on this, that even
with a system of more junior kindergartens,
I do not think they have that large a number
of Head starts in the state of California. Apart
from four or five major cities, I guess the
programme has not had the same impetus
there as in some other jurisdictions. I am
not sure of this; I would not want to say
this is factually so, I should not make this
observation. But let us assume that they
have had a higher degree of programme at
the elementary level. They have free tuition,
theoretically— which in fact does not exist-
but I have heard a great deal about it from
the members opposite in the institutions of
higher learning over the last three of four
years. And I say, with respect to the hon.
member, I think he will find-
Mr. Nixon: Conservatives ruined the system
when Reagan was elected.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought he was reflect-
ing the traditional approach that I sometimes
see even in the fields of education from some
of the members opposite from time to time.
3986
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
However, we will not go into that on this
occasion. The statistics or the facts, I think
will demonstrate that in the state of Cali-
fornia, and I am subject to correction here,
if one wants to get into the discussion of
classes— which I do not, I do not like it— but
social or income groups that we have in
California, there is a higher percentage of
the total age group or population in post-
secondary institutions than the percentages
as they relate to the higher, the middle and
the lower income groups in that state of the
union which has probably one of the most
progressive approaches to post-secondary
education.
The relative percentages, I think , are
fairly comparable to the province of Ontario
except that they have a total percentage
higher. But when you break it down into
groups rather than classes, you will find they
come from relatively the same number; the
same percentage numbers are enrolled in
their post-secondary institutions. I think,
Mr. Chairman, that this is something the
hon. member should keep in mind when he
is comparing this jurisdiction to others.
Let us face it, it is an area that does need
very definite work and development. We do
not say this; what we say is we want to do
it right. I do not know what all the exacts
answers are yet, but there is an increasing
feeling that much of the validity of this type
of compensatory programme must be related
to the qualifications or the ability of the
teacher. We pay grants on junior kinder-
gartens. Many states or the union or state
jurisdictions do not pay grants to junior
kindergartens. Operation Head start is of
course under the auspices of the federal
administration— under the auspices of the
federal administration, I emphasize this.
Mr. T. Reid: It is manpower training, at
the beginning.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I emphasize this. I do
not knov/ how one can equate the hon. mem-
ber's philosophy and his approach to things
when he tells me manpower training is an
area of federal jurisdiction. I do not want to
get into this again tonight. He says that this
is not educational. How can anyone say that
manpower training is not, in some form, edu-
cational. I have argued this with the Minister
of manpower and I think I am right.
Not to prolong this discussion, let us sum
it up in this fashion— that we will not be mov-
ing the same way as our American neighbours
because I think their problems are different.
We recognize that more can be done at the
lower grade or kindergarten or junior kinder-
garten level. We recognize that certain com-
pensatory programmes can be desirable as
long as they relate to a continuing educational
experience and they are not isolated from
what perhaps the child's future educational
experience will be.
I am, perhaps, phrasing this in a clumsy
way but I hope the hon. member understands
what I am trying to say. I think, Mr. Chair-
man, we can anticipate that we will, in this
jurisdiction, come up with an approach be-
cause of the experience elsewhere over a
period of time that will have relevance for
the students in the school system of this
province.
I am very optimistic. I cannot spell out for
the hon. member all the details of what may
occur over the next few months, I can only
say that we are, I think, as deeply aware of
this problem as he is. Perhaps some of the
answers we will be finding he may even en-
thuse over after he has an opportunity to
assess them.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to, if I may, comment on this again. It is
a direct follow-up and I will keep my remarks
quite brief because we have explored it fairly
extensively.
The first thing I would like to point out is
that the concept of education and the per-
petuation of class structure in our society and
the lack of vertical mobility, is a very import-
ant point. I simply refer the Minister to a
book called The Vertical Mosaic by John
Porter-
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have read it. I would
like the hon. member to relate the statistical
information in The Vertical Mosaic from the
date it was written, or the year it was pub-
lished, and check the existing statistical infor-
mation.
Mr. T. Reid: I refer the Minister to this;
that social change cannot take place in a
decade. It takes much more time.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I realize that.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like secondly to
object very strongly to a statement that the
mobility from one class to the next in Ontario
is no worse and no be'ter than the vertical
mobility—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say the mobility.
I am talking about the percentages of students
in a particular age group in one jurisdiction
as they compare to the percentage of students
in the same age groups in our own jurisdiction.
JUNE 5, 1968
3987
Mr. T. Reid: That is fine, Mr. Chairman,
that is exactly what I mean.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, okay.
Mr. T. Reid: He said that in Ontario we
are no worse, no better perhaps, than Cali-
fornia in this respect. I simply say this. In
Cahfornia they have black, coloured, poor
people. If the Minister thinks that we have
the same type of problem, he is way out. In
our society in this province we should be
away ahead of California, not behind them.
If we had a colour problem we could make
this analogy. It just does not wash.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Are you
comparing Watts with downtown Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not; you may.
Mr. T. Reid: A very interesting example-
Mr. S. Lewis: That is what you did.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I did not; I did not.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to remind the Minister that when he wants to
draw parallels he had better have his glasses
on. Second, I would like to say—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not wear them.
Mr. T. Reid: Second, I would like to say
that the Minister noted that one of the reasons
he is delaying the initiative in the area of
Head start is because of the lack of a continu-
ous process which these students would go
through, particularly when they hit the pri-
mary school system. I would simply like to
state there is some very interesting corres-
pondence in the Globe and Mail which the
Minister has, I am sure. I got cut up badly
but I am interested in his remarks because he
comes out on my side. I am not trying to
score a debating point here. I would simply
like to state that in a letter to the editor in
the Globe and Mail of May 23, 1967, I made
the following short comments:
The only reason why some children bene-
fited from Head start when they went into
the primary school system was that they
had good teachers in the primary schools
they went to after their Head start experi-
ence. Teachers as good as their Head start
teachers. The basic reason why some chil-
dren did not benefit was that they had bad
teachers in the primary schools they v/ent
to after Head start.
David Brison, in his letter, attacking me—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think he attacked
the member. I do not think you could term
it that way.
Mr. T. Reid: In David W. Brison's reply
to my letter commenting on the Minister's
speech, he said—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not enter into it at
all.
Mr. T. Reid: Prof. Brison stated that this
was not a basic reason and I will just leave it
at that. He goes on with a lot of hodge-podge
about short term research results. However,
I do like the statement that Prof. Brison made
in his letter of June 12 in the Globe, where
he said:
Mr. Reid and Mr. Davis apparently both
accept tlie same objectives, quality educa-
tion for school-age youngsters and, if
necessary, effective compensatory pre-school
education for those children who will not
succeed if they are not given special help
before they reach school. At issue is a
method of achieving these objectives. Mr.
Davis advocates a year of study.
This is dated June 12, 1967.
Mr. Davis advocates a year of study to
review different types of pre-school pro-
grammes aimed at special problems of
Canadian youngsters. This review will then
be used as a basis for planning.
And then he goes on and makes a nasty com-
ment about me. I will end the quote tliere.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not nasty.
Mr. T. Reid: I would just say that I accept
this. The Minister understands the problem.
I have to push him harder. Another point I
want to make here, is that Brison thought last
year at this time that the Minister wanted
only another year's study.
Finally on this, Mr. Chairman, my reply of
July, 1967 to Mr. Brison's letter included the
last paragraph.
Perhaps the best one can do is to wish Mr.
Brison and the OISE the best of luck in
their report writing and hope that ten
months from now—
that was said on July 17, 1967:
—the Ontario government will translate
their recommendations into instiutional,
moving reahty instead of calling for yet
another year of study.
And that is exactly what the Minister has
done in this House tonight, Mr. Chairman.
He has called for yet another year's study.
3988
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I-
Mr. T. Reid: If I could only push him a bit
further.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to get into a debate with the hon.
member but I—
Mr. T. Reid: I did not yield the floor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But on a point of order,
I did not call for another year of study.
Mr. T. Reid: I repeat, I did not yield the
floor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say-
Mr. Chairman: Point of order, yes!
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think if we are going to
have a constructive debate here, Mr. Chair-
man—you know, a little bit of fun is quite
relevant, I think, but let us not be misquoting
people. I did not say, as the hon. member
suggested, that it would require another year
of study. I think I am reasonably accurate in
my memory of that statement and I think I
said that—
Mr. Lewis: You are right. You have given
up all together.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I have not.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, may I com-
ment on a point of order?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not at all.
Mr. T. Reid: May I comment on a point
of order?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to quote from
Hanmrd, May 17, 19G7, page 3536-unless
the Minister did not correct Hansard?
Hon. Mr. Davis: But you said that I said
tonight that I would.
Mr. T. Reid: Ri-ht.
Dmins the n(^xt year, this whole area will be the
sni)'"ct of '4ii(i\- and nsrarcli, with the objective of
desijoiiri'JC mcHinds and procedures to ensure equality
of opportunity for cliildren who do not enjoy the
same advantages as some of their more fortunate
classmafes.
He has done the study. Let us have some
action.
Mr. Chairman: Tlic member for York South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the Minister lx\gan his response
to the hon. member for Scarborough East by
saying he was not going to respond in as
great length and depth and then he went on
longer than the hon. member for Scarborough
East.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I was not as long.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I want to challenge
myself and say that I am not going to deal
with this in a substantive way. I just want
to comment on the debate without repeating
all that has been presented to the House by
the hon, member for Scarborough East.
What he has presented is a very valid
thesis. I would say to him, with respect, that
what he put on the record tonight he gave to
the Ontario college of education summer
school course some years ago and was re-
peated in the Labour Gazette and I had the
benefit of it at the time. Along with The
Vertical Mosaic and others, I presented it to
this government then. And if it gives him any
comfort, the reaction of the government was
a combination of the gauche interjections of
the hon. Minister from Sharbot Lake— he is
not here, so we can get away with any further
gauche interjections— and the tendency on the
part of the Minister, if I recall correctly, to
dismiss it as being "class oriented"; the kind
of thing he really did not believe existed;
that this was— well let us put it in blunt terms
—the kind of thing you would expect from the
socialists.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I never said that.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, this was the impli-
cation of your comment that I was presenting,
a class oriented view. I tell you it was so
class oriented that in spite of it being avail-
able and being factually solid, the provincial
Liberal Party never touched it even though
it was available from the member for Scar-
borough East,
Mr. Nixon: Not so.
Mr. MacDonald: It is so. Indeed, it was
ignored—
Hon. J. P. Roharts (Prime Minister): You
are only trying to confuse matters.
Mr. MacDonald: It was ignored by the
leader of the Opposition all throughout.
Mr. Nixon: L^t us see you make a valid
point here tonight. You have got the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: I have obviously made a
vpry valid point liccause it has got you into
orbit. Now if I can go into the substance of
conmK nt that I would like to make on this,
Mr, Chairman,
JUNE 5, 1968
3989
The Minister is very skilful and he has
tried to twist the figures that have been
presented in the comparisons with the United
States.
What I would like to see is, if the Minister
has got up-to-date figures, let him give them
to us. What is the position in rural Ontario?
What is the position in some areas that are
as culturally disadvantaged as, for example,
the lower income groups of California? What
is the situation, for example, among our
Indian children? Let us not take these great
general pictures and say we are just behind
California, when without the lower culturally
disadvantaged groups in California, the hon.
member for Scarborough East is right, we
should be ahead. But, I shall not focus on
that. Let us focus on solid real Ontario.
Indeed, go back and take a look, for example,
at the Sharbot Lake area from which the
Minister came, and examine that closely.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Do not start that!
Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Do not talk about rural
slums.
Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Do not talk about rural
slums.
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, I will talk about rural slums. I
will talk about the rural slums in the places
where a great percentage of the adults have
no more than grade 4 in school. I will talk
about them and I will not shy away from it.
As a matter of fact, it is a kind of petty Tory
parochialism that panders to the people who
happen to live and die there and is willing
to sweep that kind of condition under the
rug. We have a product of it in this House
from Cabinet Ministers whose interjections
are gauche. So do not try to defend that
kind of thing.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Carry on.
Mr. MacDonald: I talk about rural slums
and what is more, Mr. Chairman, I will not
go in and play politics. I will go in and talk
right in that area about it and ask them to
face up to the fact they have been mistreated
by Tory government-
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): You did
last October.
Mr. MacDonald: They have been mis-
treated by a Tory government which has not
been giving them a fair deal. So if you want
to bat in that league, I am with you, just
get right out into the ball park.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am listening.
Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, I
was interested to learn that a few people in
eastern Ontario who were willing to look at
the facts were on my side, not on the Tory
parochial approach to the thing.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to con-
clude my comments with regard to the atti-
tude of this government in trying to ignore
the areas where there is a desperate need
for tackling this problem, with some specific
questions with regard to the Indian situation.
This vote is the only one, I think, that has
any specific reference-
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): You
had Indian day last week.
Mr. B. Newman: Where is that voice
coming from?
Mr. MacDonald: That is the voice of the
culturally disadvantaged.
Mr. Chairman, the only reference as far
as I can see, throughout the estimates, and
I may be wrong on this, to the whole prob-
lem of Indian education is estimate number
4 in vote 507, which says: "Inspection of
Indian schools— services and travelling ex-
penses-$4,000".
Now, Mr. Chairman, that in itself is a
magnificent symbol of our failure in the
whole approach to the Indians and their
needs. Because anybody who has studied it
will acknowledge that the desperate need in
the Indian community is education. It is the
open sesame to getting into economic devel-
opment, for lifting standards to the whole
approaches of welfare needs and everything
else. I want to ask the Minister specifically,
since I did not get too far with his colleague
who chairs the interdepartmental committee.
He tended to put oiF answering in any
substantive way what is going to be done
as an alternative to the piecemeal approach
of negotiations with the federal government
on the various aspects of meeting Indian
needs by saying that after the election of
June 25, they would sit down and consider
an approach witjiin the whole context of the
Dominion-provincial fiscal agreements. They
might consider some massive decentralization
of the whole problems of Indians to the
provincial level, as has been proposed by the
Indian-Eskimo association. Now, I am not
really blaming the Minister because it is
3990
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
admittedly the case that he has got to sit
down with Ottav/a and he is not going to
pubhcly state his case with any degree of
vigour until he gets into the negotiations.
But what I want to ask the Minister of
Education is: Since the leading item of con-
cern in the Indian community, among the
culturally disadvantaged people, is the ques-
tion of education, is the Minister willing,
along with his colleagues, when they go to
Ottawa, to try to implement the kind of
proposals that have emerged in the Haw-
thorne Tremblay report, but more particu-
larly, the Indian-Eskimo association studies,
that education should be taken completely
out of church jurisdictions and should be
brought completely within the jurisdiction of
the provincial government, so that we have
some possibility of the same kind of edu-
cational approach perhaps with Headstart
programmes to help them lift themselves up
by their bootstraps?
I wonder if the Minister would comment
on what his own views, or the government's
views, are on this specific aspect of tlie great
Indian problem.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
you are asking me for a personal view, I
think perhaps I could express that on this
occasion. I think it must be recognized by
the hon. member that the question of the
education of Indian youngsters is not a
problem that is unrelated to the question of
jurisdiction. I think the hon. member is fully
aware of this.
From my standpoint, and I am speaking
strictly individually and I emphasize this to
my Prime Minister, if we can provide a
better educational service through agreement
or in some other fashion with the boards, and
the department assuming a greater area of
responsibility, then I, as an individual, and
I think I could so far as to say as Minister
of Education, we would welcome this oppor-
tunity. Fifty per cent, Mr. Chairman, and
the hon. member should know this, of the
Indian youngsters in the province of Ontario
today are integrated in the school system.
I think the hon. member must also under-
stand whether or not the Indians themselves
wish to relieve their traditional environment
with some of the church-related institutions
and the federal depar ment that is running
the schools in some areas of the province. If
an agreement can be worked out to the satis-
faction of both governments, our department
has no aversion whatsoever in endeavouring
to come to grips with this problem, but Mr.
Chairman, I cannot say this, as a matter of
government policy, since I have not discussed
this with my colleagues.
It is something that obviously must be done
in conjunction with the federal authorities,
and is something that must be done in con-
junction with the wishes of the Indian people.
If you are asking me. Do you think the de-
partment can assist in providing this service?
—well, Mr. Chairman, obviously I think we
can. I think we can help.
Mr. MacDonald: I have just one brief 50-
second comment in reply. I am glad to hear
the Minister say this, I hope he will move
quickly. If I may quote the hon. member for
Kenora (Mr. Bernier), sir, it is about time you
moved a bit more quickly, instead of the
piecemeal approach, because more initiative
is needed on the part of the provincial gov-
ernment. I hope the views that the Minister
has expressed will be expressed as part of the
negntia+ions with Ottawa, and some action
will follow within the next year.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 507?
Mr. T. P. Herd (Rainy River): One last
question for the Minister. Perhaps he does
not have the answer now and he can provide
it later. When you referred to the number of
five-year-olds in school in Ontario, did you
mean this, or did you mean something else?
First, did you mean that you added up the
number of five-year-olds in Ontario, then you
went into the schools and found out in that
year how many five-year-olds there were in
school, and then did you put the number of
fi/e-year-olds in school, over the number of
five-year-olds in Ontario, and came out with
your wonderful figure of 82, 83?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Eighty-six.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Or did you take the num-
ber of children in Ontario in kindergarten,
and divide it by the number of five-year-olds
in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I really do
not have the facility with economics or sta-
tistics of my hon. friend. I would relate to
him the information that I asked to have
assembled, in that I felt this matter would be
raised by the hon. member, and I shall relate
it to him as I have it. If you would like
further clarification, I shall endeavour to give
it. This is how it is phrased, Mr. Chairman.
There were 136,233 enrolled in kinder-
garten in Ontario in September of 1967, and
these are those only in public, separate and
free kindergartens. They represent 86 per
cent of all the five-year-olds of this province.
JUNE 5, 1968
3991
Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make the follow-
ing comment. The Minister has, unknow-
ingly, badly misled the House on this fact.
Now he—
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is a fact.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Those are the facts. And
your conclusion in Hansard— again I am really
making a bit of a collection of the Minister's
remarks in Hansard— Hansard will show that
the Minister said that 86 per cent of five-
year-olds in Ontario are in school. That is
rot. That is nonsense.
I will just point out to the Minister that
that figure he has used is only relevant if he
is comparing the increase over time period
to get the rate of increase in the participa-
tion of five-year-olds. It says noth-ng about
the absolute number of five-year-olds in On-
tario, in school, compared to the number of
five-year-olds in Ontario. If you get that
statistic from DBS, Mr. Minister, you will
find it is 73 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
be delighted to pursue this with the hon.
member. The material I have says the fiTure
cf 86 per cent is representative of all of the
five-year-olds in the province.
Mr. T. P. Reid: And I suggest your re-
searchers go back to school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: You can meet with the re-
searcher, and the two of you can discuss it.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, the Minister was criticized last
evening for ignoring members in their ridings,
when he opened schools. I would like to
bring to the Minister's defence, when he
opened a school—
Hon. Mr. Davis: It was only by tlie mem-
ber for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), who I regret
could not be here tonight.
Mr. Burr: —when he opened in Wmdsor
recently— it happened to be the William
Davis school, I believe.
Mr. Nixon: William G. Davis!
Mr. Burr: And, he did not ignore me, and
tliat is my complaint. I had two engagements
that evening. I went to the school, made a
tour of it, and waited around, but the Min-
ister was delayed by weather. After a while
I had to leave, and he arrived and, during
the course of his remarks, he asked if I was
in the audience— much to my embarrassment,
because I was not there. So he—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I wish you would tell the
member for Sudbury, I was—
Mr. Nixon: With friends like that-
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville is still there.
Mr. Burr: The Minister cannot win whether
he ignores us, or whether he draws attention
to us. I should like to apologize to the Min-
ister for not being present on that occasion.
Mr, Chairman, I have taught many subjects
of the Ontario secondary school curriculum,
and I do not want to belittle any of those
subjects, but the most important subject in
the v/hole school system, in my opinion, is
family living. There was no mention, as far
as I could notice, in the Minister's opening
remarks, so I should like to spend about three
minutes speaking on that item in the cur-
riculum.
I am aware that progressive school boards
have made a start on teaching family living,
and last week I spoke under the Reform Insti-
tutions estimates at some length on the im-
portance of teaching this subject, as one
method of reducing the number of young
offenders. At that time I outlined a suggested
course and the methods for teaching it. I
have no intention of repeating that, but I
should like to point out that large numbers
of young people are entering upon hurried,
unwise and foredoomed marriages, for which
there has been virtually no preparation.
The popularity of such columns as Ann
Landers is one example which points out the
need of people of all ages for advice on this
subject. Now various p-ivate organizations
are holding panels and seminars and courses
on the subject of marriage, and these are most
commendable, but they reach few of those
for whom the need for counselling is grea'.est.
Marriage is the number one occupation. It
is the commonest occupation, or vocation-
whatever you would like to call it— in society
today, and yet the marriage licence is one of
the few for which those applying need have
no quahfications or ins' ruction. I am not
suggesting that there should be tests. I am
merely pointing out that for a driver's licence
previous instruction is essential. For a licence
to practise medicine or law, teaching or
plumbing, proof of ability and aptitude must
be shown.
If family living were taught in our schools
as a major subject— a major subject— the par-
ents of the next generation would have greater
opportunities for success than the parents of
the present generation have had.
3992
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, those
who arc getting married at the present time
will follow the practices and the habits and
the behaviour patterns that they saw in the
homes of their parents. Those that have had
good family environments may well do a good
job themselves, v/ithout outside instruction,
but with it they could probably do an excel-
lent job. Those who have had inadequate, or
unfortunate, experiences in their own family
backgrounds, will probably repeat the mis-
takes of their parents. These are the young
people who could profit greatly from such
instruction, advice and discussion, during
their days in school. I would like to urge the
Minister to use his persuasive influence to
help make family living a subject of major
importance tliroughout Ontario's school system.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. Martel: On article 13507 I raised a
question some time ago about whether the
Minister intended to bring in assistance for
elementary school students who could not
afford to get to school if the parents did not
have the money. In northern Ontario we have
a certain number of these cases. At that time,
I did not get what I considered a very posi-
tive answer to this question, and I am wonder-
ing if the Minister has had any afterthoughts,
since I raised the question, as to implementing
this for the forthcoming year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think if
the hon. member v/ill be patient for a few
days— this really does not reflect itself in this
vote at all. It relates to alterations in legis-
lation that may be presented to the members
for consideration that will relate to this par-
ticular subejct.
Mr. Martel: I thought that special assistance
for students in northern areas would come
under that.
One other question, if I might, in pursuing
this. Do students who miss a day, under this
$3 a day, lose this allowance? I imderstand
that, in the high schools where this exists,
if tlicy miss a day's school the $3 is deducted
from them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I believe
it is $3 a day, the way tlie regulations are
worded— $3 a day for attendance.
I will check to see whether, if there is a
valid reason for nonattendanee, there is any
penalty. I would think, perhaps, there may
be-not penalty, but lack of payment, if the
student decides to be away for some other
reason, for three or four days. I will check
this out for the hon. member.
Mr. Martel: I agree with the Miriister— if
they are just playing footsie and not at school.
But I know of occasions where the students
have come in and have had to stay in the
nurse's room all day because they were sick
and because they could not afford to lose this
$3.
I think if we had some regulation that they
had a medical report, they would not lose
this, and it would be most helpful in many
cases.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 507. The leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber for York South raised the responsibility of
the department for the education of Indians.
Other discussion has intervened, but I want
to go back to that subject briefly, and I feel
that it is encumbent upon me to tell you, sir,
about the excellence in the Indian education
as established under the Indian affairs branch,
in the Six Nations reserve.
I think it is important that we take a
balanced view of the problem as we find it
in Ontario. There is no doubt in my mind,
and from the facts that are available, the
problem is entirely different in the northern
part of the province. But, Mr. Chairman, I
think the members should be aware of the
fact that the programme at the elementary
level on the Six Nations reserve is an ex-
tremely progressive one. As a matter of fact,
the number of students that go on to second-
ary education in the integrated secondary
schools in the surrounding communities, is
relatively higher than in some of the nearby
municipalities.
There is a tendency I believe, to see this
problem as an unsolvable one, as it applies
to the province of Ontario. I believe our
experience has been on this particular reserve
that it is not unsolvable and that the Indians
have taken on themselves the responsibility
—naturally with a heavy financial assistance
of the government of Canada— at the present
time to build a system of modern, well-staffed
schools with a programme which is reason-
ably well adapted to the special needs of that
community. The young people go on to
secondary education in good numbers.
I will say that I have got some feeling
that not enough of them go on to post--
secondary education. They seem to be satis-
fied before; perhaps they should be. Because
I am in a position, or have been in a position,
JUNE 5, 1968
3993
to assess their natural abilities, I can say
that they are not only average, but in many
cases they are well above average.
In the other part of the province, however,
the Minister was quick to tell us that a large
percentage of the Indian youths are integrated
into the provincial system as it is presently
established, and that their tuition is paid
for by the government of Canada through
band funds in some instances. It seems to
me that the Minister, through the chairman
of the cabinet committee which deals with
the government of Canada in this regard,
should certainly be negotiating for the
responsibility, that would be funded by the
government of Canada through this depart-
ment, to establish schools in those parts of
the province which are not properly provided
for now— and right on the reserves them-
selves, with the co-operation and enthusiastic
acceptance of the Indian band councils.
I believe that there is much more that can
be done in this regard. There is a tendency
for some people, in talking about this prob-
lem, to come to the conclusion that many of
the Indians in the northern part of the
province cannot benefit from education as
we understand it. This may very well be so,
since the curriculum that is applied in the
standard schools is so far removed from the
needs of the Indian population in the more
remote areas. This leads me to two com-
ments, two questions.
The first has to do with the Minister's
responsibility for community programmes on
the Indian reserves. There is no thought in
my mind that we should impost some group
of young students who would be sent under
the auspices of The Department of Education
to these reserves to show them what they
should be doing, as far as cultural and recre-
ative activities are concerned. I do believe
that the community programmes branch has
a very large part to play in the provision of
operations beyond the schools themselves.
Second, I do not find in these estimates,
and I may have overlooked it, the vote for
the development and establishment of the
Indian school at Moosonee. That particular
school is one of great importance and the
programme there and the attitude of the
administration of the school is particularly
critical. During our tours in the last few
years of the northern part of the province,
and meeting with the Indian bands and their
chiefs, we have heard the criticism that their
young people are drawn out of their local
community into these centralized schools.
They are given a type of education which
does not fit the needs of the Indian com-
munity and I want the assurance and some
specific information from the Minister that
the programme that is going to be offered
in the Indian school at Moosonee is going to
be of a type that is designed to meet the
needs of Indians in that part of the province.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman; ^perhaps
the hon. member has read the material on
page 62 of the yellow document, relating to
the Moosonee education centre. Perhaps it
would be best to cover that. I think it
answers the hon. member's question that
during 1967 construction work was started
on a $2 million Moosonee education centre.
Part of the cost, in the amount of roughly
$740,000, is being borne by the federal gov-
ernment through the Indian affairs branch
of the department of Indian affairs.
The director of the centre and his assistants
are teaching 100 adult courses— heavy equip-
ment and maintenance, upgrading classes in
Enghsh, mathematics and social sciences
together with sewing and crafts. The entire
community has the use of the centre's library
services. The nursery school classes cater for
30 pre-school children who come in by bus
transportation. The enrolment at the centre
is roughly 75 per cent, made up of our
Indian citizens. By September, 1968, an
expanded teaching staff of about 20 will offer
service to both public and separate school
students at the Moosonee centre.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, where is the
vote for that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: If you look under the
miscellaneous grants.
Mr. Nixon: There are one or two other
matters I wanted to raise. One is rather a
perennial one, and it has to do with the
ordering of the programme in the elementary
and secondary schools, so that students can
achieve their matriculation in 12 years. I
have said many times, and the Minister, I
felt, has agreed with me in the past, that it
would be far better if the curriculum, or the
programme, were arranged in such a way
that we could accomplish 13 years, or let us
say 13 grades, in 12 years rather than some-
where along the way compressing three
years' work into tv/o. I have felt very strongly
that there should be this strong core in the
curriculum that will permit the students—
and really it is the average students that go
on to post-secondary education. There should
be this strong core that will permit them to
achieve this in 12 years of public education.
3994
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I wonder if the Minister can tell us if any
further work has been done in the establish-
ment of this stream in the curriculum.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
that perhaps there has been some misunder-
standing. I am not sure that I agree with the
hon. member with respect to establishing a
core. I think if there is to be an alteration in
grade structure, in my view, it would be a
case of restructuring the entire system from
kindergarten through grade 13 to offer in 12
years what we are presently offering, as far
as con*^ent is concerned, roughly in a 13-year
period. I pointed out some of the problems
inherent in this and, of course, I have also
pointed out that perhaps 40 to 45 per cent of
tlie students in the school system do, in fact,
complete the 13-year programme in 12 as it
relates to a period of accelleration usually at
the grade 4, 5 or, perhaps, 3 level.
Perhaps th's is one matter that the whole
committee will be dealing with, although I
am not sure. I think it is related to the chang-
ing philosophy of the approach that we envis-
age within the system and that is a movement
away from the grade structure per se.
I think that it is too early to make final
judgment although I have some of the results,
as I say— and I would be delighted to send
these to the members— of the experience in
the six or seven secondary schools this year
with individualized timetables and what
amounts to a partially non-graded system in
secondary education. If this is a workable
situation then conceivably the question of the
grades will become less relevant. We will be
saying to the student here is the course of
study that we wish you to complete in the
formal educational programme. It will become
less relevant whether it takes 12 or 13 or 14
years for a particular student to cover this
total spectrum of work that is necessary.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree,
and I said so in my own remarks, that the
more we can get away from the structures of
grades the better. Yet we are still quite a
consideral>le distance from achieving the goal
that the Minister has described. This has been
hanging fire for a good many years, and we
have not been serving the young people of
the province in not taking some more definite
steps along these lines.
At the end of the programme or of the
structure, whatever it may be, graded or
otherwise, we come to the point where the
paper qualification that would be examined
by the registrar of a community college or
university or some other post-secondary form
of education— the individual student's pass-
port to continuing education— will be based i
on whatever the structure will eventually end ^
up as being. But there is no doubt that a I
single piece of paper that the graduate, or
matriculant carries as he goes to some other ■i
form of education is soon going to be a thing -^
of the past. |
It may very well be that someone with the '
authority to do so is going to push the total \
button on the big machine under the jurisdic- i
tion of the Minister and the statistics that
will come out of that with the background of
the student over a number of years, would ^
then be assessed by a registrar in a new and |
modern sense, so that the decision made on ^
the future of the student is going to be based
on all those bits of information from the
past. ■
I do believe that we are at a point now
where the decision that must be taken objec-
tively somewhere on the intellectual ability ;
and the other abilities of the individual that I
would merit his progress in further educa-
tion is going to have to be made on some
other basis than that which we use now.
The hon, member for Peterborough raised
something having to do with the financing of \
the testing of students to assess their ability '
to progress further. I know that no one in
this House wants to return to the situation
where one test or a group of tests is going
to be the operative force in a decision that is
going to aflect the future of the individual in
that case.
I wonder if the Minister would comment
on how he views that decision that would be
taken by the registrars in the immediate
future at the post-secondary level, on whether
a student, from the system as he sees it
evolving, is going to gain entrance to post-
secondary education.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, with the
statement at the outset that I am not in any
way competent, nor have I attempted to
determine what the admission policy should
be for our universities, my own feeling is,
and I have stated this on other occasions, that
no single factor is sufficient in my opinion as
a layman, with respect to the assessment of
a student's ability.
I think that registrars and the members of
the Opposition who have some involvement
with the universities, would agree that there
is a very real tendency on that part of the
university to look at the total student record,
not just the situation in grade 13. This has
been particularly true in Guelph, for instance,
where they have been admitting for the
spring semester, students on the basis of their
JUNE 5, 1968
3995
total student record and their recommended
marks, because obviously they did not write
the grade 13 departmental. And this year,
they are not involved in departmentals in
June, and they are being admitted early in
the year. Obviously the University of Guelph
is using some system other than the final
departmentals as a method of assessing
student capacity to do university work.
This is an area that I debated at some
length with our friends in the OIF. I have
always taken the position that principal and
senior staflF personnel should be in a position
without the crutch of the departmental grade
13 examinations, and should know that by the
time that the student is in grade 13, and they
have had him or her within their school
environment, barring some percentage of
transfers, for say a five year period, whether
that student has the capacity to do university
work.
They may not know whether that student
should get 71 or 75 per cent, this is some-
thing that, never being a scholar I have never
been concerned about, but surely they are in
a position, and are in a position, and I say
this with respect to the profession, to say
whether a student after five years in a school,
has the likely capacity to do post-secondary
level study.
I do not want to be misunderstood, and
have it said that the Minister says that we
are going to get away from all forms of test-
ing because there must be a variety of
methods of assessment. Any single method is
not, in itself, an absolute method of assess-
ment.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
could enter this area of debate? I think that
it really is time for the Minister to come clean
on grade 13. I think that he knows, arid all
of us know, that grade 13 is well on its way
out. Already we have admission to universi-
ties without it, not only at Guelph, but also
I understand that Brock University will now
be bringing the students from grade 12 into
a six weeks' course in the summer, and then
moving them into first year of university if
they are successful in that enterprise.
I think that what is certainly going to
happen is that the bright young people are
going to get out at the end of grade 12, so
that grade 13 will tend to become a kind of
repository for those who can not make it from
grade 12. This will definitely change the
entire milieu of the grade 13 year.
I really think that this is an example of
what I was speaking on last night, one
decision in one area affecting so greatly the
decision of another area. I am wondering if
the universities are aware of the full implica-
tion of what has been going on at the second-
ary school level. A year ago, we were going
into a whole new approach to grade 13,
advanced in general like the British system.
This fell through, and now we are into
another situation of grade 12 admissions in
some cases. The grade 13 examination dis-
appears.
Once again, the Minister is playing games
in a sense. I cannot help thinking, when he
was talking about teacher education, that we
are very soon going to be able to take people
at 60 per cent.
Now, I do ask the Minister, what is 60 per
cent? It is meaningless now. With all of his—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you admit, and I will
make a note here, students with less than
this next September?
Mr. Pitman: I am suggesting to you, sir,
through the Chairman, that 60 per cent as a
term mark has a certain connotation of 60
per cent on a grade 13 examination which is
centrally set. In the past all of the examina-
tions have been centrally set and marked.
Sixty per cent means that these marks have
gone through the machine. Now, any teacher
who has gone through the grade 13 examina-
tions in Toronto will agree, it has always
amazed me that we were not able to do any-
thing about grade 13, except mark them
almost within the shadow of this place here.
But the point is that 60 per cent represents
the end product of The Department of Educa-
tion machine.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It does not. It represents
that standard of admission set by your col-
leagues in the university community. I say
with the greatest of respect to the hon. mem-
ber, we issue a certificate on the basis of a
passing mark of 50 per cent. There were days
when universities accepted students with
something less than 60, and in very recent
history I think.
I would suggest that this so-called 60 per
cent factor was something that was estab-
lished by the university community, and not
by The Department of Education. Now I am
hot here to defend the department or to be
interpreted as being in any way critical of
the university. But the fact is that The
Department of Education did not set 60 per
cent.
Mr. Pitman: You are absolutely right. What
I am trying to say is that 60 per cent repre-
sented a mark that had come out of The
Department of Education machine.
3996
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. Mr. Chairman,
with great respect, it did not. The 60 per
cent represents the level of achievement that
was requested by some of the universities of
the province-
Mr. Pitman: On the grade 13 examination
by The Department of Education.
Hon. Mr. Davis: At the teachers' college
we accepted something less. This is not
coming out of the machine as an assessment
for moving into university. That is what you
people determine. That is what the hon.
member as a member of Trent University can
determine.
Mr. Pitman: I do not think that we are
quite connected here. All I am suggesting is
that 60 per cent represented the line-up
which was created by The Department of
Education. I have the same reservations
Which the Deputy Minister has indicated in
terms of marking and so on. At least a mark
which came ovit of The Department of Edu-
cation in August represented a point in this
line.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It was always much
earlier,
Mr. Pitman: I will not quibble with that
interjection, Mr. Chairman, but that mark
represented— let me put it this way— it had
gone through the machine of The Depart-
ment of Education. Anyone who has marked
in Toronto knows that there were all sorts of
changes that took place as the examination
went by. There were a certain number of
people passed— usually around 80 per cent.
Do not pin me down.
But the point is that across the province
there was a certain number of students that
came out of the high school with 60 per cent,
and by some magical way, and some planning
I will admit, this did represent those who
usually could get admitted into the first year
of a university.
All I am suggesting to you, in this com-
ment that you made a moment ago, is that
71, 74, or 75 per cent may not be very im-
portant, but I do suggest that you are going
into a very different situation in terms of the
granting of your scholarships.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not granting them.
Mr. Pitman: Well, let us put it this way.
This is an example of a decision taken by The
Department of Education which has created
tremendous difficulty for the university com-
munity, and I am wondering whether there
has been sufficient interchange of communi-
cation or sufficient consultation. Simply be-
cause the university will be awarding
scholarships now on the basis of marks which
have not gone through the machine there
will be a very diff^erent situation, I think, in
trying to determine where a student stands in
the line-up— from 99 per cent through The
Department of Education machine down to
44 per cent, or whatever the mark that was
the lowest given by the department. I am
suggesting that now the university faces a
very real problem in deciding this.
The universities do not go around trying to
keep people out. This is one of the mistaken
concepts that people have. They are trying
to get people in, but the right people.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They all try to get the
same percentage of bright students.
Mr. Pitman: You are quite right. We do
want the right people in because it costs the
taxpayers of Ontario a great deal of money
when you get the wrong people in.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to get into
a debate on university affairs, but I think it
is not a question of the wrong people being
admitted, but a case of the universities failing
to develop programmes to meet the needs of
the people they admit.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
The eggheads we got in our universities!
Mr. Pitman: I find it humorous that this is
a medical doctor who should be applauding
this comment with such enthusiasm, because
there is no faculty which forces more people
out than the medical faculty.
Hon. Mr. Dymond:
condemnation of them.
Mr. Pitman: Good!
am loudest in my
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will rephrase what I
said. It is not a case of not developing pro-
grammes. I think, seriously, that the univer-
sity can— and perhaps the high schools have to
help— relate the ability of the student to the
courses available within the specific institu-
tions. In other words, I think that there are
students who come in with what was, say,
the 60 per cent mark who perhaps are
directed to a course where it is not relevant.
If they were directed into the right area, they
would probably achieve far greater results.
This is what I am attempting to say, and I
think that the university could do a shade
more in this area.
JUNE 5, 1968
3997
Mr. Pitman: I think that probably the uni-
versities could do something in this area. But
what is bothering me is to what extent. We
are talking about a continuance of education.
If, indeed, the secondary schools are gradu-
ating people with marks which no longer
represent the line-up, grade 13, with all of
its defects, seems to be the best way of
telling whether they would achieve or not at
the university level.
I think that there were a number of studies
which pointed this out. Now, either the uni-
versity has to change its concept of what is
an achieving student or how a student
achieves, or you have a very serious break-
down, I suggest, in that continuum.
I would suggest to you that the university
will face very real problems of deciding who
goes and who does not go. Is a 60 per cent
student from North York the same as a 60
per cent student from Hodon Corners. We
do not know. We do not know whether the
standard in the grade 13 examination or
rather the grade 13 year will be the same.
These are some of the diflSculties, and all
I am suggesting in these comments. I did not
expect to get such a rise from the Minister
as I have. I am suggesting that there should
be far more consultation if you do want this
whole educational system unified vertically
up to the end of grade 13 and the under-
graduate programme. For heaven's sake,
there has to be a continuing consultation at
every level.
I made this comment last night. Decisions
that are made in this system are totally inter-
dependent. Let us suggests, just for a mo-
ment, that we do get a whole group of
students, who have turned out the SATO and
OSAT test, and all these various factors.
They arrive at the university, and then we
discover that this may have got them through
secondary school, but they will not achieve in
the university.
It seems to me that this would be tragic.
For the first time in Ontario's history, the
high school is not simply a dead end for stu-
dents. There are now the colleges of applied
arts and technology. What I am suggesting is
that we would need much more consultation
to ensure that people are directed in the right
paths, and that the changing method of move-
ment from level to level of the educational
system does not become a means of tre-
mendous frustration both for the secondary
school— who will be unable to tell who should
go to university— and to the university— who
will not be sure that they can fit the entrants
into the courses that tliey offer. If not, they
will not know how to change the courses to
fit.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will reply very briefly.
I think that the hon. member expresses a
greater concern than will, in fact, be justified
in the next few months. He asks how the
secondary scliools respond and determine, I
repeat that the hon. member was a secondary
school teacher at one point; I say to him, with
the greatest of respect, that if he is teaching
the 12 or 13 level, and if he does not know
by the time that student has been under his
educational programme for one or two years,
if the student is capable of university work,
then he should look to his own professional
capacity. I say this with the greatest of
respect.
I think that the hon. member is contra-
dicting himself to a degree. In one breath he
is suggesting that we must have this very
extensive consultative process, and in the
next suggests that the Minister should make
a declaration that grade 13 is going to dis-
appear. He is even pre-supposing that it will.
This is highly inaccurate. There has been a
high degree of consultation.
The consultation is a two-way street and I
wonder how many university communities—
and I have had the questionable advantage of
becoming involved on occasion with both
areas— on how many occasions have they in-
volved themselves in The Department of
Education with respect to the contemplated
changes. And should they?
In my experience as Minister, this aspect
of consultation, if it needs to exist, has never
occurred. I think that consultation is a two-
way street. I would suggest that The Depart-
ment of Education has a responsibility for the
student total in the secondary programme. On
the basis of present statistics— and I am sub-
ject to correction here— let us say somewhere
in the neighbourhood of 45 per cent of the
grade 13 graduates go to university. The
percentage is on the increase. Let us hope-
fully suggest we will get the 50 per cent
fairly soon and perhaps the percentage will
continue to increase.
Nevertheless, a substantial percentage of
these students will not be going to university.
We have a responsibility as a department of
education, to give them the type of educa-
tional experience that will be of some benefit,
assuming that a goodly percentage of them
will not be going to university. You know we
have this responsibility.
I would also pose this question to the hon.
member, because I think it is once again
relevant. If we were now, and I mentioned
3998
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this to the leader of the Opposition, to move
away from grade 13 without a complete re-
structuring, does this not present the prob-
lem of, perhaps, adding to the three-year
general course at some universities, the possi-
bility of a fourth year? I mean, have the
universities considered this? I think this is
one of the considerations that has validity and
must be part of any discussions that take
place.
I am not as predisposed as is the member
for Peterborough, who says that all signs
point to an elimination of grade 13. I am not
sure that this is necessarily correct. I think
the members should know grade 13 for years
was attacked on the basis of the lack of flsxi-
bility, the external examinations and so on,
but there is always a final year in the sec-
ondary school field, whether it is grade 12 or
13. If you can be offering a valid educational
experience for five years at the secondary
level— and it would have to be valid— if you
can offer this for five years at the secondary
level, why transfer what might be an addi-
tional year to the universities if we can
accomplish it, educationally and with validity,
in the secondary school programme? I think
this is something that has to be—
Mr. Nixon: You know what the Smith
report says about them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?
Mr. Nixon: You know what the Smith
report says about them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No.
Mr. Nixon: This report says—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, this does not mean
the Smith report is right.
Mr. Nixon: Well, it does not take your
stand in that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no, I recognize this.
I recognize this and this is an area about
which I even informed the House tonight. I
am not prepared to make an immediate de-
cision as to whether we will have a 12- or
13-grade structure. There are some jurisdic-
tions, as I am sure some of the members
know, that are considering, and I do not say
how specifically, whether there sliould be an
extension from the 12-grade situation just
because of the tremendous increase in the
amount of education that a person must
accumulate or assimilate, whatever is the right
term.
I know the meml:)er for Windsor-Walker-
ville is pretty closely related to the jurisdiction
to the south.
Mr. Nixon: And you are pretty close to
Florida.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, no, they are not.
But tliese are the considerations and I recog-
nize and I think we are getting into uni-
versity affairs once again. I recognize the
problems being created for the universities in
tlie determination of their scholarships.
Mr. Pitman: That is the problem.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But I say this: tliis fact
\\'as known to us and it was known to the
universities. The discussion of doing away
v/ith external examinations in grade 13 really
has been part of the educational scene in the
province of Ontario for at least four years,
and I think the universities have had ample
time. Really there has been great lead time
today, as the technicians say, for the uni veri-
ties to come to grips with how they are going
to award their scholarships. I tliink they can
do it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 507. The member
for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to get into this discussion on grade 12
because ever since I have been in the House
I have advocated the elimination of grade 13;
the elimination by absorption into a 12-year
system. In fact, to substantiate my remarks,
the youth committee report contains that
recommendation. Surely if the Minister can
pick out other recommendations of the youth
committee report he should have given this
one a little more serious consideration. As
you have it now, one of the reasons why you
want the grade 13 kept in there is that in
this fashion you increase the amount of costs
to a municipality, because—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we have not.
Mr. B. Newman: Sure, you have an extra
year to—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to debate the question of whether it
costs the municipalities more; it has nothing
to do with this aspect of it at all. But I am
saying this to the hon. member. If the average
cost for a grade 13 student is in the neigh-
bourhood of $800 to $1,000, for the sake of
argument, if by any chance by restructuring
you then add to the university programme a
year, which is conceivable under a restruc-
turing, let us say $2,500, whether it is the
municipality or whoever it is, somebody is
paying an additional $1,500 a year.
Mr. T. Rcid: The quality changes.
JUNE 5, 1968
3999
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Nonetheless it is the total
dollars though. There is a difference.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the muni-
cipality still would have to carry that student
in the grade 13, and to carry that student it
would have to increase its revenue and
increase the tax rate. By ending the educa-
tion at grade 12, you make it cheaper for the
municipality to operate.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you suggesting—
Mr. B. Newman: You will say that they
have to go to the university and in that
fashion the youngster, or the parent, will still
have to pay. That is true.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the hon. member-
Mr. B. Newman: As it is now in grade 13,
Mr. Chairman— after I finish the Minister can
reply to me.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I was just going to
ask a question.
Mr. B. Newman: As it is today a youngster
will go into grade 13 and if it requires him
two years to complete grade 13, many of the
universities will not take him because they
say, "Well, it took you two years— you are
not university material." So you see it is
a handicap to him right then and there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: So he takes two years in
grade 12, what are they going to say?
Mr. B. Newman: That is all right. That
would have been equivalent of grade 13.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no!
Mr. B. Newman: Whereas this makes grade
14— if he spends two years in 13, he spends
14 years in his total education.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think that is right.
Mr. Nixon: Fifteen, if he went to kinder-
garten!
Mr. B. Newman: Fifteen, if he went to
kindergarten. By making that student go to
school to grade 13, you have robbed that
student of one year of productivity. In other
words, if he does not continue his education
he becomes gainfully employed one year
later. So he has lost $5,000 or up, as far as
income is concerned.
I know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister will
come along and say he consults with people.
When you consult with the high school prin-
cipals throughout the length and breadth of
Ontario, they want grade 13 to continue,
because it raises the academic level of the
school. It is only natural they want these
grade 13 students because they are an excel-
lent example to the students attending school.
They are the cream of the crop generally.
Why do you not cut it at grade 12, set
up your programmes so that a student can
still get his 13 years of education in 12 years.
I do not think that it is that complicated.
You should have started a programme like
this years ago when it was first recommended
to you. If you think grade 13 is so important
it must be continued in the secondary level,
why not include 14? Why not give them
two years, why not give them three, why not
give them four; why not let him complete
his university education at that level?
You should complete your programme at
the end of grade 12 with 13 years of studies
v/ithin that period of time. The youth com-
mittee made that recommendation and it
was members from your own side who signed
this youth committee report. Surely, Mr.
Chairman, if the majority of the youth com-
mittee would come along and be in favour
of this, it must be the government that is in
favour of this. Yet you refuse to act on this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the member one question.
Is he suggesting to me that we should
make a decision, of this magnitude and
significance to the educational system based
on what it may or may not cost the local
municipality with respect to the administra-
tion of the programme? This seems to be the
basis for a good part of his discussion and
I will answer from my standpoint.
I would be very reluctant to make a deci-
sion of this magnitude based on the cost to
the municipality for grade 13. I think this is
the indefensible way of coming to such a
conclusion.
Mr. B. Newman: But it is one of the addi-
tional reasons why you should come along
and make this change.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is one of the basic
ones— I am surprised that you, a member of
the academic community, would suggest this
should be the basic reason for doing it.
Mr. B. Newman: It is one of the reasons.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well!
Mr. B. Newman: Not the basic reason.
I
4000
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, if I could con-
tinue on a couple of points raised by the hon.
member for Peterborough.
The first is this. I was down at the educa-
tional testing services in Princeton about
three weeks ago and I was talking about a
number of things with Dr. Henry Chancey,
who is president of the educational testing
service. He mentioned that they had quite an
international programme and that they were
sending out research teams in co-operation
with local educational authorities and teach-
ers, to countries around the world, and one
of these countries was Canada.
So my question to the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, is to what extent is the educational test-
ing services in Princeton involved in the re-
evaluation of testing high school students
both in the general aptitude test and the spe-
cific tests— math and so not, to gear those— I
will wait imtil the Minister is finished con-
sulting with his experts.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Go ahead, I am listening.
Mr. T. Reid: To make sure that those tests
bear some relationship to the value structure
of our society as opposed to the value struc-
ture of the American society? I know the
Minister realizes that in these tests there can
be a national cultural bias in the test if it is
simply transposed from one jurisdiction to the
other.
So I would like to know from the Minister
where in his budget, if anywhere, there is an
item for research into this area of educational
testing from the educational testing service
in Princeton, to gear their tests to the Ontario
and Canadian environment so that our stu-
dents will not be writing American culturally
biased exams from which our universities
must evaluate to have as one of their criterion
for admission to a university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member— and I guess I am guilty of it too, so
I am not being critical; I think we jump from
vote to vote and perhaps we are covering
ground that will be covered anyway. If the
hon. member will look at vote 521 he will see
an item of $9,120,000 relating to the Ontario
institute for studies in education, which insti-
tute is developing the tests for the province
of Ontario.
I cannot say specifically but I think, if
memory serves me correctly, the personnel at
the institute have been discussing some of
these problems with the people from Prince-
ton testing service. We have the two sets of
tests; we are moving ahead with the Ontario
ones, we are financing them through the
institute.
The national tests are running into some
problems from a financial point of view and
I cannot tell the hon. member which organi-
zation it is, perhaps both, that has been con-
sulting with our neighbours to the south. But
the institute is developing the tests for the
province of Ontario.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Wc might come back to this very important
area in vote 521 without duplication.
The second question I have on this par-
ticular estimate, Mr. Chairman, is a factual
one and perhaps the Minister will have to get
his researchers to dig this one up. How
many secondary school teachers in Ontario,
who have taught grade 13, have left the
secondary school system and are now in the
CAATs or in the private sector of the
economy? Say over the last two years.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say the last year
and a half, Mr. Chairman, I am not even sure
—well, I guess we can. It will take me a
period of time because it means canvassing
all the faculty members of all the colleges of
applied arts and technology in the province
to determine whether or not they came from
the secondary school system. I shall endeavour
to do this but it will take a period of time.
Mr. T. Reid: The reason I bring up this
question, Mr. Chairman, is that I think some
of the problems the member for Peterborough
was talking about might be solved without a
policy on the part of the government. In other
words, if we find, like some of the best
CAATs presidents, former high school princi-
pals, that there is such a leakage from secon-
dary schools, particularly— in a sense I hope
this will happen— from the academic stream
in the secondary schools to the so-called
applied arts programmes in the CAATs, then
you may solve your grade 13 problem because
you will not have enough good teachers. So
I think it is a very relevant point. I have
heard comments on it on a miscellaneous
basis, if you like, so I think it is very relevant
not to this year estimates but next year's.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure that this, in fact, will occur or is a solu-
tion and I just say with the greatest of
respect, to me it is a very negative approach
to a problem. ^
Mr. T. Reid: I just say the Minister must
have the facts before he can make decisions.
JUNE 5, 1968
4001
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I say it is a negative
approach, even though the facts would sub-
stantiate that a goodly portion of teachers
are moving, which I do not think are the
facts, I think it is a negative approach to a
problem.
Mr. T. Reid: It is called the cost side of a
cost-benefit study. Right?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think you can
apply that to this particular situation.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
say in my opening remarks that all is not as
bad as it seems. I think that in my short
experience in this Legislature I would have
to say that this Minister has given a better
account of himself than almost any Minister
in the House, and because of the experience
with regard to the educational system across
the province, do not think we need to take
a back seat to any jurisdiction. I think that
as time goes on the fruits of his labours will
be quite evident and I have no reservations
about saying that.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: He is beginning to see
the light, he is doing well!
Mr. Stokes: However, I will try to be very
kind and very constructive. What I want to
say is that in a recent survey that was done
with regard to the educational level in north-
western Ontario, it was determined in a
survey taken in the early 1960's that there
were 50,000 people between age 22 and 65
with less than a grade 8 education— this was
in northwestern Ontario. These facts were
brought out when Quetico centre was having
such a great deal of trouble getting back on
the rails again after the federal authorities-
Manpower and Immigration — scrapped their
programme five.
They are operating now and what is being
done there is showing very tangible results
but unfortunately they handle a very limited
number of people in that establishment and
it is only a very insignificant amount in terms
of what has to be done in the north.
Now a good many of those 50,000 who
have less than a grade 8 level of education
are Indian population, which is the responsi-
bility of the federal government. Now in cor-
respondence with various heads of branches
of this department, I have been given a lot
of encouragement and a lot of reason to be
optimistic about what they will be doing in
the future, but I have been in contact with
members of the Minister's department for
some six months now and nothing of a tan-
gible nature has happened yet.
To be more specific, I would like to relate
to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,
what is going on in Armstrong. I have given
these facts, I think, to the Minister in a
previous speech and yet nothing tangible
has happened.
Now in Armstrong, we have an Indian
settlement on the outskirts. It is called
Happy Valley and I can assure you that if
the Minister wants to come with me to the
outskirts of Annstrong where these people
have the misfortune to live, in the conditions
that they are living in, it is certainly no happy
valley.
There are 28 students who are the children
of treaty Indians who cannot get schooling
and where no schooling facilities are provided
for them in the town of Armstrong. They
range in age from six to 16. They have to
travel as far as 200 miles to the Lakehead to
go to school. They do not see their parents
from one school term to the other unless they
are willing to pay— I think it is something like
$32 to come home for Christmas or Easter,
Mr. Chairman. And with Indian people
living on the very meagre income that they
have to survive on in that particular area, in
fact all over the province, the rates of welfare
payments just do not permit it.
Now I have had some correspondence with
the superintendent of supervision on this and
he says at the moment the present school is
filled to capacity. And although the depart-
ment of Indian affairs has agreed to provide
a room as an extension to the school, the
board and the community have resisted
efforts to accommodate the Indian children
in the school.
This is an intolerable situation where,
because the white population in any one com-
munity does not want to have children of
Indian people integrated with them, as a
result, you have children travelling 200 miles
to go to school, or they stay at home and are
drop-outs and we then have the same problem
that is continually being aggravated. Unless
we recognize the fact, and unless this depart-
ment accepts the responsibility for the training
of our Indian people, a responsibility that has
been abdicated by the department of Indian
affairs, we are not going to be able to resolve
this problem, and in fact, the whole Indian
problem. I would suggest to you that educa-
tion is basic to the problem and I do not
know how we are going to make any head-
way.
To give you some examples, in Osnaburg,
a reservation some 20 miles south of Pickle
4002
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Lake in northern Ontario, I went into one of
the schools and I happened to be campaign-
ing.
The principal of this one-room school tried
to introduce me to the students— now these
were grade 7 Indian students, and it took
him 15 minutes to explain to them what a
candidate for a particular provincial party
was. These are grade 7 students and he had
to go back to where he explained that they
had a chief of the band and they got all the
people in the band together and by a process
of election they were able to name the chief
and he said the chief of the province of On-
tario is Mr, John Robarts.
They had never heard of him, it was a
name that was completely foreign to them.
Now, he tried to explain to these grade 7
studen's that I was not trying to take John
Robarts' job but he likened me to one of the
councillors— I think there were something like
seven in the band— and he said through a
process of going through an election you
elect so many councillors. He said Mr. Stokes
is trying to be a councillor in the province of
Ontario, representing a particular political
party.
Now keep in mind these are grade 7 stu-
dents. This school teacher was doing a won-
derful job, I thought, with the material he
had to work with, but I think this denart-
ment must accent seme of the responsibility
for upgrading the educational facilit'es that
are available to our Indian people. Obviously
it is not being done by the other level of
government so I think you people have to
step in and fill the breach.
One of tlie ways I think you could acccm-
plish this, Mr. Chairman, is to off-^r isolation
pay to young teachers who are willing to go
up into those remote areas at a great personal
sacrifice, leaving all the am-nifes of Lfe.
You really have to be a dedicated person to
go into that type of environment and atmos-
phere, and I would sugg:>st to the Minister
that he urge the department of Indian affnrs
to take more action in this particular field
and provide the necessary money. I think
that ths government and this particular de-
partment, wlio are responsible for the educa-
tion rf all peonle of Ontario, should step in
and fi'l tlie breach and take on the total
res]-!onsi])ility for tlie education of our Indian
people.
I would like to suggest, too, if I may, that
one oF the ways in which you could educate
the young Tu'lian people about what life is
like in tlie more urbanized centres of Ontario,
would bo to initiate and sponsor student ex-
change. I do not mean just an afternoon
exchange, or something like that, but for a
longer period of time so they get a better
idea of what facilities are available, the kind
of educational opportunities that we have in
the more populated areas.
I think it would give these people a much
greater outlook on life as it really exists in
Ontario and certainly in Canada. I think it
could demonstrate to these young people
what is available. I think it would be a step
in the right direction to complete social and
economic integration at a much earlier time
than will be possible under the present
arrangement.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peterbor-
ough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make one or two comments on two items
that are found in vote 507. I will try to be
short but I think they are important. One is
radio broadcasts and the other is films.
I think there are two problems involved
that have an impact on this. First, the Minis-
ter's decision to decentralize authority, decen-
tralize the impetus on education in Ontario.
And second, the fact that we are now begin-
ning a surge of concern in the area of educa-
tional television. Certainly I think that these
school broadcasts have been one of the most
qualitative aspects of the educational scene.
What I am wondering is how the Minister
has planned to integrate the use of the vari-
ous forms of media— radio and fi'm particu-
larly. Of course, thinking ahead to the far
greaf^er role that educational television is
going to play to what extent he sees the pos-
sibility of decentralizing? Now I understand
that the film libraries have already begun to
decentralize. Certainlv that is an important
aspect because I really feel that the whole
audio-visual programme was less effective in
trying to have it run from where it was be-
fore on Jarvis Street.
In the other area of radio broadcasts, one
of tlie things which has always bothered me
—I am sure it has bothered the Minister, too—
is the fact that so many of these radio broad-
casts are not cffecMve in the sense that they
cannot be related directly to the day-to-day
work of the schools. This is particularly true
;!t tlie secondary level, of course, when vir-
tually no schools change classes at the time
the broadcasts are on.
I am wondering if there is any way that
the school broadcasts can be decentralized
by possibly making use of tapes. I know that
schools do make tapes themselves, but this
seems to me to be creating a load upon the
individual school, which is an unnecessary
JUNE 5, 1968
4003
load. Here again, I would suggest that a far
more effective use of school broadcasts might
be through the use of tapes.
Finally, to tie this up, I am wondering to
what extent the Minister is going to give
local authorities an opportunity to, in a sense,
plan their use of media, along with the cen-
tral authority. It seems to me, as I said last
night, these young people are in a very
sophisticated society and the use of media in
the education system will be just that less
effective if they are unable to use media in
an exciting way.
I am wondering if what the department
needs is almost a commission on the use of
educational media to integrate the use of
films and filmstrips and tapes and school
broadcasts and so on; see how they can fit
into the educational programme, how they
relate. I think, particularly, to see how the
courses can be planned in relation to all
these various kinds of media; how schools can
be time-tabled to deal with them. I sucjgest
to you that this may seem like a sort of off-
hand suggestion but I think it is about time
we brought the people who are concerned
with the media into the situation. I am won-
dering about the text books, the text book
publishers— how they see their role, and
whether we have had enough contact and
enough negotiation and consultation v/ith all
those who are concerned with educational
hardware, if you want to call it such.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just to
reply to this very briefly. With respect to
radio broadcasts, I think that one might antici-
pate that the department will perhaps be
moving out of this area of educational involve-
ment. There is a decreasing amount of inter-
est both by the boards and by the stations
with respect to the radio broadcasts. I would
think, perhaps in 1969 or 1970, the depart-
ment will be moving out of the area of radio
broadcasts.
With respect to films, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Pitman: You will not make tapes?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we will not. We just
will not be in the field of radio broadcasting
per se. Now with respect to films, as we en-
visage this developing some of the boards
will establish-and some already have estab-
lished—their own film hbraries.
The moneys that we are referring to here
^yill be used to develop our own central film
library and the regional one that is being
developed in Sudbury and, eventually, per-
haps four or five others which will be resource
centres in some areas for those boards that
do not have the economic base to provide this
type of facility. This shall continue to be a
departmental resource centre for the other
boards. I think, Mr. Chairman, there is no
point in projecting ourselves into discussion
of vote 508 at this moment until we get there,
but I think there can be a relatively clear line
of involvement between the availability of
filmstrips from libraries and the potential that
exists with respect to ETV. But I think per-
haps we might leave that for vote 508.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 507? The member
for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask of the Minister if, under films in
vote 6, some of the video tapes will be like-
wise on film rather than video tape and sent
to local school boards so that they could be
used at any time in a classroom, or even just
portions of that video tape translated into a
film? You know, with the video taps as it is,
now you have to look at the whole thing
whereas the classroom teacher may v/ant just
one section of the film shown. Were it on a
16mm film rather than a video tape, it would
be to his advantage to be able to use it in
that fashion.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This may be possible.
Mr. B. Newman: Does the department plan
the coordination of the tape recorder with the
filmstrip, such as we now find used in the
lessons we take in French? This method is
very effective.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure that we, as a department, do. I am sure
that many of the boards will develop this
approach in some subject areas.
Mr. B. Newman: May I cover one other
topic under programmes? That is the oppor-
tunity of various ethnic groups to teach their
native language in the secondary schools. As
it is today, any ethnic person who may want
to teach, say, French, German, Ukrainian,
Russian and so forth sometimes runs into
problems. If credits were given in the school
curriculum for the teaching of these various
languages on an after-school basis, and the
various ethnic groups were allowed to bring
their own instructors into the school system
to teach the language on an after-school
basis, not during the regular school day, it
would not interfere with the school day at all.
It would be on an after-school basis.
I think you would be doing the ethnic com-
munity a real service. The children of people
4004
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who have come from various parts of Europe
and other parts of the world, would like to
carry on the ability to converse in their
parents' native language. As it is today, they
have to go to their various ethnic communi-
ties or ethnic halls; whereas, if it were held
in an educational atmosphere in a school, I
think it would be conducive to better learning
and likewise would be serving the ethnic
community very well.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, Mr. Chairman,
just very briefly, once again, a number of
boards are operating classes like this in night
school programmes. I do not believe there is
anything in the legislation that would prevent
it. In fact, some boards are offering their
premises to various ethnic groups to offer pro-
grammes and a lot of them arc on Saturdays,
not in after-school hours.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this is something
that the local jurisdiction can involve itself in.
My immediate reaction to giving these courses
for credits at the secondary level is that I
would question this, without very careful con-
sideration. But certainly the use of the school
facilities is being provided by many boards
of sections of Ontario.
Mr. B. Newman: I imderstand, Mr. Chair-
man, that when one individual in my com-
munity did write he was told by a member of
the department that this was not possible
at all.
Hon. Mr. Davis: For credits, no!
Mr. B. Newman: Just the teaching of the
language on an after- school basis. He was
told it would lead to the fractionalization of
languages, leading to serious economic prob-
lems for the individual taking the language.
This sounds kind of strange.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It sounds strange to me,
because it depends, I guess, on the form or
the basis of the request.
I can only relate the experience in our own
commvmity here in the city of Toronto. The
German community here in Toronto has— I am
not sure how formal the arrangement is— an
arrangement, I believe, with the Toronto
board. I was at a meeting of their teachers
some few months ago and on a Saturday they
had, I think, 150 or so of them there. They
actually had classes in many of the schools in
Toronto on Saturday mornings for the German
youngsters to receive instruction in the
German language. And this is true of many
otlier languages.
^Tr. C'nainnan, I do rfgret that I did n(H
reply to the mcnil)er for Thvmder Bay, rela-
ting to his suggestion with respect to some
form of incentives to have young people move
into some of the communities to which he is
referring.
I think he has hit upon a very real problem.
We explored this just very partially in my
answer to the member for York South— it gave
my own attitude to some of these situations.
But if the hon. member will read, as perhaps
he has, pages 57 to 59, or 61— he need not
read all that letter from that northern corps
teacher, in the yellow book, it is, I think, a
very intriguing sort of letter.
We have already introduced this pro-
gramme of incentives to teachers to go into
these isolated communities. I believe there
are some 14 this year, and next year our plans
are for some 25 teachers to move into the
isolated areas of northern Ontario. They are
receiving some special incentive, some special
training, during the summer months at the
North Bay teachers' college.
This letter from one of the teachers perhaps
gives you some indication of his personal
experience in his first year in this programme.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to pursue the teaching of a language,
other than French or English in the second-
ary schools on an after-school basis. Do I
understand—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member talking for
credits or not for credits?
Mr. B. Newman: First, do I understand
from the Minister that local boards have the
authority at the present to permit others to
come into the school on an after-school basis
to teach this language?
Hon. Mr. Davis: If, Mr. Chairman, a board
wishes to make an arrangement with any
recognized organization to use the school
facility, whether it is for the instruction of
another language, the recreation commission,
or what-have-you, they have the authority to
do this. No question about it.
Mr. B. Newman: Do they have your bless-
ing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the boards
have my ])lessing to do anything that is con-
structive—that is relevant to the needs of the
community. I do not know how many times
I have said this in various speeches around
the province, but they have my blessing, I
can assure you.
Mr. B. Newman: Then may I ask the Minis-
ter would he consider giving credits for
proficiency in one of these other languages?
JUNE 5, 1968
4005
You see, when the youngster graduates
from school, especially university, he is quite
often asked to get into certain types of occu-
pation where the ability to speak an extra
language is a decided advantage. Were he
to be given credit for it, an additional credit
in the school for his ability to speak that
other language, I think it would be an incen-
tive to the youngster to learn. Likewise it
would be to the advantage of the whole edu-
cational system and the youngster himself.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it may be
I am speaking veiy much without thought.
Shall we put it this way— a board might give
a statement of a level of achievement. I think
we have to be very careful about getting into
what subjects or what activities are related
to credit.
Obviously, facihty in this language, a second
language, may be of great use to the indi-
vidual. I can think of members, some
opposite, who demonstrate very specific
prowess in fields of athletics, who perhaps
might have liked to receive credits prior to
their days of playing for the Hamilton Tiger
Cats or something of this nature. Just where
do you draw the line on these areas? Where
do you draw the line with respect to credits
for what activities within a formal school
programme? This is where you have to do it.
Mr. MacDonald: Read the B and B report
and get some idea.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the Minis-
ter is certainly not serious when he makes
those comments. Does he mean to tell me—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not serious about
the athletics.
Mr. B. Newman: I know, but simply not
to set levels even for language achievement,
the Minister's department can certainly set
standards to which an individual should be
able to achieve—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
the hon. member did not hear me. I said
perhaps a board can give some recognition
for a level of achievement in a subject such
as this, or a course such as this. But I question
whether we should get into— or I certainly
am not prepared to give an answer tonight as
to whether another language taken after
school should be given a credit towards a
graduation diploma. I am just not prepared
to do so, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. B. Newman: The Minister is not pre-
pared to consider the advantage—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am prepared to consider
anything, but the hon. member is trying to
get me to say tonight that I am prepared to
recommend that credits be given for a second,
third or fourth language, or some other
subjects in the secondary school programme,
Mr. Chairman, and I am not.
Mr. B. Newman: I am not referring to
other subjects. I am referring to a specific
tiling that is of advantage to the country
itself, and that is the ability to converse in
another language.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to say whether it is an advantage
or a disadvantage, but if the hon. member
really expects me to give him an answer to a
question like this tonight, I think he is asking
too much. I am just not prepared to do it.
Mr. B. Newman: All right. May I ask the
Minister to consider it so that next year when
I ask him this question, he will have an
answer for me?
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I
could tie in with something that the previous
member has just mentioned? Perhaps I
might read a sentence or two. "The Peter-
borough board of education has decided not
to go after a special grant for its oral French
programme on the grounds that it would be
more trouble than it is worth. Trustees pro-
pose that the board seek a special grant from
The Department of Education to offset ex-
penses of operating the course, which begins
in grade 4."
Is the Minister and is the department con-
sidering the possibility of giving incentive
grants or special grants to boards which are
attempting to increase bilingual ism across
this province and are bringing the teaching
of French right down to grade 4?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we, of
course, have just given special assistance with
respect to the extension of French language
instruction to the secondary level. I question
really whether this type of incentive is really
necessary for the extension of the oral French
programme. I am sure that in the case of
the boards that are resisting it— and they are
decreasing in number every year— part of it
is related to economics, but I do not think
this is of sufficient validity. I do not think
the cost involved in oral French is that sig-
nificant, when you have a viable unit.
I think the hon. member can have some
influence on the board in that particular area
of the province.
40C6
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pitman: I think that they have already
estabhshed this oral French programme, so
I am sure that my influence will not be
necessary. But I do suggest to the Minister
that this is the kind of subject which can be
taught best at the lower levels of the educa-
tional system. I think that—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree.
Mr. Pitman: —and I would suspect that,
although you— I would admit that economics
may not be the only factor, but I would sug-
gest to the hon. Minister that economics is
one of the factors that is involved in the lack
of French instruction in the elementary
schools.
Hon. Mr. Divis: The main factor is still
the lack of teachers.
Mr. Pitman: I agree, and that also places
the responsibility on the Minister too, which
I am sure he is concerned wi.h.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would always.
Mr. Pitman: The whole question of chang-
ing course— I brought the Minister's attention
some months ago to the whole question of
the change in the role of history, for example.
I want to, just as an example, of the subject
which has been changed, and I am wonder-
ing here again whether is there sufficient
consultation with those who are coming be-
fore and those who are concerned with
history afterwards. I received some facts
from the university level and the fact that
this would very much chang3 their expecta-
tions, all of their figures, on how many would
like to be taking history over the next four
or five years.
They have to establish these as you well
realize, as the Minister of University Affairs,
in order to determine what needs they will
have in terms of professors needed and grants,
library facilities and so on, and I am just
wondering is there no way by which these
kinds of changes, once again, can be dealt
with by consultation? I remember the Minis-
ter saying he was going to meet with the
history heads of the various universities, and
I do not know—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have indeed.
Mr. Pitman: You have indeed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: A very pleasant meeting.
Mr. Pitman: And all is well.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I do not say that all
is well, I think there is a far greater under-
standing of what we are attempting to do.
Mr. T. Reid: Everything is positive.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It was a very positive
approach.
Mr. Pitman: May I ask just one—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I wonder if there was
somebody there from York. Better check with
them.
Mr. Pitman: May I ask another question?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps somebody was
there from Trent.
Mr. Pitman: There could be. I wonder if
I could ask the Minister when we can defi-
nitely expect the report of the committee of
religious education, and perhaps he might tell
us when the Hall committee report is defi-
nitely going to come down?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, with respect to reli-
gious education, I cannot definitely state but
I am hopeful that it will be early this fall,
but I emphasize that I am hopeful. The Hall
committee report, I think, we can anticipate
within 10 days to two weeks.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there are one or
two items that I wanted to mention. Perhaps
I can finish them before the House leader
decides it is time to adjourn.
The Minister probably knows that there
are several areas in the province that need
some considerable urging to adopt the pro-
gramme for oral French instruction at the
elementary level. My own feeling is that this
should soon become an obligatory part of the
programme that we are responsible for.
I do not think that we can leave it up
indefinitely to local initiative to take advan-
tage cf what must surely be one of the most
obvious improvements in the curriculum that
we can put forward. There are still a number
of large major centres, and I know of some
of them very well indeed who, in my view,
have not taken—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Brantford!
Mr. Nixon: —the correct decision—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Brantford is one of themi
Mr. Nixon: —in providing this sort of in-
struction at the elementary level. I think it
is disgraceful that we do not have an oppor-
unity for our young people to have a basis
in this language, and that we continue with
the archaic and inappropriate method of
teaching French that we have been exposed
to for so many years in this province, and I
feel that quite strongly.
I
JUNE 5, 1968
4007
Now the second thing I want to refer to is
something that the hon. member for Peter-
borough mentioned, and it has to do with the
teaching of history.
We had an opportunity in a private mem-
bers' hour some weeks ago to comment on
the Minister's decision that this will no longer
be an obligatory subject in the curriculum,
and I think this is another mistake. The
Minister is very proud of the fact that The
Department is withdrawing more and more
from the responsibility that they have ac-
cepted in years gone by, and deciding that
certain things be taught in the schools.
Now in my view we have an inadequate
programme for the teaching of the history of
our nation. I have made a point of keeping
a book on some of the complaints that have
come to me as the local member and perhaps
as a leader of the Opposition, and I have
verified them. I know many of these to be
true myself, where students of the grade 7
and 8 level have, for memor>' work, The
Gettysberg Address, and for that being one
of the most excellent pieces of prose in any
language.
I do feel that the emphasis on the political
developments in history of the United States
is undue emphasis in this particular regard.
1 know a group of students who have had to
memorize the names of the states and their
capitals, and having talked to them I know
for a fact that they know very little about
our county system which is coming into im-
portance and prominence under this Minis-
ter's guidance, and having had an opportunity
to become very interested in the history of
Canada, and our province, particularly for
Centennial year, and 10 years before.
I think we are making a serious and, in
fact, a tragic error in not emphasizing this
part of our curriculum more than we have.
The Premier heard one of the participants in
the federal-provincial conference in February
talking about a very important aspect of the
development of our nation. After the estab-
lishment of responsible government Baldwin
and La Fontaine found themselves in the in-
teresting position where one head of the
government, La Fontaine, was defeated and
came up to York and was elected here in a
by-election.
And four years later, I may have men-
tioned this before, Baldwin was elected tmder
similar circumstances in Rimouski of all
places. I think that this is an object lesson
that could have been used in a good many
discussions in recent years, and is a part of
history that seems to have been lost except
to turn up in the thicker books or to be talked
about by the people who have some special
interest in this. I feel very strongly that our
responsibility in this legislature is to see that
the curriculum is obligatory in this regard,
and that we evolve a better system so that
our young people have a more meaningful
appreciation of what we have established
here over a century— actually longer than that,
almost 200 years; the importance of our roots
in the British system of parliamentary gov-
ernment and something about where we are
heading from these roots. I feel very strongly
that-
Hon. Mr. Davis: You will not eliminate—
Mr. Nixon: I feel very strongly on this.
The Minister is not taking a proper decision
m removing history from the obligatory list.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps it is getting late
but I would say a little bit about history,
because I think there is a misunderstanding.
I am surprised really at the approach taken
by the leader of the Opposition in this regard,
and I shall explain this.
I think this Minister, and this government,
and 1 have expressed this view before, have,
1 think, indicated very clearly to the teachers
of this province our interest in history, par-
ticularly Canadian history. But I think it is
also very apparent that unless courses are
developed so that the students really want to
participate in them; so that there is something
meaningful and worthwhile — because you
make it compulsory does not make it good—
and surely a man with the experience of the
leader of the Opposition, with respect to the
educational structure and the educational pro-
gramme, can see the obvious advantages in
developing a programme that will in itself
attract students.
Surely we do not have to make this com-
pulsory, particularly in grades 12 and 13, in
order to attract students to take a genuine
interest in history, and I shall have more to
say about this, I guess, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nixon: Well, so shall L
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is very impor-
tant that we recognize what we are attempt-
ing to do. It is not in any way a downgrading
or lack of interest in Canadian history. It is
a genuine attempt to make flexible the entire
approach in secondary school and to recog-
nize that history is a subject that must, as far
as Canadian history is concerned, be made
more interesting and more attractive to the
students— and we are in the process of doing
this.
I
4008
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is what we explained, too, and I think
there was some agreement from the people
from the university who discussed this with us
in our meeting some two or three weeks ago.
This is what we are attempting to do. As I
say, I have greater detail on it, but perhaps
I will not get into it tonight.
Mr, Nixon: May I just make a comment?
I just want to follow up, specifically when he
sa'd he was surprised at my attitude, because
believe me, I am surprised at the Minister's
attitude when he says that the history pro-
gramme is designed to attract those who are
interested in it, and that we can forget about
the rest.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am saying-
Mr. Nixon: I want to say further, M''.
Chairman, when I was critical of Brantford as
far as French instruction is concerned a few
minutes ago, that the flexibility that is avail-
able to them has caused them to develop one
of the best history programmes, with the
emphasis on local history, that is in existence
anywhere in the province— so it balances out
a bit there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, this is a flexible
approach.
Mr. Nixon: All right, but the fact remains
that in a good many of the schools there is not
the reaction to the Minister's flexibility that
both of us would hope and, in fact, there is a
disinterest. There is not a programme that is
available. I am not talking about the grade
12 level, I am talking about the grade 6, 7
and 8 level. Where there should be the sort
of programme that is a bit different from
memorizing the list of American states.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to dis-
agree as to the content of the curriculum at
tlie grade 6, 7, or 8 level. As I understand the
c!iangc in policy that was taken by the depart-
ment it did not relate to grade 6, 7, or 8.
History is still a subject there.
What we are doing at the secondary level
is endea\'ouring to find as many options, or to
build in as much flexibility, as we can. This is
what I meant when I was indicating my sur-
prise with the hon. member in that I always
felt that he agreed that we should have a
higher degree of flexibility at the secondary
level.
Mr. Nixon: We have to be sure our chil-
dren know about our history.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Right, and a good his'ory
course. I could not agree more. This is a
good history course.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I think the
point is that making history non-compulsory
at the grade level is not affecting Canadian
history at all. Tlie point is that it made
liistory for the wrong place in the curriculum.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This may be, and I will
discuss this. What I understood the hon.
leader of the Opposition was saying to me
was his surprise that we had made history an
option. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I
think that I have said enough and have indi-
cated a sufficient interest in Canadian history
that equals that of the leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right then, why do
you relate this in this way?
Mr. Nixon: There is no contest to that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. If you agree
with me that the decision to make it an oplion
does not indicate a lack of interest of The
Department of Education and the Minister in
history, then we can call it a draw and that
is it. Fine.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: May I have a word
here, Mr. Chairman? Just before moving the
adjournment, I would just simply say that a
great place to learn Canadian history is right
here in this Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report progress and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to .sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the esti-
mates and the discussion of Canadian history.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment.,,
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:10 o'clock, p.mA
No. 109
ONTARIO
Hegisslature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 6, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS 1
Thursday, June 6, 1968
Tributes to the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon, Mr. MacDonald 4011
First report, standing committee on labour, Mr. Apps 4012
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend,
Mr. McKeough, first reading 4012
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 4013
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 4014
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 4014
Mining Act, bill to amend, Mr. Ferrier, first reading 4014
Purchase of land from the Rankin Indian reserve, questions to Mr. Comme,
Mr. MacDonald 4014
Meat inspectors in Ontario, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Sargent 4015
Accident rate in mining operations, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 4015
Gasoline transported to Timmins via the ONR, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Ferrier 4016:
Investigation of charges by matron Shirley H. of the Don jail, question to Mr. Grossman,
Mr. Shulman 4016
Nipissing central school board, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Shulman 4016
Ontario Hydro policy of hiring summer students, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Stokes 4016
Highway construction, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Nixon 4017
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis, continued 4017
Recess, 6 o'clock 4057
4011
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): In
view of the tragic death earher today of
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, I feel it to be
proper that we pause in our proceedings
here this afternoon to pay a tribute to this
very vigorous, able man who was cut down
by an assassin's bullet as he strove to attain
the highest elective oflBce in his own country.
I do not think we, in Canada, view this
as an event that has happened in a foreign
country. I think the reaction, as I detect it
among our people, is that it is a very tragic
event that has happened to a friend, almost
a member of our family, particularly in On-
tario. Senator Kennedy was a senator from
New York, which is one of our neighbouring
states with whom we have many contacts;
there is a very close personal feeling in this
very tragic event.
I think we are all— and I share the feelings
of the people of the province— saddened by
the events of these last two days. Our sym-
pathy must, of course, go to Mrs. Kennedy
and other members of this family, who
seemed to have endured so much tragedy. I
must admit, my own thoughts go to the
small children of this man; they face life
without a father, who was killed in such a
senseless fashion when he was doing his
utmost to serve both his country and his
people.
He always appealed to me as a man of
very strong conviction with great human-
itarian principles. He was striving for the
disenfranchised; he strove mightily for the
poor, for the needy, those who needed help.
I do not think we can accept the fact that
everything he did was in vain, because if
there is one lesson in it— I think perhaps for
all of us— it is perhaps the difficulties of man
cannot be settled by violence. They cannot
be settled by bullets. We must settle our
differences by negotiation and discussion,
tolerance, appreciation of one another's points
of view. I think that this must be the point
that has to come through during this series
of events in the last few months.
Thursday, June 6, 1968
I do not think, either, that we can be
particularly smug about the lack of violence
in our own country. The potential is there.
Violence breeds violence. I think that is
historically correct, and I think that what we
must do is attempt to find methods of solving
our problems without recourse to violence. In
this way we may be able to leave for our
children a somewhat more civilized world
than that in which we live.
I would just like to quote a word from
John Donne, and he said:
No man is an island, entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent, a
part of the main;
Any man's death diminishes me, because
I am part of mankind.
That, I think, is quite appropriate in these
present circumstances. I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that at your direction we might
observe a moment's silence following any
comments other members of the House might
care to make.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Premier
and on behalf of my colleagues, in express-
ing our sorrow at the great tragedy that
the American people and the Kennedy family
have experienced in the last few hours.
You recall, sir, that it was in the past few
weeks that we had on a similar occasion,
expressed views relating to the assassination
of Dr. King. The death of Jack Kennedy
some years ago is still, of course, very much
a part of our vivid memory.
I suppose that Senator Kennedy's death is
of particular shock to those of us here in
Ontario since, as the Premier said, he was
senator from a neighbouring state, and visited
this province on several occasions.
As politicians, we had a special interest in
his consummate ability to express the views
of the people in his own community and his
own nation, which so often remained un-
expressed otherwise. I can well remember
seeing him in action politically on television.
On one occasion when he had about 200
young people at one of the state colleges
sitting— on the floor as I recall it— he was
4012
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
standing in their midst answering their ques-
tions in an impromptu way. It impressed
me then, as it always will, that he had a
tremendous grasp of the enthusiasm and
idealism of the young people that were with
him on that afternoon.
I know that many are relating this assassin-
ation to the state of our society. I feel this
is beyond my competence, but I want to
express my shock and sorrow, and on behalf
of my colleagues, our sincere sympathy to
Mrs. Kennedy and the family.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I think this day is both a day of
mourning and a day of worry for free men
the world over.
It is a day of mourning because, for the
second time in five years, a distinguished son
of a family which has dedicated itself to
public service in the United States has been
cut down by an assassin's bullet— a tragedy
that is truly av/esome in its proportions.
But it is a day of worry because, as has
been indicated by the Prime Minister and the
leader of the Opposition, this is all too
frequent an occurrence in North American
life. I will say North American life including
Canadian, and I agree with tlie Prime Minis-
ter that we should not be at all smug in feel-
ing that we happen to have less of it.
Willy-nilly, we in Canada, as well as all
countries of the free world, have our fate
tied in with that of the United States. There-
fore, as we view this kind of awesome event,
we worry.
I would like on behalf of my colleagues
in this House to express our sorrow and our
condolences to a family which has had an
inordinate share of tragedy in its midst.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the members
and officers of the House, together with our
guests, to rise and join with me in a minute
of prayer and silent meditation.
Thank you.
Today, we have visiting us, in the east
gallery, pupils from St. Cecilia separate
school in Toronto and Mount Carmel public
school in Leamington; and in the west gal-
lery, from Ridgeview public school in Bramp-
ton and Central public school in Grimsby;
and in one of the galleries we have the
Orangeville public school safety patrol group.
Later this afternoon we will have students
from Linwood public school, Linwood, and
Levack public school in Levack, joining us.
We greet these young people here today.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Mr. S. Apps, from the standing committee
on labour, presented the committee's first
report which was read as follows and
adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment: Bill 130, The
Employment Standards Act, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs) moves first reading of bill in-
tituled. An Act to amend The Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement System Act,
1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr Speaker, this Act
amends the investment provisions of The
OMERS Act and raises the interest rate on
the funds of the system which are invested
in province of Ontario debentures, from 5
per cent to 6.5 per cent per annum as of
January 1, 1968.
An increase in the interest rate on the
funds borrowed by the province from OMERS
is considered desirable at this time to recog-
nize the continued rise in the interest rates
on public borrowings by the province since
1962, when the original investment provisions
of The OMERS Act and the original interest
rate of 5 per cent per annum on the prov-
ince of Ontario debentures were established.
The funds of OMERS are invested in prov-
ince of Ontario debentures with terms to
maturity ranging from 40 to 50 years. In
1962, an interest rate of 5 per cent per
annum was established for all funds borrowed
by the province to 1973. The 5 per cent
rate was set below the interest rate applicable
in 1962 to public debentures of the province
in consideration of the forward commitment
by the province of the 5 per cent rate and
also in consideration of the 40- to 50-year
term to maturity of the debentures. The in-
terest rate of 6.5 per cent per annum pro-
posed in the bill is also below the long-term
JUNE 6, 1968
4013
public borrowing costs of the province, to
recognize the forward commitment of the
rate and the exceptional long-term of the
debentures.
The long-term investment provisions of the
Act were designed in 1962 to enable OMERS
to offer reasonable and stable rates of con-
tribution and thereby maximize the pension
benefits available to the members of OMERS.
The long-term investment policy that was
reflected in the provisions of the original
OMERS Act is continued. However, the yield
on the province of Ontario debentures to be
issued to the system is being increased from
5 per cent to 6.5 per cent per annum.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this Act
contains some rather significant amendments,
some of which are of a technical or house-
keeping variety.
Those sections related to "housekeeping"
are numbers 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20.
Of the remaining 16 sections of this Act,
five deal with the remuneration of members
of the Metropolitan Toronto council.
Section 1 of the Act removes the limita-
tions placed on the remuneration that may
be paid to the members of the council, in-
cluding the chairman. Section 2 similarly
removes the limitation on the amount of
remuneration that may be paid to members
of the exectuive committee.
Section 3 removes the $100 limitation on
the annual allowance that may be paid to
each chairman of a standing committee. Sec-
tion 13 deals with the preclusion of payment
of remuneration to members of the board of
commissioners of pohce who are members of
the metropolitan council.
Section 17 precludes payment of remunera-
tion to the chairman or his delegate as a
member of the metropolitan licensing commis-
sion and provides for the metropolitan coun-
cil to determine the remuneration of the
other commission members.
Sections 1, 2, and 3, Mr. Speaker, are
already included in the Ottawa-Carleton legis-
lation. Similar amendments will be brought
forward to The Municipal Act. It is our inten-
tion that all municipal councils in the province
will have the power to set the levels of their
remuneration.
The remaining sections deal with a variety
of subjects. Section 6 increases from $80,000
to $130,000 the amount that the metropolitan
council may grant annually to the Toronto
transit commission toward the cost of pro-
viding free transportation for blind persons
and war amputees.
Section 7 concerns board of education
appointments of alternate members. Section
8 permits payment of an additional allow-
ance to the chairman of the Metropolitan
Toronto school board.
Section 9 makes provisions for a unified
school building construction programme. Sec-
tion 10 provides for the rights of wards of
Metropolitan Toronto Catholic aid society to
attend a secondary school in the metropolitan
area.
Section 12 deals with altering the composi-
tion of the metropohtan board of pohce
commissioners.
The board formerly consisted of: The
chairman of the metropolitan council; a mem-
ber of the metropolitan council appointed by
the council; a judge of York county court
and two magistrates, the latter three desig-
nated by the Lieutenant-Governor in coun-
cil.
Under the new section, the board will have
one magistrate, and one other person. Both
will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor.
The other three members will remain un-
changed, namely a judge, the chairman of
the metropolitan council and one member of
the metropolitan council.
Section 16 authorizes the metropolitan
council to assume the function of enacting
licensing bylaws. Formerly, this power was
held by the licensing commission.
Section 19 authorizes the metropolitan cor-
poration to acquire the O'Keefe centre. Tliis
section also establishes the corporation under
the name of the board of management of
O'Keefe centre which will be composed of
three to seven persons to be appointed by the
metropolitan council.
Section 21 authorizes the metropolitan
council to pass bylaws for aiding athletic or
aquatic sports and provides for grants or gifts
to persons in recognition of outstanding
achievements in sports.
Section 22 removes the limitation which
limits the amount that may be expended for
diffusing information respecting the advan-
tages of the municipality.
4014
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Fire Departments Act.
Motion agreed to; Bist reading of the bill.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Would the
Minister give us an outline on the intent of
this bill?
Mr. Speaker: If the member M^ould kindly-
wait until the Minister has had the oppor-
tunity to give his explanation which I am
sure he will do.
Mr. Gisbom: Sorry, sir.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, there is
actually just one section amending this Act
and it repeals the section which provides for
grants to municipalities relating to the fire
departments. This in turn is related to the
takeover of the cost of administration of
justice and the increased grants which were
arranged there with municipalities so that
the fire grant under the present Act is con-
sidered to be included in the new grant
structure in the administration of justice.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Police
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, there are
a number of amendments in this Act— one
to authorize the use of the Ontario Provincial
Police force to supplement municipal police
forces in special circumstances. It has an
amendment regarding a more appropriate
means of fixing police jurisdiction on the
King's highways and connecting links in
municipalities; a provision to provide coun-
sel and legal experts in arbitration matters
between police associations and boards of
police commissions or council committees.
The employment of an arbitrator and for
arbitration by the Ontario police commission
as one of the final steps in arbitration.
There is a provision also similar to that in
The Fire Departments Act for deletion of the
provision that presently makes it possible for
the Provincial Treasurer to make a grant to
the municipality for the purposes of pohc-
ing, that also being related to the takeover
of the cost of administration of justice, and
being included in the new grant structure.
Those generally are the amendments con-
tained in this bill.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I wonder,
Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General would
permit a question? Does the use of the
Ontario police commission as a determining
body, insofar as some of these matters are
concerned, preclude the normal arbitration
procedure or the final arbitration procedure
as it now exists?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The way the question
is framed, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer
is no. It is a further or final step which
did not exist before.
Mr. Singer: Is the police commission on
top of the arbitration or behind it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is a court of appeal,
the last resort.
THE MINING ACT
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South) moves
first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Mining Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, a present ore
mine under lease or patent granted after
April 12, 1917, is required to be refined in
Canada. The amendment extends the require-
ment to all ore mined under a lease or
patent whenever granted.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South
has a question from yesterday for the Min-
ister of Highways and one for today.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my ques-
tion to the Minister of Highways, which I
think he got on Tuesday if I recall correctly,
is: Did spokesmen for the city of Sault Ste.
Marie offer to have the corporation pur-
chase the necessary land from the Rankin
Indian reserve at whatever price could be
arrived at with the Batchawana Indian band,
and then make it available to The Depart-
ment of Highways at its top price of $31,000?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the city did not offer to acquire
the land and convey it to the department for
$31,000. This proposal was made and dis-
cussed orally but was not seriously considered
and no serious or formal offer was made.
Mr. MacDonald: Would the Minister per-
mit a supplementary question? Did the gov-
ernment regard the proposal with favour or
JUNE 6, 1968
4015
disfavour? In other words, did your disfavour
persuade the city not to proceed in any
formal way?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, this ques-
tion has been discussed at very great length
in my estimates and, I believe, at one other
time in the House. The proposal for the build-
ing of the road— on the Black Dirt Road— was
the one as given by the city's engineers and
recommended by our own engineers, and this
was the reason we continued to build the road
on that alignment.
Mr. MacDonald: My question, Mr. Speaker,
is to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management. Is the Ontario Hydro Electric
Commission conducting any studies regarding
the long-term effects of men working with
bare hands on high-voltage hues?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, as
most of the commission and senior people in
Hydro were before the committee on com-
missions this morning, I was unable to get
an answer. I will take it as notice and try
and have an answer for tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce
has some questions?
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I have a
question for the Minister of Agriculture and
Food. Would the Minister please advise on
the number of meat inspectors in the prov-
ince of Ontario?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking
entirely from memory here. I believe I an-
swered that question during the estimates. If
I recall correctly it was 120 with a group of
about 30 in training now.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister is probably
aware of the great confusion in New York
state where they have taken over the state-
wide administration of the inspection of meat.
Could the Minister advise how many meat
processing plants we have here in Ontario
and, as in New York state, are we under-
staffed in the number of inspectors we have?
Are they overworked; are we short of in-
spectors?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have no
knowledge of the matter concerning New
York state. I do know that the federal gov-
ernment in Washington passed a federal
bill implementing meat inspection across the
United States in the various states of the
union. Some of the states have chosen to
provide their own meat inspection, I believe;
others are negotiating with the federal gov-
ernment to provide the meat inspection
through The Department of Agriculture.
We in Ontario attempted at one time to
arrange an agreement with the federal gov-
ernment at Ottawa to provide meat inspection,
but it just did not work out satisfactorily and
we decided to provide it ourselves. We have
done this on an orderly basis and all of the
plants in Ontario in a line from Hastings
county through Victoria-Haliburton west are
now covered by inspection. These are the
red meat plants. The poultry plants are not
all covered yet.
The group of inspectors now being trained
will cover all of the red meat processing
plants in eastern Ontario and we will then
attempt to provide inspection for all pountry
plants in Ontario. We hope to have it all
done by the first of the year. That is our
target date.
Mr. Sargent: Thanks. I will send the Min-
ister this news release. He can check it then.
A question to the Prime Minister. Would
the Premier please advise what amount of
moneys were paid to the Ports of Call restau-
rant concession at Expo last year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I an-
swered this question very completely in a
reply to the question of the hon. member
for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha). I think it is in
Hansard on March 27.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Mines. Is the Minister aware that the
Dravo Developing Company and the Mac-
Isaac Mining Company, both involved in
standard mining operations, have very poor
accident records and are both without mine
rescue crews?
If the Minister is aware of the situation,
would he see to it that these companies train
men in mine rescue work immediately, and
provide them with the proper equipment so
that they are in a position to handle emergen-
cies which may arise from time to time?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, I suppose technically I could
say the answer to question one is yes, and
the answer to question two is no; but I think
4016
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the House deserves a fuller explanation than
that.
The question though, I think, does create
the wrong impression when it mentions that
these two companies are involved in standard
mining operations. Now my understanding is
that they are part of a group in this industry
that is known as development contractors.
Certainly the accident rate in the contract-
ing end of the industry is causing this gov-
ernment and this Minister a lot of concern.
It has been the subject of a few rough re-
marks and a few speeches I made myself,
just lately, about it.
But it has been the policy of the govern-
ment to provide mine rescue training at a
mine after it goes into production. These
people are contractors. They work in pro-
ducing mines, or mines currently under
development, and the government does insist
that mine rescue training and mine rescue
equipment be available in these instances at
the hands of the mining company itself.
Therefore, in these cases, we feel that the
mine rescue training and the equipment is
there at the hands of the parent company.
But in respect of the whole contracting
element in the mining industry, I would in-
vite submissions both within and without the
industry, and within and without this Legis-
lature, to help us solve a very serious prob-
lem at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. Ferrier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker,
of the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management: How many tank cars of gasoline
were transported to Timmins by the ONR in
the month of April?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the num-
ber of tank cars transporting gasoline to
Timmins for the month of April was 44.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Reform
Institutions.
Has the Minister investigated charges made
to him last week by matron Shirley H. of the
Don jail? If so, will the Minister reveal the
results of his investigation to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps before tlie
Minister answers I might explain that when
this question was submitted to me originally,
it was so close, in my opinion, to the ques-
tion submitted on June 3, I believe, by the
member, that I questioned it. Rather than |
engage in any prolonged discussion with him, I
I allowed it to be placed as it is now. I
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform |
Institutions): Thank you for allowing me, Mr. f
Speaker, to handle it. You are quite right, |
Mr. Speaker. The answer to the first question |
is, "Yes they have investigated." The answer I
to the second question is, "No," and for the |
reasons which I explained to the House yes- |
terday. |
The matters are so inconsequential and |
minor in nature, and as they deal entirely |
with internal administration, it would not be .|
wortliwhile, in my opinion, to waste the valu- |
able time of the hon. members of this House, |
by discussing the matter here. j^
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min- •
ister allow a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no. J
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I must point j
out to you the Minister is not helping by H
refusing to give information to the House, ^j
Mr. Speaker: Order! TJie member can i
address the chair on a matter of order, a ^
matter of personal privilege or ask a question. -
Mr. Shulman: A question for the Minister
of Education. Has The Department of Educa-
tion investigated the conduct and operation
of the Nipissing central school board as re-
quested by parents of the pupils; and will the
Minister give further consideration to the
matter in the light of the further charges
made in a petition presented to him this
week?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the source
of the member's information. I can only say
that I have had no petition presented by the
parents of the Nipissing central school board.
Mr. Shulman: I will send it across to the
Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have
a question for the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management. Is the Minister aiware
that Ontario Hydro is hiring students from
other parts of the province while denying
work to those in northern Ontario? Why are
local students not given preference? Will the
Minister instruct Ontario Hydro to give
i
JUNE 6, 1968
4017
priority to northern Ontario students who have
fewer opportunities to secure summer employ-
ment than those in southern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I under-
stand that the hon. member asked this ques-
tion of Hydro officials at the committee this
morning, and had it answered at that time.
Mr. Stokes: If I might ask a supplementary?
Could I have the assurance of the Minister
that priority will be given to students of
northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I would
have to discuss this with officials of Hydro
and, as I have said earlier, they were at com-
mittee all morning and I have not had a
chance to speak to them, but I understood
that all students in the province of Ontario
were given equal opportunity, and that Hydro
did not choose northern or southern or
eastern Ontario. I think that this has been
happening for quite a number of years.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Chairman, I have
the answer to the fifth part of question 604
asked by the hon. leader of the Opposition.
Yes, our engineers are continually in contact
with the contractor and are taking every
measure to ensure completion as soon as
possible.
We are optimistic about meeting tlie July 1
date, as mentioned in the answers to part
two of this question.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 20th order. House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
(Continued)
On vote 507:
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to direct my remarks today
to item 11 of vote 507, having to do with the
expenses of the committee on the aims and
objectives of education in the schools of
Ontario. The House has been given a good
many remarks of a concrete and incisive
nature.
If I may indulge myself and the House,
I should like to range out on the objectives
of education in the province as I see it, and
to make a few remarks along these lines.
After all, the Minister is spending $1 billion,
and I thought I might be able to get in two
cents' worth.
This the most amorphous of departments.
The criticism that could be levelled at it is
precisely that because of the indetermina-
ation of education— what is education? What
is it all about? What are you supposed to be
doing? Why are you spending all that
money? The critique that I hear from the
public and in the salons and saloons of this
province is that you are going about in all
directions, that total intellectual confusion
reigns in the department. You do not really
know what you are doing. You do not know
what direction education is to take, you work
on an ad hoc basis from day to day.
You erect schools. You are so busy train-
ing teachers and filling seats that you have
not got time to sit back and look at what
your ultimate objectives are. The difficulty
about education is, of course, that there is no
such thing. Education is not an object; it
is a method whereby we convey certain atti-
tudes, facts, points of view, relations of life
to the last baby born. Tlierefore, it is a
traditional thing, and it rides on the basis of
tradition.
The word tradition itself should be enough
to warn us about education because out of
the Latin tradition also comes treason, and
you can do as much harm as good. It is a
two-edged sword, this business. You can
reduce the stature of human beings, or you
can give them scope and amplitude and
bring them into their own. I suspect that
you do as much to diminish as you do to
cause growth. The master of those who know,
as he was called for 15 centuries in our
civilization— but no longer— said that all men
were possessed by one fundamental drive-
curiosity.
It was not sex in those days, you know, it
was the desire for knowledge. The problems
that arise out of the desire to know and the
eternal human curiosity are two-fold. One is
the ability to distinguish between what is
worth learning and what is not. You know,
if I may quote from Chesterton a couple of
lines:
There are things you need know of
Though you live and die in vain.
There are some more sick of pleasure
Than you are sick of pain.
There's a game of April fool
That is played behind the door.
The fool remains forever.
And the April comes no more.
I
4018
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The second thing about education, and I
think a lot of people— including some from
that department— labour through missing it,
is that not everything can be taught. As a
matter of fact, it may come down to this—
the only, or the most important, things worth
knowing cannot be taught. The schools
cannot teach it, and no formal procedure has
ever been invented. I am thinking about
normal states.
You can teach the intellectual foundations
of the morality but you cannot teach people
to be moral human beings. There is no way
but through experience and the deep lessons
of life, which education can only gamer
from and not directly affect, whereby human
beings can come into self-determination. I
think also of the gifts of intuition and love,
particularly with respect to intuition. Rising
out of that I say: Look at the paucity, in this
province, of genius. Where do you produce
people of first rate merit? Where are our
writers? Where are our intellectual giants?
Have we ever produced a philosopher? What
happens with this whole school system?
Where is the generation of genius, in other
words, in your system? Do not tell me that
your system in schools cannot be expected
to induce states of mind of this high quality.
I think that it may be just a talisman of the
opposite; that your schools suppress and
inhibit and so turn awry human purposes
that any potential genius is thwarted in the
bud.
The other thing is this business of intuition.
What we try to instill through an intellectual
process, through the processes of education,
is insight; education can clear the ground so
they may grow. It cannot instill them but it
can prevent blockages and surmount the
barricades in the path of an intuitus— "a
looking into". The whole of contemporary
education seems to me to be largely directed
to encourage a "looking about" or "at",
rather than into a looking into. Never in any
generation were so many things taught to
so many people and so little actually offered
in the way of understanding human minds.
The Kennedy situation is a reflection of the
total abysmal depth of loss in this realm.
This is a projection of the state of mind of
the whole society in which we all share. And
to that measure! It is an indictment of your
system of education, and of s>'stems of educa-
tion as they operate on this continent. Edu-
cation on one side of the fence is a call and
on the other side of the fence is a passion.
So far as it is a call, test what I have to say
against vi^hat actually goes on in the prov-
ince.
An education, if it was to be worthy of the
name, would break down men's prejudices.
The whole reason for the teaching of history,
which you touched on the other day in the
debate, and no doubt we will come back to
it; and which you have somewhat abnegated,
is the business of allowing people, through
sheer imagination and through a sympathy,
to enter into the lives of earlier people.
The reason that you do that is to have
them live lives other than their own, to get
them outside the confining cocoon of their
own time and their own civilization, to take
them into earlier times when men had diflFer-
ent modes of living. Where some of them
were more refined than what we are now—
the 17th century; where the sense of inter-
relationship of citizens was far more profound
than we enjoy at the present time; the cities
of Greece; and where a sense of rapport with
your immediate relations— as in the civilization
of China— and a sense of reverence for the
dead and the hovering presence of those who
have passed before us and left their mark on
us. How many generations may pass again
through us as with the Persians? All this sort
of thing is not given any great credence.
Education means to educe, to lead you out
of, to lead someone out of themselves, which
is the only way in which they will ever
arrive, by a paradox, back into themselves.
The proper education would be such as to
range beyond contemporary norms to do this
deliberately and critically. The truly educated
man would be like a man from Cassiopeia or
out of the distant Arcturus, who would visit
us as a stranger. He would not only be <
completely at home where he was bom and
where he was educated, he would also be a
stranger in our midst. He would look at
things with a cold eye, he would be able to
judge them from enormous distance. The
business of establishing distance, of getting
away from the acceptable, of being able to
make a critique of that which is offered in a
spoon— that is the business of education, and
that you do not do.
They are confined here; they accept the
norms. You have a system rooted in com-
placency and passivity and this is driven home
by the very structure which you have erected.
It may be inevitable, I do not know, I hope
not. If it is inevitable then the whole system
will stand prejudged and will not produce
the fmits that are supposed to be garnered
from it. (
JUNE 6, 1968
4019
The second thing I want to mention is that
education is a passion. This seems to me to be
the very core of the whole thing. One who has
never experienced— let us put it another way.
The chief way in which men find pleasure,
of course, is in sexual activity. But there is
a form of pleasure, a form of dehght, some-
thing that can make one's hair stand on end
or sweat come out, and that is called learning.
Some time late at night, when a new
thought or the interrelationship of many
thoughts dawn on a man for the first time,
and the logical sequence of ideas hits you, and
you make intellectual discoveries, there is
nothing, there is nothing that lights up the
mind more. It causes a sense of life and
the things that are worth while, and that we
are ploughing ahead. That is the affirmation
of existence itself, and the true meaning of
life— the delectation of intelligence— the pas-
sion of intellegence that is the theme that is
fundamentally missing.
You do not light the flame. If you do, it
is usually in spite of yourselves. It is because
students with a natural law, with an intellec-
tual impetus and drive that is generated out
of their marrow opposing most of the incur-
sions of this system, rise up against it. This is
happening throughout your system and you
know it. You get the constant rebel, these
are the brightest students, because they have
that fundamental feeling for the thing. They
know what it is for the mind to light up.
Most people go through their whole lives
without ever the bulb coming on.
It is a strange thing that, for all your edu-
cation, that simple first thing in education
never happens to them. The job of your
teachers is to ignite that flame. The whole
teaching art is dedicated to that one thing,
to set that spark glowing. If a system, in its
doldrums and in its backwardness, is unable
to set that spark in a sufficient number of
cases, then again it stands self-condemned.
Looking at your system I see very little sign
of any sparks being lighted.
What it comes to, then, in this regard, is
that I see the educational system here, not
wholly, but by and large, killing in human
beings a great deal— most of the curiosity that
they otherwise as children have, and naturally
as human beings have. So far as the imagina-
tion is concerned, where does your system do
anything to stimulate the powers? You kill the
emotional life, you kill the life of curiosity,
and you kill the life of the imagination. We
will come to the intelligence in a moment.
So far as imagination is concerned, for
instance, I notice with my children coming
home that they remember very little poetry.
There is not too much generated in the way
of a ranging out in sheer fancifulness— the
business of erecting dreams, if you will, and
coloured webs, which is the chief function of
something that is not really an animal. Ani-
mals do not dream— human beings do. And
that dereliction from the schools is no longer
placing emphasis upon poetry.
May I tell you a story? Once I knew an old
Indian sage; his name was Annda Coomara-
swamy. He had written a great deal, this man.
He was at the museum of Oriental art in
Boston, Massachusetts. He was a very elderly
man when I visited him while I was in the
army, and one of his chief doctrines has to do
with memory— and this is again where you are
deficient— in terms of memory itself.
He said, "cannot a man remember?" He
said.
That which a man knows, he knows by
heart. If he does not know it by heart, or
in his heart, he does not know it at all.
All the bookishness, all the stuff on the
shelves, have no value whatsoever, unless
it somehow impinges and is a vital part of
the living life of the one who pretends
to know the things in the book.
This is Indian wisdom and there is a great
deal of truth to it. You give very little cog-
nizance to it, because the whole tendency in
contemporary education is against the storage
house of memory. This is supposed to be rote
learning. It is not necessarily that at all— it
is the memory of the race of man. If some-
thing was done to stimulate the memories, to
teach—
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Educa-
tion): You do not agree with your colleague
from Peterborough-
Mr. Lawlor: I make my own speeches.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Do not inter-
rupt. This is a magnificent speech. Listen
to it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening very care-
fully, but I am confused by the position.
Mr. Lawlor: Anyway, I have said that
there are two kinds of Eros. There is the
one that we all know about and there is the
divine Eros, of which none of us know
very much about. And I was saying that
intelligence is not something abstract, aloof,
cold and removed from everyday life. Quite
the contrary, for Plato— and this is the chief
educator of western civilization, and you
remember Whitehead used to say about him.
I
4020
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
"all human thinking is a footnote to Plato."
There is a good deal of truth to that.
For Plato it was an Eros, intelligence was
a passion, it was a love, it was something that
caught our minds and drove us onward;
made us want to know more. This again, I
repeat, I see no signs of you stimulating
or bringing to pass. For all your money,
whatever you do, it makes very little dif-
ference if you do not do that, because that is
what it is all about. That is why you are
spending so much money, except if we come
to a second position which you may or may
not hold.
There are two chief fallacies in contem-
porary education. One is to ignore ends, the
ends and objectives of which I am speak-
ing, in preference to the means, the means
being the whole apparatus, all that ma-
chinery that you have generated and at which
you keep toiling away day and night.
I would like to quote just briefly from
Jacques Maritain, and recommend his book
"Education at the Crossroads," the finest
single little book on educational thinking that
I have had the pleasure to see. I have seen
Whitehead's book and a number of others,
but nothing touches this one if you want
the overall view of education.
You may not agree necessarily— he is, per-
haps, too intellectuaUst in the good sense-
there are other senses, as he points out, in
which intellectualism may be wrong.
In other words, he says that the chief func-
tion of education is to train the mind and that
education can only secondarily, and in an
obhque way, have very much to do with the
training of the will. That is, to make us
better people, to make us better in our rela-
tionships both with ourselves and with other
people. He says this is something that educa-
tion may attempt to do by outlining a cer-
tain position but that it cannot really teach
it.
If you remember, that is where Socrates
spent his whole time; he said, "Can virtue be
taught?" and he came to the conclusion that
it could not be taught, in the last analysis.
It is induced by other means, by example
and by a sense of the heroic and by setting
up models.
Again, it seems to me that in our sophisti-
cation, there is a failure in our schools to set
before our younger people models of heroism.
Put sanctity, if you will, on one side in terms
of virtue and being able to suffer and willing
to do so, and on the other side sheer courage
and heroic action. I do not think these models
are given proper place any longer in our \
school system. Therefore, the kids have all ;
their anti-heroes and their anti-heroes breed :
bloodshed in our streets. Maritain says: i
The means are not bad, on the contrary, j
they are generally much better than those \
of the old pedagogy. The misfortune is '
they are precisely so good that we lose '
sight of tiie end, hence the surprising weak- :
ness of education today, which recedes '
from our attachment to the very perfec- :
tion of our modem educational means and
methods and our failure to bend them to-
wards the end. The child is so well tested
and observed, his needs are so well
detailed, his psychology is so clearly cut
out, the methods of making it easy for him
every way perfected, that the end of all
these commendable improvements, the pur-
poses of this have been forgotten or dis-
regarded.
The second aspect — and it is connected
with the means-end relationship but has more
to do with the substance of the matter— is
that unlike the Greeks who had education for
the elite, and unlike medieval times where
the education, because of sociological con-
ditions was largely in the hands of the clergy,
we have entered into an age of science.
And the problem is not only that but also
that we are in an age of democracy where
we have equality of opportunity, or the
recognition of the dignity of each man, and
of his right to the development of the full-
ness of his capacity. All these things we have
foremost in my mind, so we can no longer
have the elitism or the patrician period of
education of the Greeks or the classical times
down to our own time. We have launched in
a new direction.
But the worshipping of science, the impor-
tation of scientific methodology and tech-
niques into the heart of the education betrays
the human spirit. Science has to do with
bread, and man does not live by bread
alone. One recognizes the necessity for tech-
nique and for technological improvement in
training and skills and what-not, and it may
be truly educational, even there the light
bulbs may go on if it is taught properly and
if they see the interlinking of purposes rang-
ing out beyond the very restrictive nature
of their subject.
But I see newspaper articles some years
ago, Mr. Chairman, in which the hon. Min-
ister was depicted as a pussycat and the
pussycats around the province of Ontario and
throughout this country are those who aie
JUNE 6, 1968
4021
rendering our educational system question-
able. I do not so accuse him on this occasion;
I am interested in his comments, however,
as to just what kind of a pussycat he may be.
By a pussycat, we mean one who has
turned the whole of the educational system
into a technological direction. Let us face
it. Education and universal compulsory edu-
cation did not come by chance; it came
of necessity out of the 19th century, not
because the vested interest — though they
wanted to improve the quality of human lives
—not at all. It was for two reasons: One of
them was to teach them the basic literacy
which was necessary for industrial process.
And they made it compulsory when they
found this literacy was crucial to the earn-
ings of profits and to keep the whole system
in operation. And so it grew, and that is the
chief purpose. The second thing is to keep
them oflF the streets. You did not want too
much of a glut on the labour market, you
want even less of a glut now; ergo the exten-
sion of the educational system.
The thing is not dedicated to the lighting
of lamps on the hillside, or articulating of
Aristeides or one of the orations of Cicero,
not in the least. Here and there it may be
done; you may throw a sop to the intellec-
tuals, to the professors of philosophy hidden
in tlie back comers of the university.
The chief job in the central core of the
whole apparatus, in divorce from— and this is
where I object— the overall necessary liberal-
izing tendencies which will support our de-
mocracy, if it is to be supported at all, lies
in technological skills, in scientific learning,
and in this particular kind of reductionism
whereby if man is compartmentalized, if he
is made into a pure and simple specialist, if
he is a form of department store performing
a particular task, then this external statistical
classifitory reductionist concept of man can
only lead to a complete disappearance of
humanism and to barbarism. The Romans
were fairly barbaric; they were great engi-
neers, and they made very little contribution
to the overall life of civilization. They bor-
rowed from whatever the Greeks had to give
them in that particular regard.
You are still, I say, under the bane of
John Dewey and that particular kind of a
thing. Dewey is no longer very much spoken
about, he is a httle old hat, I suppose; never-
theless, education as a process of adaptation
to society, as an adjustment to other human
beings, to a style of life, so to speak, that
sort of thing, still continues and it very pres-
ently permeates your particular system— the
particular adaptation that you are trying to
make is again to industry and to the bene-
fits that may be derived to the economic
structure from this particular end. Now,
everyone has to work, no one denies that,
but the problem is in the streaming that you
are doing, in the growth of community col-
leges which would seem to have no liberal-
izing influence offered internally within them
at all.
I know of one case where Johnny Mc-
Donough teaches a little philosophy over in
one of your colleges there. He is the one
who wrote the play about Charbonneau. How
does it operate? You make typists and legal
stenographers, I notice, you have people who
are very adept in laboratories, but where is
the dimension, where are the possibilities for
the future of ourselves and for the ideals
and for the real living realities we want to
live with in a society, politically and other-
wise? You produce poHtical morons in the
schools, they do not even know which way
to vote. I find that particularly aggravating.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lawlor: In any event, I want to refer
to an article written some years ago in Time
magazine, talking about John Dewey:
The Deweyites thus transform condi-
tioning techniques into ends in themselves.
Teachers' colleges assume the dignity of
lamaseries. Teachers were denied the
chance of learning more about their sub-
jects in favour of compulsory education
courses and how to teach them. Within the
schools, discipline gave way to increasingly
dubious forms of group persuasion.
It goes on in that vein and it says:
With Dewey's world so demonstrably in
tatters, one might think the educationists
would run up the white flag.
Far from it! Entrenched in public school
administrations they defend with the ad-
hesiveness of a band of brothers, every
article of their gobbledygook canons,
Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps I am wrong, Mr.
Chairman, but as I interpret this philosophy
over the years, I think the member is giving
exactly the opposite approach he took.
But go ahead, I am interested. I think it
is very entertaining.
Mr. Lawlor: I am accusing the department
and the Minister of being insouciant with
respect to the role of curiosity, and kilhng
it in the kids. I have said that the imagina-
tive hfe is pretty well abnegated in favour
4022
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of a sheer learning of techniques. I have said
that the memory faculty in man is not being
in any way stimulated in your schools.
I say there is too great an alliance upon
external aids, and that they do not say that
the only thing a man really knows is what he
can remember, that in particular is lost.
This is because of specialization and you have
—and this form of specialization has the effect
of dehumanizing the human being. You are
on the road to specialization. You no doubt
might believe tliat this is inevitable, as I said
earlier, that we cannot help ourselves in the
diversification of knowledge that is coming
about.
I suspect that if that is the case then
what you really must do is reverse some of
the pattern, that for the earlier parts of the
school year and as long as possible into their
13th, 14th and later years, you must liberal-
lize the aid given on overall concepts and
making it— bringing them into the whole vista
of civilization, giving them as much general
knowledge as you possibly can and not just
information— because, thereafter, if they fall
into the trench of specialization they are cut
off, and cannot speak intelligently on any
other subject in which they are unable to
form judgments either about themselves or
about the affairs in their community in any
perceptive way. This is a striking feature
when one is sitting among scientists of an
evening— their sheer inability to relate, to
have knowledge about and to form judgments
on matters of general human affairs and de-
portment. These are the things that deeply
disturb me within the present system.
I have one final word to say, and that is
that schooling, of course, is only the
smallest part of education. Apart from there
being many things that you cannot teach at
all and, perhaps the most important thing,
the educational process is fundamentally an
adult process, where we come back on our-
selves, where we can look at ourselves and
try to see ourselves as others see us; that
goes on all our lives. The mentality that has
been built up in our country is that they are
dam glad to leave school, to get away from
it all, that the particular disciplines which
are onerous and not liberating are to be
escaped from at the earliest possible time.
Therefore, after they leave, they no longer
want to subject themselves or open them-
selves at all to the continuing process of
enlightenment— the sheer joy of learning
things.
You have created that. There is something
wrong when that happens. Therefore, perhaps
greater emphasis could be given to the on^
going role of the adult educational sphere.
You are going to have to do it in due course,
anyway.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks have been
rather abstract and wandering. On a later
occasion I trust I shall bring them down to
earth and give them greater concretion.
Nevertheless, as I said at the beginning, no
department offers a greater scope for an
analysis and for remarks touching what it is
supposed to be all about. If the remarks that
I have made today are of any assistance to the
Minister in his directions and the purposes
of his department, then I would be deeply
gratified.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, the aim of education in Ontario,
in my opinion, is still to help young people
learn by doing, prepare them for a productive
and gratifying life by also instilling in them
an appreciation of moral value and raising
their self-esteem.
With the increase in drop-out of students
in our schools, the increase of narcotics in our
schools and increase of juvenile delinquency
and problems of crime in Ontario, many of
the young people are not standing up or
living up to social responsibility.
The time is now for religious education in
the public schools. History is being taught
in the schools, and the Bible is tlie oldest
history book. We must find a solution to the
problem that faces Ontario and other prov-
inces throughout Canada. Too many of our
young children do not have the opportunity
for guidance enjoyed by other children. All
children should have a good basic set of
moral standards and values. With the system
in Ontario of senior and elementary public
schools, with the television and other forms
of communication in the spare periods that
the students would have and with the con-
sent of the parents, religion with its different
faiths can be taught in our schools.
I am sure many churches would send well
qualified persons to assist in rehgious educa-
tion in oiu: schools. I have one other ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Minister. I want to know what you are
doing with religious education in our schools
today?
The second one: How many children ar«
under the influence of tranquilizers in our
schools today?
JUNE 6, 1968
4023
An hon member: How many teachers?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
really anticipate the hon. member is serious
in his second question; that is, if he expects
that I will have any knowledge as to what
children turn to tranquilizers in the school
system and as far as the first part of his
remarks are concerned: This is one of the
great difficulties for a Minister of Education
in this province who— I am reminded quite
frequently by the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): There was no such difficulty before.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it has given me
difficulty. I can recall certain speeches made
in this Legislature with respect to the reli-
gious instructions in schools whereby—
Mr. Nixon: I can recall a discussion three
years ago.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is correct, sir, but
my recollection is that the leader of the
Opposition very strenuously urged that there
not be religious instruction in the schools of
this province. This is my recollection and this
is what makes it difficult for me. I can recall
members in the other group and perhaps the
hon. member v/ho just spoke for Lakeshore
would not agree either.
Mr. Nixon: You were asked what you were
doing about it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. He has not asked
me. He is telling me we should have it.
That is what he said.
Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do about
it?
Hon, Mr. Davis: I am telling him because
he was not here to hear your—
Mr. Nixon: Answer the question,
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Chairman, the leader
of the Opposition is endeavouring, perhaps,
to cover up the fact that he had made a
speech in this House very strenuously suggest-
ing that we eliminate religious instruction in
the school system. The hon, member for
Welland South is now suggesting that we do
it, I am not quarrelling at all, but I just say
it makes it very difficult for anybody admin-
istering educational affairs when, from a
group of individuals represented by your
leader, I get a conflicting point of view,
Mr. Nixon: You have picked the easiest
way.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all, I-
Mr. Nixon: Certainly, you have set it <m
a shelf for years,
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr, Chairman, we have
not and we are not going to until the report
comes in, and the hon, member is fully aware
of this. But I do not even know when the
report comes in. I hope it will be this fall and
I think this is a reasonable expectation. But
I am really very intrigued by the remarks
from the member for Welland South, because
in my view they are somewhat contradictory
to the position that your leader took a couple
of years ago.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to get into a contentious question here,
but as you know new blood comes into this
House with new ideas.
I asked a question on tranquilizers that the
youngsters are perhaps using today. And the
reason I raised this question, I have dealt
with this problem myself, very close to me,
and dealt with it. It was the problem of a
child who did not want to go to school. One
of the problems was the child did not like
the new mathematics and apparently this had
created a problem with this child. He refused
to go to school.
Upon investigation with the medical
doctor, I found that there v/ere about seven
or eight other persons who had come to his
attention. In fact, he had a couple of chil-
dren in hospitals to make a study test on it.
I was a little bit puzzled about his remarks
that the trend in school today is too much
pressure on our youngsters. Perhaps we
should have a study on the tranquilizers used
by the young children today in our schools,
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think thi$
would be an appropriate opportunity, if you
will permit me, to make some comments on
the committee that is paid for under this
vote— item 12, $12,000— which is going to
continue the work of the committee on
religious education in the public schools, now
going into its fourth year.
The Minister and the administration were
most fortunate in acquiring the services of a
great Canadian, John Keiller Mackay, to be
chairman of this committee. His responsi-
bilities have been very heavy in many fields
of community work and government work,
and it is unfortunate in my view that the
committee has not brought forth some recom-
mendations that the government might act on
before now.
4024
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Minister is well aware of the problems
that were evident in many parts of Ontario
before the committee was set up, and it was
his natural reaction to such a problem that
he put it on the shelf for three years, so
that any particular difficulties have been
maintained and have become worse over the
years.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think so.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is so.
A good many of the municipalities in this
province are responding to the directives of
this department that they must have religious
education, unless they pass a special resolu-
tion that will remove them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is left to a resolution
of the board.
Mr. Nixon: It is a part of the curriculum
that they can opt out of by resolution.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right— a resolu-
tion of the board.
Mr. Nixon: Not except by resolution. And
it was the leadership of George Drew back
in 1944 that imposed this on the province. It
was not the sort of evolution— that has come
down to us over the number of years that we
have had a developing school system.
Now you can look back at the debates in
this House at that time if you want verifica-
tion of that point of view, but I want to
bring this particularly to the Minister's atten-
tion—that there is no doubt in my mind that
there can be useful, modern instruction on
morality and religion.
But the Minister should be well aware that
there are municipalities in this province, and
I happen to live in one, that purchased re-
ligious education from a group of people who
come from outside of Canada, and look on
their attendance in Ontario as if they were
missionaries, and that they are over here to
save us from some fate that we are not clever
enough to be aware of ourselves.
The Minister knows very well that the min-
isterial associations and Protestant ministers
in general take part in this responsibility
when asked, and if they are able to do so,
but I am informing him that there are these
people from outside our own jurisdiction
who are not acquainted, nor familiar with
our background.
They are not knowledgeable of our form
of education system, and they are giving
religious instruction here, in my view, of
a rather narrow approach to the meaning of
life and our appreciation of those forces be-
yond normal ken. Now I believe that it is
a serious matter.
We have gone for three years and more
since this was raised in the Legislature, and
since the government undertook to finance a
Royal commission to advise them in this mat-
ter, we have still had no report and no action.
The Minister, if he chooses, can say that the
Liberal Party is divided on that.
This, of course, means nothing at all. The
hon. member is expressing his own views.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right!
Mr. Nixon: And he is a very thoughtful
member and has every right to do so.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right!
Mr. Nixon: And believe me, that is far
better than the reaction that tlie government
takes, which is to put it up on the shelf and
forget about it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, let us be
relatively accurate if we can. Not only was
there no attempt to put it up on the shelf—
I think there was general concensus, as I
recall the discussion at the time, and here
the hon. member in the many other areas is
saying we do not have enough research con-
sultations studies. The next day, of course,
when it suits his purposes it should be a
Ministerial decision.
Mr. Nixon: A misleading and weak argu-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Davis: You know after 24 hours'
study; completely inconsistent!
Mr. Nixon: You have shirked your respon-
sibility,
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not a shirking of
responsibility at all; it is a genuine attempt
to make a valid decision with the assistance
of some very intelligent people.
Mr. Nixon: No doubt about the ability of
those people.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell you something
about the people that is also relevant but
perhaps it is not known to the hon. member.
First, the committee started this work in
February of 1966, and if my mathematics are
correct, and I am not using the new math,
that is two years and some three months ago.
We are-
Mr. Nixon: What was the date of the ap-
pointment?
JUNE 6, 1968
4025
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not recall the date
of the appointment. It was some time in the
fall, I believe, of 1965, and they started their
studies in February of 1966. I anticipate
their report this fall, but we have had two
problems with the committee and I think
the hon. member must know this.
Mr. Nixon: You admit the committee was
appointed in 1965!
If they were appointed in 1965, we are
now financing into their fourth year.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well I know; but Mr.
Chairman, he said that we were going into
the fourth year of their study.
Mr. Nixon: Well, we will look it up!
Hon. Mr. Davis: We are talking about only
the year.
Mr. Nixon: Look it up. It is the truth. We
are talking about this vote of $12,000 which
will finance them into their fourth year.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It will finance them, I
think, into September or October of 1968.
These funds will not go into 1969.
Mr. Nixon: These votes go on into 1969—
read the front cover.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. I am saying to
the hon. member that money will be spent
in 1968.
Mr. Nixon: Well, do not give me the new
math argimient, it is four years.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not, and I should
point out to the hon. member that we have
had two problems, and they are very sor-
rowful problems with the committee.
One of the senior members, Mr. Jeanneret,
passed on during the course of the activities
of the committee, and we were fortunate
enough in getting his son. Dr. Jeanneret to
replace him, but there was some interruption
in the continuity of the committee. Mr.
Martin, the representative from the Roman
Catholic faith who was also a member of
the committee, of course, we had similar diffi-
culties unfortunately, and Mr. Forestall was
once again appointed to replace Mr. Martin,
and these are the two events Mr. Chairman.
I know the hon. leader of the Opposition is
really a very understanding individual on
most occasions.
Mr. Nixon: You try me at times.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is only fair
to state, or to understand, that no committee
of this, shall we say, structure with a rela-
tively limited number of people, when you
have two very-
Mr. Nixon: How many are on the com-
mittee?
Hon. Mr. Davis: His honour J. Keiller Mac-
kay, Dr. Mary Hinnis, Mr. Forestall, Dr.
Jeanneret, his honour Judge Waisberg and
John White-
Mr. Nixon: Are you suggesting that they
should start fresh?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, but I am saying that
it requires a period of time to aquaint the
new members on an issue that is as diflficult
and complex as this, and it did not happen
at the same time. These deaths occurred
unfortunately— and I think it was only natural
to understand that this has prolonged the
work of the committee. I think it is also fair
to state that if we really want to get involved
in this process and endeavour to get some
form of consensus, that public hearings are
a necessary part of their work, the public
hearings went far beyond what I think the
chairman had originally anticipated.
There were many briefs— individuals who
wished to appear— and this also prolongs the
work of the committee. Now, I know the
hon. member would, perhaps, say we do not
need these hearings, we do not need this
public involvement, but this was the decision
of the chairman of the committee, and I
think, Mr. Chairman, that one must respect
his point of view, in the way he wishes to
conduct this study.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman I would like to ask a number of
perhaps shorter questions. I hope.
In view of the fact—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Shorter answers too.
Mr. Pitman: In view of the philosophy
expounded by the Minister regarding decen-
tralization. I am wondering what future this
holds for the curriculum section. To what
extent will local larger units particularly be
able to create their own curriculum? To what
extent will they be bound by a curriculum
which is coming from the centre?
I know you have indicated, at least the
Minister indicated, Mr. Chairman, that the
curriculum would be issued through rather
vague directives, and more specific directives
4026
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which have come in the past from the depart-
ment.
I am trying very hard to see a plan or a
pattern here, and I am wondering how you
can decentrahze your curriculum if you are
going to have a centralized impetus in rela-
tion to educational television, for example.
Also, I am wondering also how you are
going to deal with the problem of a mobile
population, where people are moving from
one jurisdiction to another, rather rapidly.
My answer is, of course, if you have the
right kind of educational system where in-
formation gathering is not so important, then
this is not such a real problem; and if you
have an ungraded system students can, in a
sense, get into the level which they find
themselves on each individual subject, and I
am wondering, in the present situation, as to
what the Minister has plarmed to do in this
area?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, as
I say this is what once again causes some
difficulties for those responsible in education
from time to time. You have the point of
view being expressed by the member for
Peterborough that we are moving away from
the point of, shall we say, accumulation of
factual material, the question of memoriza-
tion. We are moving to an era hopefully
where the school system will be involved in
developing the thinking processes of the
young people, and, as I say, it brings into
a httle bit of conflict, though not in total, the
views of the member for Lakeshore where
the question of memorization and a certain
amount of factual information also is, I guess,
part of one's attitude towards life. It is part
of the education— I find just a little bit of
conflict here, in their outlook.
Mr. Pitman: Not really!
Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. Anyway, as I say,
I find it just a shade confusing, but I say
to the hon. member that, of course, the over-
all policy of the department will be to deter-
mine the broad general outlines of the
curriculum in course of structure and then
the details hopefully over a period of years
as the local boards obtain more expertise
and qualified personnel who will develop
details of and approaches to the curriculum,
within their own environment.
This to me is very basic and you will not
achieve this in the first two or three years of
operation of the divisional boards. It will take
a period of time. But as I see curriculum,
and I think this is a response to the changes
that are taking place in society, we do not
want to become rigid in a curriculum ap-
proach; we want to set very broad general
objectives, and we leave it up to individual
schools and school systems to adapt this to
them.
There is no conflict with respect to ETV
whatsoever. ETV, in my view is an educa-
tional resource. It is like a textbook, in that
you can turn it ofiF if you do not want it, for
one thing, and it is not to be a situation
where one can develop curriculum based ex-
clusively on ETV. No one anticipates this. It
is a supplementary or additional educational
resource that is available to the system. Now,
that is a long answer to what was a relatively
short question.
Mr. Pitman: A further question on this.
It would seem to me that if you are going to
have this tremendous variety of curriculum,
how is this going to affect the textbook
publishers? Have you been in consultation
with them? I think that they are a respect-
able group of people.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They certainly are. I agree
with you.
Mr. Pitman: I see no reason why the de-
partment would be reluctant to have some
type of consultation, or use the views of the
textbook publishers on this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
objecting to this at all. I do not know how I
can best get this message across. Perhaps I
had better take the hon. member for Peter-
borough on a two or three week tour of the
department and let him live in some of the
offices, and see how many consultations go
on. I think that it is fair to state that there
are great consultations with the publishing in-
dustry. I cannot determine here how the
flexibility and change is going to involve the
textbook publishers over a period of years,
and none can determine this.
Surely the hon. member is not suggesting
to me that, as Minister of Education, we
retard, or make our curriculum rigid to
accommodate the book publishers? This can-
not be done. They have got to adapt to the
changes that are taking place and, in fact,
in many instances, they are giving some
leadership in this matter, as the hon. member
well knows.
Sure we want to involve everyone in the
process as best we can and, in the final
analysis, someone has to make some decision
and someone has to provide the leadership.
If it is necessary, and society is changing,
JUNE 6, 1968
4027
and if knowledge is changing and you have
to update or alter curriculum, surely this is
our responsibility to do this? I can rest assured
that if we were not doing it, this would be
one of the first complaints that the hon.
member would have.
Mr. Pitman: Will there be authorized
texts?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I
anticipate that there will be authorized texts,
but I also anticipate— and, you know, you
are asking me to look well ahead, and I do
not have a crystal ball, and there are days
when I wish I did. I tliink that there will be
larger numbers of, not necessarily texts, but
reference books. I do not think that there is
any question of that. There has to be.
Mr. Pitman: Well, how will ungraded
schools relate to the admission to university?
For example, students who are going through
ungraded high schools, may end up with what
we today would regard as a very strange
selection of subjects and a very strange selec-
tion of levels in these subjects.
Have you been in consultation with the
imiversity as to how their policy of admission
is going to be afiFected by this kind of develop-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we do not
have a system of ungraded secondary schools
in the province of Ontario. We have six or
seven experimental situations, and obviously
we do not know the impact of this. We are
encouraged.
Mr. Pitman: You expect more this year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect that there will be
more next year.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we would be
really abdicating our responsibility if we were
to, every time a decision had to be made
and certain progress made, if we bogged
down and said, "Well, maybe we had better
not do it because of a possible—" and I em-
phasize possible, because I think that the
member for Peterborough raises problems that
may never occur. Certainly we should en-
deavour to think of them, but—
Mr. Pitman: We raise them so that you can
deal with them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine. But I have
great confidence in the university community
to adjust to whatever changes take place in
the secondary school system. And why should
they not? Surely they have great expertise
and competence? Surely they can adjust to
these situations?
Mr. Pitman: Could I ask a further question
in relation to this particular estimate?
It seems to me that in this estimate we
would expect to see an estimate of a com-
mittee of a post-secondary, which was an-
nounced last year.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It comes under The
Department of University Affairs.
Mr. Pitman: It will be under that depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to vote
9 scholarships to residents of Ontario, for
study outside of Ontario. The vote here is only
for a total of $10,000. Are there provisions
for scholarships to students for study beyond
our bounds in some other vote?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is the
regular scholarship programme. I believe that
there are some four awarded every year for
study outside the province, and these are to
teachers. These other student awards are
under University Affairs.
Mr. B. Newman: Are there no specific
scholarships to students studying outside of
Ontario, other than here? The others are
simply awards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: As far as this department
is concerned.
Mr. B. Newman: Then may I suggest to
the Minister that he seriously consider making
scholarships available to Ontario students for
study in other jurisdictions?
It is much cheaper for us to provide the
student with a scholarship, than to provide
space in a university in the province of
Ontario. He can attend any one of the
universities in the state of Michigan, or New
York, or many of the universities in the
United States, at less cost to the taxpayer
than studying in a Canadian university.
Living, as I do, in a border town, we find
that thousands of our students attend univer-
sities just across the river. In fact, Wayne
state university has over 400 Windsorites
attending. Were the province to attempt to
provide facilities for those residents of
Windsor attending schools in Detroit and
environs, you would need another university
roughly the size of the University of Windsor.
1
4028
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, why not provide some type
of scholarships to outstanding students who
cannot get the course that they want in an
Ontario university, but can in a university
outside our jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to become rigid at all, with respect to
the items that we discuss, but I tliink that
discussions of this kind should really come
under The Department of University Affairs.
I only point out that this— I am not saying
that it is not a problem, but one must recog-
nize that probably— certainly from an
academic level of grade 13— we have close
to the same number of students from outside
Ontario moving into Ontario universities as
those who are seeking education outside
our own province. I mean there is a
levelling factor.
I emphasize that this would be from an
academic level of grade 13; it may not apply
down to the grade 12 level, where we
have a number of Ontario students as you say,
going to Wayne, Detroit, and some down
into the Maritimes. This is where comparison
becomes difficult, but I think that this would
be more appropriate under University AfiFairs.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the reason
why I asked it now is I asked where I could
find it elsewhere. This is the only vote under
which I could find it, so I asked it here.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is student awards
vote, which we can discuss—
Mr. B. Newman: This is a different thing,
between student awards and scholarships
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Chairman, pursuing the matter brought up
by the member for Peterborough a little
further, regarding the decentralization of
cun-iculum to the county level, and the de-
crease in departmental supervision.
Would the Minister then visualize after,
say, four or five years, an accrediting of our
educational system on a county basis and, if
this should develop, would he feel that this
is an objectionable situation? What are his
feelings on this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I just expressed a per-
sonal point of view here, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to stay away from a system of
accreditation if at all possible, and I think
that we can. I think that the accreditation,
as it exists in some jurisdictions, is really not
truly representative of the situation as it
exists in those jurisdictions. Personally, I am
not enthusiastic about accreditation of indi-
vidual schools or county systems if we can
avoid them, and I think that we can.
Mr. Good: You do not feel that this will
be a natural development of the county
divisional boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, not at all.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: The curriculum division only
extends to the end of the secondary school,
at the present time. Perhaps I might bring
to the Minister's attention a problem which
already exists, in view of his comments that
I am always dealing with problems which
do not exist as yet. This will be a change.
One of the problems that seems to be is
that of integrating the curriculum of the
secondary school with that of the colleges of
applied art and technology. I think that this
is particularly true in the areas such as com-
puter science. Now, I am wondering just
what degree of integration there is in the
curriculum branch of The Department of
Education dealing with secondary schools
and the various colleges of applied arts and
technology. This problem seems to exist
already.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has selected a special area where
the complexity of the problem is more
obvious than I think it would be in most
other subject areas. I would suggest—
Mr. Pitman: I cannot win!
Hon. Mr. Davis: —I would suggest, too,
that the same problem relates to the relation-
ship bet%veen secondary and university. Surely
you are not suggesting an integration of
curriculum between those areas of education?
I think there has to be a knowledge,
obviously, within the community college
system of what is being taught in the
secondary schools and vice versa. I am not
sure that we should be looking forward to
a complete integration of curriculum neces-
sarily. Because, once again, you are going
to be dealing with the needs of students who
will not necessarily attend either a community
college or a university. We have a basic
responsibility to these people.
Obviously, in the field of computer science,
the hon. member is not going to get m«?
involved in just what the position is today of
the secondary schools and the community
JUNE 6, 1968
4029
colleges and what it would be with respect
to courses even two years from now. It is
one of the very diflBcult areas and he well
knows it.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask
one more question on this vote? I notice
that the registrar is involved in this particular
vote. It would seem to me that, with the
grade 13 disappearing, now the role of the
registrar will be somewhat less— will be
limited, to some extent.
I am wondering in what particular area— I
notice it is the registrar who issues the letters
of standing and letters of permission. We
have, of course, from the report from last
year, the number of letters of standing, which
I think were 1,074-sorry, 1965- 1966- were
1,074 elementary schools, an increase of 176
over the previous year, and also the letters of
standing secondary schools; 265 v/ere insti-
tuted and 146 were granted.
Could the Minister give me the numbers
that now exist for the previous year? Letters
of permission issued to uncertified persons in
1965-1966 totalled 3,312, and I wondering
whether this has increased. I think that this
at least is one measure by which we can
gauge the effectiveness of The Department
of Education in securing qualified teachers
for the classrooms in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Would this not be vote
509?
Mr. Pitman: It is under the registrar; the
registrar issues these certificates.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the secondary school letters of
permission, the total is 2,332. This is for the
school year 1967-1968. Of this, 280 of the
above 2,332 attended Ontario secondary
school teacher training courses but they failed
to qualify for certificates. The total does not
include 326-282 of these are teaching in
academic schools, 44 in vocational schools,
who are fully qualified to teach general aca-
demic subjects but for whom special subject
approvals were issued to permit them to act
as vice-principals and principals and teachers
of special subjects.
With respect to tlie elementary area: Using
just totals again, in the English public
schools-1,078, in the English Roman Catholic
separate schools-1,083, and the bilingual
schools-295, for a total of 2456.
Mr. Pitman: That is almost double what
they were.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, because we are not
using quite the same figures. These sub-totals
include people with some professional train-
ing and these are the holders of expired On-
tario third class certificates. I have not got
the breakdown exactly in the same way as
the hon. member has asked the question. I
will get for him the figures as he has asked
the question. My breakdown is somewhat
different. I think he will find that the figures
are not substantially different from last year.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before we pro-
ceed, the Chairman could just take a moment
to extend a welcome to the students in the
east gallery. These students with us today
are pupils of the Linwood public school of
Linwood, Ontario, and we welcome them to
the galleries today.
Vote 507. The member for Scarborough
East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask the Minister if he
could clarify briefly item number 14 in vote
507— educational services for the handicapped,
for whom no other provision can be made.
Secondly, I would like to ask him how he
finds out who these handicapped people are
and what type of evaluation he does to deter-
mine their handicap.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the evalu-
ation is made through tlie special education
branch and on some occasions, of course,
they bring in medical personnel to assist in
the evaluation. This sum is set aside for a
limited number of children who go right
outside the province of Ontario for special
educational service and we pay the fees. They
are, of course, young people for whom there
is just no comparable course available in this
province, and the number varies from year
to year.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to follow this
up, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister tell us
what types of handicaps these are and why
there is no adequate provision in the On-
tario education system for these children
with these special types of handicaps?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am just
going to pick two or three. There are young
children, for instance, who are blind and
speak French and we have two or three
attending the facility in Montreal. We have
one or two children at the Perkins school
for the blind in Watertown, Massachusetts,
and the Davidson school in Atlanta, Georgia.
These are very specialized institutions and we
4030
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
just do not have comparable programmes here
in the province.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, vi^ould I be
correct in saying that if anyone writes me a
letter saying that they cannot find an institu-
tion in this province for the types of educa-
tion they think their children might need, I
should write directly to the Minister and
inform him?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, if you would. I just
want to make it clear that this does not say
that there are institutions elsewhere that
would be suitable. There are perhaps cer-
tain situations for which there is not a physi-
cal facility available even in the United
States. But if the hon. member has a par-
ticular problem and he wishes us to take
a look at it, we can, and will.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, I was very interested in listening
to the Minister when he mentioned the fact
that objectives in the curriculum are clearly
defined. After seven or eight years of trying
to find out what was required, for example,
in the English literature outlines, I still have
not come up with anything that is very
tangible.
When I got new teachers in, I always
made a point of finding out if they knew what
the aims in English literature were; whether
it was simply for appreciation or what not,
particularly with the grades from 4 to 8. It
is spelled out a little more clearly from kin-
dergarten to grade 3. However, I still have
not found anything really concrete for the
teachers in this particular field.
I could also go on to the subject of com-
position and again there is a great deal there,
but it says very little. As I have said earlier,
in questioning new teachers I found they are
very hazy on what they should actually be
attempting to achieve, particularly in these
two fields. Mathematics and so on are some-
what better.
Another point I would like to make con-
cerns the great mass of new Fiji's that have
come in the last year and a half to two
years. In working with the teachers on the
new approach mathematics I found it rather
strange that even the inspectors were not
aware that Pljl was an addition to the little
grade course of study. They thought it was
something by itself at first. It was a whole
new curriculum. I think that the instructions
that are coming should be spelled out much
more clearly, because this is definitely what
happened in new-approach mathematics, j
They at first thought it was a whole new 1
course of study for mathematics. *
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to bring up the problem of the private ]
business schools or business colleges, as they ]
are referred to. I originally asked the Min- 1
ister whether we could discuss it under the 4
main office vote and he suggested this vote. ;
The business colleges or business schools ;
are running into a real difliculty today as s
a result of the growing emphasis on business ^
and commerce in secondary schools. They
find the community colleges running in com-
petition with their one, two and three year
courses in commercial education. Likewise,
they find competition from the vocational ]
training programme, that is programme 5. '\
They readily understand that all these pro- i
grammes, the three I have mentioned, are
necessary and are forward steps in the devel-
opment of education in the province. How-
ever, in spite of all that, Mr. Chairman, the
business colleges do perform a public service
and do fill a gap that is missing in our edu-
cational system. They are able to attract
students—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
not want to interrupt this: I know the hon.
member is anxious to give us his views on
private schools. I am just not sure how this
is related to the function of the department
because we are not taking any position con-
trary to them. Is it in the form of a question
or is the hon. member wanting to make a
speech in support of the private commercial
schools?
Mr. B. Newman: If the Minister will just
hsten, he will find out what I am trying to
get at. It is not lengthy, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, I am not saying
it is, I am just wondering how relevant it is
to the estimates.
Mr. B. Newman: It has to do with the
department. If I complete my remarks the
Minister will find where his department is
the drawback as far as the private business
school is concerned.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not the drawback.
Mr. B. Newman: Yes, you hinder their
progress—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we do not.
JUNE 6, 1968
4031
Mr. B. Newman: —through the develop-
ment or even—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the hon. member
we do not.
Mr. B. Newman: May I point out to the
Minister where he is. The private business
colleges can come along and attract students
and they can have them for either long
periods of time or short periods. They can
provide refresher courses which are not avail-
able in our present school system; they can
provide them at any time. They are able to
provide short courses in typing only— just the
one subject— in bookkeeping, in shorthand,
and you cannot get any of these in our
present educational system.
However, when it comes to them attempt-
ing to sell their commodity, their product,
their type of course, they run into problems
with The Department of Education. TJiey
are prohibited from competing with your
present educational system in their advertis-
ing. They wish to come along and state pub-
licly that they have courses in which they
can teach all of these skills, like shorthand,
typing, bookkeeping, and that not only can
a degree of proficiency be achieved by attend-
ing these business colleges, but the length of
time in which they can achieve this. Your
department forbids the private business col-
lege from explaining this in their advertising.
The private business college is not allowed
to come along and state that the course can
be completed in three months or six months,
because tliat competes against your other
educational system.
I have a communication from the depart-
ment on that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member
mean by a prohibition of advertising?
Mr. B. Newman: You just do not allow
them to come along and state in their adver-
tising that they can compete successfully
against your other types of education— against
your junior colleges and against your high
school commercial courses.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Show me the corres-
pondence and then we can understand it.
Mr. B. Newman: The business college is a
legitimate operation and should be allowed
to advertise its wares, just as any other busi-
ness, even as the community college does—
and the community colleges are advertising
all the time.
Why are there restrictions on advertising
when it comes to a business college? Why
can they not advertise and sell their wares
on a commercial basis? And why can they
not come along and try to entice the indi-
vidual to take the course in their institution,
rather than having to go into a community
college, if he so wishes?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member would give me the correspondence—
I think the poHcy is that a private business
school, or a private school that is, in fact,
not inspected by the department in an aca-
demic way, cannot advertise that they can
grant a secondary school graduation diploma.
I think this is understandable, but I still do
not quite understand the point being made
by the hon. member.
We have had many delegations from the
private business schools. There is no ques-
tion about it, they have diflBculties as the
programme in the high schools is expanding,
as the programmes in the colleges of applied
arts and technology— these programmes are
expanding, and are encroaching on what has
been the traditional area of involvement of
the private business school. There is no ques-
tion about this.
Is the hon. member suggesting that the
high schools and the community colleges
should not be doing this?
Mr. B. Newman: Not in the least.
Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member would send
me the correspondence which indicates that
they are being restricted from outlining just
what courses they have available, then I
shall be quite prepared to pursue it from
there.
Mr. B. Newman: I will just read the one
paragraph from the letter from the depart-
ment and that is:
Your suggested mode of advertising
could not be considered by this ofiBce—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but what is the sug-
gested mode?
Mr. B. Newman: I will continue:
To begin with, it is speculative and open
to argument. There is also reasonable
doubt that you could compete on an even
footing with the college of applied arts and
technology.
They are not attempting to compete. They
are simply trying to come along and sell one
subject, two subjects, or three subjects on a
short-term basis or a long-term basis, but the
department forbids them to advertise this.
4032
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: What is the ad they
wanted to put in?
Mr. B. Newman: They have submitted the
ad to the department and it was turned
down. I do not happen to have the ad here.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I think it is really
very relevant to the correspondence. If the
ad says, "we will offer a course comparable
to the course at the St. Clair college of ap-
pied arts and technology," and if in fact it
is not comparable, then is this a proper form
of advertising for people who might be inter-
ested?
Mr. B. Newman: I would agree with the
Minister completely, if that were the case.
But, where they come along and say that
"we can complete a course within a six-week
period of time, or a 12-week period, whereas
for this amount of dollars, were you to take
that course at, say, St. Clair college, it may
take you one, two, or three years." Why
should they not be allowed to advertise this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not saying they
should not be, I think it depends on the kind
of ad they put in. Give me the ad and I
will have a look at it.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I would just like to follow through on what
the hon. member had to say on the question
of private schools. He did say that they
hinder development and are being hindered
by the government.
I think what needs to be done in the prov-
ince of Ontario in relationship, particularly,
to some of these correspondence courses and
these private schools, is that we need some
kind of a consumer protection bureau for
those people. Maybe I should use a better
term. But some of these private schools get
their hooks into people and there is no way
they can get off the hook and they have to
continue paying.
I want to make this point— that there are
some people who attempt to upgrade their
education and they submit to a contract, I
recognize that. Then they find that they are
not on a sound financial basis or are not able
to complete tlie course. When they try to
get out of the course, even with due notice,
they are not allowed to. In other words, they
have to pay, even though they do not get
the product.
It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman,
through you to the Minister, that the govern-
ment should set something up to give these
people some protection, as they do to someone
who signs a contract and has a couple of
days to opt out of that contract. I think, in
this regard, if there is something that the
private schools or these correspondence
schools do not agree with, I think they bring
a lot of it upon themselves, in not letting
people opt out of these contracts.
As long as the schools are going to con-
tinue to insist that people continue with their
courses, then I tliink that the public pressure
is going to continue to the point that you are
going to have to take some action to give
these people the protection they need, so that
they can opt out of these private courses.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am very much
aware of the Minister's interest in history and
I thought I might raise at this time the sub-
ject of the sesquicentennial of George Brown,
the 150th anniversary of his birth in 1968.
The Minister has previously announced that
he will follow through with his programme
tliat started before Centennial year in making
appropriate books relating to this man avail-
able to top students— and, I would presume,
school libraries— as he did for John A. Mac-
donald.
I do not want to enter into any contro-
versy about this, but I can say— and I think
the Minister will agree with me on this— that
George Brown was one of the greatest poli-
ticians that Ontario has ever produced and
that, as a Father of Confederation, he had a
part to play that in many ways was un-
equalled. He also had a strength of person-
ahty that is an interesting sidelight to the
details of history that surround him.
I wonder if the Minister can tell us if tiie
government— and surely the administration
would be apprised by the Minister of Edu-
cation in this— if the government has any
plan to mark this event during the year. If
there is going to be any particular programme
or emphasis available through the school sys-
tem. And, in general, what way we are going
to use the event as a method of developing
more of the interest in history that both the
Minister and the other members of the House
wish for our young people.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I believe
—the Minister is not here— the Minister of
Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld) might
have at this point, although I do not think
any details are finalized, an indication of the
government's plans with respect to an appro-
priate observance of George Brown's contri-
bution to this province and to the country.
As far as this department is concerned, we
will be doing as we did for Sir John A. We
will be distributing to the schools system a
JUNE 6, 1968
4033
set— I guess there are two volumes— to be
presented— they will probabily go out in July
or August to be presented to students elected
by the principal or the senior staflF members in
the secondary schools in a manner comparable
to that which we did with Sir John A. Mac-
donald.
Vote 507 agreed to.
On vote 508:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to say that I have read with interest the
many statements of the Minister concerning
the implication of educational television, par-
ticularly in Hansard over the past three years,
and also his statement, of course, in the
Legislature this year. Another interesting
statement was to the broadcasting executives
society on March 7, 1968, and more particu-
larly, another source of information on the
Minister's views are found in the brief he
submitted to the standing committee on
broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts
of the House of Commons of the federal gov-
ernment.
In addition, there is information in the
minutes of that committee's meeting for
Tuesday, February 27, 1968, during which
the Minister was extensively questioned and
where he made some fairly extensive answers.
So I would like to say that I have followed
this matter quite carefully. I have discussed
it also with my leader, and I would like to
discuss a few points relating to the subject.
I would first of all like to say that I share
the Minister's concern that ETV takes its
proper and necessary place in the education
of Ontario students in Ontario. My remarks
refer particularly to in-school educational tele-
vision. I accept— and I have down here, ad-
mired, but I struck it out and put in
"accept"— I do accept the way in which the
Minister has been pushing for this in order to
get this very necessary tool of education prop-
erly functioning in tJie province.
So my remarks are not negative, they are
positive, but I have my doubts about certain
aspects of the Minister's policies in this area.
I particularly have a very deep concern about
the question of who ought to control the
production of ETV programmes; who ought
to control the actual content, both of the
series of educational television taped, or
video taped if you like, as well as the con-
tent of particular tapes.
Now I have stated my view on this particu-
lar aspect of educational television in this
province at quite some length in my maiden
speech in this Legislature on February 29,
1968, pages 335-340. It was my sole concern
in those remarks. Unfortunately, I do not
believe the Minister was here at that time
-unfortunate because I will have to refresh
his memory to some extent although much
more briefly than I did on that occasion.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the hon.
member I am reasonably familiar with what
was said on that occasion but if you would
like to refresh my memory, do so.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
will certainly make it much briefer than that
40-minute speech. I think these remarks,
which are partly from my remarks in the
Legislature, plus certain additions, might
preface the concern I have in this matter, Mr.
Chairman.
There is not a home in this province where
television has not done its share of shaping
all of us by its power alone, without the
authority of education behind it. Television
has the power to present to you an image
that has every appearance of truth, but the
authority of education can insist that it is
true.
The two questions then become: Who
assumes this power? Who commands this
authority? We must remember that the most
compelling authority young children can give
to a statement of opinion for beUef is simply
to be able to say, "I was there." Television
can take them there. And the central question
which I raise in this House once again, Mr.
Chairman, is this.
Will the Minister of Education of this prov-
ince be allowed to persist in government
control of an instrument that combines the
power of television and the authority of
education? Textbooks can be taken home;
they can be read by parents; they can be
examined by school boards, and rejected if
they are found to be propagandistic, or other-
wise objectionable.
But educational television programmes now
in use in this province are not subject to this
kind of public and open scrutiny. Their
images flash on the screen and they are gone,
leaving their impact where it cannot be
examined or repudiated.
Everybody agreed many years ago that
the state, the government, ought not to be
writing textbooks. Yet the present goverrmaent
is writing and producing school television
programmes and getting away with it. In
the next five years, this massive medium
of educational television will grow— and I
4034
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
must underline— must grow, into an agency
that will shape the ability, dedication and
integrity of millions of matruing citizens of
this province.
Whichever political party forms the gov-
ernment of this province in the years ahead,
they must remove the control of educational
television from the Minister of Education.
Some sort of independent commission, or as
the Minister says, authority, must interpose a
barrier between his views, the views of a
politician, and what actually is carried on
television to assist in education in this prov-
ince. In most countries on the European con-
tinent, "the broadcasting organization rather
than the state education authorities is ulti-
mately responsible for producing in-school
services".
The broadcasting organizations in demo-
cratic countries such as France, West Ger-
many, and Belgium, "normally are not subject
to direct government supervision; that is, once
the government has laid down basic policies
it usually allows the broadcasting organization
much initiative and freedom". Those refer-
ences are directly to educational in-school
television. The quotations are from a book
entitled "Radio and Television Broadcasting
on the Eiuropean Continent," by Burton
Paulu, 1967-pages 58 and 165.
This means that in these democratic coun-
tries, in-school educational television pro-
grammes are not directly produced, not
controlled, by a department of government.
This is in sharp contrast with what is today
taking place in Ontario. The existence of this
potential abuse of fundamental principle of a
free society has had, and is having, I believe,
an unfortunate effect on the development of
educational television in Ontario.
The Department of Education is aware of
the danger to which it is exposed, its creativ-
ity and initiative in ETV is stifled. It would
take only one clear-cut abuse to blow up in
public, to set educational television in this
province back yet another decade.
The inherent conflict of interest must be
removed by the imposition of an effective,
independent barrier in which the people of
Ontario have sufficient trust.
With those opening remarks, Mr. Chair-
man, which were written by myself I would
like now to try to support the point of view
I am taking by referring the Minister to
other sources which make this same point;
in other words to back up my point of view
with the point of view of people in this
province and in Canada.
I have first of all a submission by the
Canadian teachers' federation to the standing
committee on broadcasting films and assis-
tance to the arts, dated February 27, 1968,
and I shall refer briefly to direct quotations
on several of the pages.
And on page 1, quote:
We wish to make it very clear at the
outset on what basis we approach the com-
mittee. Our claim to expertise is not in the
area of broadcasting technology, but in
the teaching and learning activities of the
classroom.
Because we are teachers, our primary
concern is with those broadcasts, especially
television broadcasts, which are intended
for students in elementary and secondary
schools and their teachers.
Then the Canadian teachers' federation goes
on a bit further and says that one of the
major aspects of their concern is the follow-
ing, in their brief it is hsted as subsection (a):
The effectiveness of the arrangements
for production, distribution and control of
educational broadcasts.
And that is their centre of concern.
Another labelled subsection (c) states this:
Policy decisions affecting the educational
usefulness of broadcasting should not be
taken at any level without the involve-
ment of the teaching profession.
That is another point they make. Then, Mr.
Chairman, on page 4, the Canadian teachers'
federation states this:
Great importance attaches to the co-
ordinating and licensing agency. We con-
sider it highly desirable that powers of
regulation and control in this field be
wielded by a body created specifically for
the purpose of regulating broadcasting—
And this is what I wish to emphasize, Mr.
Chairman.
—and not granted to bodies which are
subject to political direction in their day
to day activities.
Control of broadcasting, in other words,
is not a proper function of government at
any level. It should be the function of a
public body specifically constituted for this
purpose on the authority of the Parliament
of Canada.
The point I wish to draw out of that quota-
tion is with respect to the question of govern-
ment control of programming, in particular
whether it is the federal government (X
whether it is the provincial government.
I
JUNE 6, 1968
4035
On page 9 of the same brief, Mr. Chair-
man, the Canadian teachers' federation states
this:
Broadcast facihties capable of providing
maximum coverage, developed and main-
tained with due consideration to the rela-
tive merits of the various methods of
distribution now available or under
development—
And I underline this,
—and controlled by an agency which is
neither dependent on commercial support
nor subject to direct political control.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, on page 10 the
Canadian teachers' federation says this:
We are not particularly concerned
whether the agency controlUng broadcast
facilities for ETV is a division of the
CBC or an independent authority, It must
have sound financial support, with no com-
mercial overtones; and it must be free,
within the broad limits of the public in-
terest as determined by Parliament, from
political control or interference.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I take great pains
to make those direct quotations is to show
that I am concerned with an issue. It is not
simply, you might say, an image. It is a
fundamental issue, which we must consider
in this Legislature.
Another much shorter quotation to sup-
port my point of view is from Lawrence H.
Rogers II, who is the president of the Taft
Broadcasting Company in the United States.
It is an address entitled "The Fifth Freedom,"
and he made this short remark before the
Canadian club, and the Canadian broadcast
executive society on November 6, 1967.
I would like to state there is much I find
objectionable in this particular address, but
I think the following quotation underlines the
point.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad you did not
ask me what I thought!
Mr. T. Reid: Well, the quotation near the
end suits my purposes, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not quote some of
the rest of it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Rogers is referring to the
experience in the United States and relating
this to educational television in Canada, and
here is what he says:
We are both at the same stage of devel-
opment. First steps have been taken to
provide a national ETV service.
Here I skip a few lines, then he says:
Both these noble instruments will be-
come tools of government propaganda, and
a decade ahead of 1984, unless the vigil-
ance of the people prevents it. The vigil-
ance of the people, expressed through the
votes of their MP's can keep this awe-
some weapon out of the hands of a power-
hungry government.
He refers to central government. I continue
quoting:
But only if the people are continually
alerted to the dangers by the media them-
selves. Nonsense, you might say, our tra-
dition of the free press will guarantee us
against this. Or the first amendment in the
bill of rights will prevent any such sub-
version of democracy in the United States.
But, he adds, pointing to his Canadian audi-
ence, "don't take this for granted." And he
meant, do not take it for granted in Canada.
I must admit that is not as good a piece of
evidence as the first quotation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree to that!
Mr. T. Reid: Finally, I would like to try to
put a hammerlock on the Minister by refer-
ring to an article published by Arthur
Knowles, who is presently the director, in-
structional aid resources, at York University.
He was, I believe, closely associated with
META and perhaps with the establishment
of educational television in this province.
I believe this is an article that appeared in
Continuous Learning, published by the adult
education association: the Minister is un-
doubtedly aware of it. Here is what Arthur
Knowles has to say, Mr. Chairman, and he
is a person who is very knowledgable in this
area.
He starts off by saying we must be very
careful about the relationship of government
power and programming of education on
television. And then, and I quote:
Because of the implications for increased
power and authority on the part of The
Ontario Department of Education, any pro-
posal related to the growth of a communi-
cations system, whether operated by gov-
ernment or business, which involves the
possibility that by 1974, 33 education tele-
vision stations would be operating in this
province, should be scrutinized with great
care.
4036
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is what I am attempting to do at this
time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Knowles continues
as follows:
Educational television consists of more
than school broadcasts. The Ontario De-
partment of Education plans to offer both
day time school broadcasts and night time
TV aimed at viewers, broadly defined as
adult education. And if the role of the
department in relation to classroom TV
for elementary and secondary schools is
open to question, it is even more question-
able in regard to adult education.
I do not wish to get into adult education
at all at this time. I want to remain on the
estimate. Mr. Knowles continues:
The proposal to establish 33 educational
television stations in Ontario to be operated
by The Department of Education raises a
crucial issue about the real functions and
authority of local boards of education, and
universities, community colleges and other
educational interests operating throughout
the province in the local communities. Will
local boards of education be required to
telecast classroom programmes in their
schools? What local option will be per-
mitted?
Will the local boards of education, for
example, be assisted to produce and broad-
cast programmes that have significance for
their community but that do not have
value elsewhere? What body will, in fact,
establish the programming policy of each
of the 33 stations? Will it be represen-
tative in each community of the various
educational institutions?
What eff^ect will the operation of an
ETV system whose programmes are cen-
trally decided and controlled have on the
average classroom teacher? Will teachers,
and principals be permitted an effective
voice in deciding how TV will be em-
ployed in their classrooms?
These questions should be of over-
riding concern to the citizens of Ontario.
The airwaves should be available in Ontario
communities to any and all legitimate
educational interesi;s, without—
And I underline this.
—without the possibility of a veto being
imposed now or at some future date by an
official of The Department of Education.
In addition to the potential conflict with
the long standing roles and functions of
local boards of education, it is even more
important that universities and other insti-
tutions of learning should have available
opportunities to express their educational
needs and interest through television with-
out being restricted in content or ideas by
government regulations.
And skipping a large chunk, Mr. Knowles
says this in concluding:
It will be too late to develop a pro-
gramme policy after the transmitters have
been erected and stations are operating
and staffed by Ontario government civil
servants.
The proposed ETV system in Ontario
should permit and stimulate community
and citizen participation in programme
decisions affecting their community. There
is little hope for change in this state of
affairs if the assumption continues to be
that good ETV can only come from
being despots— Ministers of Education-
dispensing programmes to a populace too
undiscriminating to recognize opportunities
for choice, or too lazy to choose if it does
recognize them. There is an opportunity,
as ETV develops, to create a system which
can help to remove the heavy hand of the
educational civil servant from the controls,
to be transformed into a system designed
for the maximum development of indi-
vidual interests and needs.
There is a real danger— continues Mr.
Knowles— in an educational TV empire
whose productions and programmes ema-
nate from a "flagship" station in Toronto.
On the other hand, if the total resources
of experienced ETV bodies such as META,
the universities, the teachers, other institu-
tions and individuals were to be employed
now, a genuine revolution in communica-
tion could take place:
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Knowles con-
cludes:
Of course, this raises another question—
what is the definition of education held by
the Ontario government? Is education
designed to maintain and establish on a
firmer foundation the existing system, giv-
ing support to the existing values that
operate in the society? Or is the educa-
tional system designed to create the poten-
tial and the capacity for change, not only
in the individual but in the society? If it is
indeed the latter, The Ontario Department
of Education would be wise to consider
enlisting all of the citizens of Ontario in
its approach to the development of ETV,
a medium which can be perhaps the most
JUNE 6, 1968
4037
significant and revolutionary agency aflFect-
ing our society.
Mr. Chairman, I stated my views briefly on
this. I have tried to back up my views with
a few expert opinions in this area. Now I
would like to turn directly to what the Min-
ister has said. I know the Minister is con-
cerned with this problem and I think we
must know his answers to some very specific
(luestions.
The Minister stated in this House, on
February 16, 1968, the following comments
concerning the establishment of an authority
of ETV in Ontario. I would like to quote
directly so the members of this House have
the exact context of his words, before I put
the questions to him.
The Minister said this:
As a result of our experience we will establish an
authority for educational broadcasting in Ontario.
This authority would be a board responsible to the
Minister and through him, to the Legislature, for
the direction and administration of educational
broadcasting in Ontario. The board's membership
will include representation appointed by the Lieuten-
ant Governor in council from groups such as school
board trustees, universities, teachers, adult education
association linking schools to parents and homes.
I was very pleased when the Minister made
that statement because it makes it possible to
move into what I consider to be a proper
independent educational television authority.
The questions I have for the Minister and
comments are these. I think these questions
are most important because they are the key
to an examination of this general statement
of policy by the government of this province.
This is where we get into, if you like, the
guts of decision making. The key questions are
the following:
First— what is the authority of this author-
ity? What is it to control?
Now as the Minister of Education stated, in
his Ottawa submission on page 7: "The extent
and nature of that control should be clearly
defined." The Minister has made that state-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, I agree completely that we
must clarify exactly what we mean by this
authority in its terms of reference, and so
forth.
The forthcoming legislation— and I would
assume it would be legislation— establishing
this authority must have some very specific
references in it. It must be most explicit con-
cerning the authority and control of this
board, particularly with respect to its relation
to the educational television branch of The
Department of Education,
Now the Minister of Education's statement
to this Legislature on February 26, included
this statement: "The board's membership will
include representation appointed by the Lieu-
tenant-Governor in council."
I am very pleased that the Minister has left
the door open, at least, for some members of
the board to get on that board without being
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
council. The question of how people get on
that educational television authority or board
is critical to a clear understanding of the
degree of autonomy and responsibihty of the
ETV authority in this province.
Another type of question which we must
have answers to, I think, Mr. Chairman,
before we approve the $6 miUion worth of
estimates is this—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I want to
interrupt here because we are really talking
about two separate situations, I suggest, with
respect. I did not interrupt earlier because I
guess these observations will be made,
whether they are made now or on introduc-
tion of the bill. But I think the hon. member
is getting into a discussion of a proposed bill.
We are voting estimates here for the ETV
branch, which is an established branch within
the department, which will carry on with or
without the bill, certainly for the balance of
this fiscal year. I am just wondering whether
we want to get into a debate on what may or
may not be in the bill prior to its introduction
here in the Legislature.
I wonder whether you want to relate the
debate on this particular vote to the ETV
authority, because I am not in a position to
tell the House the details of that legislation
until it is introduced. That is the only point
I would like to make. I do not mind listening
to or discussing it twice, but I just do not
think there is any point in doing it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I think the
Minister has raised an important point. I am
not arguing for consistency here and I am not
saying that now is the time to discuss it. But
I am saying, as in other aspects of education,
we have really discussed in detail tiie whole
question of policy. We have been hanging
policy discussions on the estimates.
I realize that this is at the wish of the
chair and I am really not too sure whether I
should stop here, having recorded my concern
on this and wait for the new biU to come in.
If the questions I am asking the Minister can-
not be answered at this time—
4038
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is the
point. I am quite prepared to get into, shall
we say, a discussion of ETV but I really think
we are going to repeat it when we get into a
debate on the actual bill itself. I think that
we might confine our discussions— and perhaps
they could be relatively brief— to the aspects
of the existing operation.
As I said in my statement and as I have said
for the past year or so, we are at a beginning
stage. We are just not at a point to make
certain final decisions or at least, we have not
been. We are much closer now, because we
just did not know what position we had with
respect to your federal friends as far as
transmissions are concerned.
I think this is really highly relevant; we
believe we have accepted basically the posi-
tion of the white paper presented to the
federal Parliament with respect to the division
of responsibility. That is, the federal jurisdic-
tion responsible for transmission and the pro-
vincial jurisdiction, whether it be the authority
—whatever agency is basically responsible for
production in the educational content. I just
think it is quite relevant that we keep this in
mind.
I do not mind debating it twice, but I just
do not see any purpose in doing it twice, that
is all.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr, Chairman, I would like
to just comment on this because we are-
Mr. Chairman: If the member would just
state his questions briefly and simply and
allow the Minister an opportunity to answer
them accordingly, if they are relevant to the
vote.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. I
will certainly do this on your ruling.
I would just like to make one point very
clear, because the Minister and I are engaged
in a slight debate on some fundamental
points.
It is this. The Minister stated that one
reason he might not be able to be as clear
on the nature of this authority now as he
will be later on, when the arrangements be-
ween the federal and provincial govern-
ments come—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I said I cannot be, now,
today. As I said, I could not have been a
year ago. We are much closer now to our
determination with the federal authorities.
I am in a position when the bill is introduced
to be specific with respect to the proposed
authority for this province.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, this is a small
point. I am simply talking about the provin-
cial issue of who controls the programming
of ETV, and I see now a discussion of some-
thing different from what I am essentially
worried about, but we might leave that. Can
I just say to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that
the question and recommendations that I
have made concerning the educational
authority posed by the Minister are contained
in Hansard of February 29, 1968, particularly
on pages 339, and 340. I would like to refer
tlie Minister to those questions and ideas
which I expressed there, and hope that some
of them would be incorporated into the
legislation v/hen it comes through.
Mr. Chairman, the specific question that I
would like to ask the Minister is: ^Vhen is
that statute establishing this authority going
to come before this House? Or do I simply
have to go out and make my speeches to
chambers of commerce and other people?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
not like to tax the hon. member, particularly
between now and the 25th with having to
make speeches outside of this Legislature. I
am sure that he wants to confine all his
time here. I would hope that it would be
here very shortly. In that the Ottawa mem-
ber did refer to certain other authorities with
respect to his own submissions, I would just
like to read a letter, and I will not read the
whole letter, because the second paragraph
really does not relate to this afternoon's dis-
cussion and it might be misinterpreted:
I want to express my personal and warm
congratulations on the nature of your pro-
posals on ETV to the provincial House
and to the parliamentary committee on
broadcasting as quoted in the press. And
I believe that your announced approach »
an excellent one, assuring as it will the
support and participation of many edu-
cational levels and institutions and agencies
in Ontario.
While there may be some disagreement
on details, I believe that you have em-
bodied in your proposals some important
principles with which we agree.
And the author of the very kind letter is the
author of the same article that the hon.
member referred to, and who is now a col-
league of his at the university of York. I am
just a little curious as to whether Arthur
wrote that article prior to the statement in
the House, because we are really only talk-
ing about five regional centres, not 33, and
there have been quite a few changes since
JUNE 6, 1968
4039
that article was written. I am just wonder-
ing if Mr. Knowles was still associated with
META at that particular moment.
I should also point out that while the hon.
member can read into his own position some
supporting material, there is a fair amount
of support for the position, and perhaps we
are not that far apart in principle with
respect to the position taken by the depart-
ment before the committee in Ottawa, and
in the presentation that I made here to the
Legislature. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we
may not completely agree on all details of
the legislation when it was introduced, but
I think that there will be some broad areas
of agreement at least.
Mr. T. Reid: I think that this is very help-
ful in clarifying what the Minister intends to
do and in having a record of it in Hansard.
I understand that the legislation pertaining
to this authority will not come to this House
before September.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I did not mention
September at all. I said very shortly. I said
that I did not want the hon. member wasting
his energies between now and the 25th,
speaking to chambers of commerce and what
have you. I thought that you might have
some other creative activities that you would
like to spend time on.
Mr. T. Reid: I would just like to know
when that legislation is coming in?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I said very shortly, and it
is on the order paper.
Mr. T. Reid: Will that be referred to the
education committee?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think without
any question.
Mr. T. Reid: Wonderful!
Hon. Mr. Davis: Your leader wants a lot of
work for the education committee, and I will
try to do my best.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I am just won-
dering when the education committee might
have a non-civil servant as a secretary. Why
could we not have a clerk of the House as a
secretary?
Hon. Mr. Davis: My only observation is
that he is a very fine secretary. I have great
confidence in the secretary of the committee,
I do not know how relevant it is but—
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to turn then to specific questions relating to
the estimates. What has been, and what is
the relationship in the television branch be-
tween the money spent on programme plan-
ning in the last two years, in programme
broadcast, and lastly, programme evaluation?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will en-
deavour to get this for the hon. member. It
will mean a breakdown and it will mean per-
haps three or four days to get the exact fig-
ures relating to production, planning, and
evaluation of programmes.
Mr. T. Reid: The three areas, Mr. Chair-
man, were programme planning, production
broadcast, and programme evaluation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think that we can
reach some common definition so that we will
understand one another, but it will take some
digging to do this.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the second
question is, what are the results of the evalu-
ation programme of the department in (a)
teacher acceptance of programmes, (b) pupil
acceptance of programmes, (c) production
improvement?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think that
it is really a shade early to get any reaction
other than that we have received from the
profession, from the students, which at this
point has been really very encouraging. I
cannot give it to the hon. member on a
straight statistical basis, and I do not think
that we can until we really get into a com-
prehensive approach to transmission here in
this province. As I say, I am somewhat preju-
diced, but the response that we have received
or that the branch has received from the pro-
fession and the schools has been quite en-
thusiastic, to the extent really that we have
had a very excellent response from outside
the province.
As I indicated to the leader of the Oppo-
sition last year in discussing this, and we
were really pioneering at that point, we have
had response from some schools in the state
of New York, and we have had a great deal
of interest very recently in many of the pro-
grammes that we have produced here, to
make them available for distribution in juris-
dictions outside the province of Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: You were pioneering as far as
Ontario goes. You are far behind many juris-
dictions.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is right. Oh, no, I
recall, Mr. Chairman— I do not want to get
into this. I am on second reading of the bill.
4040
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The position taken by the leader of the Oppo-
sition four years ago was that he wanted the
Minister of Education— not an independent
authority, not the CBC— but the Minister of
Education to estabhsh a provincial network
of television for oral French. I think it was
four years ago.
Mr. Nixon: You are still saying that you
cannot teach oral French.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say that. I said
that we cannot have it on a compulsory basis,
because we do not have sufficient teachers.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, do I under-
stand from the Minister that he has evalu-
ated his own programmes himself, and
therefore is not supplying—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. I am not compe-
tent to evaluate my—
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I think that
the Minister might give a very competent
evaluation of his own remarks. He lets us
know what they are all the time.
Do we have a system for evaluation of
ETV programmes in this province by the
department itself— of its own programmes?
The results would be very questionable.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I agree. The On-
tario institute is doing an evaluation for us
as well. We do not rely on the Minister
doing his own evaluation, I can assure you.
I quite honestly have not seen all the pro-
grammes, I must be frank, I have not, but
they are pretty good.
Mr. T. Reid: I think that is very helpful
to know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister
has OISE to do that evaluation. I hope that
some of these evaluations would be made
available to this House in time to discuss the
legislation setting up the authority. I think
that this would be very helpful.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that you will find
this quite positive.
Mr. T. Reid: Another question, Mr. Chair-
man. What provisions are being made to
ensure teachers' rights in educational tele-
vision in the same way that performers' rights
are now protected in commercial television?
Hon. Mr. Davis: They have the same pro-
tection.
Mr. T. Reid: Next question, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am de-
lighted to answer as many questions as I can.
It is just regrettable in a way that if there
were a series of questions relating to this
topic, and most of them were relevantly non-
controversial, I might have had some of the
information right here for him today, because
I get the impression that these have been -]
prepared for a day or so. ]
Mr. T. Reid: Oh, no, I am just thinking oa |
my feet! ^
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I know, I am sure
you are. i
Mr. Nixon: Are you suggesting he should
send his questions to you before they are
asked?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I just want to be
helpful and get the answer as quickly—
Mr. Nixon: Oh, you are being very helpful.
Mr. T. Reid: I like prying them out.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. T. Reid: I would hope, Mr. Chairman,
that in the light of what the Minister has
said, that he might provide answers to the
questions that I put to him on February 29,
when he was not here. The next question is—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have them ready.
Mr. T. Reid: Why in the light of the Min-
ister's statement of his intention to widen
the involvement of ETV decision making,
was the council on ETV virtually abandoned
two and half years ago?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Because it did not fit into
the long term plans of the development of
ETV here in the province. The authority will
fill in what perhaps the council was perform-
ing a year and a half ago.
Mr. T. Reid: What the Minister really
means is that the council was causing him
some trouble so he did away with it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No trouble whatsoever.
Mr. T. Reid: Why did you disband it? Out-
side advice, independent advice?
Hon. Mr Davis: This was not the eflFective
way of bringing it about.
Mr. T. Reid: It did not agree with your
ideas?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I did not present any
ideas.
Mr. T. Reid: Oh, well, who did then?
I
JUNE 6, 1968
4041
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not present any.
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister has very subtle
ways of presenting—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I have not.
Mr. T. Reid: We will get to that in Uni-
versity Affairs.
The next question, Mr. Chairman. There
are two originating curriculum bodies now in
T)he Department of Education, one the curri-
culum division and the other on educational
television. Why has this been allowed to
happen, since some two years ago the Min-
ister announced that one of its principal
strengths was tliat the content control of in-
school programmes was the responsibility of
the curriculum division, instead of people
who know production?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, of course,
structures change as we make progress. There
is still a very close relationship between the
curriculum division and the ETV branch,
but from a structural and administrative
point of view and an educational point of
view, it was felt advisable to do the work
within the ETV branch itself. There is a very
close relationship between the two branches
of the department.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I ask the Minister if
the personnel policies in hiring were adhered
to in the hiring of all the people now working
in the ETV branch of his department?
Hon. Mr. Davis: What persormel policies?
Mr. T. Reid: Is there not— do you not have
a civil service hiring policy? Are those posi-
tions advertised?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think the major-
ity of them were advertised.
Mr. T. Reid: The majority? How about
them all?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, no, they do not
advertise them all.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, there are certain
levels, surely?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe the majority of
them were and these would be at tiie level
set by the civil service commission. But every
government department also has the right to
take people on as casual employees.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, how casual is a two-
year employee?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Depending on your defi-
nition of "casual."
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, right, I suggest that a
person w^ho has been here for two years is
not a casual employee; he is sneaking in the
back door.
The next question, Mr. Chairman. How
many of tlie programmes of the department,
in the past two years, have been broadcast in
response to, and especially for, a region or
locality in the province? In other words, is
the Minister responding to local demand, or
is he still running things centrally from his
big bureaucracy?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there are
some 35 committees relating to the ETV
branch developing programme ideas and
these represent all areas or regions of the
province. To determine just which one on
that committee, or the 35 committees, and
how you respond to a particular geographic
region, I cannot say for the hon. member.
But there is representation from all regions
of the province on the 35 groups that are,
shall we say, suggesting the programming.
I surely would think this is a form of
response to the regions.
But, Mr. Chairman, it should also be
pointed out that we are not in a position yet
—and I do not w^ant to get into a somewhat
partisan situation here this afternoon— but the
reason we are not—
Mr. T. Reid: I am talking about pro-
gramming!
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, it does relate to
programmes, because we are very limited in
production and transmission. We cannot re-
spond to the total needs of the regions, or
the geographic areas of the province, because
we are not in a position to transmit.
The reason we are not in a position to
transmit is because we have had a very
questionable response by the federal authori-
ties, and this fact is well known by the
member.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I ask the Minister how
many programmes have been produced by
the government?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Some 415.
Mr. T. Reid: How many regions are there
in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Who knows? You define
"region" for me.
4042
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Take the six regions.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we take ten.
Mr. T. Reid: Okay, what is the distribution
of programmes based on recommendations
from the regions? You take ten? Thank you.
That is the answer I want. So you had 400
programmes, ten regions; did each region
initiate ten programmes? Where was the
local participation the Minister talks so much
about?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the com-
mittees are made up of personnel who are
representative of the various areas-
Mr. T. Reid: Are they elected?
Hon. Mr. Davis: They are not elected.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Perhaps the
member would direct his questions to the
Minister tlirough the Chairman, in an orderly
fashion.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They are asked to serve
in the same way as our curriculum com-
mittees.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, we will get into that
in another area, Mr. Chairman.
My final question— well, two short ques-
tions. Why was the name of Ontario educa-
tional television changed from the Ontario
television system to the Ontario Department
of Education television system? Is there any-
thing in this nomenclature at all?
It used to be called, I understand— and the
Minister will correct me if I am wrong— it
used to be called Ontario educational tele-
vision system. It is now called the Ontario
Department of Education television system.
Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to tlie
person who is doing the research— who, per-
haps, was at one time associated with the
branch, I do not know. Perhaps he should
dig into the names that were used more
carefully. I do not recall the first name used,
but I shall check it. I would have thought
the hon. member himself would have found
this out before he asked the question.
I will look into it, but I do not recall that
first name. I do not think it is relevant.
Mr. T. Reid: It is relevant. You come to
this House and say you are going to have
an authority to have a buff^er between the
government and educational programming.
Before that happens, he changes the name
of Ontario ETV to The Department of Edu-
cation television system. That to me reflects
something.
My final question, Mr. Chairman, is this—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member has a sus-
picious mind.
Mr. T. Reid: With this government, one
has to have a suspicious mind.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, not at all, not at all.
Mr. T. Reid: Which section of the TV
branch, under this particular estimate, Mr.
Chairman— how do they decide which pro-
grammes are to be selected or rejected for
broadcast for each subject, organization, ins-
titution? What criteria do you have?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a portion
of it is done through consultation with the
people in curriculum. This is how a good
portion of the decision is made, through these
committees; that is what the committees are
for.
Mr. T. Reid: I understand, Mr. Chairman,
the head man in the department's curriculum
division has final editing power over the—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he does not.
Mr, T. Reid: Oh, I thought we were talk-
ing about education. Surely the top man in
your curriculum division should have the
final say over editing and not a production
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it is not
a production man, but the personnel are
in the ETV branch of the department. We
have people qualified, in spite of what— well,
I will not get into that aspect of it— on the
source of some of your information— but this
is the answer.
Interjections by hon. members:
Mr. T. Reid: The information I have is
from no one who works for the government.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just looking at one
or two of the questions that were on the
order paper, and it gave me a little concern.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. T. Reid: My source of information is
a good source, but it is no one related to or
employed by this government. Okay?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I was thinking of some-
one that is part of your own organization.
Mr. T. Reid: He is not a government civil
servant. Okay? And it is not that person.
JUNE 6, 1968
4043
Mr. Chainnan, I am finished, thank you.
Mr. Marteh Just one point, to the Min-
ister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on the
people who are involved in the actual
presentation of material for children.
As we are all well aware, children are
used to watching TV that has very livewire
personalities, and so on. This is no reflection
on the teaching ability of tlie gentlemen who
produced or taught the new approach mathe-
matics lessons, but the very fact that they
were not real livewires became a real draw-
back to the children. They are not eager to
watch it, because they are used to the live-
wire personalities they see on television night
after night.
I am just wondering if the department is
giving any consideration to trying to find
personnel who have this sort of ability, be-
yond just being a teacher; to make it real
for the children in comparison to what they
see regularly.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, here, once
again, I have some of my problems, because
members of your own profession very strongly
represents to the branch and to me every time
I discuss it with them, "You should really have
a practising classroom teacher involved be-
cause they can do it best."
I think one could fairly state that we are
trying to achieve a balance, and we do have
professional people employed. We have not
taken anybody from "Gunsmoke", or "Bat-
man", or anybody at this level yet, but there
are professionals employed in the produc-
tions of ETV branch, no question about that.
As I say, there are still many in the teaching
profession who say to me, "You know, these
should be teachers." I think there is a place
for the professional and the practising teacher,
but obviously—
Mr. NL\on: You have lots of livewire
teachers.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Lots of livewire teachers.
In spite of what the member for Sudbury East
said, there are lots of livewire teachers, and
some of them can do it very well.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I might be able
to leave the area of the television authority
due the fact it looks like this matter will be
coming down in legislation?
I would like to comment on a statement
which the Minister made just a few minutes
ago under another item. I think it reveals
something about the whole concept of edu-
cational television which worries me, in view
of the fact that educational television is going
to be one of the most important forms of
transmitting experience to young people
which perhaps we will have in this province.
There are two aspects to it. The first one
is that I think we must not treat educational
television as simply another form of textbook.
I think that is the term the Minister used.
He compared it to a textbook, another
resource—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, yes, it is a re-
source, but I do not know that you can
compare it to a textbook.
Mr. Pitman: I do not feel that this is
really taking full comprehension of what
educational television actually represents in
terms of a medium. Now I am not going to
start quoting Marshall McLuhan, but indeed
the medium is the message in this situation.
Perhaps I might give you an indication of
this by what I suspect, what I hope, is going
on in every classroom in this province which
has a television set. I would hope that the
whole curriculum for today in the schools
of Ontario is that of having a television set
on and finding out something about human
motivation; something about race relations;
something about the federal system of gov-
ernment in the United States; something
about elections; really something about the
whole human predicament.
That is what I mean by television having
an impact which makes it more than just a
different "resource." It makes it a different
kind of medium, and I think this is one of
the reasons why the member for Scarborough
is concerned about the authority.
In a sense television can, I think, have an
impact upon individuals, certainly upon a
young individual, which is far beyond any-
thing which a book, or a film, or filmstrip
can have. It is present knowledge; it is
present experience; it is involvement. And
I just cannot, as yet, have any assurance that
The Department of Education has recognized
the full impact of this, in its treatment of
educational television as a resource for the
curriculum.
I cannot see, for example, simply seeing a
topic here and a topic there being thrown
out or a particular aspect of the curriculum
being used for educational television and
then going back to books or some other media.
I think there has to be a whole philosophic
approach to this problem of educational tele-
vision which I have not yet seen come out
4044
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of The Department of Education. I am con-
cerned, if this much money is going to be
spent, that there be some very in-depth
thinking about how this is going to be done.
I am concerned as well— to come back again
to the problem of decentralization— if these
programmes are going to be produced at the
centre, particularly if they are going to be
sent out at particular hours of the day, and
the whole timetable of the school is going to
revolve around this, then really we are on a
treadmill— well, the Minister is shaking his
head. May I say then, that I hope the Min-
ister has a full grant programme ready to
provide the boards of education across this
province with the hardware that they need so
they can tape these programmes that are being
transmitted by the Minister— excuse me, by
the Minister's authority.
Hon. Mr. Davis: You will offend the hon.
member for Scarborough East, now be careful.
Mr. Pitman: I hope that they will provide
grants for the hardware to provide for the
storage of these tapes— a central location of
the board. Provide for the tables to send them
out to the schools where the teachers need
them, and a good deal of freedom in the use
of these materials.
Up until now there are no grants for any
of these things except TV sets, and I think I
asked a question a few weeks ago and the
Minister indicated that they were working on
this.
I think that if the teachers and the school
boards are going to be prepared for the use
of this media, then as I say, I hope that tliere
is a whole series of conferences and various
ways of recognizing the in-depth philosophic
aspect to this whole use of educational tele-
vision. I repeat, this can be the most impor-
tant development in terms of adult education,
in terms of creating the kind of creative mind.
It is the most important development in
terms of all the exciting things which have
been suggested in tlie Minister's speech. I
think that this medium can do a great many
of these things in a way that no other medium
can.
I would suggest even the question of family
life, which has already been discussed, can be
done through educational television in a way
perhaps that no other medium can do it. One
of things which I am sure all of the members
of this House are obsessed with right now in
this day is the kind of sick society which has
produced the tragedy which took place in the
last couple of days in the United States. This
society triggers off people who are emotionally
disturbed and I suggest that preventive efforts
in treating emotional instability— these can
be done through educational television.
As I say, so far all I have seen is television
as an appendage— a replacement for parts of
textbooks. So far all I have seen is an
attempt to fit educational television into the
traditional flow of curriculum. So far I have
even heard people talking about the use of
educational television to provide for examina-
tions, for heaven's sake. This is ridiculous.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know who you
have been listening to. You have not heard
that from the department.
Mr. Pitman: No, I have heard it from peo-
ple involved in educational television who are
not associated with the department, but who
are very close to the department.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes, but you have not
heard that from the department.
Mr. Pitman: This is something which very
much worries me and I would like to hear
the Minister's thoughts on this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We feel the same way—
it is not related to that at all. Not at all.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 508? The leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. member for Peter-
borough said he would hke to hear from the
Minister on those things, so perhaps—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I got the last one and I
just say there is no discussion of discrimi-
nation and so on.
Mr. Nixon: Right. I want to make just a
few comments on educational television.
The Minister no doubt is aware that it was
discussed in this House even before he was
Minister. I well remember his predecessor,
and even the Minister, in his early years in
this responsibility, reacting to the suggestions
as if they were a gimmick.
We know that the administration has come
forward some considerable degree since then.
I remember the speeches that the Minister
referred to, rather casually, a few; moments
ago, when I said that the Minister should set
up an educational television network in which,
among other things, conversational or oral
French could be a subject. I still think that
that is a very valid suggestion.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the record
will bear me out that, when legislation was
provided for educational television, our major
objection was that it was under the direction
JUNE 6, 1968
4045
of the Minister and that nobody was inter-
posed—
Hon. Mr. Davis: There was no legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the discussion at that
time—
Hon. Mr. Davis: But there has never been
any legislation.
Mr. Nixon: When it first appeared as a
separate section of the estimates there was
this discussion, so I do not want the record to
show that the Minister has, in any way, been
commenting about something I might have
said in the past out of context and in that way
misleading those who would peruse his words
very carefully at some future date.
I want to ask the Minister, however, what
the involvement of the department is in the
experimental systems that are planned and
are in the process of being set up in both
London and Ottawa. I asked the Minister— at
least the question was asked in my name of
the Minister two or three weeks ago— that
the system in London, which is based on what
the experts call a 2,500 mega-hertz system. As
I understand it, this is very close to being a
closed circuit system and cannot be picked up
by any receivers other than those that are
specially modified or built.
This must surely qualify for some sort of a
grant. I believe it is an interesting develop-
ment, and one that may make some changes
necessary in the basic philosophy of the Min-
ister's proposed authority. This authority, I
suppose, would have jurisdiction over the
county school boards in their individual
eflForts to provide educational television while
they are waiting for the difficulties that are
holding up the provincial effort to be ironed
out.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, our
involvement witli respect to the 2,500 mega-
hertz system in London— which, I believe, in
this instance is a three-channel system,
although I believe they do go to 12 chan-
nels. The department was asked as to its
reaction to it and, of course, we raised no
objection in that it fits in completely.
Our approach to ETV takes into account
the 2,500 mega-hertz system which is, shall
we say, a relatively new piece of technology
available to it. We are taking into account
the possibility of satellite transmission and
so on. Our whole concept is based on the
inevitability of certain technological change,
no question about that, and we did not object
as far as the federal jurisdiction was con-
cerned with the issuance of the licence to
the London board.
We have not as yet gone into the position
of paying grants from the department per se,
although I believe there was some federal
assistance with respect to the equipment
and money, but I am not sure of this. But
we are not paying out grants, as a depart-
ment, to this type of operation at this point.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister knows that I am
quite interested in the way the programme
or the establishment is going ahead in Lon-
don, and particularly over the necessity of
having as open a bid as possible for the
provision of this equipment. I did not realize
that there were no funds in this estimate,
or comparable estimates, for that purpose.
Yet it appears that in the future, and in the
$5.8 million that we are asked to vote, that
some of these fimds will be spent in pay-
ment of favourable contracts to provide some
of the equipment that we will need.
Is it the custom of the federal Department
of Transport to require the specification of
individual pieces of equipment, rather than
the equipment or its equivalent, in the call-
ing of tenders for broadcasting apparatus?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as I under-
stand the practice of the federal agency, it
does not require, as suggested in the leader
of the Opposition's press release— I read it—
that public tendering must precede the sub-
mission of a licence application to The
Department of Transport. I do not believe
this is, in fact, the case.
If the equipment by the successful bidder
is different from that listed in the technical
brief, the licensee may go back to Tlhe
Department of Transport and request per-
mission to substitute, provided that the equip-
ment, so designated, can obtain The Depart-
ment of Transport's acceptance. In other
words, you do not have to tender. You go for
tlie licence, based on some technical infor-
mation and equipment, and if you want to
make a substitution you go back to The
Department of Transport to obtain informa-
tion. This is as I understand the procedure.
Mr. Nixon: I think that one of the diffi-
culties in the whole matter, and there is
more than one difficulty.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is relatively complicated.
Mr. Nixon: Yes. That difficulty is that
technology is progressing so quickly that it
lies largely on American research, or perhaps
research in Europe, to have the equipment
4046
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that is reasonably in the vanguard. That is
the most advanced and the most technical
perfection. In many ways it really excludes
industry from competing, since our lines of
equipment are usually directed toward appa-
ratus that has a larger sale, that meets a
larger part of the market here.
I can see that there will be a tendency to
buy most of the equipment through Ameri-
can firms or Canadian firms that deal only in
importing this equipment. I suppose we have
to have the best, but I think that the method
of tendering should emphasize the possibility
of Canadian development that would be
brought about simply to provide expanding
needs that the Minister's branch can envisage
for this year and the year after.
I believe in his testimony in Ottawa, if that
is what it should be called, he said that we
expect to spend $5 million this year, and
this will rise to $10 million in the subsequent
years.
I believe now that the federal government
has a commitment to move ahead with the
facilities tliat the Ontario branch feels neces-
sary to transmit its programme on an educa-
tional network in the province. What is the
Minister's understanding there? Has he been
following releases from the Prime Minister of
Canada's office in recent weeks? Or is he
basing his decision on simply the information
that has come to him through more official
channels?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am sub-
ject to correction here, but really we must
wait. We are optimistic that we are going to
get some form of commitment from the
federal agency, whatever agency it may be.
As I understand it we still have to await the
report. I do not know what happens— there
will have to be a new committee, I guess,
of Parliament appointed to consider the
legislation, because the bill, I guess dies
with the dissolution of ParUament.
Mr. Nixon: I think the commitment, as I
understood it, if you will permit me, Mr.
Chairman, was that this would be an item
of priority.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but it still has to have
legislation, as I understand it, and legislation
—who knows, when the present leader of the
Opposition forms the government on June
26, when he plans to call the next sitting of
the federal-
Mr. Nixon: We are talking about the Min-
ister's friends now.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think that this
happens. I am very optimistic about it going
through. I read Mr. Stanfield's speech about
ETV a day or so ago. I was really quite
impressed. Oh, yes, I read it. I am just not
in a position to tell the hon. member. I do
not know what happens on June 25 or there-
after. We have to wait for this legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there is one
other matter in the yellow book of informa- ^
tion that the Minister provided. I do not \
think it is necessary to turn that up, but as I ]
understood it, he was saying that the empha-
sis so far was at the elementary level, and the
time-tabling structure made it particularly
difficult at the secondary level to use educa-
tional television under the facilities that we
now have.
He indicated that certain technological
breaks-through would improve this. What
about the restructuring of the time-table at
the secondary level to make educational tele-
vision more usable? I think this has got to
be one of the biggest problems that the
branch is going to face— that the programmes
are going to be in the ether, but nobody is
going to be watching them because of the
timetable structure in the secondary schools.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is
obviously one of the problems, and I will
send this— I will get copies for the hon. mem-
ber. It does not relate specifically to ETV
but it is the whole concept that you were
referring to earlier of ungraded, or an indi-
vidualized, approach at the secondary level.
I think we can do a great deal with time-
tabling, but one of the obvious solutions will
be with the development of the divisional
boards, where they need the provision of
video tape recorders to make the programmes
available at the hour that suits the individual
teacher. This is technically possible, and this
is how we see it being handled.
Mr. Pitman: When will the grants be
coming?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The grants are being con-
sidered, Mr. Chairman. I know the hon.
member is anxious to get a commitment for
so many dollars on a video tape recorder. I
cannot really help him with that here today.
Mr. Nixon: This has got to be the solution
so that a teacher of history or science or
language can schedule a programme for the
next day and, by touching a button, have a
programme appear on the screen in the teach-
ing situation.
ii
JUNE 6, 1968
4047
This sounds pretty advanced, and yet I
believe it is quite capable of achieving this.
But I hardly see the funds here that are
going to achieve this, if the same funds are
going to be used to provide the basic pro-
gramme content and the five television
mobiles that are going around the province
selling the programme to those who are less
enthusiastic than those of us in this House.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is the
problem we are in— we do not know how
much capital we will, in fact, be investing
this year, because we do not know yet what
the time factor is. This amount relates basi-
cally to the production and transmission of
the programmes. It does not relate to what-
ever capital we may have to expend for pro-
vincial production facilities until we have our
position clarified with Ottawa.
Mr. Nixon: Does it cost you anything to
transmit the programme?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, we are paying
fees to the private broadcasters who are in
the process of negotiation with the CBC as
for next year. It has not been finalized yet.
About $250,000.
Mr. Nixon: Who builds the transmission
facilities? I assume that it will be the federal
government.
Hon. Mr. Davis: And we hope at no cost
to the province.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister must have some
idea as to what the bill will be that will be
met by the taxpayers. What is the estimate
for a fully-established educational television
network?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I really
cannot give a complete estimate here. Our
own estimate for capital expenditure, say in
the first full year after transmission facilities
are available to us, would be in the neigh-
bourhood of $45 million. There will be a like
sum, I think, for two years thereafter to build
up the basic core facility.
Mr. Nixon: I do not know whether you are
talking— I am talking about setting up the
transmission facilities. If the government of
Canada, in fact, decides they will do it, as I
trust they will—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot give the hon.
member a figure on this because we just do
not know what approach they are going to
take to the-
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but it would be similar to
the one that you had before, surely, where
you had the lovely map with the television
towers, and the littie jagged lines coming
out. Do you remember that one? A very
good map. I would think if they were going
to blanket the province of Ontario with edu-
cational television facilities, it would have to
be something like that. What was your esti-
mate of cost?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, once again
we still do not know what the plans of the
federal government will be, but a transmitter
is in the neighbourhood of $400,000 to
$500,000, and it depends on the approach
that they take. If they go to a 33-transmitter
structure, then this is $16 million. If they
can do it through, shall we say, five regional
transmitters, then we are talking something
less. We just do not know at what rate they
may do this. But if you could do it on the
basis, say, of cost per transmitter it would be
in the neighbourhood of $.5 million per trans-
mitter.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 508. The member for
Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, this might be
a point of personal privilege. I was wonder-
ing if it is possible to strike from Hansard
the references the Minister and I made to
where my source of information came from?
The remarks as recorded in Hansard point
very specifically to the individual as one who
works in this building. I assure the Minister
that my source of information did not come
from anyone in this building. It came from
a person who lives miles from here and I
just do not think that should be in Hansard.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right.
Mr. Chairman: Everything—
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister agreed with me
that these remarks should be stricken from
Hansard.
Mr. Chairman: Well, the Chairman would
suggest that in the opinion of the chair, based
on information related to me, I doubt very
much that the remarks can be stricken from
Hansard.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I was going to make that point.
Nothing can be struck from Hansard.
Mr. Nixon: I think, Mr. Chairman, what
my hon. frend is suggesting is that the posi-
tion be made clear in the record as it now is.
An hon. member: Right.
4048
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, may I
clarify it from my point of view. I made a
reference to an individual who is part of
the leader of the Opposition's research staff,
who has taken a particular interest in ETV
and also in information systems. We have
discussed some of these items and this is
my only reference: whether he is a civil serv-
ant. I understand he was a member of the
leader of the Opposition's staff, and he has
taken an interest in ETV.
Mr. Nixon: He did not do the research.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No.
Mr. T. Reid: I would just like to state that
no person in this area supplied me with my
information. I have been operating as an
independent operator.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I guess he has been
supplying it to the leader of the Opposition
—very good material some of it.
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, but the questions I
raised are pretty darn embarrassing to you
and they did not come from him.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They were not embar-
rassing to me at all.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): You have spoiled
your position, that's what—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Not embarrassing at all.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: You had a good point
up to that moment.
Mr. Chairman: I think the records will now
show the correct situation.
Vote 508 agreed to.
On vote 509:
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, this is a wdde-
ranging bit I have to say about teacher edu-
cation in the elementary system. We have a
saying on the first day of school that you
take the new teacher down to the classroom
and shove her in, you quickly close the door
and hope for the best. On the other side of
the door is the teacher, who is suffering a
traumatic experience simply because of the
inadequacy of the training that the teachers
receive in the teachers' colleges of Ontario.
I want to elaborate upon some of these,
where we are failing the teachers and where,
as a result, we are failing the students of
Ontario.
One of the first things I feel that should be
stressed heavily is a great variety of peda-
gogical methodology. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, we should be providing a great
variety of teaching, with grouping upgraded
systems and individualized work in the whole
sphere of teaching. Really, we just cater to
one group in the class make-up.
We apparently cater to the average student
and this is the way it is taught in teacher's
college. I do not think it is much different
now than it was when I was there and that
was not very long ago. Because in talking to
four former students of mine, who have just
graduated from teachers' college, they felt
as I did when I graduated from teachers'
college, that what I took I could have taken
in approximately six weeks because there
was so much missing.
I think we have to get away from teaching
this one group. There are great reports in
the newspapers of this going on; unfortu-
nately, no one is being trained to do it. I
came out of teachers' college to teach three
groups in one subject, and to be able to
prepare seat work and so on for these three
groups was completely foreign as it was to
most other teachers and as it is today.
To talk about upgrading systems, teachers
are not getting any of this in teachers* col-
lege-or a very, very small smattering of it-
and then we are going in and we are trying
and we are experimenting with children and
the children suffer. I think it is high time that
if we are going to go to ungraded, if we are
going to go to individualized work, that we
get serious about it in the teachers' colleges.
Another area that is extremely weak in the
teachers' colleges is note making. There is
absolutely next to nothing when it comes to
note making in the teachers' colleges of
Ontario. If you can get an essay note down
and a point form note, this is about the sum
total of what teachers' colleges are offering.
And yet, in the school I was at, we were
able to draft 18 pages of different types of
note making. I am not asking you to accept
mine, but it should be part of the curriculum
in teachers* colleges so that the teachers have
a great variety of presentations and a great
variety of ways that students can chart notes
and a whole variety of methods other than
just simply essay or point form.
Another grave weakness in the teachers*
colleges is the testing programme. I cannot
recall taking anything with respect to setting
up testing in any field. Whether it was
history, English, mathematics— you name it—
we were taught absolutely nothing. As a
JUNE 6, 1968
4049
result, you go into the schools today where
the teacher is making examinations or tests,
and they are so terribly easy, they are vir-
tually useless; on the other hand, they make
them so diflBcult that most students fail them.
I think that there has to be a great deal done
in this particular area.
Another area that I believe should be
dropped out of teachers' colleges is teaching
fact in science or teaching fact in history and
so on. I am not talking about the two-year
programme, which is non-existent or going
out. But I am talking about teaching science
fact at the grade 2 or 3 level and asking
examinations on what a tuber is, of a person
who is at teachers' college, which is virtually
useless.
The other main concern I have in teacher
training is the tremendous change that is
needed in the courses offered in child psy-
chology. There is so very little, and if we
are to do a job of teaching children, then
we must have a tremendous lot more in the
courses in the teachers' colleges to enable
the graduates to assist and understand the
children when they go into a classroom.
I think that from my opening remarks
these are the reasons why teachers are going
in unprepared. They do not get enough
methodology; they do not get enough on
note making; they do not get enough on
testing or do not get enough on psychology.
Consequently, they are ill-prepared to do the
job that is necessary if we are going to have
successful students going into the high
school.
I hope the Minister does not think I am
simply trying to tear it apart. I am trying to
be most helpful. These are the areas I have
tremendous difiBculty in as a teacher and as
a principal. I had to do a tremendous amount
of work with my staffs in order to help them
in these areas.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 509. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask a number of questions in regard to
the development of teacher training. Per-
haps I might just preface my remarks by
reminding the Minister it is one of the most
innportant votes in this entire estimate.
Essentially, no matter what we talk about
in relation to all the various media and all
the various hardware of education, the suc-
cess of education and the success of our
whole system depends on the individual
teacher before a class— any relationship be-
tween that class and the teacher.
I think that probably one of the most
valuable documents that has been brought to
light in this province is the report of the
Minister's committee on the training of ele-
mentary school teachers. I do not think any-
thing more needs to be said on that. I noticed
that just a few weeks ago, the Toronto school
trustee, Mr. Ross, suggested that Ontario is
turning out ill-prepared teachers who must
be retrained by local boards and referred to
this "Mickey Mouse teacher training."
I do not associate myself with that remark—
I do not think it is "Mickey Mouse teacher
training", but the Minister's committee did
reveal a number of areas, particularly in the
area of securing maturity. I think that this
word maturity comes up again and again in
this document. What I really would like to
know, perhaps in a number of areas, is where
are we going in solving this problem? The
Minister's committee, of course, suggested
that teacher training should move to the
campuses of the various universities across
the province. This has already been done at
Lakehead and the University of Ottawa.
I noticed in the yellow book which ac-
companied the Minister's remarks the other
night, he suggested there v/ere two or three
other universities who were now ready to
include teacher training, or teacher education
would be better terminology, within the
spectrum of their university offerings. I am
wondering just which universities these are
and what is the timetable for bringing teacher
training into the university campuses across
the province?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, obviously
there will have to be a staggered timetable.
You cannot bring them all in at the same
time or you would have great difiBculty with
the teacher flow. I cannot give the hon.
member a specific answer because there are
a series of meetings coming up in the next
two to three weeks with various representa-
tives from the universities that will give us,
I think, a very clear indication of the time-
tabling. Our own intention as a department
is to move as rapidly as we can to the integra-
tion of the teachers' colleges with the uni-
versities, and quite obviously this will be
done in those areas where the colleges are
preferably geographically located either on,
or close to a university campus. This, I think,
is the obvious place to begin and this means,
of course, that Laurentian, the Lakehead,
Brock— those are the three-
Mr. B. Newman: Do you have any plans
for Windsor?
4050
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Windsor is not
perhaps as diJBBcult a problem because it is
not geographically that far away from the
University of Windsor campus. But I cannot
set out any timetabling as to the specific
institutions until these meetings are con-
cluded over the next, I think, roughly two,
perhaps three weeks, but this is the overall
policy of the department. There is no ques-
tion about this.
Mr. Pitman: Is it assumed in the Minister's
mind that these will take place two or three
this year, and perhaps two or three the
following year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Right. It has to be stag-
gered, it cannot happen all in one year.
Mr. Pitman: I was wondering if this, at
least in part, is because of the tremendous
expense which will be involved.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Part of it is related to
economics and if you move to a two-year
programme, say at all teachers' colleges in
one single year, that means that you are a
full year without any elementary school
teachers moving into the system. This would,
I think, create a situation that could not be
acceptable so it would have to be staggered
over a period of years. Part of it is economics,
part of it is just straight practical problems.
Mr. Pitman: Yes, well this has been a
feeling I have had that— and this problem of
priority comes up again— I know the Minister
is involved in a massive expansion of facili-
ties through the colleges of applied arts and
technology and the tremendous demands from
the universities, and I was wondering whether
it might not be something worth considering
just what priority teacher training should
have. I would suggest to the Minister that
this should be one of the major priorities.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We think it is the highest
priority.
Mr. Pitman: Fine. I wonder if I could ask
the Minister some questions about the feel-
ings of the university presidents— I think it
has been communicated to the Minister. Has
the Minister been able to overcome the prob-
lem of the admission? I think the feeling of
university presidents was that admissions
should be the same for the art students and
for the teacher trainees— those who are receiv-
ing teacher education.
Now I think the Minister said in his re-
marks that he was hoping to bring that up to
55 per cent and then to 60 per cent by
1971, I think it was. The question I really \
wanted to ask is this. As I pointed out to i
you the other night, and I do not want to get ]
into this question again, the meaning of 60 \
per cent no longer holds really the same kind i
of meaning as it did before. What I am j
asking is: Will those who are being brought |
into the universities for elementary school |
training have the same qualifications? We \
may very well find that with the change in
the system in grade 13, we will have many
more people with 60 per cent and possibly
the whole university system will have to put =?
up its admission requirement and that the "
universities and the department will feel that
65 per cent under the new system would be ,;
a more accurate configuration in terms of '
deciding who should be best at a university
and that 55 per cent and 60 per cent at a
college of applied arts and technology. I do
not know.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think it i
is fair to say that I just hate quoting the
committee of presidents because I am not
sure that I should, but my reaction to their
reaction— put it this way— is that they are,
in principle, now very much in favour of
helping with this, shall we say, integration
of teacher education in the universities. i
Mr. Pitman: I hope the Minister is right. '
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think they are in
favour of it. We run into certain practical
problems, one being the question of admis-
sion, the other being the question of the j
number of courses to be related to, shall we
say, the universities' responsibility and the
number that should be directed basically to
teachers' education. These are some of the
areas that have yet to be resolved. This is
why I say until we finalize the meetings over
the next three weeks, I cannot tell you just
what institutions and what will be the policy,
but my reaction is that they are really trying
to be helpful. There are some very real
problems yet to be resolved.
I should also point out that the question
of admission, too, is one of these things that
is hard to predict. We are saying that by
1970 we probably will have a sufficient flow
of young people interested in the teaching
profession that the 60 per cent is within
reach, but I think we must also look at— and
this once again is taking maybe an optimistic
or positive approach— once it is moved into the
university environment and it is moving
towards a form of degree situation for an
individual, perhaps this in itself will attract
JUNE 6, 1968
4051
more people and the question of 60 per cent
will not be as relevant either.
In other words, what I am trying to say,
is that I think there will be more young
people interested in the teaching profession
when it becomes part of the university envir-
onment. I am maybe a shade optimistic but I
think this could be the case.
Mr. Pitman: I hope the Minister is right
but what I am worried about is that you
suggest that until these conversations are
over with, we do not know what the policy
is, but surely the pohcy must be the same
for all universities in terms of the general
areas.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is why I say we are
meeting with the sub-committee and the
committee of presidents. We recognize there
has to be some uniformity of policy and this
is why I cannot say what it is on this parti-
cular occasion because we have not finalized
these discussions with the universities.
Mr. Pitman: Perhaps the Minister could
just nod his head as to whether he has agreed
that capital progress will be completely sop-
ported by The Department of Education.
That is, can universities expect it?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, we are. As far as the
capital provision facilities, the universities
have made a point that this should be a
responsibility of the department and we have
accepted this point of view.
Mr. Pitman: Also last night I mentioned
the whole question—
Hon. Mr. Davis: But they will be financed
tlirough The Department of University Affairs.
Mr. Pitman: Just on that remark is the
hope that they may transfer this question of
teacher training over to The Department of
University Affairs?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not think this is
relevant. I think they are transferring it over
to the universities. It is not a question of an
interdepartmental transfer really in the long
run.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I think the presidents*
feehng was that if teachers in training were
to feel completely a part of the university
setting, I think this is what the report wishes.
I think what most of the universities wish to
do is to do exactly what the Minister's com-
mittee has suggested and that is to make a
teacher, an individual, involved in teacher
education, a full person within the faculty of
arts and science so they will not face second-
ary status. They have a full status as a mem-
ber of the university and a member of the
faculty of arts and science. I think this may
be very important as to just where teacher
education is placed in the Minister's depart-
mental responsibihties. I am wondering—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it must be kept in
mind that my own view is that teachers' cer-
tification has to lie, of course, with The
Department of Education. You may physi-
cally transfer, in the estimates, in areas of
responsibility, shall we say, to the universi-
ties and University Affairs Department, the
question of certification— and I think the
report recommends this.
Mr. Pitman: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That certification must
remain with The Department of Education.
Mr. Pitman: I do not think that universities
ever suggested at any point that they wished
to take over certification.
Mr. Nixon: They have not any more right
to certify than the Minister. The teachers'
professional organization might have.
Mr. Pitman: They would wish, at least,
particularly if they have to go over the edu-
cational process within the universities.
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask, too,
the whole question of research. I think the
only way that education is going to receive
proper status at any universities is if we can
associate a degree of research. Now there is
some feeling, I think, on the part of university
people that with the establishment of the
Ontario institute for studies in education
there might very well be an overabundance,
an overemphasis, and perhaps an overcon-
centration of research in that institute, and
that teacher education will then no longer
be able to achieve status in the individual
university.
Last night I suggested the possibility of
setting up research and development centres
in each of the universities.
I know one of the things that the Minister
gets very concerned about— and rightly so—
is that a great deal of the research that goes
on is (a) irrelevant and (b) is sometimes simply
repetitive. I am with the Minister on this
point of trying to cut down the costs by hav-
ing some degree of inter-relationship of the
universities in this area of educational re-
search, and I am wondering if you would not
%
4052
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
be able to give status to the education
department or the educational personnel in
each university by giving each university
some hope that educational research will be
encouraged within that university setting.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
this is an item that might be discussed under
university affairs. I am not even sure that we
can come to any conclusion on it. It has
been brought to my attention, I will put it
this way, that several of the universities
would like to get involved in the field of edu-
cational research.
The Ontario institute for studies in educa-
tion is presently doing this. They have an
agreement with, I believe, three of our
teachers' colleges, incidentally, in some fonn
of research— London, Stratford, and I forget
the third, but it does not matter, and of
course they have the agreement with the
Ontario college of education here in To-
ronto, the affiliation with the University of
Toronto and they can, under their charter,
affiliate or least agree to enter into an agree-
ment with any other university with respect
to research or graduate work in the field of
education.
Perhaps this is the way to develop an
approach across the province, but I think it
is a shade premature to be saying that every
university that has a faculty of education or
a teachers' college integrated into it will have
a massive programme of educational research
thereto.
Mr. Pitman: Would the Minister be able to
sort the relationship with the teaching staffs
of tlie teachers' colleges— will be able to find
within the university—
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is one of the areas
that we still have to resolve, and one of the
reasons for the meetings in the next two or
three weeks.
Mr. Pitman: I must have misunderstood the
Minister. These meetings are with the com-
mittee of the presidents; they are not with
the three universities?
Hon. Mr. Davis: With the sub-committee
of the committee of presidents, which are
representative of the universities so we can
have an overall policy. We are also meeting
with the Ontario faculty association of univer-
sity professors to have some discussion there,
perhaps of an informal nature on the subject
too.
Mr. Pitman: One of the problems I think
of integrating teacher training into the univer-
sity is that the teachers' colleges have a sys-
tem whereby students go from certain areas
to a particular teachers' college. I think this
is going to be a very serious problem in view
of the fact that it is expected that universities
should attract people from all over the prov-
ince—all across the nation, if possible. There
should not be a localization of university
students, in that sense.
I am wondering if there has been any
resolution of that problem in terms of teacher
education? x:
Hon. Mr. Davis: We have not really'
adhered rigidly to this policy, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is something that from a practical
standpoint will work itself out. As I have
said before, the hon. member for Peter-
borough has been able to identify problems
for us— most of them we have understood— it
would be very helpful if he would start pro-
posing some of the solutions. This is one of
our difficulties. We know most of the prob-
lems. It is finding the solutions to them, and
we do not have solutions to all of them.
Mr. Pitman: Would the Minister recognize
that it is his responsibility to deal with the
problems?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes, and we work at it;
and find some solutions, sometimes.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 509; leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: In the Minister's comments a
few moments ago, he stressed again, as he did
last year, tlie need to retain the power to cer-
tificate teachers in his own hands. Under the
,gentle administrations of the department
over the past few years, we have come
through a change in certification amounting
to four categories, at least, in both elemen-
tary and secondary levels and some other
changes. In my view we have been unneces-
sarily restricted.
I do not believe that we have recognized
teaching training, and that is really what it
has to be called, the way it has been carried
out in years gone by. It has been brought to
us from other jurisdictions. It has always been
the feeling that if an immigrant or a person
who has come to Ontario from another juris-
diction did not undergo the rigours of our
own training course, tlien anything he had
had previously was valueless. We might, pos-
sibly if we needed the teacher badly enough,
give him a letter of permission with all of the
downgrading associated with that. A letter of
standing which has a different connotation
JUNE 6, 1968
4053
would have been a better response, but even
that has been inadequate.
I have always felt under the Minister's
ministrations that the teaching profession has
been more of a closed shop than it should
have been. Those people that we need to
come into our teaching system, our school
system, are not having the opportunities that,
in my view, should have been extended to
them.
Of course, we are going very far afield,
indeed, to meet the teaching needs in this
province. Missions from cities and school
boards and groups of school boards have gone
to Australia and New Zealand and Great
Britain; Minister's emissaries have gone to
France, so we are beating the bushes all over
the world to get the teachers that we require.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Should you use the word
emissaries? I am just wondering, for the con-
stitution.
Mr. Nixon: Who paid their expenses?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess we did. I do not
know.
Mr. Nixon: Did you get federal approval?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: Then it is all right if we call
them emissaries with federal approval. We
will not give you any trouble. I do feel that
we have been needlessly restrictive and paro-
chial in applying particular requirements
that have come down to us through the col-
lege of education and through the Minister's
responsibility for certification. I feel, beyond
this as well, that the need to have certain
courses before a teacher was recognized as a
specialist in a certain field, has distorted the
approach to specialization. A Ph.D in chem-
istry could not be designated a specialist in
science or even in chemistry until recently,
because of the need for a broader background.
I feel that this has been an inadequate
approach, as has been the attitude that gradu-
ates from certain degrees, like archeology or
philosophy, have not had an entrance into
the teaching profession that would recognize
the special skills they have. I do not agree with
the Minister that it is essential that he retain
in his hands the power to grant a certificate
to a teacher.
I reject the suggestion that the university
should be given tiiis, but I would draw to
your attention, Mr. Chairman, that the Minis-
ter of Health (Mr. Dymond) does not feel
that it is his responsibility to hcence doctors.
The Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) certainly
does not take it upon himself to call student
lawyers to the bar and grant them the right
to practice in Ontario. A good deal has been
said about the need for improving the pro-
fessional attitudes in the teaching profession.
I think we cannot call it a profession unless
the teachers band together and their own
organization takes responsibility for their own
actions.
Naturally, The Department of Education
would have some supervision. It might act
in this regard as a resource centre. It might
act as an ombudsman for anybody who felt
that the teachers' professional organization
was not acting in fairness and justice. I feel
sure that if the Minister were to look at the
report authored by Mr. McRuer he would
find ample justification for granting under
suitable legislation to a properly established
teachers' professional organization the right
to grant certification, and to police and
patrol and develop professionally and other-
wise the attitudes of the teachers of the prov-
ince. I do not agree with the Minister at all
that it is essential for the control of the
system that he retain in his own hands the
requirements that certificates be authorized
by himself. Do you want to say anything
about that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have already expressed—
Mr. Nixon: All right. The point that I
want to raise—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Just on the one point in
respect of flexibility, or shall we say that we
have been a shade rigid? I think, Mr. Chair-
man, I would tend to agree with the leader
of the Opposition in this regard. I think this
would be fair. Just a shade, to the extent
that we have had people now looking at some
of the special education facilities in the
U.S.A. where people have been going to
courses. We are going to be accepting them
or their courses for certification here, be-
cause they have facilities. This might even
happen in the state of Michigan, but I am
not sure— so that people who have obtained
some certificate will be given credit or recog-
nition for special education in this province.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there is an-
other attitude that I think is associated with
the shade of rigidity that the Minister has
admitted he might be guilty of.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say I am guilty
of it.
Mr. Nixon: While we do have— you sign
the paper, do you not?
4054
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do, indeed.
Mr. Nixon: I have got one signed by your
predecessor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Have you?
Mr. Nixon: I value it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you need it updated
or anything?
Mr. Nixon: I am afraid I might have to
have it adjusted some time. But rigidity also
comes into the four categories that have
been established in recent years. There is a
tendency to think that now that we have
made this advance, we can forget about any
future developments. It has been said in this
debate already that teachers should not have
to spend their valuable professional time
drawing straight lines in square attendance
boxes, and matters of that type, selling insur-
ance to the students and selling football
tickets and that kind of thing.
This is surely an exaggeration, but the
Minister would agree that there is a very
real and growing place for non-professional
people in the teaching situation, I think that
our colleges of applied arts and technology
might very well be brought into play here
in providing those people with the kind of
educational background that will permit them
to take a useful operative role in the teach-
ing situation— in the laboratories and the
libraries, and in the classrooms assisting in
the work that accompanies education day
by day. It would not be necessary to call
them junior teachers or anything like that.
There should be some sort of category
that is related to the professionalism of the
fully-trained teacher so that we can expand
tlie use of these people with special abilities.
I think this is something that would fit into
the general flexibility that seems to be the
theme of this debate. It is one that we might
investigate and move forward at a rate more
rapid than has been evidenced in the past.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are in
the process of exploring very many of these
thoughts right now.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 509; the member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
whether the Minister would comment on the
situation which will exist if teachers' colleges
are brought into the university sphere? Will
teachers in training, or being educated, be
receiving free tuition within the system?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, that has ]
not been determined; we have not reached ;
this point yet. \
I am just speaking, again, of my own initial' '
reaction, and it is that probably that they '^<
should be treated the same as other students ]
at the institution. They can be charged fees, <
and then receive some sort of additional I
bursary, or something from the department, 'I
if they are going into teacher education. But, \
as the hon. member just remarked, we do ;
not want them treated as different studenti |
on campus.
Mr. Pitman: Would the Minister consider
that he should perhaps move the other way— ■
that is, to stop charging fees from the stu- i
dents at the university?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I knew that was
coming. j
Mr. Pitman: There would be an equality '
in that direction, rather than the one that yon •
have suggested.
I wonder if the Minister has received any
official reaction, either from Australia, where ■
I understand that teachers are being re-
cruited, or from Great Britain, where they
have been recruited with seme success over
the past year? Has there been any oflBcial
reaction to this? Also, whether the Minister
does not see some real danger of Common^
wealth breakdown if he continues to this
kind of full-scale effort to draw teachers from
all over the world?
Would it not be a more "positive"— to use I
the Minister's favourite word— approach to '
spend more time in recruiting Canadian
young people into the profession? Provide
the means by which they get there, and raise
the status of the profession to an extent so
that this problem of recruitment would not j
be quite so serious? ]
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
that it is obvious that if we can educate more
teachers here, then this eliminates the prob-
lem, and we are coming much more close. I
think that it should be apparent that I am
not referring now to AustraHa, but there are
a number of people in the United Kingdom
who are not recruited per se, but who wish
to come here to teach— there are a number
each year. I think that we are reaching a
point at the elementary level, perhaps in the
next year or so, where part of this problem
will disappear.
I think that I can say that, in an official
way, I have not had any communique from
JUNE 6, 1968
4055
Australia saying that we are robbing them of
their teachers. They may have registered
some protest— not with respect to the teachers,
but with the way that it was done, I do not
know— with the federal government.
I do not recall any official communication
coming to me from, say, the Prime Minister
of Australia.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to bring this up under this estimate. I do
not know whether the Minister would like
to discuss it elsewhere.
Some time previously both the leader of
the Opposition and myself brought to the
Minister's attention the possibility of saving
a great deal of educational money by co-
operative advertising. Has the Minister taken
this under consideration? Have the officials
of the department taken it under considera-
tion? Have there been any study papers?
Have business institutes been brought into
the question?
In other words, here are thousands of
dollars of money for education going right
down the advertising drain. This, I do not
think, either raises the level of education or
is of advantage to the teachers or the pupils
of Ontario. What would the Minister have
to say?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
that my answer was, on that occasion, when
it was raised by the leader of the Opposition,
and I think that it still applies now, that we
will await the experience of the new divi-
sional boards for a year and just see if this
still remains a problem.
You are only going to have in the public
school area roughly 100 boards advertising.
Obviously this will decrease very substantially
the amount of advertising that must be done.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Chairman, regarding the Hamilton teachers'
college. Knowing that the McMaster medical
school is to take over the site on which the
Hamilton teachers* college is located, what
plans are being contemplated by The De-
partment of Education for the new facilities
for the Hamilton teachers' college, and—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there have
been discussions with McMaster University
with respect to the site of the teachers' col-
lege, but we have not finalized any agree-
ments.
It would appear as though the university
will give us, in exchange for the site where
the present teachers' college is located, a
comparable site perhaps closer to the main
centre of the university, because it will ob-
viously be one of those integrated with the
university programme. The teachers' college
will not be a college, per se, in a few years,
but it will be part of the university environ-
ment.
We do not anticipate any trouble working
out an arrangement with McMaster.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to direct a question or two
to the hon. Minister concerning summer
courses. Will summer courses continue to
be given in the ensuing years, or is this the
final year for teacher training at summer
school?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member would identify what he means by
summer courses. If he means the traditional
summer courses, with respect to secondary
school training, the bulk of these will dis-
appear. This is the last year for entrance to
the two-year summer course programme.
As I said in my announcement a few weeks
ago, there v/ill be exceptions to this. There
will be some people who are mature students
—if we can use this term- and they will be
admitted into a form of summer course pro-
gramme, but the majority of them will have
to go through the whole route. The last stu-
dents to enter will be entering in a few
weeks.
Mr. T. P. Reid: But the operating courses
will continue?
Hon. Mr. Davis: They will continue both
at the secondary and the elementary level.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to make a
few comments on that if I may:
Mr. Chairman, I have just returned from
my riding, and I had occasion over the week-
end to talk to a number of teachers. They
brought up a very valid point, I believe,
concerning the expense and the time spent
in travelling down to Toronto and elsewhere
for summer courses.
We have, as you know, the Lakehead Uni-
versity, and it seems to be as quick to give
certain summer school courses for high school
teachers in northwestern Ontario, I am think-
ing specifically of courses in the commercial
field. There is an obvious shortage of com-
mercial teachers across the province, and we
have a number of very competent people
4056
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
now teaching in northwestern Ontario who,
I am sure, would be very competent to give
such summer school courses at Lakehead
University.
At the moment they have an elementary
teachers' course at the Lakehead University,
but we are not, at the moment, training high
school teachers. Am I correct in assuming
that, within the next few years, as we were
talking earlier, the secondary school level
teacher training will be phased in at the
Lakehead? Mr. Minister, would you answer
that before I continue?
Hon. Mr. Davis: We are in the process of
resolving problems with respect to the exist-
ing teachers' college at the Lakehead. I
would not want to say, at this point, what
will happen specifically, with respect to sec-
ondary school education at the Lakehead, al-
though I tiiink that there is some logic in
the hon. member's assumption.
Mr. T. P. Reid: May I just make one or
two more comments?
I would like to point out that teacher re-
cruitment in northern Ontario is somewhat
difficult. If it were possible for us to train
people, or give them their teacher training,
in the north, whether they come from north-
western Ontario originally, or from other
spots, I am sure that once they were there,
they would see what the north is, and what
it has to offer them. Perhaps then it might
be much easier to hire teachers for the
north and for northwestern Ontario.
I would just like to ask one question then.
Will the Minister give consideration for sum-
mer school courses for secondary school
teachers specifically in the commercial field?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will certainly take a look
at it. I think the decision, of course, must
be related to the number of students— teach-
ers rather— who would be in a position to
participate. I am not sure we could have any
decision for this coming summer, but we will
certainly take a look at it for next year.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 509; the member for
Port Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): I hasten
to rise in support of the remarks of my col-
league from Rainy River, because I had in-
tended on rising on tlie very same matter.
Most of the teachers I have spoken to, in
the Port Arthur and Fort William area, have
given me the same problem. I would hope
that the Minister will look at the human
elements that are involved here. First, 900
miles is a long distance. The courses are
usually right in the middle of summer— the
first of July to the middle of August. Most :
of these young teachers have to leave their
families and there is considerable expense ]
involved.
The Minister himself, in his opening re- •'
marks to the House, and I will just quote a ]
part of it, said: ;
Facilities of such qualities should not sit idle and
should, in fact, be used around the clock if neces'
sary. Where programmes are in demand by citizens
who work during the hours allocated to daytime
courses, I would suggest that the school board*
should give a high priority to making maximum J
use of school facilities for all citizens. h
We have a large number of beautiful insti- I
tutions that lie idle all year round in the
Lakehead area— well, through summer, I am
sorry. And we do have some very qualified
people, very expert people, and it seems \
rather foohsh. But on the other hand, i*
seems very logical that these people should i
be able to organize into courses and teach
one another right there at the Lakehead.
They could be with their families and they
could enjoy the best weather that we ever
get at the Lakehead, during the period of \
July 1 to the middle of August, and I think i
that the Minister should do more than just 1
give this serious consideration. I think he
should move on it and do it.
It is the major complaint of teachers in
the Lakehead area— and I do not like to see
our teachers come down here to Toronto
where the school board authorities in this
area can get a good look at what we have
got and sort of woo them away. I think this
happens a bit too often. I would rather keep
them up there at the Lakehead. They are
happy there. Why expose them to too much
affluence and opportunity down here? We
have enough difficulty as it is to get these
people there in the first place.
So it is logical and extremely sensible to
have these summer courses there. I know a
friend who will be leaving his family on July
1 for six full weeks; he has to leave his
wife and daughter up there at the Lakehead
while he comes down here and sweats
through a summer course. This is because
he is a very ambitious boy and wants to get
ahead. But why should he have to go through j
all of that trouble?
This is the province of progress, of oppor-
tunity and this is the golden haired depart-
ment of them all, and I have an awful lot of
respect for the Minister and for a lot of his
programmes. I do not think his department
will really have too much difficulty in getting
JUNE 6, 1968
4057
the summer course organized for the Lake-
head. I suggest that he ask the teachers at
the Lakehead to come up with a proposal,
to recommend to his department and I bet it
will not take them very long. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Pitman: One of the things that bothers
me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that I think we
realize now that teacher education is going to
extend over a longer period. We are going to
have to continue teachers' colleges over a
longer period and I suspect— and I am not
trying to be suspicious— that this will probably
be more than three, four or five years.
May I say just in passing that I have seen
more new bright ideas in the teachers' col-
leges, at least the one in Peterborough, since
they decided they were going to phase them
out, than I saw in all the many, many years
before. You know, suddenly all this freedom
and what is almost an orgy of progress—
An hon. member: In teachers' colleges?
Hon. Mr. Davis: He is saying the teachers'
colleges are 100 per cent better now than
tiiey were three years ago.
Mr. Nixon: He is saying orgies.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am going to get that in
writing.
Mr. Pitman: I must say to the Minister
that I might embarrass him if I indicate what
I thought about them a couple of years ago.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I know v/hat you thought
about them a couple of years ago.
Mr. Pitman: But the point on which I am
trying to get some clarification is, what about
the people who are in the teachers' colleges
now; it seerns to me that they are going to
be hung up. Is there no way that we can get
some planned programme to take over one
by one, so that both the universities and the
teachers' colleges will know when it is going
to take place? So that these programmes can
be planned within these.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is exactly what we
are attempting to do right now.
Mr. Pitman: This is what will happen
within the next few weeks.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is what we are
hoping to resolve over the next few weeks,
and we have made a lot of progress.
Mr. Pitman: The other question I have— I
will try and get this over, if the Minister,
with the permission of the colleagues on
this side, wishes to get this vote through.
I see one item here which really does
bother me. It is under professional develop-
ment — advisory services for beginning
teachers, $8,000. Now I am sure that $8,000
does not represent any figure at all. You
could not even send a postcard to the new
teachers for $8,000 and I am wondering what
you mean by advisory services to young
teachers— beginning teachers?
This, I suggest, should be a major respon-
sibility of this department, particularly if you
have a large number of new teachers coming
into the profession each year and particularly
in view of the greater complexity of teaching
with all the new media. What do you mean
by $8,000 to advisory services to beginning
teachers?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this, I
think, is an item in the vote that will tend
to disappear. It has only been used in very
limited ways for some teachers in very iso-
lated situations where they have needed some
assistance. Normally, the advisory services to
the beginning teachers would be done, say,
by the local boards or by our own staff. But
there have been some instances where we
have needed additional funds for this type of
service. I think with the consolidation and
with the alteration in teacher education itself
that this item will probably disappear in a
very short period of time.
Vote 509 agreed to.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
¥
f
No. 110
ONTARIO
JLtqMatntt of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 6, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
F-
CONTENTS
Estimates, Department of Education, Mr. Davis, concluded
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Wishart, agreed to
Thursday, June 6, 1968
4061
4097i-
4061
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
(Concluded)
Mr. Chainnaii: On vote 510. The member
for Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I am sorry to spoil the game, but
I would like to say a word or two on some
items under this vote. I would particularly
like to say something about the school for
the deaf. This is the one in Belleville, Mr.
Chairman.
This is, I think, a direct responsibility of
the Minister. This is one of the few schools
that he does operate. I would like to read
just a line or two from a report from this
school. It is describing a couple of the local
children who happened to be attending this
school:
Jeanie can lie in her bed and kick two
other 12-year-olds simply by swivelling her
hips and Anna would find it diflSctdt to
walk between the 16 beds in Jeanie's drab
institutional bedroom in Ontario's school
for the deaf at Belleville. But Jeanie is
fortunate, she does not have to sleep in the
bed a roommate of hers has which sticks
out into the hallway. There are two dormi-
tories and 16 girls in each, on her floor. At
the end of the corridor, two dormitories
are empty. Because Jeanie was born deaf,
she has to attend the school.
And it goes on to describe the situation for
other people who are in this school. But,
here is one thing which I think is rather
serious.
Jeanie and Gordon take physical educa-
tion classes in a gymnasium built for tem-
porary use during the second world war.
Beams holding up the roof are cracked,
split and rotten. The physical education
oflSce has a wind gauge. It is a wind speed
indicator put there by The Department of
Public Works. Red tape on it reads, red
line, danger zone, evacuate all personnel
when gusting at 25 to 30 miles an hour.
Thursday, June 6, 1968
"I hate the wind," says E. H. J. Bryant,
the assistant dean of residence and the
supervisor of physical education, "because
it is up to me to decide when it is danger-
ous." Jeanie's foster parents and Gordon's
parents hate it too.
Now, I have travelled across tliis province a
good deal, Mr. Chairman, and I have visited
many of the beautiful schools that have been
built in this province over the past number
of years, and some of the more impressive
aspects of the schools are the gymnasiums,
and I cannot for the life of me, in view of
the priorities which have been established by
this Minister, understand how a situation like
this can exist in a school for young people
who happen to be deprived, in so many ways,
simply because they are deaf. I will say no
more on that matter. I hope that the Minister
can indicate that something very diflFerent is
going to take place in the very near future,
both for the sake of the parents of these
young people and for the sake of the young
people themselves.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Chairman, I think I can tell the hon.
member that we anticipate calling tenders
for the construction of the physical educa-
tion facility at the school for the deaf in
Belleville, in 1968.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 510. The member
for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, I do not have to bring this to
the attention of the hon. Minister, I am cer-
tainly sure he is aware of the recommendation
of the select committee on youth concerning
recreation, dealing with more staff, lay and
professional leaders, instructors, and so on.
There are eight different recommendations.
I ask the Minister what action he plans on
taking on these specific recommendations.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
deal with the specific recommendations,
necessarily. I think it is quite relevant that
the hon. member read— perhaps he has al-
ready—the announcement that we were going
to combine the youth and the community
programmes branch into a combined organi-
zation to deal with problems, not only of
4062
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
youth, but related to recreation. And, of
course, part of their task will be to relate
what recommenadtions are appropriate in the
youth committee report in the field of recre-
ation. It will be under the auspices, I think
almost completely— there will be a few ex-
ceptions—of this new branch of the depart-
ment.
Mr. B. Newman: Very good, Mr. Chair-
man.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The new organization
took effect as of June 1.
Mr. B. Newman: Very good. I hope that
you follow recommendation 118 which speci-
fically asks that uniform standards be set for
recreation staif.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will take this as an indi-
cation of the member's interest. Also, I
should point out to the member that we
think there will, perhaps, be seven colleges
this fall— community colleges— offering pro-
grammes for recreational leaders.
Mr. B. Newman: I am sure of that, Mr.
Chairman, because they tried to set one up
in my own community.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going to go on
staff?
Mr. B. Newman: No, I am not interested
in that. I am interested in being here— with
me on that side and you on this side.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Under recre-
ational admission, why do you include mathe-
matics as being one of the subjects?
Hon. Mr. Davis: In what?
Mr. Sargent: Recreation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not quite under-
stand the question. Is the hon. member ask-
ing why a person needs some ability in math
to be enrolled in a course in recreation in
one of the colleges? Well, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot speak for the entrance requirements
of each college, but I would assume it is be-
cause they have set certain minimum entrance
requirements, and mathematics happens to
be one of them. I do not know that one
could say that you have to be a specialist in
math to be a recreation director, but I would
think that it is an indication of one's general
knowledge, is it not? I think there has to be
some background for it, and I would think
math is reasonably relevant.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 510. The member
for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: In this past debate, we have
heard a great deal about emotionally dis-
turbed children. I have, here, a letter from
the Ontario association for attendance coun-
selling services, which has been presented to
the Minister, in which it suggests, along with
the report of the select committee on youth,
that The Department of Education take over
tlie responsibility for these young people. I
think, in view of the action that has already
been taken in the bill which gives the respon-
sibility for retarded children to the county
boards, that this is an indication that a new
direction is likely to take place in this area.
I would certainly hope so. I am not going to
repeat what I have already said about tiiis.
I would simply like to ask the Minister to
indicate some of his thinking, and some of the
thinking of his department, in relation to
this matter.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have
made several statements on this subject over
the past two years. The thinking of the
department really is, basically, that we feel
the majority of emotionally disturbed chil-
dren should be educated in the regular school
environment, if possible. We think this is the
best approach, and this is why we have
developed a special grant structure for the
emotionally disturbed. It is in the special grant
section, and why we are developing an
increasing number of courses for our teachers
to deal with this particular kind of student.
And this is the way we feel it should be dealt
with— on a general basis, recognizing that
through the programme of The Department of
Health, in which The Department of Educa-
tion is very directly involved, that there will
always be some of these young people who
will be given a special kind of assistance. This
is one of the reasons in the philosophy behind
the white paper, and the plans announced by
my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond), and the approach, on an inter-
departmental basis, to whatever percentage
of the total group will be required to have
this special type of treatment. In general, we
hope to look after the bulk of the students
within, shall we say, the responsibilities of
the divisional boards. The grant regulations
reflect this.
Mr. Pitman: What is the grant for psycholo-
gists? That is, how much of a grant is given
to a particular board who hire a psychologist?
JUNE 6, 1968
4063
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
do not pay psychologists. We pay a special
rate of grants to the boards where they have
classes for emotionally disturbed children.
This is how we pay the additional funds to
the board.
Mr. Pitman: I see. I was wondering if—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The same way as per-
ceptually handicapped, and the whole area of
the handicapped child.
Mr. Pitman: Could the Minister indicate
how many teachers are taking these courses?
I think that many of us have indicated that a
preventative service can, perhaps, take place
in a classroom and, it seems to me, that this
is an extremely important area. I am wonder-
ing how many teachers actually are taking
courses which would enable them to identify
emotionally disturbed children; at least, to
some extent, diagnose the difficulties that the
child is hampered by and be able to see the
degree of emotional disturbance; to see
whether this child should be sent to one of
the diagnostic or to one of the special centres
that The Department of Health and the
Minister of Health is concerned with, or
whether he should remain in the regular pro-
gramme or in a special class in that particu-
lar school.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
have been altering, as the hon. member, per-
haps, is aware, the programme at the teachers'
colleges to endeavour to give the teachers a
greater insight, if possible, into some of these
problems. Yet, I cannot say to the hon. mem-
ber, that this type of training will, in itself,
be sufficient for identification in all cases.
Obviously, it is going to take a co-ordinated
approach, involving the medical people, in
making this type of determination. I am not
sure, in many cases, that a teacher would be
completely competent to make this identifi-
cation. This is why the proposal of the
regional diagnostic centres, so that the teach-
ers, if they have any idea that this child may
require special treatment at the school, can
refer to the centre for some form of diagnosis.
Mr. Pitman: Well are there any summer
courses being provided for teachers who are
aheady in the field?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes. There are summer
courses now for teachers who are dealing with
special education, which involves the per-
ceptually handicapped, the neurologically
impaired, as well as the emotionally disturbed;
and there are a number of summer courses
now relating to the field of special education,
and we shall have more.
Mr. Pitman: I am trying to specifically
identify emotionally disturbed because, per-
haps of the events of the day on which the
debate is going on. I really do feel, that in
some way, emotionally disturbed individuals
are triggered off by the kind of society we
have, and the kind of society we do not wish
to have. I would suggest that, in many, many
cases, the ills that we face in this society are
a result of our not having dealt with this
problem.
I am just wondering, if the Minister could
give any idea as to how many teachers, in
the classrooms in Ontario, would have had a
specific course which enabled them to under-
stand and, at least to some degree, recognize
more dangerous aspects of emotional dis-
turbance in the young people?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
not sure how I could go about getting this
figure for the hon. member. What I shall en-
deavour to do is to get for him, say over the
past three or four years, the number of
teachers who have gone through these special
summer courses. I think I can get this figure
for him.
Mr. Pitman: Fine.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Halton
West.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Mr. Chair-
man, just a word regarding the school for
the deaf in Milton. We have heard some
criticism of the one in Belleville.
I think it would be appropriate for me
to make a remark regarding this school,
mainly because it is new. It has magnfficent
facilities now, and I believe they have a
complete programme for these unfortunate
children from grades 1 to 12.
All special facilities and equipment that is
needed for this type of special education is
available at Milton. I am not trying to sound
like the president of the local junior chamber
of commerce, but I think that this can be
expected some day in Belleville.
There are at least two Olympic-size swim-
ing pools. There are at least two large gym-
nasiums, two auditoriums. I think there is
every type of facility there for a complete,
round education and also to make these chil-
dren at home. These are boarding schools
for these children and I cannot help but feel
that when they leave this institution they will
4064
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have some advantage of making useful pro-
ductive citizens.
And also, while I am on my feet, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to mention the com-
munity programmes branch. I believe it is
under this particular vote and there are plans
and programmes to extend the use of our
local school facilities. Certainly the capital
costs of schools are very high in this prov-
ince. The buildings are, for the most part,
quite elaborate. Although I think the criti-
cism that we are not using our school facili-
ties particularly, after hours, is at this point,
becoming redundant because of the com-
munity programmes branch.
For example, in my home town of Bur-
lington, there is an extended programme of
arts and crafts, sewing, there are theatre
groups, discussion groups and adult instruc-
being used enough will be done away with
even a local chess club, which uses a class-
room once a week and I think that the idea
and the plan to use these educational plants
by the public is an excellent one.
Now I think next if we will utilize possibly
the gymnasiums and even the school grounds
themselves a little more— I know this depends
a great deal on the local school board and
they have to worry about supervision and
janitor service and this type of thing— but if
the school boards, possibly with some prod-
ding from the department, will use all facili-
ties, all property under their jurisdiction, to
have a complete sort of maximum utilization,
the criticism that these facilities are not
being used enough will be done away with
and I think we will have less criticism pos-
sibly of the capital costs of these schools.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Op-
position.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Op-
position): Mr. Chairman, since the hon.
member has raised the matter of special
education for the deaf and the blind, I
thought this might be a suitable occasion
to follow his lead and draw to the House's
attention some of the excellent education that
is going on there and the need for expanding
facilities.
In quoting from the Minister's additional
comments provided at the opening of these
estimates, from page 63, he says:
Residental school for the deaf at Belle-
ville and one for the bhnd at Brantford
have been in use for 98 and 96 years re-
spectively.
And the Minister always speaks the truth
in this and he is aware of the fact that the
main building, certainly for the education of
the blind, is the original building that was ■■
built a century ago. J
On page 66 of the additional information, '4
the Minister says: '*
I am pleased to be able to tell you that \
planning is in progress for a new senior ^
school and administration building on the
campus of the Ontario school for the blind j
in Brantford.
Now I do not know whether that means that
it is going forward this year. Frankly, I
doubt it. It has been in the plans for some ;
considerable time and I can certainly tell -
you, Mr. Chairman, that these facilities could
be put to good use by the students who come
from all parts of Canada as well as Ontario
to receive the kind of education that is most
useful to them under those circumstances.
I had the opportunity to visit the school
a few months ago and was very much im-
pressed by the interest of the students in the
affairs of the community, political and other-
wise and I had a great deal of difficulty as a
matter of fact, after three hours of visiting
classes, in finally taking my leave because
their questions were what the Chairman has
sometimes called provocative and we had
some good discussions.
But I believe the Minister is aware of the
need there for the new facilities that he pre-
dicts in his remarks and when he says that
planning is in progress I am under the im-
pression that the planning has been in pro-
gress for some time and tliat these new
facilities are needed now.
The building has been in use for a century
and it has stood the test of time obviously
very well. I believe we, in this House, would
be prepared to support the decision that
might be made in conjunction with the hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Connell) in
the immediate decision to proceed with the
construction.
While I am on my feet I think it should
be recalled that a year ago we were some-
what critical on this side of the facilities in
Belleville; at the school for the deaf. We
were informed on good authority that the
young people had to vacate the gymnasium
if there was a wind of more than 25 miles an
hour blowing and it seems that if we are
going to continue to be proud of the facilities
that we offer for this type of special educa-
tion then these facilities must, of course, be
completely safe and up to date and meeting
the needs of the young people concerned.
.4:.. J
JUNE 6, 1968
4065
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just for
the information of the leader of the Opposi-
tion—I can be corrected by my colleague, the
Minister of Public Works— but our informa-
tion is that conceivably the plans could be
ready for a tender late in 1968 or perhaps
early 1969 for the school for the blind in
Brantford— or sooner. I thought that this
might be good news for the hon. member.
The Minister of Public Works moves very
rapidly.
Mr. Nixon: You can do it sooner than late
1968?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
East has been trying to get the floor for some
time.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, this afternoon I put forward some
ideas I thought were needed in the teachers'
colleges of Ontario and one of them I men-
tioned was much greater need for courses in
psychology. This relates to the issue raised
by my colleague from Peterborough and I
would hke some comment by the Minister of
Education, as to whether they intend to
intensify the psychology courses offered at
the teachers' colleges. I am not thinking of
special summer programmes. I am speaking
of the general course throughout the year,
so that teachers can detect these children
sooner and can assist tliem.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think it
is obvious that as we move towards an ex-
tended programme of teacher education there
will be more time available for psychology
and other very basic subjects that are not
taught to the degree that they should be
right now because of the time limitations.
I think the hon. member could anticipate
that, as we move to two, three and eventu-
ally a four-year programme, there would be
more of this in the course. I do not think
there is any question about that.
Mr. Martel: I would just like to ask the
Minister if we can raise the questions of high
school— colleges at this time. Or shall we
wait till vote 518?
Hon. Mr. Davis: If there is a separate vote
for the colleges of education-
Mr. Martel: Vote 518.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Vote 518.
Mr. Martel: Fine, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I was more
than pleased to hear the comments of the hon.
member for Halton West when he made men-
tion of the greater use of school facihties
and the fact that sometimes they are not
used to the limit to which they could be
used. This probably only strengthens my
suggestion to the Minister— that of having
the boards of education take over the recre-
ation departments in communities. Under
the supervision of one body you would have
full use of the schools in after-school time.
I think it is a very good suggestion, Mr.
Chairman, and I think it is worthy of intense
study by your department, and I would even
suggest implementation.
I could bring to the Minister's attention
the other series of suggestions as put forth
by the select committee on youth. But rather
than read them into the record and prolong
the discussion here, I simply would ask the
Minister to have his oflBcials give them seri-
ous consideration, and at this time I would
like to refer to items 7, 8 and 9.
This summer more than any other summer
in the past few years it has been most diflfi-
cult for our high school graduates and our
college students to obtain summer employ-
ment. I was just wondering if the Minister
could not make use of the large numbers of
students who cannot find employment and
give them some type of programme under
either votes 7, 8 or 9 whereby their attend-
ance and the courses that they would take
would either provide for them a given amount
of dollars in pay, somewhat similar to what
the junior rangers receive, or provide them
with a scholarship in a university so that
they would have that much less to worry
about when it comes to financing their edu-
cation.
Now I know you may come along and say
that there are student awards that will take
care of the needs of the student. Why not
try to have that student earn part of those
moneys? I do not know where the work
could be provided, maybe you could en-
lighten us. Possibly the votes that I have
mentioned are not the appropriate places,
but I know that the youngsters today are
having a diflBcult time and I think that we
should do everything we possibly can to see
that they can continue their education. I
would prefer to see you give them some type
of work in some of your programmes rather
than simply loaning them the funds and then
have a forgiveness feature where they do not
have to pay all of the funds back.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am
always interested in any suggestion. I am
4066
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not sure, from a practical point of view, how
one would do what the hon. member is sug-
gesting with respect to votes 7, 8 and 9. The
community programme field services division
—that is item 9— relates to the continuing
programme. It does not relate just to summer
months of the community programmes branch,
and, of course, 7 and 8 refer to Bark Lake
and to Lake Couchiching camps where they
have many young people during the summer,
but they are there for leadership courses.
Now, they have a limited number of stu-
dents there for part-time summer help, but
the camps are being operated basically to
develop leadership courses for the hundreds
of students from the secondary school system
who spend two, three, and in some cases four
weeks there every summer. I have said this
before, I wish on occasion some of the mem-
bers of the House could have an opportunity
during the summer months to visit these
camps. You cannot help but come away
really quite encouraged because of the very
high calibre of the young people who are
attending, and their real enthusiasm for what
they are doing.
It is really a very refreshing experience,
but I guess it is too much to anticipate that
members of the Legislature could find time
to visit some of these installations, but it
would be really well worth the visit.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, having
visited both of these camps, I know the value
of these camps and I speak most highly of
them whenever I have the opportunity— espe-
cially at the high school level. However,
Mr. Chairman, these camps are not used all
year round. The college students get out at
the first of May, or at the end of April. Pos-
sibly you could take them in there and give
them two months of training— something that
may have some bearing on athletics; or it
could be something that may have something
to do with social work.
In this way if you took in social work you
coidd also provide, possibly, training and
employment for some of the girls so that they
could go back into the community and even
be of some value on the type of programme
we discussed, I think, on the first vote— the
early start programme, or whatever it was
called. I cannot recall the programme-
where we attempt to take the underprivileged
and the economically deprived and, by start-
ing them at the three- or four-year age-level,
bring them up, so that from possibly two,
three or four months of summer vacation,
they could eventually go into our school
system and be that much better informed.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely would like to
see something done by the department, espe-
cially in times such as we have now when •
there are large numbers of our students who
cannot get employment. Possibly you could ;
give them employment and training at the -v
same time. I
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr. Chair- j
man, referring to item 15 in vote 510, per- '
taining to the Ontario school for the deaf. ^
We have approximately 37 youngsters from ;
the Lakehead area whose parents put them {
on a train and kiss them goodbye three times j
a year, and send them down to Belleville. |
Believe me, there are no real tears in these \
parents' eyes, because they are sending them ]
on their way for very, very much needed
help. I have no hesitation to quote the par-
ents of deaf children in the Lakehead area ^
as saying that the school is a godsend. They ;
do not complain about cramped sleeping i
quarters or anything else, they are just so
happy that it is there. :
But there are about a dozen other young- =
sters there who have not quite reached the
school age, and their parents have a very
genuine, a sincere concern of the time that
is being lost. They feel that surely some-
thing could be done for them-for these little
children who are starting out with such a
handicap in life, before grade 1. And the
hon. Minister can correct me if I am wrong,
Mr. Chairman, but it is my understanding
that they have to wait until age six years
before they can get the kind of teaching, and
the kind of development, that they need— the
kind of help to hear. If this is so, I think
that it is about time that the department
enter very seriously into the field of special
courses or special training for these youngsters
who are of preschool age.
Now, perhaps it is just these parents in the
Lakehead area who do not have the benefit
of preschool-age instruction for their little
deaf children, but if that is the case, then it
seems to me that the department should be
able to make available a teacher for these
preschool-age children who cannot come all
the way to Belleville.
Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, I
would like to have your comments on this,
and I have another question after if I may?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we have
two people presently on the staff who are, I
think, doing something of what the hon.
member suggests. They are visiting homes
prior to the youngster entering a school, and
also involving the parents in, shall we say,
programmes that can be helpful. We arc
JUNE 6, 1968
4067
going to extend this complement by an
additional four this coming year, and I think
we will be able to extend this type of service
to the Lakehead. I do not say that this is,
you know, a final answer, or a complete
answer, but certainly we believe this will be
very helpful to the parents and to the chil-
dren who have this particular problem.
Mr. Knight: Thank you very much. I am
very glad to hear that news, and I am sure
that these parents will also, Mr. Chairman.
Now this vote also has to do with the
select committee on youth, and I do not
know if I am out of place here tonight, but
inasmuch as the hon. member for Fort Wil-
liam (Mr. Jessiman) is not here, I am sure
if he were, he might bring the matter up.
As an alderman in the city of Fort
William for the last two years, I have had the
privilege of being chairman of the youth
committee. We try to involve ourselves with
youth. We had a feeling that the summer of
1966 was going to be a long, hot summer
from the point of view of youth, and tried to
help the youth of the city as much as we
could. We wanted to try to head off what-
ever trouble there might be by expressing
some real genuine concern from the top for
youth. We became quite active in holding
meetings and in trying to correlate the efforts
of all youth organizations in social activities
throughout the area.
Ultimately, a youth centre was formed. It
was nothing to say yippee about, except from
the point of view that it was a great success,
with the help of certain volunteer people in
the community. The youth found a hole in
the wall and dressed it up with their own
flower decorations on the wall and so forth,
and they had quite a swinging centre going
there.
As a matter of fact a fellow came up
from Texas one time, and I was talking to
him there, at the youth centre, and he said:
"By George, you know something," he said,
"down there we spent $2 million, $2 million,
on a spanking new youth centre and we do
not draw one-half of the number that you
bring into this hole in the wall here." He
said: "I have got to hand it to you."
Well, unfortunately, that little den of
enthusiasm died last year, and since then
the youth of the area have been screaming in
various ways— they flooded the Fort William
hall a couple of weeks ago to capacity with
youngsters pleading for assistance from some-
where to help get their youth centre going
again. 1 later learned that the youth— a
certain number of youths— from the city of
Port Arthur were trying to get a youth centre
going there also. I wonder whether this
department, through this particular branch
was contemplating any kind of financial
assistance or leadership assistance for these
youngsters, who seem to be just crying and
dying for some kind of youth centre, or
social centre? Somewhere to correlate their
after-school or after-home activities. I won-
der whether there is any way that the youth
of the Lakehead could be assisted, by means
of a social centre, because 1 have a feeling
that the coming summer might possibly be
a long, hot one also, from the point of view
of Lakehead youth.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member would just communicate this to me
very briefly in a letter, we certainly will en-
deavour to have some personnel visit the
Lakehead to meet with some of the youth
leaders to see if we can be of any assistance
from a leadership standpoint. We have
nothing in the estimates for any operating or
capital grants for youth programmes in any
particular municipality. I think that the hon.
member can see the difiBculties inherent in
this unless it were to be a completely prov-
ince-wide programme. Certainly we would
be quite prepared to have personnel visit the
Lakehead and see if they can be of any
assistance.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kingston
and the Islands.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands):
Mr. Chairman, I think, speaking to this vote,
particularly to items 7 and 8, that the select
committee on youth was most impressed with
the facihties provided at Lake Couchiching
and Bark Lake. So much so, that we felt that
there should be other facilities like those
provided. As I understand it, just about one
student per school throughout the province
of Ontario has the opportunity of going to
either one of these camps. I would like to
draw your attention to recommendation
number 112 by the select committee on
youth, whereby we have recommended that
camps similar to Bark Lake be devel-
oped regionally. For example, northwestern
Ontario maybe in the Lakehead district,
in southern Ontario maybe in the Rideau
district of southeast Ontario.
These camps impressed us very much, and
I think that the Minister could do a great
deal for the young people of this province
if he added two or three additional camps
as recommended by the select committee on
youth. 1 am wondering if the Minister has
any plans in this regard?
4C68
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I guess
we have got around to something that has
been mentioned by the members of the Op-
position from time to time during the last
couple of days and that is the question of
priority. I think— speaking as the Minister
and as far as the officials are concerned, Mr.
Chairman— we realize the good job that the
existing camps are doing, but we would not
object to an additional tsvo or three.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think that we have
to recognize the economic limitations. If I
had to make tlie choice of an extension of
our programme, say to provide in this year
another camp, or do something for the emo-
tionally disturbed or some other aspect of
education, this is where the decisions become
necessary and difficult.
As far as tlie overall desirability of extend-
ing this type of programme in the province,
I am in complete agreement and somewhat
prejudiced. I think that the camps do a very
excellent job and I wish that there were more
youngsters who could participate in the
experience.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, this may be a
suggestion— and I think that this comes from
another recommendation of the select com-
mittee on youth— that The Department of
Lands and Forests recruit young or older
high school students or university students in
the age bracket of 18 and 19, and give them
the job of developing camps such as this.
In this way you accomplish two things. You
would be giving very worthwhile employ-
ment to the young people who need it very
badly, and at the same time would be getting
facilities that you could use for leadership
training when they were completed.
I would hope that, once the amalgamation
takes place between the department of youth
and the community programme branch,
very close liaison would be set up with The
Department of Lands and Forests so that
you could use their skill and facilities to get
some of these facilities that are so badly
needed.
While I am on my feet, I might draw your
attention to number 4. I understand that
in the schools for the blind in Brantfod, edu-
cation is given up to the grade 12 level. I
believe that you also recommended that these
facilities be made available so that you could
give grade 13 in tlie school for the blind. I
am wondering if this has been done or if
the department is planning to do it?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will just
check this out, but I believe that we have '
grade 13 now in the school for the blind.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the debates in ^
the education estimates usually develop into i
an c>xercise in debate between the teaching
profession and the hon. Minister, and I—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The teaching profession |
always wins. '^
Mr. Sargent: They always win, but I have
not obtained much education. I am on some- 1
what bad ground here. I
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, you are on par.
Mr. Sargent: I think it is nice to have the
views of the taxpayer who is not an egghead
type. I say this respectfully, this is a matter :
of great concern to the average person. There :
are a few things I think we should ask our-
selves, Mr. Chairman, and I say this respect-
fully. What protection has free enterprise in
this province of ours, in tlie Ontario system
of education, whereby the great majority of
teachers in our schools are so socialistic, and
they continually brainwash our people on the
evils of free enterprise and that the socialistic
system is the one that they must bring into
play?
I tliink that on behalf of the taxpayer, this
is an area, Mr. Chainnan, for some policing
of the curriculum or the right of teachers to
force their views on students. I do not think
that this is to be taken lightly. The chairman
is trying to find where this comes into the
\'ote, but I am leading up to it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I was trying to find it
myself.
Mr. Sargent: Sometimes a bit of truth
comes from the unknowledgeable people like
myself. But there is a great area of concern,
as far as I am concerned about socialists
forcing their ideas upon my Idd. It is becom-
ing more than a joke these days. Most of the
teachers are socialists. This is a matter of
record amongst people that I have been talk-
ing to. I think that there should be something
said to the department or boards of education,
that there is an area of etliics insofar as what
they can lecture them on.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The
whole educational system is socialistic.
Mr. Sargent: Now I would suggest tliat, as
a taxpayer, I have a right to say to my board
JUNE 6, 1968
4069
of education that no one can use the teaching
profession as a platform to espouse a doctrine
that is aimed at defeating the system that is
paying for what we have in this great coun-
try. That is what is happening today.
They are all great guys and they will
smarten up some time. But maybe in the
process, our economy gets bad. The first ones
to get elected are the socialists if things get
bad. There is an area of concern here. What
control do you have over boards of education?
Can you instruct them that these things should
not happen?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): You
sound like Allan Lamport.
Mr. Sargent: He is not too bad either.
• Hon. Mr. Davis: Did you want to make a
speech?
Mr. Sargent: I have got further remarks,
but I wanted to hear your views on this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
lielp but observe the great interest that the
leader of the Opposition is taking in this
subject, with his smile, and I just wonder if
he agrees with everything that the hon. mem-
ber said?
Mr. Sargent: I do not expect he agrees with
me.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I do not think that
I agree with the statement that the great
majority of teachers in the school system are
socialists. I have a very high regard for the
teachers of this province, and I think that
they are too enhghtened to be socialists. Will
that do as an answer?
Mr. MacDonald: Some pretty slick verbal
skating!
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that is unkind, I
should not have said that Mr. Chairman. I
do say this. I do not think that anybody-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I sum up
my remarks to the hon. member by saying that
I do not think that anybody is enthusiastic
about teachers proselytizing in the school
system with respect to political convictions.
I recognize that this may happen in certain
situations.
Mr. Chairman, I expect I probably hear
more about what goes on in the school sys-
tem than the hon. member. I hear more
complaints probably than the hon. member
and while I am sure it does happen from time
to time, ask some of the teachers here in the
House just how often they think it goes on
within the schools. I question whether it is
really as rampant as the hon. member would
suggest.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank
you for your views but it does not have to be
very rampant to be serious.
But the thing that is important under this
vote, Mr. Chairman, is that the press reports
today carried a statement that 100,000 stu-
dents were out of work for summer employ-
ment. I do not know whether we can talk
about this, on this vote. It is not the Minis-
ter's responsibility to carry them ten months
of the year and look after them the other two
months too. I do not suggest it is— well it is
not working. You see the free enterprise
system cannot look after this great work force
of 100,000 people who have great potential
for our economy. We have a great lot of
energy which is not being directed and there
is an area of responsibility some place for
someone on the Treasury bench to find out the
answer. We are talking about Ontario— 100,-
000 students out of work this summer.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do
not want to interrupt the hon. member. I
enjoy his contributions to these debates. I just
point out that I really do not know where, in
this vote, this discussion would come and I
think the hon. member has asked this question
of the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) on one
or two occasions and there have been some
answers to it. I just do not know how much
more we can discuss it.
Mr. Sargent: He does not know anything
either.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not see any item
here in vote 310. I just do not see it.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that with an 800,000 work force
that is unemployed and needs money to oper-
ate again this year in university and high
schools, we could do this. We could give
them a summer course in the various trades
that they will need in their lifetime, and not
all the hocus pocus that they are getting
through school now and they will never use.
Give them some basic things. Now this is not
funny; this is an average guy talking, I
believe. Our kids go to school and they get
all this jazz they never use anyway, so teach
them something in the summer months that
they can use in their lifetime. Here we have
a work force that we can put to work. You
spent $2.5 milHon the other day on a study
4070
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for transportation. You are going to spend
another $15 million on studies in this gov-
ernment this year. Any part of that $15
million would be a great boon to these stu-
dents who need attention, who need to be
recognized.
Here we go through these estimates and I
do not know what is going on with the Min-
ister, he appears to be knowledgeable. My
leader has given you a very good springboard
on these estimates. Those things are very
important but the basic things that count for
people are not listened to, and I think that
there is an area of concern, of responsibility,
Mr. Chairman, to give these students leader-
ship training courses. You could give them
a crash course in psychiatry to work in the—
there goes the Minister of Reform Institutions
(Mr. Grossman)— he is batting his head again;
he does not have an answer; he is no psy-
chiatrist but—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much.
We would like some jobs for the students.
See what you can do.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 510; the member
for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: I am soiTy to end the fun
hour, but I wonder if I could ask the Minister
one or two things about the shortage of
trained teachers in the area for perceptionally
handicapped. I was interested in the com-
ment made by the school psychologist—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to interrupt and I am prepared to be
pretty flexible, but really the question of
teacher supply and qualifications of teachers
in the area of special education should have
come under the teacher education section of
the estimates. This relates to special schools
and services which we administer as a de-
partment. It does not relate to the avail-
ability of this vote of teachers within the
regular school system, whether for percep-
tionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed.
As I say, I do not want to adhere to any
rigid laws but that is where the question
should have been asked.
Mr. Pitman: Fine. I wonder if the Min-
ister has any comments to make or any sug-
gestions or any plans in regard to the cor-
respondence courses, which I think do come
under this vote. It would seem to me that
with the development of educational tele- i
vision there might very well be a tie-in be- i
tween that and the correspondence courses 'i
branch. I would assume that a good deal of j
the educational television will be concerned j
with adult education and I am wondering |
what plans there are for tying-in these two 3
areas. !
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there is no ^
plan at the moment to tie-in the correspon- |
dence courses with, shall we say, courses 'i
related to adult education. We are just not '^
in a position to do so this year. We have i
extended the correspondence courses, and I J
think there are some 5,000 more students ]
this year taking correspondence courses. As I
I related to the House last year, we have '
some experience with senior grade levels with 1
very excellent results. But there is no plan :
at the moment to relate, shall we say, the ^
correspondence courses and the potential ";
that exists for adult education through ETV. \
Mr. Chairman: On vote 510; the leader of j
the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ]
ask the Minister if the community pro- j
grammes branch is finally geared to work on •[
Indian reserves? There is some delay in the
application there. I know that the Minister ',
has expressed his intent for two or three
years that the availability of this programme :
would be extended to Indian reserves. I ''
would like to know if it is now available.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, in the re- ,:
organization which is now taking place of \
the community programmes branch with the i
youth branch, the establishment will be set :
up so that they can deal with the situation, ;
in order to develop programmes for the
Indian reserves. This is a part of their pro- ;
gramme.
Mr. Nixon: Are there any now? Are there
any programmes now?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure whether
there will be any ready for this, shall we say,
summer but we hopefully will have some
programmes ready by the fall.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 510; the member
for Parkdale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chair-
man, I was wondering if under this vote the
education of immigrant children in the Eng-
lish language would come under this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
think that probably the best vote for that
1
JUNE 6, 1968
4071
would be vote 516, the legislative grants,
because this is the money that is made avail-
able to the local boards for the operation of
the classes for the new Canadian children.
Mr. Trotter: Vote 516?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Vote 516, yes.
Vote 510 agreed to.
On vote 511:
Mr. Nixon: Mr, Chairman, I suppose there
are two votes that deal with colleges of
applied arts and technology. I do not know
whether you want to go into them together
or what?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Chairman,
vote 511 relates to the moneys that are used
internally within the operation of the branch
and it relates basically to the college pro-
gramme. But there are other services, and
perhaps we could have a discussion of votes
511 and 520 at the same time because they
are covering the same general area.
Mr. Nixon: I do not know w^hen you want
to do it, now or perhaps at a later time, but
I would begin by asking the Minister M^hy,
if the colleges are autonomous under their
own boards, such an inexpensive branch of
his own department is necessary in order to
co-ordinate their efiForts.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if you will
look at the estimates of The Department of
University Affairs you will find a fair sum.
We try to keep administration down to look
after the administrative details for the uni-
versities, I mean there have to be certain
functions relating to the payment of grants,
assistance in the development of curriculum,
the question of approval of architectural de-
sign for the colleges themselves, and of
course, part of this sum is also used for the
programmes with respect to manpower train-
ing, our relationship with the federal man-
power programme. So this is why this sum
is necessary.
Mr. Nixon: You have the duplication of a
number of the basic functions of the depart-
ment. For example, in curriculum and pro-
gramme, you have a duplication in the
educational television branch. Yes, you said
this afternoon that you had curriculum
people in educating—
Hon. Mr. Davis: We have the liaison; we
have very close-
Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, liaison, but you in-
dicated that some of the moneys that vi^ere
being spent went for educational television
and were to finance those people who were
expert in approving programmes, and that
they did not have to go to the curriculum
section per se of the department. The same
is true here, that you have evidently in vote
511 those experts in building design approval,
which could very well have come under vote
503. Surely, there is some integration possible
here. I agree that it is v/orthwhile to keep
the colleges of applied arts and technology
separate as much as possible, but if you want
to do that why not put them as true post-i>
secondary institutions in the other department
entirely?
Mr. Chairman: Might I ask the Minister
before he replies whether it is favourable to
him to discuss vote 511 along with 520 at
the present time? Does he have to bring
new staff to the table or will we proceed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we can go ahead, it
does not matter.
Mr. Chairman: We will discuss votes 511
and 520 now, together.
Mr. Nixon: I understand. The Minister
was about to give, before the Chairman
wanted to make his point clear, some informa-
tion as to why it is necessary to keep the
basic functions separate from the rest of The
Department of Education for the colleges of
applied arts and technology.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it is
purely administrative. There is not a dupHca-
tion of estimates, there is not a duplication of
personnel. In other words, there are so
many tasks to be performed. We have people
in the school approval section who deal with
elementary and secondary physical plant,
and we have personnel in the applied arts and
technology branch dealing with the college
programme. It is not a duplication,
Mr. Nixon: Is that a speciality?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, quite a speciality.
When you are dealing with a $12 million or
$14 million facility, as will be probably the
average cost, it takes some degree of spe-
cialization.
Mr. Nixon: Surely the people in the Minis-
ter's department who approve building de-
signs at the $3 million to $5 million level
could extend themselves to give approval for
this sort of building.
4072
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: But you add personality;
you know, it is a straight question of adminis-
tration, that is all.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but if you have half an
acre of personnel and you say, "All right, you
people on this side of the building deal only
with colleges of applied arts and technology,
and the people on the other side of the
room deal only with elementary and second-
ary schools," you are certainly setting up very
artificial divisions which surely are un-
economic.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as I say,
this vote also relates to the other vote as
administered by this particular branch. We
have the training programme, the training-in-
industry programme, and the programmes
that we operate in conjunction with the fed-
eral authorities; these are all administered
under this particular vote.
Mr. Nixon: I thought those training-in-
industry programmes came under the Minis-
ter of Labour (Mr. Bales).
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no; they are courses
that are given under the direction of The
Department of Education within industry that
relate to the responsibilities of The Depart-
ment of Education. And the same in the field
of manpower; we have a co-operative agree-
ment with the federal government.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister
as far as these two votes are concerned, to
what extent the federal government will be
picking up a significant amount of the
moneys that we are actually approving here
tonight or being asked to approve.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure how we could get this figure out of
vote 511; I could give him a rough approxi-
mation in vote 520.
Mr. Nixon: There are $46 million in all.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say of the
$45,747,000, probably $22 million-and this is
just an approximate figure— when you include
the cost of the operation of the Ontario coun-
cil of regents, I think you would have to
take that out; I do not think we are getting
any recovery on that.
Mr. Nixon: That is $64,00 right there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right. And I do
not believe we are getting anything on item
3, but just generally speaking it is 50 per
cent of the operating costs, which would be
in the neighbourhood of $22 million to $22.5 \
million. ]
Mr. Nixon: The grants of $45 million are i
operating grants only, and not capital grants, i
is that so? -i:
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right.
Mr. Nixon: I wonder to what extent addi- J
tional public funds would be made available i
through The Department of Public Works |
for capital requirements?
Hon. Mr. Davis: There will not be funds J
through The Department of Public Works, 1
Mr. Chairman; the funds will be through the I
corporation, the capital aid corporation. The :
schools are being built, the colleges are being
built by the board of governors, and we are
financing them through the corporation. Of :
course, there is no recovery from the federal ;
jurisdiction on capital at all. :
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is right. Well, that ^
will be about $174 miUion or $175 million
we are asked to vote in still another vote for
the corporation. To what extent would those
funds be channelled into community college
construction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the total
sum, as the hon. leader says, is about $175
million, and until we have all, shall we say,
the submissions from the universities and a
more up-to-date figure from the total number
of colleges, I cannot give him an exact
figure. But I would think that of the $175
million, perhaps $40 million to $45 million-
and this is just an approximation— would be
available for capital purposes for the college
programme.
Mr. Nixon: So this year something close to
$100 million-
Hon. Mr. Davis: Between $80 million and
$85 million, I think would be very close.
Mr. Nixon: We have $45 million here, and
the Minister just said $45 million, so that
would be $90 million which is being directed
by the Minister to the development of the
colleges of appHed arts and technology— that
most inconvenient name that has been given
to these organizations.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I should
interject here that tlie figure I gave of $40
million to $45 million will probably include
a sum of between $10 million and $14 million
for Ryerson, which is part of the $175 miHion.
Mr. Nixon: I see. The Minister is probably
aware of some complaints that have filtered
k
JUNE 6, 1968
4073
through from the staff of the former voca-
tional schools that came under his direct
supervision. The staff, as I understand it,
were considered civil servants at that time.
The transference from the direct supervision
of the department to the autonomy of the
community college situation has left a few of
them stranded by the wayside, and the auton-
omous boards have not seen fit to renew the
contract of everyone who had been employed
in the previous circumstances.
Does the Minister have a board of review
so that he can assure us that no injustices in
this regard have been done? There is one
outstanding case the Minster may have heard
of that I do not think has to be raised in detail
here, and if he is not aware of this single case
I would just like to ask it in general.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
I may be aware of the single case, if we are
talking about the same case. I do not know-
Mr. Nixon: He is from Algonquin.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I do not recall really
any other situation being brought to my
attention. I could be wrong in this, but there
certainly have been no more major problems
as we understand it with the transfer. I guess
you would face this situation even if tlie
institutions had remained under departmental
supervision or jurisdiction, if, as must happen
on occasion, there are teachers or instructors
who perhaps are not doing the task, and
whether you retain them within the institu-
tion. I think really we have been very
fortunate in the transfer operation that we
have had a minimum of difiBculty.
Mr. Nixon: And that difficulty actually has
boiled down to only one case?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would not want to be
held to that, Mr, Chairman, but I do not
think there have been very many, and this is
the one that I know of, or at least that has
come to my attention.
Mr. NLxon: As I understand it, the civil
service association is now the accepted bar-
gaining agent for the teachers or the staff at
the colleges of applied arts and technology.
I would hope there would be some association
with other teachers' organizations so that in
the submissions these stajSs may make to the
Minister from time to time there will be some
co-ordination.
But I am concerned as well, as far as these
institutions are concerned, with the transfer
rights the students should have, in my view,
into the regular university stream. With a
great deal of reluctance the committee of uni-
versity presidents have agreed that there
would be transference. This was assured by
the Minister in his earhest statements about
community colleges, although I had some
objections at the time because there was not
a clear right of transference, but only the
need to impress upon the deans and registrars
concerned, the individual's ability to take
university work.
I feel very strongly that an approach of
that type tends to enforce the rules of con-
formity to an unnecessary degree. I believe
very strongly as well that there should be a
clear, defined path leading from the com-
munity colleges to the regular degree-grant-
ing processes of the universities. I am not
at all convinced that the university presidents
have granted that in their rather reluctant
statement of some weeks ago. There is no
uniformity in the statement that came for-
ward at that time.
I cannot quote it now— I quoted it in my
introductory remarks— but some presidents
were looking for high standing in the last
year or in the second year of community
college work and others were looking for
a consistent high standing over the academic
career of the student concerned. I hope we
can be assured that there will a clear-cut and
well-understood path whereby a student can
transfer from Ryerson or community colleges
in general to a degree-granting institution
without the feeling that special favours are
being conferred at any level.
This is a situation that has been of some
importance since the first announcements
about community colleges. The Minister has
tried to straddle the fence in this in saying
that no student of ability would be denied
the right to proceed, and with this statement
he has managed to calm the fears of many.
I think really in the name of justice, there
has to be a clearly defined and well under-
stood patli so that a student can elect aca-
demic or other courses which are designed
and designated as giving access at least to
imiversity entrance at an advanced level.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have already made
several statements. I thought the hon. mem-
ber for Peterborough might want to comment
on this, then I would say something after he
finished.
Mr. Pitman: I would indeed like to com-
ment on this point, and I do not want in any
way to seem to be defending the university
in this case, but it seems to me that there is
a matter which is of some significance in this.
4074
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that if there is any further link
given between the cost of applied arts and
technology and the universities, you might
very well find a distortion in the programmes
of the colleges of applied arts and technology.
I think it is not just a matter of giving free-
dom to the individual student to move from
a college of applied arts and technology to a
university. I think one also has to make sure
that the student can move successfully and
effectively from a college of applied arts and
technology to a university. Just simply to
give a paper qualification to every student
who emerges from a second year successfully
with a certain percentage, would be a gross
injustice if this meant an automatic accept-
ance into a programme in a university in
which the student had absolutely no prepara-
tion. If you assume that the individual
student-
Mr. Nixon: No one is suggesting that they
go into medicine.
Mr. Pitman: I can assure the hon. leader
of the Opposition that I am not even speak-
ing of medicine. I am speaking of even far
more general arts— general science— I sug-
gested the first year in a college of applied
arts and technology might very well not pre-
pare a student for this. I suggest even more
that if the college of apphed arts and tech-
nology distorted its programmes in such a
way as to create the impresison that 100 per
cent of students were going into the second
year of a university, then I think this would
be a very unfortunate aspect to these colleges.
I think these colleges have a specific role
—a very special role, a very important role,
a significant role— in their own area. I would
be the first to suggest that the students in
the colleges of applied arts and technology
should be given every opportunity, and where
possible the courses should be provided, but
I suggest that this would have to be done
without that kind of distortion. So I would
hope that the Minister will not take actions
which will in some way distort the pro-
grammes of the colleges, making them less
effective for the 70, 80 perhaps 90 per cent
of the students who will be going through
them in order to comply with some kind of
relationship with the universities.
Mr. Nixon: Before the Minister answers,
if Mr. Chairman will permit, I want to make
it clear that if the student at the college of
apphed arts and technology elects to take on
specialized courses like advanced paramutual
computer work, or something like that, then
of course that is his decision. But it seems
to me that the decision should be made at
the highest level that the community colleges
will have a core of Hberal arts— in the gen-
erally understood meaning of that phrase-
that should be a community preparation for
a degree-granting institution, and if there is
a loss of a year in this regard I think that
would be understandable, although regret-
table. I do not feel for a moment that every
student of a college of applied arts and tech-
nology should per se have the right to pro-
ceed, but there must be in every one of these
colleges in my view the true open-ended
course that will permit them to continue
their education.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think I need comment at length. We have
discussed this on many occasions, and I must
say I was very encouraged by the statement
from the committee of presidents several
days ago, which I think is a very clear indi-
cation not only of their intentions in this
regard, but—
Mr. Nixon: I had the feeling you beat it
out of them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member reaUy gives me more credit than I
deserve—
Mr. Nixon: I give you the credit of a $2
billion budget-
Mr. MacDonald: That is a lot of beating.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, whatever
the reason the hon. member has for thinking
we did or did not have any hand in it, I only
say this, that I was quite encouraged by the
position taken by the university presidents.
I think this, and I have said this all along,
that it is still very difficult to, shall we say,
lay out specific guidelines, because the courses
themselves in the colleges are still in the
formative stage. There has been no oppor-
tunity on the part of the universities to evalu-
ate this point on some of the courses being
offered— as I have said, and I was delighted
to hear the member for Peterborough say,
and I have said this many times in the last
six or eight months in this province.
Interjections by hon, members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member will
recall I completely left my prepared script on
that occasion, so he might be able to tell me
what I said, and I could not disagree with
him. I only say that it is very important
that these institutions establish their own
identity, their own viability, their own ac-
ceptance on the part of the public. I think
JUNE 6, 1968
4075
this is the basis to the entire progratmme,
and I think the day has come, and I sense this
in all the material I read, that not only is
there a growing acceptance on the part of
the public, but there is a genuine enthusiasm
for the role that the colleges may play.
I think we have moved away from the day
when people referred to dead-end or terminal
institutions. I think that those who have
said this in the past are recognizing that this
was not a valid description of the concept of
these institutions. So I say, Mr. Chairman, I
am heartened by two things here tonight; one
is, of course, the position taken by the presi-
dents of the universities, and the other is the
really constructive approach taken by the
leader of the Opposition, recognizing that it
is not easy to completely defiine all of these
things at this stage, and of course, by the
member for Peterborough who himself sug-
gests that these institutions must have a
validity on their own. I could go on all
night on the college programme if you like,
but I do not intend to.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Chair-
man, I had really no great intention of get-
ting into this debate at all until I did recall
the Minister's remarks at Seneca College. It
is very interesting really to go to one of the
ceremonies. I had the privilege of being
invited and the privilege of hearing the
Minister deliver his off-the-cuff remarks, as he
said he threw his notes away.
Mr. Nixon: Did you help cut the ribbon?
Mr. Singer: Oh there was all sorts of pomp
and circumstance; you never saw such a
thing, you would not believe it. We had on
the three-cornered hats and the robes. Oh
yes, and they were bowing to each other and
people were helping each other on with their
hoods.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not have on a hat.
Mr. Singer: Did you not have a hat?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No I did not.
Mr. Singer: And then one of the governors
of that particular board— mail-order doctorate,
you know the one I am referring to— was most
impressive. I am sure that kind of pomp and
circumstance impresses the lion, member for
Peterborough, who is a member of the staff
of one of those colleges, I think it is called
Trent, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, that is a university,
be very careful-
Mr. Singer: But the impression I came
away with, Mr. Chairman, was that they are
replacing all of the functions of the university,
all of the ceremonial functions. I am sorry
my colleague from Sudbury (Mr. Sopha) is
not here to explain to me in more flowered
language, but he would have been impressed
had he been there with me, and watched in
this great amphitheatre with the seats built
up on the banks and the spotlights focused
on to the trading of the three-cornered hats
from one to the other, and the placing of
robes, and the bowing and the scraping and
so on. He would have been duly impressed,
as I was, with the idea that here was the
acme of performance that any academic
organization could supply. In itself the
ceremony seemed to be a dead-end. Why go
to university? You have much better cere-
monies here at these junior colleges.
Mr. Chairman, the thing that I am con-
cerned about, the thing that I am very
seriously concerned about, is where the
Minister starts in channelling people into
these junior colleges. Somewhere along the
line the separation between the five-year
courses and the four-year courses takes place.
And the four-year people have little alterna-
tive but to go to these junior colleges. Grudg-
ingly, there has been a very small recognition
of the fact that possibly a few of them can
get on to the universities. But whether the
Minister likes the word "dead-end" or
"terminal" or any other descriptive phrase
along the same line, the fact is that this seems
to be the pattern. And all of the sound and
symbols and fury and parading and so on,
seems designed to promote this; this is your
alternative, and we are going to replace—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you saying that every-
body should go to university?
Mr, Singer: No, I am not saying everybody
should go to university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Then what are you after?
Mr. Singer: No, I would be much happier,
Mr. Chairman, if I heard some reasonable
way in which there could be an analysis of
those people who have the ability to go to
university. In my experience, and it is very
limited; I do not parade as an educationist
and I do not parade-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Well, that is fine. That is fine.
Okay. I do not pretend at all, Mr. Chairman,
to have the great fund of knowledge that the
Minister has in this, but I emerged from that
ceremony feeling that here was a bunch of
absolutely nothing going on, where a group
of people were parading around with all
4076
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these robes, and making great speeches, and
going through great ceremony to replace, in
the minds of the students, the equivalent
ceremony in university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The students were not
there. This was the installation of the presi-
dent, as I recall.
Mr. Singer: Yes, I know. Most impressive.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought he made a very
excellent speech.
Mr. Singer: I am sure he did, I agree.
Hon. Mr. Davis: And that the chairman of
the board of governors did very well.
Mr. Singer: With great respect, Mr. Chair-
man, to the Minister, he made a far better
speech than the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure he did.
Mr. Singer: Yes, but the whole point, inso-
far as I was concerned, was that this whole
ceremony impressed itself on me as being a
"dead-end"; that there was no opportunity
for 99.9 per cent of those students to emerge
from that educational institution into the
universities. And there was no encourage-
ment given by the president, and there was
no real encouragement given by the Minister.
I am not saying that all of those students
should be able to, but there should be an
opportunity and an encouragement presented,
because when you do the separation quite a
few years earlier in your secondary institu-
tions, there is no ability from there on in for
a pupil to extract himself from them. Now
there it is, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister,
tonight, despite all he is trying to tell me in
speeches, is saying "everyone should not go
to university."
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say that. I said
"are you saying everybody should?" that is
all I asked.
Mr. Singer: No, but you have not answered
the question. Nor has there been, in this vast
programme of expenditure, any real answer.
And I say that the programme misses some-
thing very important in this, and it is time the
Minister, through these colleges, began to
give some of the answers to those young
people who are anxious to be able to remove
themselves from this arbitrary streaming that
they have been subjected to.
Mr. Nixon: The old-fashioned Robarts
plan.
Mr. Singer: Yes, and get themselves back
into the university stream if they have the
ability and the desire to go on.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can ;
give a couple of examples that might illus- I
trate the value of these so-called community ]
colleges. This came to me on two occasions, I
from two different parents who indicated, to )
me, how pleased they were that there was a
college such as this in the Kingston area.
And these were students who were in the
five-year course who, for various reasons, had ]
become rather disinterested in school. They j
wanted to drop out of school, and when the ';
college opened last September in Kingston,
they enrolled in the college. The parents said
to me that you have never seen such a change
in the attitude of two young people, any-
where. And I think that this illustrates one
of the great contributions that these colleges
are providing for our young people in this
province. And, as far as I am concerned, the i
success of St. Lawrence College in Kingston ■
has proved, beyond a doubt, the great value ;
of these colleges of applied arts and tech- )
nology. I was very heartened to see the '
statement by the university principals that |
they were opening the door— not very far ^
mind you— but there were—
Mr. Nixon: A pretty frosty statement that
was! • .
Mr. Apps: That is right, they were opening
the doors, to some extent, so that pupils from
these colleges could continue on to university.
I think you will find, that as these colleges
develop, that these doors will be opened
wider and wider and, eventually, I believe,
that there will be courses developed in the
community colleges that will lead directly to
universities. I would like to congratulate the
Minister on the initiative and the speed in
which these colleges have developed. I feel
that they are making a great contribution to
the young people of this province.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the member
for Kingston and the Islands has taken the
bait so nicely dangled by the Minister. No
one criticized those junior colleges. They are
doing a fine job. But, the concern that many
of us have is that they are designed to be,
and they are continuing to be designed to
be, dead-end institutions. The last part of
the remarks of the member for Kingston and
the Islands saying that the door was open a
little bit, he meant there is a tiny crack,
maybe visible, and that is all. And some of
us would feel much more comforted, if thCTe
I
JUNE 6, 1968
4077
was a more authoritative definition of how
the door could be pushed wider open. There
is nothing, yet, that I have been able to see
from my own observations, that indicates
this is happening. The thing that I am so
concerned about, is that the streaming that
takes place as a result of the so-called
Robarts plan, takes place and affects
youngsters at an age when, perhaps, a great
number of mistakes can be made. But once
they get streamed, they are facing that
dead-end. The junior colleges, while of some
substantial help to an awful lot of people in
the province and an important part of our
educational system, are not the answer. We
are losing a great number of people because
the door is kept almost tightly closed.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But, they are the answer.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, on this point,
I was wondering, if the member for Kingston
and the Islands was aware that this govern-
ment, and particularly this department, has
practically ignored every recommendation
made by his committee. It was drawn to
my attention on this very subject, having
to do with the colleges of applied arts. Now,
it was admitted that there was a great need
for colleges of applied arts, and nobody
on the committee seemed to question it,
regardless of their party. This committee
made various recommendations, I think about
80 recommendations having to do with edu-
cation affecting youth, and from what I
can gather, nothing under this particular
estimate has been done in relation to the
committee's recommendations; nor in prac-
tically any other government department,
because each time this particular matter has
come up, I have sent to the library for the
committee on youth's report, and I am
astonished that of the 276 recommendations
made by that committee chairman, the
member for Kingston and tlie Islands, hardly
anything has been touched.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): That is not true!
Mr. Trotter: It certainly is true, what I am
saying. What I regret most sincerely, on this
particular item mentioned, as the member
for Downsview has said, are the tremendous
dropouts, because the committee on youth
drew to the attention of the Legislatmre,
through its report, that we, in this province,
fail to give the students who attend the col-
leges—I think the formal name is applied
arts and technology— the same opportunity as
they do in other jurisdictions, to continue in
their education. I do not intend to belabour
this point, Mr. Chairman, but I can refer to
page 66 of the report, made by the committee
on youth. What I would like to draw to the
attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman,
while this matter has come up, is that, un-
fortunately, when these select committees are
formed, and they made good reports on this
very item— matters worth considering— that it
seems to be that the efforts, and the time, and
expense of these committees are utterly
wasted.
Now, the Minister of this department has
had approximately a year and a half to digest
what this committee on youth had to say
about education. It can be mentioned under
many estimates, Mr. Chairman, but because
we are on applied arts and technology, I
think it is extremely important— this particu-
lar item. It could also be discussed, I guess,
under the item "estimate on youth," but what
concerns me is that this particular committee
on youth made an excellent report. It had
the-
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to interrupt,
but did the hon. member refer me to specific
recommendations in the youth committee
report?
Mr. Trotter: Yes, on page 66.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, I think on a
point of order here.
Mr. Trotter: Recommendations 73 to 77.
Mr. Apps: I would like to just go through
those recommendations.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl Would the member
for Kingston and the Islands indicate, to the
Chairman, what the point of order is?
Mr. Apps: What I am saying, Mr. Chair-
man, is that the member for Parkdale has
indicated that The Department of Education
has not implemented any of the recommenda-
tions in this particular section.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Apps: And the point of order is that
they have. I am not the champion for The
Department of Education any more than any-
one else is. But if you would go through
those recommendations, you will see that of
the five recommendations there are three
that have been implemented and half of one
of the others. The last one is a study which
has been undertaken to determine how many
Ontario secondary school students should
leave the province for post-secondary educa-
tion and why.
4078
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is
not a point of order.
Mr. Apps: I am just trying to point out
that of tliose five recommendations more than
half of them have been implemented.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, are you not
going to call him to order or is he going to
be able to read the whole report?
Mr. Trotter: I would say this, Mr. Chair-
man, that some of these colleges were begun
before this committee on youth was ever
formed. As a result, the committee making
the recommendations had this to say regard-
ing the colleges of applied arts:
Many Ontario colleges are finding that
numbers of their students a^e going to
American junior colleges for college courses
that are not offered near them or cannot be
obtained because their passing marks in
grade 13 do not make them eligible to
attend Ontario universities.
The same problem is still going on and the
effort simply has not been made. It has been
known for years, even without a committee
on youth being formed, that this was a prob-
lem in this province. What the committee on
youth did was to try to highlight this problem
and I point out that the provincial govern-
ment has not begun to deal with the problem.
Hon. Mr. Davis: But the fact is that the
college programme is under way. Let us
accept it. It is doing very well in the hon.
member's community too.
Mr. B. Newman: It could do a lot better,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Your community is one
that is being approved for a larger physical
plant as well.
Mr. Nixon: They are meeting in super-
markets now.
Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, the only recom-
mendation of this group here that has not
been implemented is the one in which we
recommended that there should be an easier
path between community colleges and uni-
versities. That is the only recommendation
in this particular group that has not been
implemented. We have discussed that and I
have already mentioned the fact that I have
been encouraged— whether the members in
the Opposition have been encouraged or not
I do not know— but I have been encouraged
with the attitude of the university presidents
who at one time were very inflexible. I think
they have now seen the light and are gradu-
ally opening the way for this transition to
take place.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right. I would say
to the House that in a report of that kind ii
you are batting four out of five and with
some real success in the fifth, Mr. Chairman,
I think we have made very real progress.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The Por-
cupine campus of the northern college of
applied arts and technology had this past
year, I believe, a very excellent dean, Mr.
John McLeod. To my chagrin I read this past
week that he was leaving the college and
going to pursue further studies. Now I think
that the results at that campus this year were
very encouraging—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Tell the member for Park-
dale so he will know.
Mr. Ferrier: Well we had a dean that was
very prcg-essive in his thinking and I think
that-
Mr. Nixon: Have you got a new dean
coming?
Mr. Ferrier: Well just wait until I make
my speech. You can make yours and I will
make mine.
I think he accomplished a great deal with
those young people, that there was a good
rapport. I think the residts were very out-
standing. They had a year book in the first
year of operation, something these other
colleges have not had in three years. I think,
when we get a progressive educationist like
this, that steps should be taken to see that he
is still within the system while he is going
out for a little more education. I would hate
to see us lose progressive educationists like
this. I hope the Minister will take steps to
see that such people just are not lost in any
number at all.
Mr. Chairman: Votes 511 and 520. The
member for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to comment on one or two problems that I
see arising in these colleges. First I can say
that we are pleased that these colleges have
been able to accommodate 15,000 young
people who otherwise might not have been
in the post-secondary system. However, I
am concerned about the future of these
colleges in view of what I feel is the rather
disturbing lack of status which the staffs of
these colleges have. Sometime last summer,
JUNE 6, 1968
4079
I think, the colleges were declared to be
Crown agencies and the employees thus
became Crown employees. I think this is an
inappropriate status; I think it is inappropri-
ate for people who should be assured of
academic freedom. I think it is inappropriate
when I think the Minister hopes to see these
colleges achieve the status— with a diflferent
role— but the same status as other post-
secondary institutions such as universities.
Now, as the leader of the Opposition has
mentioned, it appears that at present the
CSAO is the bargaining agent. I think they
are automatically the bargaining agent once
the decision is made that they are Crown
agencies. I cannot help wondering why some
other form of status was not found. It seems
to me that in the Minister's comments to the
House the other night he mentioned that the
Ontario government could have run these
colleges as they had previously run the
technical institutes, but the hope was that they
would be independent, that they would be
locally controlled, that there would be a good
deal of achievement in terms of local interest.
Now I think this is a proper decision. I think
it was the right decision. I think it is wholly
unfortunate through some legalistic compli-
cation that these colleges are declared to be
Crown agencies. I think it is unfortunate too
that for that reason the employees then find
themselves to be virtually Crown employees
—not civil servants, I realize, but Crown
employees.
I think that this brings up the question, and
I know that there was oblique reference tot
the individual in, I think, Algonquin College,
a Dr. Stenger. There was a great deal of diffi-
culty, and there was a rather oblique reference
to the fact that you were sure that was the
only case.
I am not so sure that case has been dealt
with. What I would like to know from the
Minister is just what has happened in rela-
tion to Dr. Stenger. Now, the information
that I have— and I read simply from docu-
ments, not written by Dr. Stenger, but by the
Minister— is that the principal of the previous
college, had been written by the new princi-
pal of the Algonquin Colleges of applied arts
and technology. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman,
I am appalled at the way in which this man
was treated.
Now, I hold no brief for Dr. Stenger as an
educationist. I do not know— in fact I am not
sure that the Minister or the principal at
Algonquin College really know— because as
far as I can see no definite charge has been
laid against Dr. Stenger at all. What I think
has happened is that there was a first class
effort to oust Dr. Stenger without any legal
right to do so. Then there has been an appall-
ing wastage of public funds to shore up the
mistake that was made by that particular
board of governors of the college itself, who,
I assume, is the responsible agency in this
case.
You have a situation whereby the state-
ments and letters of the Minister himself that
these employees had guarantees that they
were to remain on the staff of Algonquin
College, once the eastern Ontario institute of
technology disappeared. Then you have an
effort to oust Dr. Stenger at the end of May.
Then in July there is a return to the old situa-
tion, and he is put back on staff. He receives
a letter a few months later indicating that he
is now to disregard the letter that he received
in May and he is back on staff. He arrives at
the college and there is no teaching position
for him. He does not even have a desk in the
college. He is then virtually told that he has
the option of accepting a job for four months,
and this goes on and on and on. It is indica-
tive that the guarantee of the Minister of
Education would be effective for that four-
month period. Then he is not given a teach-
ing position, but he is told that he can go and
carry on a research project. This project has
no meaning whatsoever, that I can find, and
he is not even given a desk in the college to
Carry out the research project. There are not
even books in the library to carry out the
project. Yet this man is being paid $12,000
a year to do this.
Now, I am putting this forward, and I want
to know essentially in the first case, what has
been done in relation to this person— because
if this could happen to a secondary school
teacher, you know that all hell would break
loose. The Minister would have a board of
reference, there would be all kinds of prob-
lems. It could never even happen in the
university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There would not be all
kinds of problems because there would be a
board of reference and it would be resolved.
I am not familiar with the details of the
case, quite frankly Mr. Chairman. I do know
of it, and I can tell you this much, that I
understand that this is subject to correction
and I will endeavour to find out for the hon.
member. That Dr. Stenger has had some
negotiation in the last few days with the
Algonquin board, and apparently has accepted
the offer that was made last fall, now I will
confirm this for the hon. member. This is
just the information that I have here tonight.
4080
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pitman: As I said, I intend to pursue
the matter.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know what I shall
6nd.
Mr. Pitman: The situation at this point was
that he had not been paid since September
because he would not sign a letter in which
he would have accepted that offer, and that
would have been the end of it. I do not
know, but I certainly have heard of no change
in the situation in the last few days. But I
suggest to the Minister that the staffs of these
colleges of applied arts and technology will
not be able to have the same kind of status
until this is resolved.
Now, I brought a matter to the attention
of the Minister's department and I was treated
most fairly in regard to this matter, but I
came to the very serious conclusion that the
department itself was in a situation in which
it did not want to be. I would hope that this
would be resolved. This referred to a Mr.
Harold Wilson who wanted to run for poHti-
cal office in the city of Ottawa. So what
happened?
He was told that he could have two weeks
without pay. Well, I do not care what politi-
cal party for which he was running, but if he
was in a university—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Who does he work for,
which party was it-
Mr. Pitman: Algonquin College again, and
he was running for the New Democratic
Party, but this is a completely irrelevant aspect
of the matter. If he was running for the
Liberals or the Conservatives, I would state
his case with the same amount of enthusiasm.
The point is that I am sure the Minister has
read the resolutions, for example of the Uni-
versity of Toronto, about candidacy for politi-
cal office, and perhaps he has read the reso-
lutions of other universities. On this matter,
the man could have had his holidays and
campaigned during his holiday, but this is
the offer: two weeks without pay.
I suggest to the Minister— and as I say, it is
not because of any illiberal attitude on the
part of the Minister I am sure, or on the part
of the board of governors, or the part of any-
one in his department.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not determine
whether he should have two weeks or four
weeks.
Mr. Pitman: I realize tliis, Mr. Chairman.
I am not bringing a charge, but I am sug-
gesting-
Mr. Nixon: He used ilHberal!
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I see-
Mr. Pitman: Well, I hope that all of this
levity does not indicate a lack of concern on
the part of the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am totally aware of the
point that the hon. member is making, Mr.
Chairman— with no levity at all. I know
exactly what he is saying.
Mr. Pitman: I do hope that he will bring
to some conclusion the status of staff mem-
bers of the applied arts and technology
colleges. They will not be able to perform
the kind of function, and they will not
have the kind of academic freedom that I am
sure the Minister wants them to have as long
as they are Crown employees, and in the bind
of simply having that kind of status. I hope
that the Minister will look into this matter of
Dr. Stenger in particular, but I also hope that
he can envisage some way of getting around
this particular situation.
Mr. B. Newman: I would like to ask the
Minister who decides what kind of course
will be given at the colleges of arts?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the de-
cision with respect to many of the courses is
made by the board and the staff of the insti-
tution. Of course, this is subject to general
approval of the council of regents as it relates
to economics, and, of course there has been,
and I think that it is valid, the desire to see
that courses in one college— shall we say
engineering technology— at the same validity
or relevance that would exist in another
college. There are two types of levels of
courses.
Mr. B. Newman: Between one college of
applied arts and technology—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, through the council
of regents we know what the other colleges
are doing.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister:
Is there any course in meat technology being
contemplated?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not hear the ques-
tion.
Mr. B. Newman: Meat technology. The
slaughtering, the purchasing and the mer-
chandizing of meat. I have had suggestions
concerning this, and requests that such a
course be implemented.
JUNE 6, 1968
4081
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will find out. I do not
know of any.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask also, on the
food service industry, whether there are
courses concerning the food service industry?
I know that the restaurant and hotel oper-
ators in my own community asked that such
a course be set up. Now, I know that you do
not need a course like that in every com-
munity college, but possibly one of them
should have some of the courses that I have
mentioned.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
give the hon. member a complete list, but
there are courses of this kind at George
Brown College, and, I believe, at Georgian
College. Now, there may be one or two
others, and I shall find out.
Mr. B. Newman: There is no pamphlet put
out at all by the department, listing the vari-
ous courses available so that a student in the
grade 12 programme could check over the
list of courses available and then know where
he should direct his communication.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there is a
pamphlet that has just been made available
that I think will accomplish part of this, and,
of course, the individual colleges themselves
publish their own calendar, which is distrib-
uted to the schools which the college generally
serves.
Mr. B. Newman: I think that is very good.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that the pamphlet
that has gone out will indicate just what you
are interested in, as a student in Windsor
getting information about what is happening
at Sheridan College in the great tovm of
Brampton, because there may be a course
there which is more relevant than in Windsor.
Mr. B. Newman: I think that he coiJd get
somewhere in the province of Ontario. May
I ask the Minister the status of the college of
applied arts and technology in my own com-
munity, because, Mr. Chairman, it was orig-
inally planned in 1956, and this is 1968. One
thing that does sort of disturb me is that you
have leased the building, or asked for an ex-
tension of the lease on the present facilities,
on Mercer Street to 1973, and there is a pro-
vision in the lease for another five-year exten-
sion. We are afraid that by 1978 we still
will not have the facility completed in our
community.
Hon. Mr, Davis: Mr. Chairman, the first
stage has been approved by the council. I
think the first stage is $1.3 million or $1.4
million, I cannot give the hon. member the
exact amount. I think if he would check
with the chairman of the board he would
get some idea of when they might even be
having a sod turning ceremony. But it has
gone this far— maybe even a ribbon cutting
ceremony.
Mr. B. Newman: I would not be disturbed
by not being invited. I have never been, so,
it does not matter to me.
Mr. Chairman, remember when we com-
mented on buildings erected? You see the
buildings have not been erected. One
building has been erected and it is only a
temporary building in my community. So
buildings— plural, have not been erected at
all. You will say I am just deahng with the
matter of semantics—
Hon. Mr. Davis: You are indeed.
Mr. B. Newman: But you know—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Buildings refer to the
total college programme.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, you certainly can
stick handle your way around this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not propose to be
as academically qualified-
Mr. B. Newman: But you see you cannot
put those students in buildings that do not
exist in my community. May I suggest to
the Minister that he seriously consider the—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Tomorrow.
Mr. B. Newman: No, not tomorrow because
you know this already— I have been pushing
this programme for nine years in this House
and I would like to see, before the good
Lord takes me away, the college progranmie
completed in my community.
Hon. Mr. Davis: We will build them. I
am sure you will.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, we will probably
have to build them, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister,
in commenting on the difficulty that he had
at least in one instance in squaring away the
problem of transference of tenure from the
vocational schools to the community colleges,
said that there would not be this difficulty
if there had been some sort of a board of
reference.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no I said—
4082
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: As there would have been in
the secondary schools.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Nixon: Well it may possibly be that
there will be some other staffing difficulties
in the future. They are not his responsibilities
admittedly. They are the responsibilities of
the autonomist boards, but is he going to
give any guidance or any overall structure
through which these people can grieve. Will
they only be able to grieve through the civil
service commission? Or what is the answer
to this problem?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
answer to this problem is that we do not,
at this point, have an answer. This is the
message that v/as being given to me by the
hon. member for Peterborough and, I assume,
from the leader of the Opposition. This is
still one of the grey areas. The labour rela-
tions board, on the reference of it, determined
that these employees were Crov/n employees
or at least Crown agencies— these institutions
which, I think, looking at the legislation,
might be valid. I would not want to question
their decision.
After looking at the legislation, I would
say I am not sure we anticipated that this
would be the situation and we have to see
what is to be done.
Mr. Nixon: Well how are you going to—
Hon. Mr. Davis: We do not know yet.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
you would go a little further. You set up 20
colleges— 19 colleges. This is very, very good
and it seems to me that in many cases you
did bring outstanding people into the top
echelon of these colleges. But in any enter-
prise in which you have accomplished this
much, you are also going to make some
mistakes. The honeymoon will be over very
soon and the sorting out will have to begin.
There will have to be some way by which
justice can be given to those who are going
to be removed or demoted or in some way
placed in a different situation.
So I suggest to you, even though we have
talked about one man, we are in essence
talking about a great many others who in
future will face this situation.
For one thing, would the Minister not feel
far better if these people were being repre-
sented by their own faculty association rather
than the civil service association?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether I would feel better or not
The council of regents may recognize the
problem here. They form the committee with
the board of governors to see just what is
the best way to come to grips with it. They
are anxious, we are anxious to have a proper
procedure established, to see that a person
who is on the faculty of the college is not
prejudiced when it comes to a matter at
transfer or severance tenure.
We know that this is a problem and we
just do not know what the future is at this
stage. I think that the solution can and will
be found very shortly.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to pursue this briefly. I think
most angles of it have been exhausted, but
my recollection is that when you set up the
colleges of applied arts and technology, the
Minister was quite insistent on the fact that
these were going to be independent institu-
tions. Indeed, at the same time as he moved
to do this, Ryerson was established on an
independent basis as evidence of the govern-
ment's intention and good faith. Last year,
the Minister really leaned over backwards to
indicate that the council of regents was a
separate body. So much so, that it hardly
would take recommendations from him for
appointments to the board of governors.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Have you anyone on the
board?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not think so. None
of the independent ones. I was out, inci-
dentally, to the convocation of Humber col-
lege and my impression was a distinctly
different one from that presented by the hon.
member for Downsview. I had the feeling as
I listened to the hon. member for Downs-
view that he went to a performance that he
felt was rather empty and aimless and was a
little pretentious, but he learned well, be-
cause his own comments were magnificently
in that category. However, let me get back
to what I—
Mr. Nixon: It is a shame that he is not
even here. He hardly ever reads Hansard.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I want to pick up on
the thread of my thought.
The Minister indicated that he wanted to
have independent institutions and I have tried
to establish that. Now the Minister made a
very curious comment a moment ago. He
said: "we did not anticipate what happened
when the ruling was made by the labour re-
lations board.
JUNE 6, 1968
4083
Hon. Mr. Davis: As you say, I did not.
Mr. MacDonald: You did not.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, you are just con-
firming. The Minister's intention was that
they should be independent. Now the Min-
ister, in effect, is saying that this government
once again has blindly walked into a Crown
agency status. It was not your intention but
this is what you have come up with. Now it
is about time this government were to—
Hon. Mr. Davis: We did not come up with
it. It came up because of a decision of the
board.
Mr. MacDonald: I know it. But, Mr. Chair-
man, you are one person I will not have to
inform— that the problem with The Crown
Agencies Act is that it was passed in the first
instance to free certain institutions in the
province of Ontario from having to pay cer-
tain federal taxes. After it had been passed
to achieve this purpose, then some smart
lawyers acting on behalf of employees in
certain agencies, went to the Ontario labour
relations board.
They took a closer look at the Act and con-
cluded these are now Crown agencies of
Ontario. While the Minister who passed the
Act in the first instance— the hon. Kelso
Roberts— said this was not his intention,
neither he nor anybody in the government
has been willing to go back and amend the
Act to achieve your original intention and
not the abortion that has emerged.
Now the Minister, once again, says the
government has stumbled into the same kind
of a position. It was not his intention that
these colleges should be Crown agencies, but
now a decision has come down from the
labour relations board that they are and he
is not sure what is going to happen.
Well, let me just endorse and add to the
plea of my colleague from Peterborough. I
think you are going to have unnecessary, and
I am sure when it happens, unwelcomed dif-
ficulties in these institutions. If there is one
institution in the modern world— I need say
no more than to point to this— where there is
a ferment in every nation of the world, and
if we have not had it to as great an extent in
Canada, let us consider ourselves lucky and
not provoke it, it is the kind of ferment we
have seen in post-secondary institutions.
It seems to me, if you add to the normal
ferment of a post-secondary institution, the
kind of straitjacket and restrictions that you
get in a Crown agency, you are asking for
trouble. When you get it do not start to com-
plain at that point. I would suggest that if
the Minister did not intend these institutions
to be Crown agencies then he should take
the necessary steps and statutes to make them
independent bodies in effect, to overrule the
decision that has come from the Ontario
labour relations board.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
only say this. I have enough problems with-
out going looking for them and so I can
assure the hon. member I get the point that
he is expressing. I just wish he would repeat
what he said earlier though about the convo-
cation at Humber college.
Mr. MacDonald: I have no desire to repeat
it. If people do not want to be here to hear
my gems of wisdom then-
Mr. Singer: You should warn when the
next one is coming.
Mr. Chairman: Votes 511 and 520 carried?
Mr. Pitman: No, Mr. Chairman. There are
one or two aspects about the colleges of ap-
plied arts and technology which bother me
as well.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, there were
two aspects 20 minutes ago. I though we
dealt with them.
Mr. Pitman: They keep coming to mind—
Hon, Mr. Davis: Oh I see— all right.
Mr. Nixon: It is $90 million.
Mr. Pitman: It is a lot of money. I am
wondering in view of the fact that we find
ourselves, as my leader suggests, in a period
of ferment, and when young people are de-
manding more and more of a part to play in
the educational process, it seems to me that
the way in which the board— at least the board
of governors— has been set up in each of the
colleges of applied arts and technology, does
not really give very much opportunity for
students to take a part. There is no provision.
It is therefore student representation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not in the legislation,
Mr. Chairman, but if the hon. member wishes
to get into this he might canvass what is
happening in many of the colleges with
respect to the relationship between students,
the faculty and the board. I think that several
of the colleges have worked out a very
acceptable relationship, and I think he might
take a look at these, if he has a moment.
Mr. Pitman: I have done that, Mr. Chair-
man, and I still come with a feeling that at
4084
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
least some students have suggested they
would like to have a place in a formal way
on boards of governors, very much as some of
the university students feel that they would
like to have a place on boards of governors.
I am wondering why it is that, especially
in view of the fact that the colleges of applied
arts and technology are all so obviously struc-
tured from the centre— from the department,
that no opportunity was given for students
to play a major part in the formal governing
bodies of these colleges.
Would the Minister even consider the possi-
bility of encouraging this? They are not
entirely independent institutions. I think this
has been indicated tonight, and therefore
there might still be one last opportunity
before the legislation is changed, and they
do become independent institutions to deal
with that kind of a problem. Perhaps in co-
operation with the committee of the presidents
of the colleges of applied arts and technology,
which may be developing over the next
number of months.
One more comment, then. And this is my
last problem, I am sure you will be glad to
hear.
There is an interesting situation— the hon.
member for Downsview brought up— the
whole question of the possibility of young
people being channelled out of the university
to a college of applied arts and technology
and not being able to return. Now I tliink
that this matter has shored up. I think that,
with the latest statement of the committee of
presidents, there is every indication, as there
has been in the past. Many Ryerson students
have already been accepted into universities,
and have done very well in universities.
Now the other problem is this, and I can
see that it might very well have financial
implications. It is quite obvious that in order
to go to a college of applied arts and tech-
nology, it is much cheaper. The fees are
much lower than that of a university and is
there not the possibility that young people
will be channelled economically into colleges
of applied arts and technology who might
otherwise, if the fees had not been so high
and particularly if presidents' fees had not
been included, have gone to a university? In
other words, do you not have any fear that
you are getting social classification, or eco-
nomic classification, through the barrier of a
different fee structure and different oppor-
tunities? The fact that there are not residen-
tial facilities in colleges of applied arts and
technology, you may have a channelling, by
the problem which was indicated by the
member for Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid)
last night. In other words because the colleges
of applied arts and technology might very
well contain people who are not economically
able to go to university, though intellectually
able to go.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
sometimes think, and I say this in a very
kindly fashion, that the member for Peter-
borough is a bit of a worry. I guess we all
are, but I would suggest if this is a problem,
that there are only two solutions.
One, raise the fees to the community
colleges or (b), lower the fees to the universi-
ties. I will not even bother, sir, to ask the
hon. member for Peterborough which choice
he would make.
Mr. Pitman: It is my job to worry, and
your job to know.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Thank you.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, before this vote,
I cannot let a stray remark from the member
for York South go without some sort of
comment.
Mr. MacDonald: You swallowed the bait.
Mr. Singer: No, no! This is a different
kind of bait. He was talking about how for-
tunate we are not to have our universities
and our educational institutions in ferment.
I wonder how he would reconcile that remark
with the remarks quoted in the press desk,
the other day, made by the member for
Beaches -Woodbine (Mr. Brown) who was
encouraging— as far as I read it, and, perhaps,
a bad paraphrase— the students to arm them-
selves and march on Queen's Park, and bum
it down, to show how unhappy they were.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in this
day and age, when we have so much ferment,
I was surprised and shocked that a member
of this House would make that kind of an
inflammatory speech; and I would like to
know how the member for York South can
justify that, in line with what he said tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we have
had another magnificent example of the
Liberal-Tory coahtion. What the hon. mem-
her for Beaches-Woodbine said was that
there is real ferment in our post-secondary|
institutions. If we have not had as violent
manifestations of it, as is the case in the
United States, we are fortunate. What I am
pleading with this Minister is, that he does
not reduce these institutions to Crown agen-
cies, even if he did it unintentionally, so that
JUNE 6, 1968
4085
he provokes unrest. There is enough ferment
as it is, as my colleague from Woodbine
pointed out.
Vote 511 agreed to.
On vote 512:
Mr. Nixon: Has it been indicated the youth
branch is going to be augmented by the com-
munity programmes, or it is going to disap-
pear to augment the community programme?
I am not sure which.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
are accepting the recommendation, another
recommendation we have accepted. I wish
the member for Parkdale were here so I
could remind him of this, of the youth com-
mittee, a very excellent recommendation that
these two branches of the department be
combined, and this is what we have done.
Now which branch is going to augment the
other, I am not prepared to say, they are
being brought together.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but the offer of the recom-
mendation, that I think the member for King-
ston and the Islands was referring to, is the
elevation of the youth branch into the de-
partmental status. And, I do not suppose you
have anything to do with that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not, Mr, Chair-
man. We are bringing the youth branch and
the community programmes together, in an
operative branch.
Mr. Nixon: Called what?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Youth and recreation; I
thought it covered both pretty well.
Mr. Nixon: Are you going to put the fit-
ness programme into that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think that is where
it will eventually go.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under
either vote 512 or 514. I will either talk
then or now.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Let us do vote 514.
Mr. B. Newman: In vote 514. You will get
it then.
Vote 512 agreed to.
On vote 513:
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I would
like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if
there is thought of combining libraries to a
greater degree with schools, so that we do not
have duplication of quite extensive school
libraries, and nearby hbraries on their own,
which the department is assisting, through
this provincial library service? What is being
done to avoid this duplication and make
available, at the same time to pupils, readily
available, comprehensive library facilities?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I forget
whether it was in book (a) or (b) that I made
reference to the situation. Perhaps the hon.
member might glance at it. I cannot tell him,
from memory, which particular document it
was in. I should point out that we have dis-
cussed this in the past couple of years, here
in the House, with respect to combined faciU-
ties. This has been done in some communi-
ties, and we have encouraged it, although we
have had a report from a Mr. St. John who
recommended, very strongly, that they were
two separate functions, that is, the public
library and school library. I am not sure that
I share this point of view necessarily, but this
was the recommendation made under this
report to the government and to the Ontario
library association. As far as we are con-
cerned, Mr. Chairman, we have not, in any
way, inhibited a combined development of a
library resource. This has happened in
several communities and, as we assess the
position further, perhaps more of these devel-
opments will take place. But, there are two
schools of thought, and there are those who
feel very strongly that we really are talking
about two separate functions. As I have
said before, I am not sure, really, that we are.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman I have resur-
rected from my files, a letter, that I read with
some interest. It was dated November 2,
1967, and it was a copy sent to me, directed
to the Honourable James A. Noble, Provincial
Treasurer, Department of Revenue, Queen's
Park, Toronto 5. I guess that refers to the
predecessor of the present Provincial Treas-
urer, the hon. member for Haldimand-Nor-
folk. They may have confused his personality
with his surname. I do not know, but there
is a reference— actually this letter is signed
by the director of the board of the Lake Erie
regional library system— and I felt that he
might have done a little research before he
had sent the letter, but he does have in the
correspondence, a reference to the Smith com-
mittee comments about our present system of
library grants. I thought that this would be
an appropriate occasion to bring them to the
Minister's attention. He is no doubt aware
of them. In the Smith committee they refer
4086
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to grants to the community for the develop-
ment of cultural aspects, and, quoting from
the Smith report as follows:
The only sizeable grant, that for public
libraries, is marked by a degree of com-
plexity that is out of all proportion to its
monetary yield, that in any event mocks
the fiscal principles of certainty and sim-
plicity.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think one can say that,
to a degree, about the grants to the school
boards.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is right, and as a
matter of fact, the Smith committee goes on
to make some comparisons. It says, that while
the school grant formula has been simpHfied,
or at least tliere has been some concern over
its simplification, there has been no such con-
cern over the Hbrary grants, which have
become increasingly complex year by year.
Now there have been a lot of problems
with this. Some of the hon. members have
brought it to the attention of the Minister and
the public servants in the department, the
fact that these grants have been difficult to
interpret, difficult to administer, and difficult
to pay. I wonder if the Minister has some
plan to simplify the award of these grants, or
is he going to leave it for the select committee
on taxation to make some recommendations
that might be enacted at a later session?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think the select committee on taxation will be
dealing with this, and I think it would be
premature to indicate what our thinking may
be. Obviously, if we can develop a simplified
approach to the regulations, we would be
delighted to do so, although it is not as simple
as it appears on the surface, and I think any
judgment on this would wait until the select
committee has made its recommendations.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, going back to
the libraries, I took a look again at pages 75
to 78— which I presume are the pages in the
report that the Minister was referring to—
where it discusses the combination of school
and public libraries. I did not see any refer-
ence nor do I remember any reference to that
in his report. I think of the library here in
this building being separate on its own from
the building itself to a degree. Perhaps if in
school design we do have separate entrances,
and they are operated under the public
libraries system but are closely available to
the school, we can satisfy the claims and re-
quirements of people like Mr. St. John, as the
Minister mentioned. But I certainly hope that
something is done to avoid the duplication of
hbraries that I have seen right within small
communities. It seems to be a wasteful ex-
penditure of money.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I usually have
a word or two to say about libraries at this
time. I am always under the wrong vote;
am I under the wrong vote again?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It all depends on what
the words are, Mr. Chairman, I guess. If the
hon. member is referring, shall we say, to the
total support to the library system which is
usually the area he wishes to discuss for a
few minutes, it is under vote 516.
Mr. Singer: Vote 516?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Singer: I wanted to talk about that
and I wanted to talk about unification and I
wanted to talk about a problem in North
York. I thought I would make only one
library speech instead of two or three.
Mr. Chairman, this whole problem of uni-
fication is one that has been brought before
the House a number of times. There was an
interesting editorial in the Globe and Mail
this morning that indicated that there were
two schools of thought, but probably in the
balance there was more sense— that was the
opinion at least of the editorial writers about
unification. In this day and age of concern
about the spiralling costs of education and
the possibility about using our educational
plant 365 days a year instead of half of that
time, surely we should begin to look for ways
where we can stop duplicating services. It is
true, as some librarians argue, that these kind
of libraries serve two different functions. Un-
doubtedly you need some diflFerent types of
books, but a lot of the books can be used in
common.
But it is just hard for me at least to under-
stand, Mr. Chairman, why we need two sets
of space, why we need in our big and elab-
orate new school buildings a substantial por-
tion of them set aside for library services
whicli are used only during the school opening
hours and those facilities are denied to the
public during the rest of the time. The public
makes use of public library facilities during
evening hours, during weekends, during the
summer time and so on, but these facilities
are only available to a small group of the
community, the student group and only during
school hours.
In addition, we have the problem of staflF
and the problem of supplying staff for libraries.
JUNE 6, 1968
4087
It seems a shame that we have to tie up a
substantial portion of our teaching staflF in
being librarians.
Hon. Mr. Davis: First of all, I think it is
important that you have a qualified librarian
in the school environment.
Mr. Singer: Oh, I do not disagree with that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I mean, you are not—
Mr. Singer: No, but you are duplicating
them. You have a qualified librarian in the
school environment who could as well be a
teacher or who could as well be a librarian,
so in fact she is a part-time librarian in the
school environment. The library has qualified
librarians, not enough of them but you have
some, who are full-time librarians within the
public environment. We are not making full
use of our talent and we are not making full
use of our facilities. The result is both sys-
tems are starved— the school library system to
a lesser extent, because we have reached the
stage where nothing is too good for our public
schools and the money keeps on pouring in,
and our public library systems get into great
difficulty.
The situation in North York this year is
most indicative of that. For some reason,
best known I suppose to the North York
council, they did not like the budget that the
library board put forward so they chopped a
big chunk off and the library board said
to them: "Well, if that is what you are going
to do and we can't go on with our pro-
gramme, we are unfortunately going to have
to delay the opening of two or three buildings
that we have ready to open because we can-
not stock them and we cannot staff them and
we are going to have to take our bookmobiles
off the road." Those were the prehminary
skirmishes. Whether they resolved this thing
or not has not been featured in the press as
lively as the skirmishes were.
But surely, Mr. Chairman, it indicates that
there is something sick about our library
system, both in the schools and in the service
to the public. And the sickness, I think, is
best explained as being a financial sickness;
they are short of money. The chain of com-
mand is weak, the role of the pubhc library
boards insofar as their councils are concerned
is a very difficult one to carve out.
The grants from government are far too
low in money, the lack of availability of staff
is shocking, and there are not enough trained
librarians coming out of our library system
to stock these libraries and to give proper
service.
In areas where there have been good
public library systems grow up despite all
these difficulties, it is just amazing the circu-
lation figures that are there; and the use
that has been made in North York particularly.
I am somewhat familiar with the system— a
library system that grew from nothing ten
years ago into the second largest, perhaps
the largest, in Ontario— certainly one of the
first three or four largest. It has been just
amazing. But it would be a pity, Mr. Chair-
man, if it is going to seriously suffer and
all the impetus it has had is going to be
seriously curtailed because of lack of finances,
lack of clear chain of command and lack of
b«st use of our facilities.
I would have hoped that the Minister
would have turned a substantial amount of
his attention to the provision of better library
services for all of the people of Ontario, and
would have been able to suggest to us some
method of co-ordination of school libraries
with public libraries, some method of better
grants, some method of clearer delineation
of financial responsibility, and some method
of provision of more trained librarians and
encouragement for more young people to
become trained librarians than presently exists
in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 513; the member
for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on this
same vote, I would like to bring to the hon.
Minister's attention the brief presented by
the south central regional library system, sent
to each of the members of the House, and I
will only read the recommendations therein
enclosed:
1. The Department of Education to
undertake a comprehensive survey of
the physical library facilities throughout
Ontario, to be conducted by the provincial
library services.
2. The department to establish firm
physical standards for new library facihties
erected in Ontario, as is presently done
for school buildings.
3. The Ontario government to make it
mandatory by law for municipalities to
meet the physical standards set when they
are building a new library.
4. The Department of Education to
provide grants of 50 per cent of the cost
of buildings, furnishings, and land for the
new libraries.
5. The provincial library service to be
given sufficient staff and funds to carry out
the above programme.
4088
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This brief was signed by Clark W. Johnson,
chairman, and Charles E. Brisbane, director,
on behalf of the board of the south central
regional libraries service. I tliink, Mr. Chair-
man, that the recommendations, therein con-
tained, are worthy of consideration.
Vote 513 agreed to.
On vote 514:
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under
vote 514, I would plead with the Minister
that just as we have Ontario scholars, that we
have some type of award by way of scholar-
ship to individuals who excel athletically. I
think it is about time, Mr. Chairman, that we
recognize any individual who maintains pass-
ing standards, but excels athletically, that
person should be recognized by being given
a scholarship to attend our universities. If we
do not do this, Mr. Chairman, the drain will
continue. Our athletes will continue to go to
the United States, and many of them will
never return to our country.
Our performance in past athletic competi-
tions, international competitions, has not been
as good as it could be. Let me tell you that
one of the reasons why it is as good as it is,
is because a lot of our present high school
students have accepted scholarships in United
States universities where they have obtained
this training, and returned to our country to
perform for our country. I think it is about
time, Mr. Chairman, that some type of athletic
scholarship be set up for students who main-
tain, or who are able to achieve a minimum
academic standing but excel athletically.
They have got to be passing students, and
I do not think an individual who could not
carry on the academic work in a university,
should get this type of award. But there are
a lot of our students who go into the States,
come back to Canada, and even teach in our
high schools after having been trained and
developed, originally in Canada, but getting
additional training in the United States.
Votes 514 to 516, inclusive, agreed to.
On vote 517:
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, under Mooso-
nee education centre, I was interested to see
up there the progress that has been made in
Moosonee with the construction of the centre,
but am rather concerned with the amount of
money that had been directed though toward
staff accommodation, and the type of staff
accommodation that was built.
It is very elaborate in comparison with any
other housing in the area, and I would gather.
from many who have gone to Moosonee, to
work there, that they feel such accommoda-
tion is not necessary to attract tliem to work
in an area like that. It is in itself a challenge.
And construction of elaborate staff housing
costing in the order of $40,000 a unit, or
more, is not doing much to help the relation-
ship and the understanding by the Indian
people in particular, as to why the province
has not money to put in sewers, and water,
and a proper bridge into the southern part of
the town where they do not have proper fire
protection. In some of the homes that are
owned down there the Indians cannot get the
services that would be normally considered
necessary for reasonable hving, even though
they themselves have built good housing.
They really resent the fact that The Depart-
ment of Education would consider it neces-
sary to build very elaborate housing for the
teachers. And, in connection with this, the
whole approach of the department in Mooso-
nee compares rather unfavourably with the
approach which has been taken down in
northern Arizona, in the Navajo reserve. At
Rough Rock, the operations of their demon-
stration school, as it is called, is entirely
under the control of the local citizens. I
would appreciate learning from the Minister
how the board operating the Moosonee educa^
tion centre is appointed. Is it one that is
elected in any way whatsoever, or is it purely
an appointed board, and who does the
appointing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a corporation, Mr.
Chairman, and the members of the board are
appointed.
Mr. Deacon: Who does the appointing,
please, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe, Mr. Chairman
— I would have to check this out — but I
believe it is by the Lieutenant-Governor in
council. It is a corporation.
Mr. Deacon: Well, Mr. Chairman, it inter-
ested me greatly that down in Arizona they
have for many years carried out this same
customary approach to the operation of their
schools. In the reserve down there, one-third
of all the Indians of America are living. A
few years ago the chief of the reserve per-
suaded the government that it would be
sensible to give the Indians themselves full
authority over the operation of their school
including the curriculum. They were quite
fearful of doing this. They were even more
fearful after they found out that the school
board that was appointed consisted of seven
people, only two of whom had ever been to
JUNE 6, 1968
4089
school, and only one of whom could speak
English. The two who had been to school
had attended grade 2 and grade 5 respec-
tively. But, they have been astounded at the
results which have come about since they
have turned over tlie facilities and the budget
to the local people.
The results have meant that the whole
community is fully involved and fully behind
the operation. They are teaching themselves
not only the many techniques that are neces-
sary to survive and gain a higher standard of
living in today's society, but they are also
teaching themselves that they can be proud
of their past heritage as Navajos and can
be Americans at the same time. Our Indians
do not have a future because they do not see
themselves having a future as Indians and as
Canadians.
This is something that we might well
develop in the ideal setting we have in
Moosonee, where we have a predominantly
Indian population. I suggest that it is worth-
while our risking the possibility of mistakes
in the operation of that centre and turning it
over entirely to a locally-elected board, as
was done down in Arizona. Even though we
might not think that such a board would be
capable of administering such an expensive
and elaborate set-up, we would soon prob-
ably find that it truly was accepted by the
community and used to its fullest extent.
We would probably find that it was not
only used by those that would normally be
involved in attending it under the manpower
training scheme or other schemes that entitle
people to attend that centre, but it would be
used by the whole community in many ways.
We now have a man heading the school
who was a secondary school principal. Ap-
parently there is considerable conflict among
the staflF due to the approach taken, with his
background compared to what many feel
would be a proper approach to the adults
they are dealing with and under different
circumstances than are found in secondary
schools.
The importance of allowing these people
to select their own curriculum and develop
it cannot be overemphasized and selecting
their own staff cannot be overemphasized. In
Rough Rock over half the staff is Indian and
they have seen that it is well operated. One
of the features there that interested me
greatly was that prior to their taking over the
school, the government felt that the Indians
themselves were not capable of taking care of
a residence properly.
They have since brought in parents of
those attending the school on a rotation basis,
prior to which term of duty, they are given
training as to what is expected of them, in
the way of standards of maintenance of the
residential sections of the unit. They are now
getting very fine results not only within the
school, but, of course, when these parents go
back to their own homes. They find that they
are certainly improving their own circum-
stances to an extent that heretofore was
thought impossible.
The same is true in bringing older i)eople
in, using older men to tell those attending the
school, of the heritage of the Navajo people.
Certainly the Crees that attend the Moosonee
centre have a heritage of which they could
be proud, but of which they know little. They
are almost ashamed of being Indians, rather
than being proud of the heritage that they
have. I think that we should use our imag-
ination up there in that wonderful new centre
which we have built and in which we have
invested a great deal of money. We should
turn it over to a locally-elected board, let
them work out their own curriculum, find
their own staff, and see what we can do to
come close to the achievement of what they
have been able to show in northern Arizona.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I notice all
these grants down here and no mention made
of Quetico centre. I was wondering if there
is any place in these grants where it is indi-
cated that this department does make funds
available for Quetico centre? It is the only
centre of its kind in northwestern Ontario. It
is not only adult retraining, it is an arts and
crafts centre. I did notice that during the
opening, Mr. Cisco of your department was
there and there was some liaison between
Canada manpower and your department. I
wonder in what way do you assist financially
Quetico centre?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we assist
Quetico under vote 515, under the federal-
provincial agreements.
Mr. Deacon: Would the Minister tell me
his views or what his approach and attitude
is toward such a programme as I have sug-
gested for Moosonee?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
that the hon. member is aware sufficiently of
the problems. To expect me to react after
listening to what I thought was a very help-
ful statement, and to say whether I agree or
disagree is a bit much. I am very interested
in what he has to say, and I have made a
note to look at it more carefully. I am not
in a position to say whether what the hon.
4090
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member says is happening in Arizona can be
translated tomorrow to Moosonee, I do not
know.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would cer-
tainly be pleased to turn over to the Minister
all the data that I have on this Rough Rock
development, which has achieved such re-
markable results.
Vote 517 agreed to.
On vote 518:
Mr. Pitman: I would like to bring to the
attention of the Minister one vote which I
think could be increased. The workers' edu-
cational association, I think, is one of the
more important organizations that is attempt-
ing to involve people in adult education, and
I am sure that the Minister would recognize
that continuing education is going to be the
greatest area of increase in the next number
of years. It seems to me that there are two
ways of going about it. The department
itself can extend its activities or support the
activities of those agencies already involved
in adult education, and I am wondering if
this might not be an area where the Minister
might be able to develop something in that
direction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is one
of the great problems with v/hat I sometimes
designate "miscellaneous funds". I think that
you could go through the whole list and find
that all of them might have a justifiable
request for more money. I would only
point out that last year we did, out of the
miscellaneous fund, make an additional
$2,500 available to the workers' educational
Association.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairaian, being new at
this game, I was waiting until the "mis-
cellaneous" grant to get some information on
Quetico centre, and I was informed by the
Minister that it came under vote 515. I
wonder if he might tell me how much of a
provincial grant goes towards the operation
of Quetico centre.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to break this down. This is one of the
joint programmes, and I will endeavour to
get out of the total figures just what is the
provincial contribution for the Quetico pro-
gramme.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 518; the member
for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, this is a
question which involves two or three items.
I notice that in the grants to the Ontario
college of education, the grants are all set
aside for each college. I notice that also in
the teachers' college this is true. This is not
true for the colleges of applied arts and
technology and I am wondering why these
grants are not set out by institutions as they
are for the colleges of education and the
teachers' colleges? I am wondering also, if the
information is available from the Minister,
as to how much each of the colleges of
applied arts and technology have received,
and perhaps the Minister might even indicate
whether the same system is used for these
colleges of applied arts and technology
and colleges of education. Do they use the
same method of calculating the grant?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the same
method is not used. The colleges of education
submit a budget to the department, and this
has been the procedure. We authorized these
some time last fall or early in the new year.
In respect to the community colleges, because
v/e are still going through this evolutionary
process, we arrived at what was really a
lump sum figure and this now relates to
enrollment of most of the number of courses
that will be approved by the council of
regents, and so on. It is impossible to specify
a specific amount for each college this year.
At the end of the year, we can tell the hon.
member just how much each institution has
received. It is the same way if you check
the grants for the universities. They are now
in one lump figure because of the formula
approach. We do not know how much each
institution will receive. We know what the
total will very nearly be, but we do not
specify individual institutions.
Vote 518 agreed to.
On vote 519:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on vote 519 if
you will permit? The Ryerson polytechnical
institute has had in the works a rather
elaborate plan for its expansion. There has
been the addition of some considerable
acreage of downtown real estate to accom-
modate this. The amendment that we had
in the House a few days ago permitted the
university capital aid corporation to assist
in the expansion. I wonder if the Minister
can give us the timetable for the actual
expansion, and some idea as to how this
expansion will fit into the general programme
of post-secondary education, and the rela-
tionship v/ith the university.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know what the hon. member means by fitting
JUNE 6, 1968
4091
in with the expansion of the universities,
necessarily. The board of governors at Ryer-
son had planned this, I think as I recall it,
as a three-phase programme. It started out
initially as four, but then they bought certain
property to the south of Ryerson polytechnical
institute that used to belong, I believe, to
the O'Keefe brewery, and certain structural
changes took place there and they were able
to accommodate a number of students. I
think that the first stage of the programme
is about a $14 million capital investment. I
think that their total anticipated student
enrollment will be 10,000 to 12,000, and I
think that they expect to achieve this— I am
only going by memory, and I will get more
complete information— by 1974 or 1975.
Mr. Nixon: When will the plans for expan-
sion be completed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: This was the original
date. I would guess that it will be a year or
two after that— some time around 1974 or
1975.
Mr. Nixon: How are they actually going
to build those towers?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that the first phase
has $14 million set aside, which I think
includes one of tlie towers. I cannot tell you
whether it will be on the north or the west
side. I think that it will be the Vv'est side of
Victoria street.
Mr. Nixon: Since Ryerson is really separate
from any other institution it has to be con-
sidered on its own merits as far as expansion
either to encompass or approach a degree-
granting status. It has been my thought for
some considerable time, and I put it to the
Minister's colleague, the Minister of Trade
and Development (Mr. Randall), that there
is a perfect possibility here, a perfect setup,
for the use of the facilities at Sheridan Park.
The real estate and the planning is controlled
by the—
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a great area.
Mr. Nixon: It certainly is— controlled by the
government of Ontario, which is one of the
most extensive concentrations of technical
ability anywhere in Canada. If we were to
make a part of the Ryerson campus out there
at Sheridan Park and put the senior students
in the science technology courses out in that
location so that they could work in co-ordina-
tion and co-operation with private enterprise
in research, then in my view we could open
up a whole new possibility for the training
of top-flight technicians from Ryerson. I
believe that this would be equivalent to a
degree in status if that were desirable.
But in my view there is something here
that has been suggested for the last two
years and that the Minister of Trade and
Development has not acted upon, and that
it may very well be the responsibility of the
Minister of Education to examine it. I
believe it is practical but I do not believe
sufficient research has been done on it to see
what can be accomplished.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know that we should really restrict this to
Ryerson. I have great respect for that insti-
tution, but Sheridan college-
Mr. Nixon: Not Sheridan college.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no I just — do not
interrupt for a second. Sheridan college is
locating its main campus about a mile and a
half or two miles away from Sheridan Park
research centre, and I think the type of rela-
tionship that the hon. member is suggesting
could very readily be established between
Sheridan college and Sheridan Park research
area. I think that this perhaps is another way
of approaching it and this is where their
main campus will be. I think I am right in
this— a mile and a half or two miles away
from us.
Mr. Nixon: On the wrong side of the road.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well it happens to be in
Halton county. It is not in Peel.
Mr. Nixon: That ought to be enough to
end the possibility right there. I would say
that while Sheridan college is within a mile
or two of the area that I am talking about,
the real conjunction is a conjunction in train-
ing. The training at Ryerson is at a level, I
would say, beyond that attempted by any
community college up until now. If it is not
going to be beyond it, why keep it separate
from the regular community college system?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is
not a question of keeping it separate. I see
no reason why some of the community
colleges will not be developing some courses
that will be on a par with Ryerson — not
necessarily all of them. I think that, with
respect to technician courses, that Sheridan
college will be able to develop courses that
would be every bit as appropriate as Ryerson
and they will be geographically located.
Mr. Nixon: Well it would be a duplication
of Ryerson then?
4092
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Davis: No. it will not. It will not
be a duplication. As long as there is tjie
demand, the total demand, in the province it
is not a question of duplication.
Mr. Nixon: Well I believe it is a question
of duplication, because the Ryerson institute
is offering courses in engineering technology
which, up to this point are far beyond any-
thing any community college is offering. If
you want to duplicate them elsewhere, fine-
in the north, in the parts of the province
remote from Toronto, fine. But why duplicate
within 15 miles?
Hon. Mr. Davis: If there is a need. In
other words you have engineering faculties
at about five universities. Now one could
argue this—
Mr. Nixon: My point is this that Ryerson
has been on the verge of moving towards
some more advanced status for a long time
and I can see no reason for keeping it separate
from the community college system unless
you envisage some entirely different function
for it. And this is one entirely different
function that is a reasonable one.
Votes 519 and 520 agreed to.
On vote 521:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, vote 521 I think
it is. This is the Ontario institute for studies
in education. I think there are some $9
million in this vote. I think that at least we
should have what might be called a yearly
statement of policy in regard to this from the
Minister, who might be aroused by a few
comments I have to make.
This is an institute which, of course, has
been badly needed in Ontario. I think the
main job of the institute was to perform three
functions — research, graduate work and de-
velopment. There has been a great deal of
criticism, a great deal of concern, that the
development function of OISE has not been
as active, as advanced and as developed as
perhaps both the research and the graduate
work functions have.
Now I am wondering whether the Minister
can give any reasons for this, whether suffi-
cient breakdown in the Ontario institute is
going to development. If so, perhaps he could
give reasons why these criticisms are being
levelled so often by people in the teaching
profession for example.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
am not sure whether these criticisms are being
levelled or not. I am sure there may be some.
There will be criticism of any institution in
whatever capacity it is performing. But I
think in fairness, Mr. Chairman, that one can'
say that the development aspect of the insti-
tute has made very real progress. Perhaps
some in the profession would like to see it do
more, but there are limitations — economic,
staff and really the development of their own
programme. It is a relatively new institution
and this is about the second full year of its
operation. I am a little prejudiced, but I
think they have made tremendous progress,
not only in the area of graduate work, which
is really part of the former function when it
was at OCE and in the area of statistical
research, but more importantly in the area of
curriculum development and so on. They
have made very major progress.
It may be that some of the teaching pro-
fession have anticipated more than they have
received from the institution. There is always
the problem of expectation exceeding realiza-
tion in every field of youth and activity. Per-
haps the criticisms have some validity, but I
doubt it very much. I suggest it because,'
once again, I would be interested in the mem-
bers having a great awareness of the activities
of the institute. I could spend a couple of '
hours tonight because I am quite enthusiastic
about the concept and what it has been doing, .
but I have suggested to the chairman of the :
education committee that here is perhaps one
area where the committee itself might like to'
visit the institute— sit down with the senior
personnel and discuss what is happening. If'
we can resolve two or three, I hope, non-
controversial bills in the next week or so, I
would suggest this would be a very useful
function for the education committee. The
director of the institution has suggested to me
that diey would be delighted to have the
education committee visit and I would think
this invitation would be extended to, say, the
leader of the Opposition who is not a member
of the committee. I am sure he would be ,
more than welcome to sit down and talk to
them about what they are doing and their
problems. I think this would be the best way
to do it.
Mr. Nixon: I appreciate that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, we would be de-
lighted to have you, and you are known
rather well.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister could
indicate whether there has been an integrating
function with the department itself. I think
tlie institute is sort of away out here on the
edge— at least it gives that impression— and
there sometimes does seem to be an im-
JUNE 6, 1968
4093
pression left that they are operating in differ-
ent spheres, that sometimes they scarcely
touch, and there is not a great deal of liaison
between what goes on in the research func-
tion of the OISE and what is going on in the
more practical day-to-day activities of edu-
cation in the department itself. I am wonder-
ing whether this is sorting out, whether you
are resolving this?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think anything ever sorts itself out completely
or in finality in this day and age in education,
but the relationship between the department
and the institute hinges around the availability
of departmental personnel on their studies
committees. We have representatives from the
department on the board.
Mr. Pitman: Are they on this study com-
mittee, too?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes, there is a very
close relationship in the whole area of data
processing, for instance. There is still not
only joint use of some of the hardware, but
a combined approach to many of the prob-
lems. There is a very close relationship. But
I am not sure if I can define the depart-
ment's responsibility at this hour of the night.
The department's responsibility, of course,
rests with the practical aspects and their
application in the school system, whereas the
institute is directed to research. But I keep
saying to them, and they keep reminding me
they agree, that they have to indulge in prac-
tical research. It cannot be all theoretical, it
must have practical application within the
school system or there is really very little
validity in what they are doing. I think they
have directed their energies in this way.
Mr. Nixon: Oh no!
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh yes!
Mr. Pitman: The reason this comes up is
because there seems to be so little connection
between what is going on at OISE and some
of the major legislation which has come into
this House. For example, the bill which has
reorganized the school jurisdiction, and many
other areas. There seems to be so little con-
tact. I am wondering— we are spending $9
million for this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, what other legisla-
tion coming before the House, really would
one anticipate that the institute might have
studied. The institute and personnel within
the institute have been making speeches on
record for many months— in fact one or two of
them could have been associated with the
institute for years with respect to larger units
of administration; there is no debate here, I
think.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but they were going to do
some statistical research on this which we
have never seen.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think this is the responsibility of the govern-
ment or of the department. This is, I hope,
in a small "c" or "p" political sense, a political
decision. I do not want to go debating Bill
44 again, but I said we recognize that the
boundaries are not in themselves perfection,
but we recognize that from a practical stand-
point, they gave us the best base that was
available. And I think this is becoming now
more generally accepted. I cannot think of
any other legislation, really, that the institute
might direct its energies to that has come
before this House in this session. Can you?
Mr. Pitman: For example, school adminis-
tration, several things; The School Administra-
tion Act—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have
great admiration for the institute but I think
one must also realize that they cannot research
every single item of change that might take
place in the educational system. Do you want
the institute, for instance, to research the fact
of whether there should be a transfer review
board? I really do not think that this is the
function of the Ontario institute for studies
in education really. Is it?
Mr. Pitman: I do not think it is entirely
inappropriate.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I do not know. I
am very flexible in these things but I am
really not sure that this is the kind of thing
you ask tlie institute to do. Maybe the ques-
tion of internal administration, whether you
have a unitary or dual system, this might have
greater validity, but the hon. member does
not need their recommendations. He has
already made up his mind very strongly the
way it should be. So has the leader of the
Opposition. You do not need the institute.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I think this is a rather
specious argument, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is, quite.
Mr. Pitman: I simply suggested that be-
cause the Opposition has not. In fact this is
one thing which is rather interesting— I wish
it was easier to get material from the Ontario
institute for studies in education.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Have you asked them?
4094
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pitman: I have on several occasions
made efforts to get material.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never been hesitant
about giving material.
Mr. Pitman: Well, let us put it this vv^ay—
they do not seem to be wildly enthusiastic
about throwing their research material in
every direction; and I think their communi-
cations could be improved.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this is true of
every—
Mr. Pitman: Could I just ask another ques-
tion? Why has there been such a change-
over in the upper echelon of the Ontario in-
stitute for studies in education? It seems that
quite a number of the chairmen have come
and gone in the very short history of the
institute. I was just wondering why there is
this turnover.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
familiar with the personnel of the institute.
I deal basically with the director and his,
shall we say, immediate associates. I would
not be prepared to say that there has been a
great turnover. There has been a turnover
of staff at a lot of new institutions and par-
ticularly, I think, in the areas of educational
research. This is part of the structure, I
think, of those kinds of institutions. But I
do not really believe there has been a major
turnover of staff. As I say, I cannot really
tell you all of the details of the operation of
the institute.
It is like saying to me or asking me, you
know: "What all is happening at Trent?" or
"What all is happening at the U of T?" It is
a very significant type of institution with
which the department obviously has a rela-
tionship, but which we do not run. And I
think that, really, if the hon. members have
an interest in it, I think the best way to find
out exactly what they are doing— and they
would welcome it, they are anxious that the
members of the House, particularly the edu-
cation committee, have some knowledge of
the activities of the institute— I think it would
be very beneficial if the committee were to
spend half a day visiting with them.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has
indicated that he is in some communication
with the director about the practicality of the
research. Now certainly there has to be—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I just made a general
observation.
Mr. Nixon: And he makes a general obser-
vation that he is aware of this responsibility.
and I am sure that he is aware of the re-
sponsibility for basic research as well. There
has to be some kind of a balance. And yet
when we look at the vote that we are extend-
ing here, I think that the Minister is very
reasonable in his expectations that some of
the papers that are printed and come out of
the Ontario institute have some immediate
application, even to the decisions, political or
otherwise, that the Minister is called upon to
make.
Now, I would like to ask specifically if
there was a paper made available by the On-
tario institute, that would provide some
direction to the department as to the reason-
ableness of boundaries for larger units of
educational jurisdiction in Ontario, during the
last year.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
have to check into this as it relates to the
reasonableness of boundaries. I know the
institute has been studying, and I think they
have completed some with respect to larger
units of administration. Now, whether this
relates to boundaries per se, I would have
to find out for the hon. member. And, as I
say, the institute and the senior personnel
who have made observations on this over the
last two or three years, really, have all re-
lated to larger units of administration.
Mr. Nixon: Of course, they would have a
reasonable approach to this, as I think the
Minister and most other members concerned
with it, but I— this may not be the time to
comment on it— but from time to time we
contact the Ontario institute so that we are
up to date at least in some of the things they
are doing. And we were under the impres-
sion that such a study was being undertaken,
but that it was not possible at the present
time— at that present time; some weeks ago—
for us to see the results of this study. So, I
am interested in the Minister's vagueness as
to this. I would like to see any work that has
been done on it.
I think the only thing I would have to say
about the Ontario institute is that a good deal
of its research should be and must be put in
a form where at least the teachers and
trustees and those concerned with education
can understand it; that it is interesting and
meaningful and applicable to present circum-
stances so that it will have some effect on the
course of education. When the Minister talks
about the department becoming a resource
centre, then the Ontario institute is going to
be the pinnacle of this resource centre, and
everything it does is going to be read or
JUNE 6, 1968
4095
should be read with great interest and fol-
io wdng application, if possible, by the new
divisional board. So far, the material that
has come out of the Ontario institute, with
many important exceptions, has not lived up
to that standard where it was readable,
understandable, applicable, and in sufficient
quantity to justify the vote that we are called
upon to extend to it.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
mentioned that the institute had done studies
on the larger units of administration. Did the
institute come up with the figure that was
used in the education committee— that a size
of around 15,000 students or so for a unit,
was the ideal size? Is tliat where the depart-
ment got that figure?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not believe so,
Mr. Chairman. I shall look into whether the
institute came up with any figure, let alone
the figure mentioned by the department. I
think the members must realize that the
department itself cannot operate without some
high level of research itself, and with respect
to Bill 44, this was given a lot of very in-
tensive study by the personnel of the depart-
ment. As I say, the figure that was given at
the committee is an approximation, but I do
not know whether this represents, shall we
say, the thinking.
I would say with respect to this area, it is
pretty much of a judgment decision based on
the best information we can get. You know
you cannot feed the information into a com-
puter and come out with what is the ideal
size, because to a degree it has to be a judg-
ment decision or evaluation. I shall endeavour
to find out whether, in fact, the institute
came up with any ideal or optimum size.
Mr. Deacon: In what field did the institute
come up with information—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as I said
to the leader of the Opposition, I shall find
out just where their study stands and what
recommendations or thoughts they have with
respect to larger units of administration.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, it is a matter
of what happened in the past. In other
words, did the institute contribute anything
which was of help in this past year, which
would help with this bill. I have not yet
heard a—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe that the institute has published a
report with respect to larger units of admin-
istration. I know they have been working on
this aspect for a period of time. This is what
I shall endeavour to find out for the leader
of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: If their report is going to be
useful—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, you know
you can sit and wait, and this is one point
the leader of the Opposition has made to me
on many occasions-
Mr. Nixon: And it works the otlier way,
too.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right, quite right,
it does. But we did not specifically request
the institute to make a study with respect to
larger units because we have, we think, the
competency to do it vdthin the department.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: The institute apparently has
been doing some kind of study, and the Min-
ister is going to investigate and see, and I
gather he is going to bring out part of the
studies.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Singer: No. You said you did not re-
quest tlie institute to do it because you
thought that within the department tliere was
sufficient competence. What is the point of
all this? Because these have already been
done, for better or for worse; the deed has
been done. You have brought in the bill, the
bill is gone, the decision has been made.
Why are you not frank with us, Mr, Chair-
man, through you to the Minister? Why do
you not tell us that if they did embark upon
it, that it was another lack of liaison, and if
they did embark upon it and your officials had
knowledge of it and they did not bother to
inform you, then you were letting them work
in sort of a vacuum and produce something
that was going to be no use to anybody.
We seem to be running around in great
circles. If they spent part of their time and
a substantial amount of their very substantial
facilities to make this kind of a study and you
did not even bother to wait for it, and you
brought in the bill and you cannot tell us
how far it got along, then why worry about
it any longer. Why do you not say, "We
wasted 'X' number of hours; now we will
get on to something that may be useful."
Hon. Mr. Davis: It may have been a waste
of "X" number, I do not know, I cannot tell
you this.
4096
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Singer: How many dollars is the Min-
ister asking for?
Mr. Nixon: It is $9 million.
Mr. Singer: It is $9 million! Surely you
should he able to tell us what you are doing?
Let me draw a parallel, Mr. Chairman. In
the law reform eommission, and we are un-
happy about that from time to time, but
we ha\'e been able to get to the point with
this Attorney General and his predecessor
that they are working along certain lines;
and the Attorney General, from time to time,
stands up and says, well, I cannot tell you
too much about this field until I get a report
from the law reform commission. You could
draw somewhat of a parallel, perhaps, be-
tween the law reform commission and OISE.
But if OISE is off investigating the question
of larger units— whether or not they are going
to do any geographical boundaries— the Min-
ister does not even bother to enquire, but he
brings in his bill and he gets it through the
House. What really is OISE doing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have
said I would be delighted to have the educa-
tion committee visit with the institute and
get the full story of what they are up to.
Vote 521 agreed to.
On vote 522:
Mr. B. Newman: I would like to bring to
the attention of the hon. Minister, the sub-
mission to the Premier of Ontario re: the
pensions of superannuated teachers, presented
by them, to the Minister, and ask the Minister
what he plans on doing, concerning the rec-
ommendations submitted, by them to him?
I will not bother reading the preamble to the
report. I will go right into the recommenda-
tions that they made, and ask if the Minister
plans on implementing any of them?
They ask for a recalculation of the A, B, C,
D and F pensions and dependence allowance,
granted prior to January 1, 1966, on the basis
of the average salary of the best seven years.
Point two. No pensioner in the above cate-
gories will receive an increase of less than
$300, and (b), that the increase in the de-
pendence allowance be not less than $150,
and the third, that all benefits be retroactive
to January 1, 1966, and four, they request,
most strongly, that the principle, whereby the
calculation of all pensions commencing Janu-
ary 1, 1966, which are based on the average
salary of the best seven years, be applied to
all pensions granted prior to that date from
the inception of the teachers superannuation
fund. The policy has always been to make
new benefits applicable to all pensions in
force at the time of the revision.
And then, they substantiate their requests
by bringing in examples of British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, the House of Commons and
British pensions.
May I ask of the Minister, what disposition
he is making of their requests?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this group
of teachers has been in to visit over a period
of some months. They visited with the Prime
Minister, I believe, three or four weeks ago,
if memory serves me correctly, with their
views with respect to the recalculation of
pension. The position of the government, and,
it is a government position, is that the matter
is being considered. There was no rejection
nor was there any, to be perfectly fair, en-
couragement. It was made clear that: Any
alteration, with respect to the particular prob-
lem that presents itself to this group of teach-
ers, must also be taken into account, with
respect to the position of superannuated or
pensioned public servants; that no decision on
this matter can be made in isolation; that the
government must consider its responsibilities
to other segments of the society where we
are, as a government, involved. This is the
position that has been taken by the govern-
ment, with respect to this representation.
Mr. Singer: That is a very interesting posi-
tion to take but what are you going to do
for them all— nothing? Is it sufficient to dis-
miss this very valid concern, that they have,
by saying you cannot decide until you have
decided it for everybody? Is there any de-
cision that is going to be made for anybody
—everybody?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
think that there will, obviously, be a decision,
and I cannot tell the hon. member what that
decision will be.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the situation is
not too dissimilar from the position we had
some long time ago— and it went on for many
years— with the elderly retired lady teachers,
who kept on coming back and back, and their
group diminished in number from year to
year tmtil, finally— what was it last year or the
year before— that the gesture was finally made
and you raised their—
Mr. Nixon: That was two years ago; and
they started paying it last year.
Mr. Singer: Yes, and the cost to the
people of the province was minimal. You
JUNE 6, 1968
4097
delayed it long enough so that, really, it in-
volved hardly any dollars at all.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, let us be
factually correct. There v^ere two groups of
teachers. Tliere was a group of the super-
annuated teachers where, I think, this does
not fairly apply. There was a group of
widows — former teachers — and this was a
diminishing situation, and I think, one must
say there were two groups. They were not,
shall we say, comparable problems, neces-
sarily.
Mr. Singer: Well, comparable or not, the
delay was sufficiently eflFective, that when the
decision was finally made, it was one of the
first requests that I heard about when I came
into this House as a new member back in
1959. The Minister used to come, as he was
a private member in those days, and Hsten,
and he was nodding his head in great style,
and eventually became the Minister of Edu-
cation. Well, a few years after that, there
was this small gesture made with the minimal
amount of dollars.
Now the same thing apphes to— a different
extent perhaps— these people. I was visited by
a very nice gentleman who is a retired
teacher, who went over this brief with me,
point by point, and I think he made a very
valid case. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it
is a sufficient answer to tell these people tliat
it is going to be considered at the same time
as we consider everybody else's. When are
you going to consider everybody else's?
The Minister, surely, should have that
answer. Someone should be able to say on
the part of government that either we cannot
afford to disturb pensions, that they must
stay as they are, or that we are going to make
an adjustment. The point the Minister nuikes
is a valid one and I cannot disagree with the
point that he makes. Then, for goodness sake
take a position and do not keep on passing the
buck, the way you and so many of your col-
leagues can do.
Vote 522 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates for The Department of Education.
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report certain resolu-
tions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report certain resolutions
and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go to the
order paper first and then to the estimates of
The Department of University Affairs, and
between the hour of 1 and 2 o'clock, p.m., will
be private members' hour.
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:10 o'clock, p.m.
No. Ill
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, June 7, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per sessiori, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, June 7, 1968
Baising of money on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, bill to authorize,
Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 4101
Labour-management dispute at Domtar Fine Papers mill, question to Mr. Bales,
Mr. MacDonald 4101
Raising funds for housing from private sources, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 4101
Rothman purchase of Canadian industries, question to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Sargent 4102
Salary of chairman of Ottawa-Carleton regional government, questions to Mr. McKeough,
Mr. Sargent 4103
Long-term effects of men w^orking with bare hands on high voltage lines, question to
Mr. Simonett, Mr. MacDonald 4104
Licence plates to identify vehicles of short wave radio operators, question to Mr. Haskett,
Mr. Nixon 4105
Third readings 4105
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, second reading 4105
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, second
reading 4107
Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Bales,
second reading 4109
Training Schools Act, 1965, bill to amend, reported 4112
Department of Correctional Services Act, 1968, bill intituled, reported 4112
Reduction of municipal taxes on residential property, bill to provide for, in committee 4115
On notice of motion No. 33, Mr. Reuter, Mr. T. Reid, Mrs. M. Renwick 4138
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4147
4101
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 9:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that we are pleased
to see at this early hour of the morning that
the galleries are well filled with students, in
the east gallery, from the William E. Brown
senior public school in Wainfleet, and in both
galleries, from Ohedoke public school in
Hamilton. Later on today we will be joined
j by students from Alway public school,
i Grimsby, David Maxwell public school,
! Windsor, Glenwood public school, Windsor,
and from the University of Guelph Liberal
club, Guelph.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
RAISING OF MONEY ON THE CREDIT
OF CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer) moves first reading of bill intituled. An
Act to authorize the raising of money on the
credit of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South
has priority on the floor.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I have discovered that one of the
Ministers is not here this morning, so my
second question is for the Minister of Labour.
In the labour-management dispute between
the Domtar Fine Papers mill in Cornwall,
and local 212 of the papermakers and paper-
workers, and the brotherhood of pulp, sul-
phite and paperworkers, negotiations were
broken off on May 16, with the union request-
ing no conciliation board and the company
seeking a board. When can the parties expect
a decision from the Minister?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question from the
Friday, June 7, 1968
hon. member, the decision will be made very
shortly.
Mr. MacDonald: How about the answer to
my question?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the current
collective agreement negotiations in the whole
pulp and paper industry is extremely com-
plex. There are about 150 separate agree-
ments under negotiation at the present time.
Our conciliation branch is trying to bring
some order and co-ordination into the whole
picture, so that we can improve the possi-
bility of settlement without strikes. For that
reason I think that I must leave it at that
and say nothing more at the moment. There
will be a decision shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce
has a question from June 5 for the Minister
of Trade and Development. Perhaps he would
care to ask it at this time?
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have a question today which
is pretty well along the same lines.
The question for this morning, sir, is that
the head of CMHC said this morning that
$4 billion in new funds will have to be raised
from private funds for housing by 1970.
What sources of funds are being studied by
the Minister?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I got this ques-
tion a few minutes before I came into the
House, but I would like to comment on it.
I read this article in the Globe and Mail,
too, by Mr. Highutt. He is facing a similar
problem I think to most North American
jurisdictions, and that is that there is just
not sufficient money to go around to build
houses fast enough for the exploding popula-
tion. Let me say that the central mortgage
and housing corporation have gone on record
time and time again as saying that they are
just bankers in the housing field.
As you know, we borrow most of our
money funds for senior citizens and family
housing— that is Ontario housing, or public
housing as it is referred to— from CMHC.
We borrow our student funds and some funds
4102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the land bankagc. If the traditional
sources of mortgage money are dried up, this
places a greater responsibility on tlie govern-
ment.
Our problem is: Where do we go for the
money? It is obvious that if we get into
financing $25,000 or $35,000 homes, or high-
rise apartments, then other forms for raising
revenue must be considered. As Mr. Highutt
pointed out, I think, 15 per cent of the
funds for mortgages are coming from insur-
ance companies, 70 per cent from the mort-
gage companies, and some from the banks.
So far, between CMHC and ourselves, we
have been able to cover those first four needs
—of senior citizens, public housing, student
housing, land banking-and the HOME pro-
gramme.
I would hope that there would be some
relief for the builders who are building other
types of accommodation without the govern-
ment having to get into that. We recognize
that there is going to be no housing of any
substantial size, unless mortgage funds are
made available all the way tlirough for accom-
modation, and I would hope to make perhaps
a more detailed statement during my esti-
mates in the next ten days. We are looking
at it now.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question along this line?
Going farther afield, in Brazil they are bor-
rowing money from the CIO, the IDA, and
they are tapping large pension funds in the
United States for housing loans. Would it
be in this area that you could go— the CIO,
and the IDA for housing money in Ontario?
The loans from the United States to Brazil
for emergency housing are for the same need
as we have here. Is there any consideration
here?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If the OHC, for instance,
was in the business, like CMHC, of being a
mortgage broker— but we are not at the
present time. We cause houses to be built,
but the financing is done through CMHC or
private sources. I think that we have to look
at the hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) here who would have to be
responsible for any more money borrowed by
a Crown corporation. For instance, if Ontario
housing corporation went to Europe and
borrowed say $50 million, it is a hability on
the books of the Ontario Treasury.
Any money that any Crown corporation
borrows is a charge against the assets and is
the responsibility of the Treasurer of Ontario.
I might say that we have had a number of
people in from Europe looking at the possi-
bility of investment over here, and we are
encouraging, we have encouraged— we have
always encouraged— investment over here. I
would hope that perhaps some of our foreign
friends would see the opportunities of coming
in here with that kind of mortgage money.
At the moment we have not approached
any of these agencies, but we have every-
thing under consideration, because as I said
a few minutes ago, no matter what we do, if
we do not have somebody at the end of the
line to give a mortgage, the housing pro-
gramme just comes to a dead end, does it
not? This is one of the serious problems that
we have been confronted with over the last
year trying to make sure there are sufficient
funds in the public market to take care of
the mortgage needs.
Mr. Sargent: A question please for the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.
What recourse has the family of Patricia
Miller who died of a massive dose of local
anaesthetic administered by-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the member
would read the question correctly. He has
"a massive overdose" in his question.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. I am kind of
shaggy this morning. That is right.
Mr. Speaker: It could have quite a different
meaning.
Mr. MacDonald: A massive overdose!
Mr. Sargent: He allowed the question, so
it must be all right.
She died of a massive overdose of a
local anesthetic administered by Dr. Saul
Eisen at Mount Sinai hospital on April 7,
1968? Question: What recourse?
And the second part of that is: What right
does Dr. Samuel Leslie, another physician,
have to refuse attending the patient unless
she is married?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I just received this question a
few moments before coming into the House.
I will have to take it as notice, and answer
it the first of the week. I
Mr. Sargent: Thank you. A question to
the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs.
What steps or policy has the govemmOTt|
in mind to block further takeovers in busi-
ness such as the Rothman purchase of
JUNE 7, 1968
4103
Canadian industries today, and has the gov-
ernment any plans to block further cartels
and monopolies and put into effect anti-trust
legislation?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): This is the first I
have seen of this question, but I would like
to comment on it, Mr. Speaker.
I know of no steps that we have in mind
to block an amalgamation of a growing com-
pany, whether a cigarette manufacturing
company or not. I do not know that that
combination establishes any monopoly or
cartel in either of the industries. We are
interested in trends of amalgamation or
mergers of various companies. We will watch
this with a great deal of interest.
Of course, it will create a large organiza-
tion. Whether that will have the desired
results that the shareholders of those two
companies think, by way of greater efficien-
cies, and the opportunity of securing employ-
ment for the employees of both organizations,
are all things to be taken into account.
The type of merger that we read about this
morning tends to fall into the category of
what in recent days has been called a con-
glomerate; in other words, a merger of
companies having interests in different seg-
ments of the economy. The question, of
course, here is, have we any plans to block
further cartels and monopolies, though I
think the question is improperly worded to
begin with because I know of no cartel or
monopoly which is being established. The
hon. member must know that anti-trust legis-
lation falls entirely within the federal juris-
diction. The federal government has a
department of its own, which is active in
dealing with matters where trade practices
might be considered restrictive.
We, however, in our Department of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs, are interested in
trends, and we are interested also in the
health of the economy. We are uiterested in
the shareholders' position, and the govern-
ment, of course, is interested as a whole in
that area of securing people's jobs for the
future. If this type of merger gives greater
stability to an operation, and it automatically
follows that the jobs become more secure,
that is something that none of us in this
House will ever want to disregard.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Will they
bring out whisky-flavoured cigarettes, sir?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Yes.
Mr. Sargent: This is a question for the
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch).
Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Secretary not
being in the House that question will have to
lay over until the first of the week.
Mr. Sargent: For the record, may I present
the question?
Mr. Speaker: Not unless the Minister is
present.
Mr. Sargent: Maybe it should not have
been given to him, and it should be given
to someone else then.
Mr. Speaker: We will find that out at the
first of the week.
Mr. Sargent: To the Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
What right has the province to use funds
from the provincial Treasury to pay the
salary of the chairman of the Carleton-Ottawa
regional government?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Bill 112, section 4, subsection 2.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): Has the
member got that down?
Mr. Sargent: Is there something supple-
mentary on that? The Minister has established
a precedent in the Metro region here by
having the funds coming out of the area to
pay the Metro chairman's salary; why then,
although you have a bill to allow you to do
that, should you not amend that bill to
make that come out of the local area?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I regret, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. member did not raise these very
interesting points under the normal course of
discussion on this when the bill proceeded
through the House.
Mr. Sargent: That is pretty intelligent. I
am asking the Minister now. Just because it
is late, it does not say that I am wrong.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): The hon. member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer) knows the answers.
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has
escaped the member in the last few moments.
He is not in his seat. If you wait a minute,
it looks like he is coming back.
Mr. Sargent: They caught him.
What steps does the government plan to
institute in regard to a gun control law, such
4104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
as prohibiting purchase by mail and making
guns harder to get? Secondly, would the gov-
ernment consider a week of amnesty for
people to turn in illegally held weapons with-
out prosecution?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how many questions there are from the
hon. member this morning, but they just ar-
rived an my desk, I might say, as I walked
to the House, and I do not propose to answer
any of them today. Whatever more there are
I will take also as notice.
Mr. Sargent: I have a further question to
the Attorney General. This is a result of the
broadcast from E.G. last night about wire
tapping-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Preambles are
not allowed to questions. The member will
place his question.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, because the At-
torney General has—
Mr. Speaker: Order! Will the member place
his question?
Mr. Sargent: How many cases of wire tap-
ping were carried out by Ontario police in
the year 1967?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the member
would read his question as submitted to the
Speaker's oflBce.
Mr. Sargent: What are the figures of the
current number of wire tapping operations
carried on monthly by police officials in this
province as of this date, June 7, 1968?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has stated that
it will be taken as notice.
The member has a further question of a
Minister present?
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Provincial—
I see he is out too— the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management.
Will the government advise why we can-
not have a public enquiry into Hydro raising
its rate 9.3 per cent to rural customers now
and 4 per cent to city customers in 1969?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, I
too just received notice of this question as
I was leaving the office, so I will take it
as notice, and give the hon, member an an-
swer some time next week.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay. We have lost the opportunity, unless
the Minister comes back.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He is in
the House now.
Mr. Speaker: Unless he is in his seat, he
is not in the House as far as Mr. Speaker is
concerned.
While the Minister is approaching, might
I say that if questions come to Mr. Speaker's
office as they have been doing from the New
Democratic Party oflBce on Thursday evening
late, the answer probably can be given by
the Minister the next day. If they come into
the Speaker's office before 9— as we receive
them now— of the Friday, then it is quite
obvious that the question will not reach the
Minister until he reaches his desk in the
House and therefore an intelHgent answer is
probably not going to be forthcoming. I
would suggest the co-operation of the mem-
bers who wish to ask questions on Friday
morning. The Minister has a reply?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I
have an answer to question 643 asked by the
hon. member for York South yesterday. His
question was—
Mr. Stokes: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: A point of order always takes
precedence— has the member a point of order?
Yours is Trade and Development, not Trans-
port.
Mr. Stokes: Trade and Development.
Mr. Speaker: My error. I was looking for
the Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett).
Would you allow the Minister to complete
his answer? Then, most certainly, I will be
glad to give the member the floor.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker— the ques-
tion:
Is the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission making any studies regarding long
term effects on men working with bare hands
on high voltage lines?
I wonder if the hon, member wants the
answer to his question? The answer is yes.
Ontario Hydro, along with the American
Electric Power Service Corporation, have
been conducting extensive studies for seven
or eight years in the field of electrostatic
influence on human beings. Ontario Hydro's
representative on this committee is Mr. J. W.
Simpson, assistant line maintenance engineer,
operations division. Dr. Cowenhoevn of Johns
Hopkins University, a specialist in this field,
is also a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay, I am sorry, I had another question here
JUNE 7, 1968
4105
for the Minister of Transport and I was
watching for him.
Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This
is directed to the Minister of Txade and
Development in the absence of the member
for Oshawa (Mr. Pilkey).
Is the Minister aware that Coulter Manu-
facturing Company in Oshawa is phasing out
its operation because of the Canada-U.S. auto
trade agreement? Has the Minister taken any
steps, or will he take any steps, to persuade
the Coulter Manufacturing Company to con-
tinue its operation in Oshawa? Has the Min-
ister given any consideration as to what
provisions can be made for 150 employees
involved in the phasing out of this auto-
motive operation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I just re-
ceived notice of this question as I came into
my office this morning. I have not had a
chance to research it. I will get the informa-
tion for the hon. member and take the
question as notice.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the Minister would accept a supplementary
question?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Minister would
take— this is the original question asked by
the member earlier this morning?
Mr. MacDonald: This is the question to
which the Minister replied, but would he
accept a supplementary question now— the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment? The Minister indicated that studies had
been made. Unfortunately that gets me not
much further ahead. Can copies of those
studies be made available to those involved
so that the general public might know what
the content or the result of the studies are?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry I cannot
answer the question this morning but I will
discuss the matter with Hydro and perhaps
I can get copies of reports.
Mr. Speaker: Would the leader of the
Opposition advise whether someone from his
caucus would care to ask the Minister of
Transport a question, which I have here,
which has been held over? I would be glad
to give it to him if he would wish to ask it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This is to the Minister of Transport, and, in
the absence of Mr. Knight, I would ask the
question at this time. Does the department
issue a special set of licence plates to identify
vehicles of short wave radio operators who
are licensed as such? If not, is the Minister
prepared to institute a programme, following
the example of Manitoba, Quebec and the
states of the United States that do so, so that
these short wave operators' services can be
used in a state of emergency?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the department does not issue
special licence plates to amateur radio opera-
tors. It is not feasible with our present manual
system of vehicle registration to provide the
owners of these mobile transmitters with
plates bearing their particular call numbers.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 59, An Act to amend The Loan and
Thrust Corporations Act.
Bill 60, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill 107, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act.
Bill 120, An Act to amend The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Act.
Bill 127, An Act to amend The Ontario
Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act,
1964.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education)
moves second reading of Bill 140, An Act
to amend Tlie Schools Administration Act.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, there are two bills that
I expect will be put before the House this
morning. The one that the hon. Minister has
just moved will permit the department to
implement French language instruction in
elementary schools. I have understood, and
I know it is a fact, that such instruction has
been carried on for many years and my only
comment here, leaving other conmients for
the next bill, is why is it necessary to have
this legislation put before the House in order
to provide for instruction that has been car-
ried on for some time?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when the
committee was appointed to look into—
4106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spe&ker: Perhaps the Minister would
wait to see if there is anyone else who wishes
to engage in this debate.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to speak on the principle of
this bill, my first point was going to be the
one that the leader of the Opposition has
raised. We had bilingual education at the
elementary level. Indeed, we have had edu-
cation completely in French at the elementary
level, for quite some time. I recall during
the Confederation of tomorrow conference
downtown, when Joey Smallwood, in his
inimitable way, informed the conference they
liad the only bilingual school in Canada up in
Labrador City, that the Minister in his quiet,
l)ut devastating way, that afternoon informed
him how many students and how many
schools were getting that kind of education
in Ontario now, and had been for quite some
time.
Mr. Nixon: I did not sense that Mr. Small-
wood was devastated then.
Mr. MacDonald: He is never devastated-
even when he should have been by events
and the facts of life.
Mr. Nixon: This is quite true, because
devastation is in tlie eye of the beholder.
Mr. MacDonald: Some of it is in tlie
eyes of all beholders as tiiey look at New-
foundland at the moment. However, let us
not get out too far in that, Mr. Speaker.
In short, these have been traditional rights
and I am wondering if, in effect, what is
happening is that they are being made legal
rights, and, in effect, we are constitutionaliz-
ing what has been an accepted procedure.
The second aspect of the principle of this
ImII which I think is worthy of some com-
ment is that where French is the language
of instruction, we are now setting down the
right of the English-speaking minority, that
where there are eight or ten parents, or any
viable group of some 30 students, they can
make application for teaching in English
where the predominant language is French.
This, Mr. Speaker, I think underlines a
point that too often is forgotten in English-
speaking Canada— that in our efforts to achieve
a greater measure of bilingualism in this
country, the English-speaking provinces are
working to achieve what has always been
conceded in the province of Quebec. We
have genuine bilingualism there, we have
the opportunity for English-speaking schools;
I can speak quite knowledgeably, having gone
through that system at the public and secon-
dary school level. In short, we are rather
belatedly providing tlie full opportunity for
minority rights in any given community within
other provinces in the fashion that has tradi-
tionally been the case in the province of
Quebec.
My final comment, Mr. Speaker, is that in
expressing support for this bill and the
underlying principle I think we should see it
in perspective and recognize how vital it
is in the whole approach to easing the ten-
sions in Canadian Confederation.
I would suggest in general terms, that the
problems of re-Confederation, as they have
come to be known, fall into two general cate-
gories: One is the division, or the redivision,
of powers and moneys to be able to meet the
responsibilities the federal and provincial
governments may have. This is the really
difficult problem that the continuing con-
stitutional conference has set for itself. The
second group is what are sometimes described
as the B and B aspects of the problems of
Confederation. I think the important achieve-
ment of the Confederation of tomorrow con-
ference last November was that it revealed a
much greater consensus among provincial
Premiers on this issue than was thought to
be the case. Indeed, I think it is not inaccu-
rate to say that the powers that be in Ottawa
were willing to let this conference go ahead,
in the firm conviction that it would blow up
almost from the start, that there would be
no consensus. Well, we did achieve a con-'
sensus, indeed, even among people who
started with a pretty healthy antipathy to
the idea of bilinguahsm and biculturalism.
It was at that conference, that Joey Small-
wood went from nothing to everything, in
terms of bilingualism, and his was one prov-
ince that the B and B report had suggested
need not be involved because the number
of French Canadians was so small. But of
more importance since then, we have seen
in Saskatchewan, Alberta and even in British
Columbia, something of a breakthrough whidi
makes it possible to look forward to the day
of more genuine bilingualism in this country,
I think bilingualism is going to be achieved
in a real sense if we have the opportunity
for bilingual education. It is one thing to
develop a more cx)mplete bilingual infrastruc-
ture, at the municipal level, or at the pro-
vincial level, or at the federal level, but, I
think, the real underpinnings for genuine
bilingualism is that one should provide the
opportunity for it at the school level. Indeed,
at the elementary school level because, M
JUNE 7, 1968
4107
was pointed out yesterday, in the education
debate regarding the priorities we give at
various stages of education, language educa-
tion, in the elementary grades, is the appro-
priate place for a real start; not only in terms
of providing an opportunity for teaching
French, but for the French to learn English,
and the English to learn French, so that we
can move towards the achievement of an
overall objective of a bilingual nation.
In short, I welcome this bill. I think, in
some respects, it is only legalizing what has
been a tradition. I think it is very important
that we, in the province of Ontario, lead the
way with the legal substance, as well as some
of the traditional practices that have devel-
oped over the years.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak before the Minister?
The Minster has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to take any time because I made a
fairly lengthy statement on the introduction
of this bill on first reading. The observations
of both the leader of the Opposition and
the member for York South are quite correct.
When the committee got into the question
of recommending legislation, as it relates
to the secondary school field, I think it was
obvious tliey had to consider the legal situa-
tion, as it related to the elementary school.
And, while through tradition, custom, or
whatever term one might v^'ish to use, we
have developed, in this province, a very
extensive system of bilingual schools at the
elementary level, it really was based on
history or tradition. And, the committee
recommended to me, and to the government,
that we put this in the form of legislation
so it would be complementary to the second-
ary school legislation. The government not
only accepted it, Mr. Speaker, we felt this
did make sense, and we wanted to put into
legislation what has been the historical or
customary approach to this form of educa-
tion, in this province.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves second reading of
Bill 141, An Act to amend The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Act.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill
that does implement the policies expressed
by the Premier last summer in a speech
before the French language educational asso-
ciation, I believe. He was speaking in
Ottawa at the time. But, it was a full year
ago. Even before that, in the discussions of
the estimates of the Minister of Education,
it was brought before the House, the difiBcul-
ties experienced by French-speaking students
in those communities where they had only
French educational facilities to the end of
grade 8; and the number of dropouts of these
students, who, when they went on to the
secondary level, could not cope with instruc-
tion entirely in English or, at least, largely
in Enghsh. There were three subjects, I
believe, where French instruction was per-
mitted without even the kind of bill that we
have passed just a moment ago. I can remem-
ber the discussions at that time. The member
for York South and myself, and some others,
carried on a fairly lengthy discussion with
the Minister and I felt, on that occasion, that
there did require some policy direction, as
far as the government was concerned, be-
cause I felt the Minister was at a loss to tell
us what could be done to improve the situa-
tion. He used the phrase at one time, "Well,
what would you do?" and I think, from at
least two sources on this side, it was indicated
that we should move into French language
instruction at the secondary level.
This now has come about, or at least can
come about when this bill is passed, and it
sets right a difficult situation that has come
down to us from the history of our province.
It is not necessary to go into any of those
details, I think most of us are familiar with
them, and we on this side support the prin-
ciple of the bill that is before us.
The Minister, in his introductory remarks,
made it abundantly clear that the curriculum,
that would be presented, would give the
students in the French-speaking communities
ample opportunity to, in fact, graduate with
bilingual abilities. I believe this is impor-
tant. We are doing these young people no
service if we present them with a curriculum
which is less than complete for their needs,
as they matriculate and go out into the world
of everyday work and existence in Ontario.
So with this in mind, I would say we on
this side support the principle of the bill, as
it is presently understood. I feel there will
be some dislocation in its implementation.
We have read, from time to time, about com-
ments made in some of the bilingual com-
munities; not the French communities but
the bilingual communities where there is
some concern that English instruction will
4108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not be maintained for that part of the popu-
lation that is not equipped to take advan-
tage of instruction in French. I am quite
sure that these fears are groundless. There
is no thought, surely, that any curtailment
in funds needed would make it impossible
for the provision of the adequate facilities
for both communities where there is a signi-
ficant percentage that has to be properly
served.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr, Speaker, much
of what I said in the previous bill applies
to this, in its general reference to the impor-
tance of the teaching of French and the
provision of bilingual education.
I am a little curious, as to the unwilling-
ness of the government to grasp this nettle
a year ago when they had such a magnificent
opportunity in the instance of the closing
of the Sacred Heart college in Sudbury. At
that time, all of my most persistent prodding
could not get any comment out of the Min-
ister, other than the fact that this was a local
responsibility. A few months later, particu-
larly on the eve of an election, apparently the
government changed its mind and was willing
to accept this added burden and make it a
central government responsibility in terms of
clarifying our rights in this country. But
perhaps one should not be unappreciative of
achievements even though they are a little
tardy and sometimes well gauged for the
needs of elections.
I would like to underline a point that has
been raised by the leader of the Opposition
in terms of easing the fears, even in French-
speaking communities, of a young person
getting his education in French and, there-
fore, being ill-equipped to live in a pre-
dominantly English-speaking economy and
society, such as Canada is or the North
American continent is. It has always struck
me as being a bit anomalous that one will run
into fairly vigorous opposition sometimes
among French Canadians to the idea of
secondary education in French because of
this fear.
It seems to me it underlines a problem that
we have been grappling with in language
teaching, not only to French children, but to
English-speaking children, and that is that
we have got to make it more effective in
terms of the speaking of the language. There-
fore, it applies as fully to the efforts that
are now being made to teaching French
more effectively to English-speaking Cana-
dians in Ontario, so that when they have
gone to some years of public school and four
or five years of secondary school, they do
not come out of the school almost as incap-
able of speaking French as they were when
they went in.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) has
lamented this plight that he faces. All of us
do in varying degrees. Some of us are try-
ing to repair the gaps because of the in-
efficiency of our teaching system.
The final point, Mr. Speaker, that I would
like to make in commenting on the principle
of this bill, is that I think it is extremely
important that we fill the secondary gap in
the flow of French-speaking students or bi-
lingual education. Until now, we have had
a bits and pieces approach. We have had a
considerable opportunity for teaching in
French at the elementary school level. We
have moved formally to the establishment of
two bilingual universities in the province of
Ontario, but there is grave danger that these
universities are going to wither on the vine
so to speak, because there would not be an
adequate flow of French-speaking students.
With the provision of a fuller opportunity
for education in French at the secondary level
v/herever you have got a viable group across
the province of Ontario, I think we will not
only be achieving this overall objective for
the fullest possible measure of bilingualism,
including the basic element of education, but
we will also be underpinning the bilingual
universities that have now been established.
In short, we have consolidated our position
this morning by constitutionalizing, if I may
use that term, bilingual education at the
elementary level; we have got it to a degree
at the university level, and now we are going
to assure it more fully at the secondary school
level so that we have a flow throughout the
educational system.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak? The Minister.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is very
little that I can add, as I say once again, to
the introductory remarks I made when the
bill was presented to the House. I welcome
the very positive response from the members
opposite with respect to this legislation, be-
cause really, it is very historic legislation and
I think that we can anticipate, Mr. Speaker,
that perhaps this form of legislation will be
of some benefit, not only within our own
province, but perhaps outside this provincial
jurisdiction as well.
I just want to make one point with respect
to an observation made by the member for
York South, when he was referring to the
concern expressed by, say, two of our univer-
JUNE 7, 1968
4109
sities with the flow of students. Really I
think in fairness that does not apply to the
University of Ottawa perhaps, but certainly
with respect to Laurentian there was a con-
cern and is still a concern as to the numbers
of students who can benefit by a bilingual
form of university education. I am sure that
this particular bill will improve the flow of
students to Laurentian, although, as I say,
at Ottawa I am not sure really that this was
as great a problem as at Laurentian.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO LABOUR-MANAGEMENT
ARBITRATION COMMISSION ACT, 1968
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bfll 142, The
Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration
Commission Act, 1968.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, it is a very interesting bill that the
Minister has brought forward but I would
like to know really what this government and
what the department intend to do. We had
a bill sitting here for four years, something to
do with official referees and labour arbitrators.
The Minister of that day, when he brought it
in, said it was a great bill and we were
immediately going to get on with building
up a corps of trained arbitrators and trained
referees and trained conciliators and every-
thing was going to be fine.
That bill, as we discovered a few weeks
ago, Mr. Speaker, has sat on the statute books
passed but unproclaimed since, I think, 1962,
and we have not had this great group of
arbitrators, referees and conciliators built up,
trained and so on.
We have another bill now— not quite the
same in terms and the Minister is undoubtedly
going to tell us it is quite different in its
concept, but the theory is certainly the same.
When we have labour problems we must
have a means whereby there is a group or
corps of trained officials who are impartial
in their outlook, or as reasonably impartial
as they can be. It is a difficult thing to get
anyone who is impartial, and anyone who has
opinions probably out of necessity has opin-
ions that lead him one way or another. But
hopefully, we can build up some sort of a
group who will be at the beck and call of
the government to be made available in situa-
tions such as this.
I say that we should get on with this. I
would like to know why the govermnent has
delayed, why we now have a new statute,
and what progress the Minister can reason-
ably look forward to achieving. It is all very
well to bring in another piece of paper, to
go through all of the ritual that we go
through to make it law, but if the piece of
paper does no more than sit on the statute
books, unacted upon by government as the
last piece of paper did, then the whole exer-
cise is a waste of time.
Goodness knows, Mr. Speaker, we need all
of our best thinking and all of our best talent
to be made available to help solve the num-
ber of serious labour disputes that face us,
and apparently they are going to continue
to face us. We have to bend every effort to
try and look after these in the fairest way
possible.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think
I can say to the House that we will support
this bill but we are not convinced at all of
the government's real intention to get into
this field. The present Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs was in good form
when he introduced the last bill. A new era
was about to come and we were going to
set up a group in accord, and so on, and the
bill has sat four years unproclaimed. Now
the Minister cannot explain that away.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): We do not take
second place in Ontario in this field in the
whole of North America.
Mr. Singer: I know, but do not drag red
herrings across the—
Hon. Mr. Rovioitree: No red herring.
Mr. Singer: The bill sat for six years un-
proclaimed. It was the responsibihty of the
present Minister of Financial and Commer-
cial Affairs when he was then Minister of
Labour. He gave, when he introduced it,
in his remarks on the second reading, a
speech that is going to be paraphrased by
this Minister of Labour. It is very hard, Mr.
Speaker, to bridge the credibility gap because
we listen to this—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The Minister
has a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview is entirely in error. I do
not recall introducing that bill, and I do not
think I could be identified, as the hon. mem-
ber would hke to identify me, with the bill
4110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which was never proclaimed. I doubt if it
was ever introduced. It certainly has nothing
to do with my administration-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, maybe it was not
this man: it may have been the present Min-
ister of Labour (Mr. Bales).
Mr. MacDonald: What bill is the member
referring to?
Mr. Speaker: My own recollection to the
member might be that it was a different
department entirely that had carriage of that
particular bill. I suspect Mr. Speaker has
some personal recollection of it.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: My point is that I am
sure that the hon. member for Downsview
would want to be graceful enough to admit
his error in the debate.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): He is always grace-
ful; see him on tlie floor.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if I have been
in error then certainly I apologize to you and
the hon. Minister.
An hon. member: Somebody has been in
error.
Mr. Singer: Let me say that the bill is
on the statute books and it has sat there for
six years. Whichever Minister introduced it,
certainly introduced it with a flourish, with
drums banging and cymbals clashing and
said, "Here we have the solution."
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: All right, and they have a
collective responsibility, it is the problem
of all of them, every one of the Ministry.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: All right, Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister wants to get into a fight, let me
tell him what the facts are. In 1962, the
government brought in a bill, whoever
brought it in, whichever Minister, whichever
one of your colleagues brought it in— and
said, "Here is a solution to labour difficulties
and this is what we are going to do." And the
bill has sat there for six years unproclaimed.
So the government has done nothing. Now,
that is it. Those are the facts.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The hon. member need
not raise his voice.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this hon. Minister
brings it upon himself. He forces me to tell
him through you, sir, that the government is
full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
They are constantly bringing in pieces of
paper which mean nothing because they do
not act on them. And I say, sir, that I hope
there is more genuine feeling behind this
bill that we see before us than there was
in the last one, which has sat there for four
years. The credibility gap is a big one and
we have a hard job believing the government
mean things when they bring in new bills
that substantially are the same as the last one
upon which they never took any action. That
is what it is. If I by any chance involved the
Minister of Financial and Commercial AfiFairs
improperly as a person, I certainly was
wrong, but he is involved as a member of this
government and as a Cabinet Minister, and
the government and the Cabinet have a bad
record in this labour field.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, I accept
the apology of the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
backing up my colleague, the member for
Downsview, I think it is a shocking thing
that Ontario's labour force over all these
years has not had any vehicle such as this
to protect them. We have here in effect a
necessary piece of legislation, but in essence
it is another government commission, with
blanket powers to govern our lives. The
second section, clause 2 reads: "The com-
mission shall consist of seven members. One
shall be designated by the Lieutenant-
Governor and there shall be three members
to represent employees and three members
employers." I would like to ask the Min-
ister who is the chairman of the commis-
sion? Has he been appointed yet?
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I see. Well then, how will
you pick the three employee representatives
and three employer representatives?
Mr. Speaker: The member will not expect
an answer to that until the Minister has the
floor a little later.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Ask the hon. member to let us
have his recommendations.
Mr. Sargent: I am not clear. The fourA
clause states the terms of office will be one,
two, or three years and eligible for reappoint-
JUNE 7, 1968
4111
ment. I assume these will all be political
appointments as in other commissions we
have. And then we get on to the salaries
of these people. I think we should know
these things before we get into this legisla-
tion.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
says that we need this kind of legislation to
protect the workers. My experience with
boards of arbitration is often they are there
to protect the employer, not the worker.
I hope that after the initial setting up of the
board, which is of some little importance,
that in the training of the staff you take into
consideration— very careful consideration— all
the various types of occupations that nor-
mally fall within tlie scope of arbitration
boards.
Far too often we have had arbitrators
sitting on boards who are not at all familiar
with the working conditions and the ter-
minology of the employment that they were
trying to arbitrate. And it is very important
that the people who are doing the training
come from a great variety of occupations in
order that the people who finally end up as
the arbitrators are fully knowledgeable of,
as I say, the terminology in particular of
the various occupations. I think it is very
necessary. I have not been satisfied with the
arbitration procedures up to now and I hope
this will improve on them.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add a few comments to this.
This bill acknowledges the need. That need
has been emphasized again in the debate
this morning. It has presented new pro-
cedures for fulfilling that need. What puzzles
me is, what exactly is this commission going
to do tliat the government has not done dur-
ing the four years of lamented absence since
the previous bill was introduced in 1962—
six years, if it was really introduced in 1962?
We recognize that, if we ever implement
fully the regulation that those who are sitting
on the bench should not be involved in
affiliation and arbitration procedures, we
would have to have other personnel. Pre-
sumably we have been doing something about
the development of those personnel. My ques-
tion is really a twofold one; what might this
commission do that the government was not
doing to develop that bank of arbitrators?
The second aspect of my question is— I am a
little curious as to why the government felt
they needed a commission.
One acknowledges the need for arbitra-
tors, conciliators, referees. But could you
not have had, from within The Department
of Labour, a branch that did the necessary
licensing and took the necessary steps to
seek out people and to train them? Why do
you need to have a commission to do what
is essentially a fairly routine matter? After
all, The Department of Labour is seeking out
and training and putting inspectors in jobs
in many, many aspects of the economy today.
Why do you need to have a commission to
do the necessary work here in this area?
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this bill? The Min-
ister has the floor.
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in deahng with a number of matters
that have been raised this morning in refer-
ence to the principles behind the bill, I would
like to refer first to the Act that was referred
to by the hon. member for Downs view— that
is. The Approved Impartial Arbitrators Act,
brought in, I believe, in 1961 or 1962, prior
to my coming to this Legislature.
Under that Act, a board was established.
It was a three-man board, presided over by
the chief justice of the high court of this prov-
ince, and there were two other members.
That board was simply empowered to regis-
ter or to approve arbitrators. People could go
to them and be, I presume, questioned, then
if approved, receive a stamp of approval.
Since that time— and it began in the fall
of 1966— the federal government took action
to effectively remove the judiciary from the
role of arbitrators, which they had carried on
for some time. They are not prevented from
serving in that position, but they cannot be
reimbursed for it except for their expenses
and they certainly have a great many other
prior duties which they must undertake—
Mr. Singer: That is about as good a deter-
rent as you can provide for.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Well, I think they have an
effective role and a very necessary role to
play, so that we should not encumber that.
But the judges had received approval from
both union and management over quite a
long period of time and they were reluctant
to lose the services of that group of impartial
people in the field of arbitration.
This new situation was dealt with very
extensively by the union-management council,
which was established last September, It was
a unanimous recommendation— and I stress
this— from both the union and management
4112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
people on that council, that this type of bill
should be developed. At the present time,
since the judges have not been available, we
have found a number of people who were
serving in the capacity of arbitrators. But
they are people that have been doing this or
allied or analogous work for some time.
There are about 35 or 40 of tliem that we can
suggest or make available to parties. But we
feel in the coming year, because of the ab-
sence of the judiciary from this field, that
we shall have to provide many more. And
imder this commission hon. members will
note from the provisions of the bill, they are
empowered to recruit and to register persons
as arbitrators. The commission will provide
training for them, and I think that this is an
important area that will require concentrated
work. It is one of the questions that was
really raised by the hon. member for Went-
worth, that they would be people of broad
understanding from different types of indus-
try, and so on.
This commission will actually handle many
of the details of arbitration if the parties
wish them to do so. I stress that the union
and management need not recruit from or
draw on this group of arbitrators as the sole
source, but it will Idc available to them. I
would expect that, because of the pressure
to find satisfactory arbitrators, once we have
an able panel, the bulk of the nominees will
draw from this group.
I would say to the hon. members that it
is the firm intention of myself and my depart-
ment to proceed with this matter. The reason
for establishing the commission is that we
feel that it should have an impartial chair-
man, probably serving in a full-time capacity.
The other members, three representing man-
agement, and three representing labour,
would probably serve on a part-time basis
as their services were required. But, with
that type of situation, we can develop a
group or panel of arbitrators that we will
sorely need in the coming years.
One other point before I conclude, Mr.
Speaker. I am sure the members are aware
that this is one of the matters dealt with by
Mr. Justice Rand in his hearing over the last
two years. I am not sure as to whether
recommendations will be included in the
report, in connection with this field, but if
they are they will certainly be taken into
consideration and, if necessary, we will amend
our legislation if we need to, following con-
sideration of such recommendations. But as
we are under great pressure today to provide
arbitrators to settle grievances that have
arisen during the course of the collective
agreements, for this reason we feel that we
cannot leave the problem in abeyance for
another year. For that reason we wish to
press forward with the legislation at the
present time. I would give the members full
assurance that once this bill is passed we
will proceed to establish the commission and
ask the members to proceed with all speed
to recruit and train the necessary arbitrators.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 11th order; com-
mittee of the whole House, Mr. A. E. Reuter
in the chair.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill 128, An Act
to amend The Training Schools Act, 1965.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 128 reported.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES ACT, 1968
House in committee on Bill 129, The
Department of Correctional Services Act,
1968.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, just a word on section 2. You may ask
what "correctional services" mean, that other
names may smell as sweet, and say it is
just a question of semantics I suppose. I
would like him to comment, if the Minister
would care to do so, on the change in the
name. Does the name "reform institutions"
embarrass him? Is it perhaps too pretentious
a name considering the little reforming that
has been taken place? Does he think it is
easier to correct than to reform?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
I have no hesitation in discussing this, but
this has already been discussed in my com-
ments on first reading and on second reading*
I would refer the hon. member to his
colleague who sits on his left, who gave a
very good reason and explained why h$
wholeheartedly supported the change in th^
name, as very progressive—
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cip Affairs): Let us have a little co-ordination
over there.
JUNE 7, 1968
4113
Mr. Lawlor: You have not spoken for
several days.
Sections 2 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. Lawlor: On section 14, jumping down
to the last four lines of the section, you go
on to state about lock-ups: "And the muni-
cipality shall pay to the Treasurer of Ontario
annually such rate per day for persons in
custody in the lock-up as is fixed by the
Minister for the year." I suggest that per-
haps an amendment might be in order. We
have gone through a whole series of legisla-
tion here in the past two or three weeks
whereby the province of Ontario assumed the
cost, and I would assume that it is assuming
the cost of the lock-ups as well. So, why
should municipalities pay to the Treasurer of
Ontario? I do not think you intend that. I
suggest it is an oversight and that the matter
ought to be straightened out, and perhaps
straightened out right now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
there is some misunderstanding on the part
of the hon. member. I should say when a
municipality was unable to establish a
lock-up, arrangements were made with the
county for the use of the jail for this purpose,
and remuneration was paid to the county
for the use of the jail facilities. As the hon.
member said, under the province's assumption
of the cost of the administration of justice,
this section will be repealed, and the remun-
eration will now be paid to the Treasurer of
Ontario. The cost of the administration of
the local police department has not been
assumed by the province of Ontario, and it
is still under the local police. It is not until
after a man leaves the local lock-up that he
becomes the responsibility of the province.
Sections 14 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 29: ' ' ' ■'■'
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, on section 29,
I would like to knew whether, when a person
does not make information that they have
about the possibility of parole of some indi-
vidual, known to the parole board, is there a
sanction for not doing so or just how does
that arise?
Secondly, under this section, may I say that
the wording compared to the previous section
9 of The Parole Act is much improved. It
spoke in terms of access. In other words, if
anyone had access to information, whether
he knew that he had access or not, and the
information was relevant, then difiBculties
could occur. This is a good amendment and
I commend the Minister on this. Would he
care to make mention on my first question
as to what would happen to such a person?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a good question,
Mr. Chairman. When we drew this section
up, I went into this quite thoroughly because
it is the first thing that would occur to a
person. Naturally they would ask, what is the
point of having a requirement when there is
no sanction if a person does not carry out
the requirement? It is pointed out that most
of the people we are concerning ourselves
with here are public officials, who because
the law requires it, would carry out their
duty without the requirement of a sanction,
such as magistrates, probation officers, police
officers and so on. They know that by law
they are required to carry out this require-
ment, and there is no sanction required in
this particular case.
On the other hand, if a private individual
has information and will not offer it, I thinlc
that the hon. member would agree that you
would not want to penalize a man because
he has information and refuses to give it.
He may feel that he is required to give infor-
mation that may be used against a friend of
his, and you would not want to say that a
man has to give this information for reasons
of parole. I think that by and large, as the
hon. member says, it is an improvement and
will carry out what is intended.
Sections 29 to 32, inclusive, agreed tcK:^
On section 33: li)
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man? I am sorry, I came in late here. Is
there anything in this bill with regard to
training in county j^iils, at; all? JHave I mi^ed
that part? .{, ; ■)i(j;;)uJ .^buohi li-^ili lu
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only thing that I
think that I could say is that where county
jails are involved in this bill, is they become
part of the provincial system. This was the
purpose of the new bill to begin with, to
include and bring county jails under our
control, and they now become correctional
institutions, that is, the same as any other.
They are no longer called county jails. They
are, as soon as the bill becomes law, part of
our total provincial system.
Mr. Sargent: Well, can I assume that there
will be more idleness or that there will be a
programme for training in county jails?
4114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, Mr.
Chairman, we discussed this during my esti-
mates. It is our plan that there will be no
idleness. There will be a programme laid out
for all of the institutions within the purview
of my department. But, I would hope that
none would expect that this would be done
overnight. There is a massive job to be done,
and we are approaching it now, and we
will do the best we can to introduce the
programme, as enunciated by me, the other
day in the estimates.
Mr. Chairman: Section 33?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
member that this bill has been dealt with in
committee, in its totality.
Mr. Sargent: I know, you are very kind,
but it is very important.
Mr. Chairman: It is not on section 33, I
must point out to the member, and we cannot
discuss the principle or generalities of this
bill at this time.
Section 33 agreed to.
On section 34:
Mr. Lawlor: On section 34, this deals with
the regulations. I am thinking particularly of
the regulations which might have some rele-
vance to section 16, where the provincial
bailiff removes a prisoner from one jail to
another— in subsection 2— and there is a
warrant for removal, signed by an official of
the department. My only thought on that
was that some afternoon, and perhaps the
Minister has considered it, somebody will
obtain one of those forms— as it is in the
hands of two officials to be designated in the
department— forge a signature and spring one
of their friends, because not much more is
required. Under the regulations, I would
suggest that, perhaps, a countersigning of
that warrant might be considered sensible—
by either the Minister or the Deputy Minis-
ter or a second individual in the department
—considering the nice use that may be made
of a forged warrant.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
not familiar with all the details involved in
this. I will study the Hansard after it is
printed, and when we are drawing up the
regulations, which are being dravai up at the
moment, I will make sure that the hon.
member's comments, in this respect, are con-
sidered by my oJEcials, in case there appears
to be some loophole which has not been
covered in this area. Thank you for the
suggestion.
Mr. Chairman: Section 34?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on section 34,
it says the establishment and governing pro-
gramme referred to in section 20, which is
the educational programme. The Minister has
stated that this will come into being, he does
not know when. I think that we have a right
to know when we can expect that this voca-
tional programme will be started in the
correctional institutions in Ontario. Wlien is
it going to happen?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
prepared to discuss it, if you will permit it.
But, this is out of order again. This does not
refer to the programme, in the institutions.
This, in fact, refers, if the hon. member will
read that subsection, to the programmes re-
ferred to in section 20, which has to do with
programmes outside of the institutions when
there is temporary leave and that sort of
thing, provided it has nothing to do with the
jail system, as such.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
knows what I am trying to find out. Why
the evasion? Why can you not tell us when
you are going to put this into effect in
Ontario? Why can you not be honest with us?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, when
the hen. member suggests that I have evaded
this question, if he will just look back into
the Hansard, he will find that I have answered
it in this session alone and for the hon. mem-
ber's benefit— I should imagine three or four
or five times. I cannot tell you when the
programme is going into eff^ect. As a matter
of fact, this portion of it is going to depend
on the federal government's legislation being
passed.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, in that case,
the question is out of order.
Mr. Sar^^cnt: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. This Minister told me, years ago, things
that have never happened.
Some hon. members: Shut up, sit down.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, come on!
Mr. Chairman: Order, order! We are dis-
cussing this bill clause by clause. Section 34
indicates—
JUNE 7, 1968
4115
Mr. Sargent: What kind of a snow job goes
on here, anyway?
Some Hon. members: Sit down, sit down.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): On a point of order,
I object to the kind of language, and the
use of phrases like "snow job".
Mr. Sargent: Well that is too bad. I am
not talking to you, so sit down.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: And secondly, I object
to this debate under the House in committee,
which is presently sitting. This is a second
reading debate, which the hon. member is
now attempting to raise in committee. It has
been debated on second reading, and I urge
you and I ask you to rule this entire matter
out of order.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the member
realizes—
Mr. Sargent: You should not be taking
instructions from the House leader, as to
what is out of order.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
that I have instructions from no one, and I
think that he realizes that we are dealing with
this bill clause by clause.
Mr. Sargent: This Minister has misled the
House over the years.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member please
resume his seat? He is out of order. Section
34?
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 35:
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, we have been
putting so many bills, turning so many bills
into Acts, and placing so many bills on the
statute books of this province, of recent date,
that it is a great pleasure to see some of
them taken back off again.
Sections 35 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 129 reported.
. REDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
House in committee on Bill 91, An Act to
provide for the reductiori of municipal taxes
on residential property.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I move
that the second reprinting be considered by
the committee of the whole House.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs moves that the second reprinting of
the bill be considered by the committee.
Motion agreed to.
On section 1:
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps I might
explain in section 1, Mr. Chairman, and in a
number of other places, to make the purpose
and the effect of the bill quite clear.
We have changed the words "tax credit",
which formerly appeared, to "reduction of
taxes". For a number of reasons, this is a
more accurate way and, perhaps, a more legal
way of describing exactly what has happened.
It has an effect in a number of places
through the bill, but the piupose of a
number of these amendments is simply to
change the wording from "tax credit" to
"reduction of taxes".
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is
a very important piece of legislation, and in
order to question the Minister clause by
clause-
Mr. Chairman: Clause by clause considera-
tion.
Mr. Sargent: -to bring this up to date.
Under equalization across the province, will
the average home-owner get the same amount
of money across Ontario?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Sargent: What will be the variance,
what will it range from across Ontario, from
home-owners and apartment-owners?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: From $45 to $65.
Mr. Sargent: Well Mr. Chairman, how do
you equate that some people receive more
than others? What kind of equahty is this?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think what we are
talking about, Mr. Chairman, is beyond me.
This has nothing to do with section 1. I sup-
pose we are talking about the principle of
the bill again?
Mr. Chairman: Yes. Section 1 deals with
the interpretation of sections of the Act.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman I do not
know-
Mr. Chairman: Well may I point out-
Mr. Sargent: That is pretty awful.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is an under-
statement.
4116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: You should learn the
rules after this many years in the place.
Mr. Chairman: Order please!
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have been
in this business of dealing with people all
my life and I do not have to take any stuff
from you at all over there.
Mr. Chairman: Order please!
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am sure
that the comment made by the hon. Minister
tliat we were discussing principle is not cor-
rect. I would agree, however, Mr. Chairman,
that the question that the hon. member is
asking might be more properly in order under
section 3, where the provision for the debate
actually is contained.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, section 1, of course is
the interpretation section, and the member's
questions were entirely out of order in that
respect.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is one point
that I may make under section 1, which I
think is of interest.
Subsection (h) formerly excluded properties
which had been assessed under section 53, of
The Assessment Act. That exclusion has been
taken out. I think, to explain this to my
friends, section 53 covers properties which,
for example, are assessed for the first time,
or were assessed for the first time on Febru-
ary 1, let us say of this year. They would
therefore pay part-year taxes. It was orig-
inally thought that it would be too difficult
a matter to apply a credit or reduction in
taxes for a part-year and originally those
properties assessed under section 53, were
not included in the bill.
We have now decided, and with the con-
currence of most of the court and treas-
urers, it will be possible to bring these
properties in under the Act, and they will
get a proportionate amount of credit. So the
definition of municipal taxes has been
changed to accomplish this end. I think it
is rather a significant addition to the Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry Mr.
Chairman, perhaps I might say— under sub-
section 2, there is a change. Originally it
was the subsection 2 of section 1,
Originally, you will recall, if a person was
not separately assessed the owner could go
down and see the treasurer, and this apart-
ment should have been separately assessed.
What we are doing by this small amendment
is allowing either the owner or the tenant to
go to the treasurer this year and say: "I was
not separately assessed. I am entitled to the
reduction." If the treasurer is so satisfied,
then tlie credit can be made.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Well, on
that subsection, Mr. Chairman, usually you
do this through the court of revision, do you
not? The previous procedure to change the
assessment bill was to go through the court
of revision, and their very strict time limits.
When there is a series of appeals, any kind
of revision of the assessment roll follows a
very tight series of legal procedures. Are you
doing away with this?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Singer: It seems you intend to do
away with all those court of revision pro-
cedures appeals from now on.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, this really does
not affect the assessment rolls or at any rate
it will not in the year 1968. I tliink my
friend is aware that there are a number of
properties— and this is also true in the rural
areas, where a farm is assessed for just land
and buildings. No breakdown. But I think
my friend is aware of situations here where,
for one reason or another, a self-contained
dwelling within the meaning of the Act has
not been separately assessed.
Now, rather than go through all that rig-
marole, but to still get in the benefit of the
tax reduction, this section was put in this
year, I have no doubt— that is the treasurer
satisfies himself— that it should be paid, that
it will be properly assessed the following year,
and that it should not be the problem that
it may be this year.
But we are not doing away with all the
provisions of the court of revision. This really
does not directly affect the assessment roll.
It is the treasurer who is satisfied it should
have been correctly assessed.
Mr. Chairman: Section 2.
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I am
still not clear on this. If the treasurer is
satisfied, sir, he may certify that parts of
such land shall be deemed to have been
separately assessed in the year 1967 for the
purposes of this Act.
You are in fact, sir, giving power to the
treasurer to amend the assessment roll by
adding, at least for the year 1967, all sorts
of people who in his discretion he deems
JUNE 7, 1968
4117
should be properly added. At which point-
have you not destroyed the whole base of
the assessment roll?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I do not think
so because the words there are "deemed
to be separately assessed". If those words
are there, the treasurer can make his claim
to the Treasurer of Ontario, and say there
are so many units separately assessed, or they
are deemed to be separately assessed in case
they all are not. In that way, the treasurer
—if there were 100 units— can then pay out
for 100 units. But the assessment roll will
not be tinkered with.
Mr. Singer: Are you not going to end up
with an assessment roll prepared by the
assessor which is subject to the usual pro-
cedures, court of revision and so on? There
is another roll— call it what you will— which
the treasurer has added up, which may have
an extra 10,000 names on it, which the
treasurer has made up. Is it not conceiv-
able the Minister was talking about what we,
in our municipality, often call basement apart-
ments, where- by the time you get two assess-
ments—it is often higher than what you would
have had with one assessment?
So the treasurer is going to have in his
little compartment a different kind of roll.
Perhaps you cannot call it technically an
assessment roll, because you are not doing it
here, but he is going to have a separate roll
with more names on it and very possibly with
more value, and have you not then destroyed
the whole assessment roll—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, of course, as
you realize this section has been written so
that it is only effective for the year 1968.
After that, they will have to be separately
assesssd by the assessor and the treasurer, and
we will have no power to do anything about
it. We suspect this section may lead to some
better assessment practices, although that is
not the real purpose of it.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I suspect you
are opening up a can of worms here, and
causing no end of trouble.
An hon. member. Zoning problems too.
Mr. Chairman: The fact is, the Chairman
must point out that section 1 was carried
and that the conversation between the Min-
ister and the chair, and the chair and the
member for Downsview— while it was perhaps
useful— was out of order, and I do not think
we should—
Mr. Singer: With great respect, Mr. Chair-
man, it was not out of order because the
Minister had just finished explaining what
section 2—
Mr. Chairman: The Minister was out of
order in reverting back to section 1.
Mr. Singer: He was no more out of order
than me, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We were out of
order together.
Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, the
Chairman pointed out that both the Minister
and the member for Downsview were out
of order. Section 1 has been carried. The
Chairman is calling section 2. The member
for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: The motivation for this bill,
Mr. Chairman, was to admit inequity to the
real estate people of Ontario and that is
why you are trying to distribute $150 million,
if that is the amount. We are talking in
clause 2 about "every local municipality shall
reduce the municipal taxes required to be
paid each year". This is going to cost the
municipalities a great sum of money out of
their own pockets to enact legislation which
should never have been here in the first
place. Will the Minister please advise why, on
this clause, this was not given back to the
municipalities in the form of per capita
grants to municipalities? I want to find out
the answer, this is very important.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, with
great respect, I think that falls under the
principle of the bill which was fully debated
at that time, as I recall for some five or six
hours. The bill was approved in principle
and the principle of returning money on real
estate taxes in this way was decided at that
time. The reasons why it was not done on a
per capita basis, or any other basis, I think,
were discussed and settled at that time.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I will accept
that as being another one of your gross
errors here, but the fact that municipalities
at this point— do not get that sour look on
your face because you are a new boy here
and you have a lot to learn.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: He cannot do anything wrong,
this man. The fact that the Minister of Mines
(Mr. A. F. Lawrence) remarks about learning
the law— you are the ones that make the laws.
We have to try to adapt ourselves to them.
4118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Will the member please
stick to the section of the bill?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): On a point of order. How long are
you going to permit this kind of cross-
conversation from the other side?
Mr. Sargent: When did you get back into
the House?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
on that point of order, I suggest that if any-
thing is out of order it is the kind of
comments made by the hon. member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask
the member to refrain from the type of dis-
cussion that he is indulging in and stick to
section 2 of the bill. Section 2?
Mr. Sargent: It is going to cost the muni-
cipalities a lot of money at the outset. Now
they are paying these moneys and the people
are paying their taxes, and they are paying
the money which they do not have in ad-
vance. What are you going to do about that?
Mr. Chairman: I think the Minister has
explained that. That type of question I do
not believe is in order.
Mr. Sargent: The municipal tax funds are
prepaying the money that you have not paid
them yet and they do not have these moneys.
Now where is the area of recourse to the
municipalities at this point?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, sec-
tion 2 says "the local municipality shall re-
duce municipal taxes by the amount as
determined", and a further section says "they
apply to the province to get this money back
from the province in full". There is nothing
in this Act that says the municipality must
allow this credit at any particular point in
time. They can allow it on the first, second,
third, fourth, or whatever instalment they
wish, and presumably I have said if they
allow it on the last instalment they will
actually have the money from the province
prior to having allowed the credit.
Mr. Sargent: Have you instructed the
municipalities to that effect?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. I will have some-
thing further to say about that this morning
under section 9.
Mr. Sargent: As a matter of record, the
municipalities are paying the moneys out now
because the people are expecting it because
of all the pubhcity here. Insofar as the
equalized mill rate— up to $2,000 of assess-
ment—because there is no standardization in
equalization— you have the disparity between
$45 and $55, which is another inequity in this
government.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are quite wrong.
The hon. member is quite wrong. The reason
—because there is a difference— does not have
anything to do with the assessment practices
that may enter into it. The reason there is a
difference between, for example, $45 and $65,
is because there is a great difPerence in the
tax burden in municipalities in this province.
Obviously we would all say taxes in every
municipality are high. That simply is not
the case, however. At least if they are all high,
some are higher than others, and where taxes
are high— where the individual is being called
upon to pay a heavier burden of taxes on
real estate— then the credit is proportionately
higher. If the taxes are relatively low, then
the credit is low and that is the reason for
the difference between what different munici-
palities are getting. It does not relate directly
to the equalizing factor.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
has said I am wrong. I do not know how he
can say anyone is wrong in this view because
the figure that I can get in a few moments
shows that about 40 per cent of the people
of this province do not have an equalized
assessment. I do not know how you can
justify it if you distribute $150 miUion to a
tax base across the province which has no
uniformity and no standardization. You are
just flying a kite here and it will never
happen.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Section 2— the mem-
ber for York South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, the hon. Minister's last comment
in reply to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
puzzles me. I thought that this basic shelter
exemption was going to be based on the first
$2,000 of the assessment, recalculated on the
basis of current values.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: And on the basis of
the mill rate?
Mr. MacDonald: And on the basis of the,
mill rate.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
JUNE 7, 1968
4119
Mr. MacDonald: If you are paying— oh
yes, I am sorry, I see it now— $2,000— the size
of the mill rate will mean it could be $65
rather than $45. You are right.
My second question I wanted to ask the
Minister— conceivably it should come under
9 because of the comment the Minister made
a moment ago tliat he wanted to come back
to this— is that I was rather intrigued in the
the instance— if I may cite a personal case—
of receipt of my own tax bill from the
borough of York for the last half of the
year, involving three payments. The basic
shelter exemption is deducted from the total,
and then it is divided— the three payments.
Have arrangements been made with the
municipalities so that, before the bill is
passed, they are in effect implementing it
for this year?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they are doing
it in a variety of ways. Perhaps I might do
this now. What we have said generally is
that, if we are dealing roughly with the
first 15 per cent of real estate taxes, then I
suppose we could have said in this year our
share of the real estate taxes are going to
be spent in December and part of November.
So long as we were getting the money out
to the municipalities in September it was
proper.
Now Smith, as you know, suggested in the
report, and perhaps not directly relating to
this, that taxes ultimately should be on a
monthly basis. I think he was going to send
five municipal tax bills and five education tax
bills on alternating months and we got
December off, or something like that. Was
that not it? Now, then, if you do that, and
some municipalities are making a number
of instalments— five and six, I think six is
probably the maximum now— then the credit
which is allowed by the province, Smith
called it basic shelter, we now call it tax
reduction, should be divided by 12 or 5 or
whatever the number of instalments are. I
think this makes sense.
Now we said that because of the lateness
in getting it started this year, that was not
going to be possible. I think most of the
municipalities have understood this and have
allowed the credit. I suppose in the case of
your borough it goes through the computer
and it is just as easy to knock it off. For
example, we discussed at one point giving a
municipality the power to round the amount
to the nearest dollar. It does not matter;
the computer can spew out 9 cents or 99
cents just as easily as an even amount. But,
having got this far along the way, with the
blessing and support and help of the Provin-
cial Treasurer we are in a position to say this
morning that we can return this money to the
municipalities somewhat faster than was anti-
cipated.
Mr. Nixon: He arranged for $400 million
this morning through Bill 149.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: With the agreement
of the Treasurer, reimbursement of the muni-
cipalities will be in proportion to, and
approximately at the time of, reinstalment of
realty taxes which will remain to be collected
by municipahties— an approximate indication
of the flow of funds from the province to
municipahties is given in the following table.
In July about nearly $39 miUion; in August
$25 million; in September $30 million; in
October $33.5 million; in November $14
million and December $13 million, for the
total of $150 million. My own municipality,
where I live, does not get around to collecting
its taxes until December 15. I assume it
will not be reimbursed by the Treasurer until
some time in December. Ideally, that table
should be spread out over the whole year,
but we are spreading it out over the six
months.
Mr. MacDonald: The municipality is being
paid at the same time as they would have
received the tax money from the property
owner.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Does it surprise you?
Mr. Chairman: Section 2— the member for
Etobicoke.
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): I would
like to ask the Minister a question tliat follows
on what he has just said. This is the month
of June. June and July are the months that
many families who have children in school
will be moving, and I am particularly con-
cerned as to the individuals who o\vn homes.
Take the borough of Etobicoke for example.
Parents sell their home at the end of the
school year, and they have paid taxes— some
portion of taxes. They move to another muni-
cipality, perhaps like the borough of Scar-
borough.
I would like to know if the Minister might
be able to give me the mechanics of how
this tax rebate or reduction is going to affect
them. They vdll no longer be residents of
the borough of Etobicoke after they have
sold their homes. They will be in new muni-
cipalities in homes sold to them.
4120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am told the legal
profession apparently has great faith in the
Legislature, and ever since the bill received
second reading, right across the province, the
tax reduction has been adjusted along with
taxes in the same way the taxes are adjusted
in real estate deals. This is happening all
over the place.
Mr. Braithwaite: But if we do not know
what it is?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no reason
in the wide world why in Etobicoke they
would not know what it is.
Mr. Braithwaite: No, I just used that
borough for an example. I wondered if there
is any particular form that has been set up
by the department. This is what I would like
to know.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think we have
an indication here that out of the 900 and
some-odd municipalities, I believe the amount
of the tax reduction with respect to the 545
municipalities and 70 schools boards in un-
organized territories has been confirmed with
the Provincial Treasurer. This means that
roughly of the 900 and some-odd municipal-
ities, 600 have set their rates. In my own
municipality they do not get around to setting
their rate until September or October. One
of the lawyers there told me that they figured
out what last year's was and they were adjust-
ing it on that basis.
Mr. Braithwaite: You are telling me there
is no particular form set up by the depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This has been sug-
gested in the memos to clerks and treasurers
which are going out. We suggested this to
the clerks and treasurers and we assume that
a lawyer at some point gets to know. The
first time this comes up, or with the first deal
that he has, he phones the tax collector in any
case to find out what the taxes are so that he
can adjust them and probably at that point
he realizes he should adjust the tax credit
as well.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, this is where
the refund actually is made possible. It is
based, as the Minister said, on the basic
shelter exemption proposal of the Smith
report and yet it is going to apply to more
than one residence for a good number of
our citizens and some of those people who
are not our citizens. For those people who
have summer cottages, and there are a great
number of them, we are in fact by this
legislation assisting them in the maintenance
of two dwellings and I think tliis moves
away—
Mr. MacDonald: Do they cover swimming
pools?
Mr. Nixon: No, I am prepared to pay my
own bill. I think we are moving away from
the basic shelter exemption recommendation.
Frankly I do not approve of the provision
of tax relief for more than one residence.
Where I believe the bill does move away
from tlie best interest of the taxpaying public
of Ontario, is where we provide assistance in
paying taxes for non-residents who have
summer cottages in this province. I cannot for
the life of me see why any part of the $150
million that is going to be sent out to the
municipalities should be used to reduce the
taxes of those people who have their shelter
or their basic residence in another country
and who come over here because of the
special advantages they have in summer resi-
dence.
In many cases I am told that the exemp-
tion will completely pay their taxes and they
will have no further responsibilities whatso-
ever. I personally believe that there could
have been a simple adjustment to the word-
ing of this statute that would have permitted
us to provide the exemption and the tax relief
for those of our residents who live here on a
full-time basis and not just in the summer-
time.
Mr. Chairman: Section 3 carried?
Mr. Nixon:
ister's views.
would like to hear the Min-
Hon. Mr. McKeough: We did deal with
this in principle too, I think, on second
reading, but I think my friend has narrowed
the problem to American residents only, or
American citizens only, who happen to have a
second residence here.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I can see the
difficulty in winnowing out from among our
own population, which is the summer cottage
and which is the residence and so on, but I
think really we could exempt foreigners from
participation in this.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Foreign rather than'
American; all right. We really do not know
this, but we understand that about 10 per
JUNE 7, 1968
4121
cent of the "cottages"— in quotation marks,
because no one is really just sure what is
a cottage— may well be owned by non-resi-
dents of Canada, not citizens of Canada. But
you still run into this problem, that they may
well be residents of Canada; they may be an
American citizen and they may a resident of
Canada. That cottage may be a permanent
residence, so you get into that problem.
Mr. Nixon: They have to live in Canada six
months.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think you would
probably find it easier, if you wanted to do
this, just to exempt all non-citizens.
Mr. Nix;on: Many of our full-time residents
who are not citizens need tax relief.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who are not citizens
of the country. Exactly, and perhaps some
of these people may very well be Americans
who are living in what some people consider
a cottage but they may very well consider
their residence.
Mr. MacDonald: From 10,000 to 15,000 of
my constituents are not citizens!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think so,
Mr. Nixon: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if
you will permit me, I would think that if
these non-residents are living here for most
of the year they are no longer non-residents.
If they are using their residential facility
in Ontario for only a limited period of time
in the year— four months or whatever could
be designated— then they could be exempt
from this assistance.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If you are going to
do that, then you should exempt the Cana-
dian who spend eights months of the year in
Florida and lives in what he calls, and is in
fact, his legal residence.
Mr. Nixon: That is tlie other side of the
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In my view, you
have to consider both sides of the coin at
once. But I think we are really departing
from the central argument on this. What we
are talking about is taxes on real estate.
Mr. Nixon: And a basic shelter exemption,
Hon. Mr. McKeough: What we are talking
about is reducing taxes on real estate and
whether the cottage is owned by an Ameri-
can, or an English person or a Russian or
whether it is a full-time house, the object of
the exercise is to reduce the taxes.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has
suggested this was raised in principle but I
believe that the object of this bill is to pro-
vide tax relief for the residents of this prov-
ince. When we think of the large numbers
who come into Ontario to enjoy the obvious
advantages we have in holiday and recrea-
tion facilities, or at least they recognize that
in comparison with what they have in their
own areas, then I think we are being par-
ticularly generous when we allow them to
come here and own their cottage and enjoy
all the advantages in many cases without
paying any tax at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have to disagree
with my friend in this extent because I do
not think we are being particularly generous
in letting Americans come here, or anybody
come here, and spend their money on real
estate in the cottage parts of this country.
Mr. Nixon: Let them pay their tax. Let
them pay their way.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think surely it
could be argued that they have been paying,
as anybody does who owns a cottage, far
more than their share, because they pay
education taxes, they pay for a number of
services which they have no thought of ever
getting.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The
Minister has mentioned the education tax. I
might bring to his attention that there are
many persons in Ontario who do not send
children to school who do pay education
taxes, outside the Americans.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to address a few
remarks to this. As the hon. Minister is
aware, in our part of the country possibly
85 or 90 per cent of the cottages are owned
by residents from outside our jurisdiction.
And this poses some problems and a lot of
benefits. But I, as a cottage owner myself
for the past 40 years, feel that we who are
fortunate enough to have cottages should
not get an exemption in this regard if this
is not a permanent residence, and I think
this could be determined.
In my own area, a great number of cot-
tage owners are actually on leased land. I
know of one particular area I was in last
Sunday and there were some 100 cottages
on leased land. The leasing arrangements
are at such a nominal fee that, in fact, if
they get this rebate they are going to have
4122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
money in their pocket over and above their
lease, and the great bulk of these are owned
by people outside the province. Personally, I
would sooner see our own people, who do not
ovni cottages, benefit to a greater extent, and
we who are fortunate enough to have this
added facility and chance for our own rec-
reation, pay our own way.
Mr. Haggcrty: I think we should mention
here that cottage owners, especially in my
riding— and there are a great number of
Americans— in many cases the Americans that
do own the property come over for maybe
two weeks or three weeks or a month, and
make use of their residence. And then they
turn around and rent it again to someone
else. How is this basic shelter tax or exemp-
tion passed on to these persons who are
renting? I know of many cases where they
do have large homes and apartments on top
of double garages, and many other buildings
where they have living accommodation set
up, and which they do rent. How is this
passed on to the tenant?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In the same way as
it is passed on to any other tenant, except
that what you are talking about I suppose is
that they are renting a cottage from the owner
for a month or two weeks.
Mr. Haggerty: A month or three weeks.
Hon. Mr. McKeougli: If it was three weeks
they would be entitled to three fifty-seconds
of their tax credit for the year. And I do not
think they are going to get it.
Mr. Haggerty: Then, what is the sense of
having it? I think my leader has mentioned
that it should not go to this type of an
owner. It should be strictly for Canadian
residents, and property owners.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there are
two points I want to make. I think some of
the difficulty that has emerged from the
debate today-^without going back and dwell-
ing on principle— arises from the fact that the
government has moved from what the Smith
committee called a "basic shelter exemption"
to a tax exemption, a real estate tax exemp-
tion. If you had remained with the "basic
shelter", you would have the context within
which you would direct to a person living in
his own home—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I agree, but I am
sure my friend would want the record to be
straight and not imply that Smith, in fact,
did reconmiend that cottagers were going to
get what he called "basic shelter." He called
it an administrative difficulty.
Mr. MacDonald: Let me ask a question—
the Minister earlier said that there were
approximately 10 per cent of the so-called
cottages that were foreign owned. What pro-
portion of the $150 million does tlie Minister
estimate will be going to tliat 10 per cent
of foreign-owned cottages?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have not got that
figure.
Mr. MacDonald: Can it be got?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt whether we
have a breakdown between cottages. This, of
course, is one of the most intriguing things
about this, and I am sure you have read what
Smith had to say as to how he arrived at this
figure, which was then $120 milhon, and we
have projected that to $150 million, whidi
we think is a reasonable figiure. But, our
method of determining that figure was really
not that much more scientific than Smith's
determination.
Hopefully, out of this, and as more assess-
ment rolls and tax rolls are put on computers
and fed into a central bank, we will know
how many dwelling places there are in
Ontario, because really I have to say to you,
we do not; it is a pretty wild guess. Follow-
ing from that, we do not know how many
you would legitimately say are cottages, or
guess are cottages, nor how many are owned
by Americans; the figure of 10 per cent has
been used, but it is just a guess.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, as the previous speaker has said, I
think this whole matter rests on what is basic
shelter, and whether it is possible in this
clause to put in such wording that we could
eliminate this gift to those for whom tliis is
not basic shelter. It is difficult for me to agree
with Smith that ways could not be found to
determine which is a person's basic shelter.
But, if tlie department at this stage has not
come up with it, I am sorry to think that
they have not. They should give this further
study to see if it could be done.
I am positive in this day of mechanization
and computers that we could soon work out
a system of determining and checking whidi
is a person's claimed basic shelter, so we are
not going to be contributing these funds to
those who really are not needing them. The
principle of this basic shelter exemption was
to ease the burden on lower-income people.
It was specifically to offset the unfairness of
JUNE 7, 1968
4123
property tax that the whole matter was con-
ceived. Here we have the tax assisting
people who have sufficient means to have two
homes or more.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, there is another point on this that I
think should be drawn out, and I agree with
my leader that the cottage owner is being
favoured here. He is going to receive a reduc-
tion, and yet a farmer who owns 50 acres of
land, and tlie house has been removed or torn
down, or because of age never been replaced,
will not receive a reduction on that particu-
lar piece of land. Really, I do not think this
is fair. He may own another 50 acres or 100
acres down the road; it will be separately
assessed and he will not receive a reduction
on the 50 acres that has no buildings. Yet
we do have a reduction on cottage property,
and I think this is very unfair.
Mr Chairman: On section 3, the member
for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Chairman, possibly one way to resolve this
problem, if the Minister would consider it,
would be to have, on municipal tax bills in
areas where cottages are prevalent, a certain
form of coupon attached thereto which would
enable a person then to apply for this grant
with respect to his tax account for the cot-
tage property, by referring to what, in fact,
is his other property for which he is already
receiving a basic shelter exemption.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I am not sure whether this should come
under item 3 or item 4, but what I am con-
cerned about is where the basic shelter ex-
emption is allowed, and the landlord does not
have his taxes paid—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Four.
Mr. Stokes: It is 4 is it?
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 4 is the
section in this Act that gives me the most
trouble. I just do not see in a practical way
how the refunds are really going to get to
the tenants. Let us start with subsection 2 of
section 4:
In any year that a reduction in muni-
cipal taxes is made to a landlord, in respect
of any residential property, the landlord or
his agent shall pay or allow as a reduction
in rent, to the tenant, the amount of such
tax reductions, in such manner and at such
time or times as are prescribed by the
regulations under this Act.
In the definition section, Mr, Chairman, we
do not have any definition of "tenant" and I
suppose we would have to take the ordinary
definition of tenant and that is anybody who
leases. Are we talking about a tenant who is
there for a week, or a month, or six weeks,
or ten weeks?
How do you ascertain of all of the possible
tenants who could be in a rented unit, which
one or which group of them is going to be
entitled to get this reduction, and how do
they benefit from it? Tenant "A" comes in
for a month. He moves out. Theoretically, if
you apply the formula in section 2, you get
a proportionate adjustment. Purchasers and
vendors can adjust these things in a state-
ment of adjustments. That is what the Min-
ister was talking about; the lawyers work it
out, and they add it to the statement of
adjustments.
But how does the landlord get a refund
or a benefit back to the tenant who was
there in the month of January when he is
only going to figure this out in December?
Is he compelled to keep track of the comings
and goings of that tenant? How does he
know where he is 11 months later? What
system is there and what possible way is the
tenant who is to get the benefit of that, going
to be able to come back in December or
whenever the landlord gets his credit and
say, "Now I am entitled to a twelfth of $50
or a forty-eighth of $50," depending on the
length of time he has been there?
The Minister says if it is only a few dol-
lars he might as well give up, and I am in-
clined to agree with him. But it just does
not seem intelligent to me, to expect that
landlords of large apartment buildings are
going to keep track, or should have to keep
track, of the comings and goings of the
tenants they had 11 months previous.
I touched on another thing that really had
not occurred to me when I started to talk,
and that is, what is the definition here: Is
a tenant a roomer? There is no definition of
tenant under this Act and I would think that
either you would have to go to the inter-
pretation Act. I see the hon. Minister of
Mines brought one of the statute books to
the Minister of Municipal Afi^airs and he has
probably got The Landlord and Tenant Act
there. You look there for a definition of
tenant. I do not know. Does it apply to
roomers or does it not apply to roomers? If
4124
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it does not, how can you find that out from
this statute?
You talk about "in such manner and such
time or times as is prescribed by the regula-
tion." Has there not been enough basic think-
ing or has there been any basic thinking?
The Minister can tell us today v\hat those
regulations are going to say.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Some of it is pretty basic.
Mr. Singer: Yes, some of it has been pretty
basic. I say that this section really is almost
an impossibility unless you have a tenant
who is there for a term of years. The calcula-
tion is going to be very easy. There is no
problem about finding him. A tenant who
is aware of his rights will get it. His lease
has to run for a term of years too, because
otherwise the landlord who has a monthly
tenant is going to go through the motions of
this, but he is going to grab it back by in-
creasing the rent.
There is no way in the world under the
scheme of this legislation, that you are going
to protect tenants and ensure that they get
any benefits under this Act, unless they have
a lease for a term longer than a year and
their rent is fixed for that period. If they
have a lease for a term shorter than a year—
whether it is a six-month lease, monthly lease
or weekly lease— the landlords who want to
can take this back by increasing the rent.
There is no way you have even thought about
that is going to stop this.
Substantially, Mr. Chairman, what I am
saying is that, insofar as protecting tenants,
section 4 falls completely short of that pro-
tection. I do not think that the Minister can
say, in any sincerity at all, that any saving is
going to be passed on to the tenants. "The
right of the tenant"— subsection 3— "to receive
a reduction in municipal taxes is not assign-
able and may not be waived."
Well now, that is a good legal sounding
phrase. But what does it really mean? It "is
not assignable and may not be waived."
That means again I suppose, "tenant moved
out in January." He has got a right to a pro-
portion of his rebate or assistance. Somewhere
along the line that is a non-assignable and
non-waivable right, so you are putting an
obligation on the landlord to keep on chas-
ing. The landlord is not going to keep books
in this matter. He cannot. Is the landlord
going to be able to elicit information as to
the whereabouts of his former tenant for the
next 11 months? Just nonsensel
Mr. Chairman, I think that this secton 4
points out the substantial frustration the gov-
ernment must face in trying to bring about
an equitable system of benefits to tenants. I
do not think you are going to do it. I think
it is nonsense and I think somewhere along
the line, the government has to realize that,
because of a foolish election promise, you
are stuck with something you never thorough-
ly thought out. You are stuck with something
that is not going to work. You are spending
$150 million of the public money and you
are not distributing that money in an equit-
able way.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to pass a few remarks on this section 4. At
the outset, I might make mention that in
some areas this rebate is less than the $45
-less than $40 in fact-
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Twenty-four!
Mr. Paterson: Yes, As a member, since this
bill came out, I have had a great number
of phone calls and conversations witli people
and have attended public meetings at which
this became a very serious topic of con-
versation.
It has bothered me no end to have very
nice little ladies come up to me, the real
salt of the earth, and say: "Do we have to
really give this money back to people living
in our upstairs apartment?" As I say, these
are good church-going people and so forth
and once that they see or hear of money
coming from a government agency, they for
the first time in their life are getting some-
thing back from the government and just
hate to pass it on.
So I feel that this bill has placed the
Minister in tlie position of Eve in the gar-
den of Eden and that he is tempting a great
number of people that otherwise would not
be tempted to cheat just a little bit.
But the real serious affect of the calls
that I am getting is that these token amounts
of $4, $5 or $6 per month, in fact, are going
to be a catalyst to increase the rents for
people by $10 and $15 per month. I can see
the writing on the wall and these are my
opinions on this section.
Mr. Chairman: Tlie member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Yes, I would like to ask the
Minister how the basic shelter exemption will
apply to those tenants of units where the
landlord has not paid his taxes? It seems that
this was introduced to help all tenants in thc;
JUNE 7, 1968
4125
province. If you have a landlord who happens
to be delinquent— I think section 3 says:
"Where, in the year 1968, municipal taxes
on any residential property have been paid,"
and it does not apply to anybody or any par-
ticular unit where the taxes have not been
paid.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think this is where
you get into the "deem to have been paid"
debt. On your house the credit will be al-
lowed under the tax bill whether you pay
the tax bill or not, between now and Decem-
ber 31. By the same token, the treasurer
of your municipality applies to the Treasurer
of Ontario, through us, for the refund of
that tax credit whether you have actually
paid your taxes or not. The same thing is
true with the owner of a rented premises.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
1 agree substantially with what the member
for Downsview said and also with the mem-
ber for Essex-Kent. The chance of the
tenant getting the money is very slim, but be-
cause it is slim, does not necessarily rule it
out. I think that it will definitely benefit a
few people. The fact that rents have already
been raised to compensate the amount of the
rebate is something that is already on record.
There are many areas, I know of them, other
members know of them, where the rents have
already been raised to compensate for what
little will be returned.
This is immoral, if one could put it in
those terms. But the one part that I want
to change— and I intend to introduce an
amendment to it— is that in subclause 3,
the right of a tenant to receive the reduction
of municipal taxes mentioned in subsection
2 is not assignable and may not be waived.
Already, commencing on April 10, when
this bill was first introduced, many landlords
introduced clauses to contracts then being
signed, before these things actually happened.
As I read the bill, this does nothing to elimi-
nate that problem.
Any person who signed one of the con-
tracts or leases between April 10, and the
time that this bill is proclaimed, will be stuck
with whatever is on the lease. As I say, this
is not the appropriate moment. In section
10, I will introduce an amendment, but this is
the big problem with it. One of the many
big problems in this particular area. The fact
that some will receive the rebate is good.
But because of the fact that others will not,
we ought to very seriously consider ways of
assuring them that they will get it.
We must also take care that unscrupulous
people do not jump the gun the way that
they have done in the last two or three
months. Just because the Minister happens
to make a statement that he is going to intro-
duce legislation that will in some way affect
them, they take advantage of it before the
legislation is passed. But as I said, I will
introduce an amendment in section 10.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not a lawyer,
but I do not agree with my friend. This is
the reason that this section is here. A few
landlords— and I do not think that many
frankly— of people whose leases came up
about the first of May or June, or perhaps
where there were no leases, shoved a piece
of paper in front of them, or sent out a piece
of paper to some tenants. We had, I think,
about five or six instances of this in writing,
and there may have been more done by
phone call. The tenant signed this rather
than have the rent raised $5 a month, and
waived his rights under reduction of munici-
pal taxes.
It is my understanding that, although the
person had signed that fonn, section 3
killed that. But I would leave that to the
law officers to determine.
Mr. Deans: I very seriously query that be-
cause it says quite clearly in section 10, that
the Act comes into force on the day it re-
ceives Royal assent. Now, that can be any
day between now, and whenever it happens;
but, it is not a day gone by, and any section
in here can only come into force on that day,
and not before. And any contract entered
into prior to that day is valid. Now, I am
not a lawyer, but I very seriously think that
this would be the case, and I would not like
to have those people have to bear the cost
of litigation in order to find out.
Interjections by an hon. member.
Mr. Deans: That is the point.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): On this sec-
tion, Mr. Chairman, and having to do with
what the hon. Minister just said about these
forms that these tenants signed to v/aive any
entitlement that they may receive under this
bill. I want to say that, from the indication
that I have, these waivers are being used in
great numbers. I have had a great number of
phone calls, and I have had people come to
my home with the waivers. Now, whether
they are legal or not we do not know. What
we do know is that the tenants are having
their rents raised, and as the member for
Essex South said, this legislation is, in effect.
4126
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
causing an increase in rent. The government
money of $150 million is, in large part, going
to the landlords. Whether it goes to the
individual home owner, fine, I think that this
was a poor way of going about helping the
landowner. But where there is some good, I
am glad to see it. There is no question in
my mind, Mr. Chairman, that under this
section, thousands of tenants are not going to
get the money that they should be getting.
One way or the other, the landlord is going
to get around this legislation. I feel that it
is poorly written.
What is happening, Mr. Chairman, is that
rents are going so high in some of our large
urban areas, not only because of the shortage
of housing but because of legislation and par-
ticular sections such as this, that governments
are going to be forced to do something that
you certainly would not want to do on that
side of the House, and nor do I want to do,
and that is, to bring in rent controls. But I
would rather see rent control than see the
tenants clobbered as they are being clobbered
by the landlords today. This is a choice that
we are going to have to make in the not too
distant future because I see continually, new
leases drawn, where the people are paying
increased rents that are simply not justified.
Now, only last night, Mr. Chairman, as a
result of this particular section, I saw a
waiver drawn up by a landlord, where the
rent had been raised $10 per month. A year
and a half ago, the same apartment rented
for $100, and it had been raised in the in-
terim to $125, and now it is raised another
$10. And, of course, the waiver is signed,
and whether or not the waiver is legal, I
want to say to the Minister, that this section
has certainly encouraged increases in rent.
Hundreds of thousands of people in the prov-
ince and particularly in Toronto, and more
particularly in my own riding where there
are many thousands of people living in apart-
ments, this benefit, under section 3, is
absolutely useless to the average tenant.
What I fear is, not only is it encouraging the
landlord to raise the rent, not just $5 per
month but, in eff^ect, it is raising it $10 per
month, just like the letter and waiver that I
saw last night— that came from a particular
landlord. I say in closing, Mr. Chairman,
that we are going to have to face up to the
issue of whether or not we are going to have
to control rents. I do not like to see govern-
ment move into this field but, again, I repeat
that I would far rather go through the risk
of bureaucracy than see what is, assurely,
far too many people paying too high rents.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would just hke to raise a
point that I do not think was raised on sec-
ond reading. Under the Ontario housing
corporation, I would like to ask the Minister
what will happen to the tenants where the
landlord is OHC?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is under another
section and we will come to that.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Just a
few comments to substantiate what the mem-
ber for Parkdale has been talking about. I
have on my desk here, letters which were
sent out by a prominent real estate firm in
Peterborough, and they are much more
sophisticated than the people who have been
coming to the Minister with waivers. What
you have here is a form letter, because they
were all sent out on the same day. It is a
very simple letter.
I have reviewed the income and general
expenses of all the property that we man-
age and, reluctantly, I have to advise you
that an increase in rent is necessary. I
have to take into consideration what simi-
lar accommodation is renting for, increased
costs of labour, and so on.
Then he tells them what the rent is to be
raised. But it is the last line that I think is
the stinger here— "If and when we receive
the government basic shelter grant"— I do not
have perhaps the lack of confidence in the
government that this agency does, "if and
when we receive the government basic shel-
ter grant, we vdll pay it to you in a lump
sum."
In other words, here is a very sophisticated
effort to raise the rent and then, in the last
line, to show that it is very closely related to
what they intend to receive from the govern-
ment. Now, this particular one, for example,
the rent in September 3, 1966, was $60. By
October 3, 1966, to July 1, 1967 it became
$65. From August 1, to September 1, $70.
October 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968, $80. And
now $85. That rent has gone up—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just want to point
out to the member that, apparently, Vidthin
the last year, before this Act was ever talked
about, a $60 rent went up to $80, and now
it has been raised another $5. I just point that
out to my friend.
Mr. Pitman: Yes, but I point out, to the
Minister, that this has been an increase of
33 per cent in less than two years. But, the
point is, that the effort, I am sure, was to
try and reduce rents; that the emphasis was,
JUNE 7, 1968
4127
liiat after this basic shelter grant was given,
that the rents would begin to slide down.
They are not. They are going up, and these
agencies are using the basic shelter as an
excuse to raise rents.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think I have to
point out, to my friend, that rents in that
particular instance had gone up from $60 to
$80 before this was even talked about, before
this was even mentioned. And, what the mem-
ber is saying is, that we caused this other $5
increase. Well, this is utter nonsense. It has
gone up $5 on its own.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, at the outset,
the motivation of this whole deal was equality
to real estate people. And may I say to the
sneering Minister—
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Which sneering
Minister?
Mr. Sargent: Well, you have a lot of them
over there. The heaviest thing in the world
is an empty pocket, and the people in this
province cannot afiFord to pay these great real
estate charges. But the thing is that, you have
set up sort of a system of equalization factors
across the province which gives you the
inequity between $45 and $65; and where a
municipahty has had an equalization in recent
years, they receive a greater amount of money
than the municipality which does not have
equalization, or the municipaUty that has had
one based on 1951 values, or something along
that line—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I do
not like to interrupt, but what does this have
to do with this section?
Mr. Sargent: What I want to know is this,
Mr. Chairman, where a municipality has not
had an equahzation in recent years, what is
their equalization factor?
Mr. Chairman: This has really nothing to
do with section 4.
Mr. Sargent: I want to find out why one
municipality will have, say, an equalization
factor of 86, and one along the line will have
maybe 20 points. Why cannot you have an
equalization factor common across the prov-
ince, on which they will get equal money?
Will the Minister answer the question?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Minister is
delighted to answer questions that are related
to what we are talking about. The question
the member is asking has nothing to do with
this section of the bill.
Mr. Lawlor: I want to come back to what
my friend, the member for Wentworth, men-
tioned.
The member for Downsview seemed to
give some indication that it is a technical
point, Mr. Chairman. I suppose the easiest
way of putting it is this: What really is the
eflFective date of your legislation? That is, I am
thinking of the whole of clause 4— and we
will have to go back, for one purpose, to
clause 2 because the money comes in this
way and then goes over to the tenant through
that clause. It seems to me there are possibly
four or more effective dates. Let us say there
are basically three, with a municipality arising
out of number two. The first date would be
obviously January 1, that is, for the purposes
of the taxes and for the purposes of the base
upon which the computation for the rentals
would be concerned. The second date might
possibly be the date you introduce this legis-
lation, on April 10. The third date is the date
you have in your legislation, that is of Royal
assent; in other words, the runmng time, when
the thing gets ofiF the ground and gets started.
And then in clause 2, you have another pos-
sible date— "that the reduction for the pur-
poses of section 3 shall be deemed to be made
on the date of the payment of the first instal-
ment of taxes is required to be made by
bylaw under section 120." That date, I say,
could be a multiplicity of dates. If one munici-
pality passes its bylaw making the efi^ective
date of its first payment of taxes on April 3,
another one on the 10th, another one on any
other number of dates, you have no uni-
formity. It is utter chaos, if that is the ruling
date.
I put these thoughts before you. I hope
the Minister will not smile too much. It is
partially to do with the legal profession in
the province. As you know, in moving trans-
actions through, there are things called
adjustments and we have to adjust the inter-
relationship, both with respect to the overall
tax situation and with respect to changes in
tenancy, particularly on the sale of apart-
ment buildings. And a number of members
of the profession, not of my persuasion, have
approached me, asking, "what is the date on
which we really make our adjustments? Will
you please ask in the House to see if a deter-
minations of that point can be made? We are
trusting that the date will be January 1, as
that is the easy one." But, anyone glancing
at the legislation is a little bemused, if not
confused, as to really when and what date we
4128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
set up as the operative date upon which these
adjustments might be made.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, the credit, as
taxes— and I think probably the key words are
in section 2— shall reduce the municipal taxes
required to be paid in each year. The taxes,
of course, cover the whole 365 days, regard-
less of which day they happen to be due on,
or which date they are levied on. By the same
token, the credit is applicable to the whole
year.
Mr. Singer: Is the Minister not going to
answer any of the other comments?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If I can suggest to
the member for Wentworth, I wonder if he
would be agreeable to adding the words
"before or after this Act comes into efiFect."
I think that serves his purpose just as well,
and does the same thing. "Before or after this
Act comes into efiFect"— to add those words.
Mr. Deans: This is subclause 2?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In subclause 2 to add
after the word "waive", in subsection 3 of
section 4, the words "before or after the Act
comes into effect". I think that does the
same thing. The law officer suggests it
accomplishes both our purposes.
Mr. Deans: I would find that acceptable. jn this section, is just a farce
women wrote and thanked me for getting
their apartment decorated. They obviously
felt they were ahead. I do not know what
decorating the apartment cost— I have no
idea— the rent remains the same. They got it
decorated, and they were delighted. But the
only way you are going to determine— and
my friend from Parkdale said this, and said
it well— the only way you are going to deter-
mine whether rent increases at any time are
justified or not, or are fair or not, is if you
have some kind of rent control.
Mr. MacDonald: Or a review board.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is really the same
thing, is it not?
Mr. Singer: No, it is not the same thing,
at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, the position of
this party has been, the position on this side
of the House is, that we are opposed to rent
controls.
Mr. MacDonald: So are we— at this stage!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right! So we are all
opposed to it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Well, what you have got here,
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would move that
amendment then, at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Singer: Is the Minister not going to
deal with any of the other criticisms?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I will deal with
some of the other questions raised. I thought
the point raised by the member for Parkdale,
perhaps, came right to the problem more
than anything else. There is no guarantee
that this money is going to be passed on
where there is no lease. There is no way
of determining whether someone who has
waived their rights, if they have done this,
which the amendment makes more difificult,
there is no way of determining whether that
was a justified thing to do or not. Interestingly
enough, in some of these waivers, some people
sign waivers, I disagree with it because in the
bill they have no right to be issuing these
waivers. It got my back up a little bit, I
admit. That is why subsection 3 is there. But
some people were signing waivers saying, "in
return for having my apartment decorated
this year, I waive my rights under The Basic
Shelter Act," or words to that effect. Two
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you want an
answer, or do you not?
Mr. Singer: Yes, I have been waiting for it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I thought my friend
from Parkdale came to this problem. The
answer to the questions raised by the mem-
ber for Downsview were amply given by
the member for Parkdale. If you want those
kind of guarantees you are going to have to
have rent controls, it is as simple as that.
Mr. Singer: Or another scheme for this
Act.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, then, we are
back to the principle of the bill are we not?
Mr. Singer: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister should be able to justify what he
is trying to do. All he does is throw up his
hands up in horror, and say, "It is too bad,
we cannot do it unless we have rent control
and we do not believe in rent control." Did
you ever hear such an abject admission of
defeat? He brings in something that he knows
cannot work and he says: "Tough, and the
JUNE 7, 1968
4129
only way we can make it work is to have entitled to eleven-twelfths. And the person
rent control." It is a sad, sad government, who moves in on November 1, is going to re-
Tell me about the roomers. Are roomers ceive from that landlord on December 1, the
covered as tenants? And why? remaining twelfth.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Are they on the
assessment roll?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Are they on they
on the assessment rolls?
Mr. Singer: They could well be on the
assessment roll. And why should they not be?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Is it separately
assessed?
Mr. Singer: Why should they not be? Are
tliey not given basic shelter exemption?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well then, they are
eligible, if they are separate-
Mr. Singer: Why should you not make
them eligible? Why should they be picked
on? If they are excluded, why should you
pick on them?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have just got
through saying if the room or rooms in which
they are living are separately assessed, if it
is a dwelling within the meaning of The
Assessment act, then they are entitled to the
rebate. Read the bill.
Mr. Singer: All right. Mr. Chairman, will
the Minister tell us how the tenant who
moves in January is going to get his money
back?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In a normal year;
not in this year, let me start that way.
Mr. Singer: Bad year to move in January.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If you want the
answer-
Mr. Singer: Yes, I would be delighted—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well then, let us
deal with the normal year first. And the regu-
lations will say that if a person moves out
on June 30, they are entitled to six-twelfths
of the basic shelter credit of the tax re-
duction, or one-half; if they move out on
January 1, they are entitled to one-twelfth
from that landlord.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): On January 1?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If they move out on
February 1, I am sorry; if they move out on
February 1, they are entided to one-twelfth;
if they move out on November 1, they are
Mr. Chairman: I believe we are dealing
with the amendment to section 3. Tlie mem-
ber for Niagara Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I would
like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. I think
I have it but I would like someone to ans-
wer my question. It would appear to me, Mr.
Chairman, through you to the Minister, that
where there is a lease in existence, it is a
very simple method to calculate one-twelfth
of the rebate to that individual. That is no
problem. But, before this bill gets Royal
assent, in this year when the taxes have gone
up on all properties pretty well in all muni-
cipalities, the landlord has leases that come
into existence almost monthly; they do not
come into effect the first of the year, they
come into effect as soon as the tenant moves
in.
Let us say on this day that a tenant moves
into an apartment building, is there anything
to prevent that landlord from increasing his
rent $25 per month? To compensate him for
the $5 per month that he has to pay back to
the fellow who is bound by lease, he adds
it in and says, "Well, I need some $700 to
pay my taxes, I will raise my rent and as
soon as this law comes into effect, I will then
give one-twelfth of the rebate to my tenant."
In other words, he provides himself with $300
to pay back $50. Is that the way it works,
up to this particular date? If I have that
right, I can see where the landlord can
come out of this thing with a lot of money.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I think I know
what my friend is getting at; he m.ust con-
fine it within 1968, or within the 12 months
of the year. It must be cleaned up by the
end of the year, in any case, so that it can-
not go on and create a problem then, from
which in that case, the landlord would profit
in rent. I think that is what my friend is
getting at. I can give the House an indica-
tion of the principles, very briefly, on which
the regulations are being drafted.
A person who is a tenant for the whole
year is entitled to the benefit of a tax reduc-
tion for the whole year. This is what you
have just said. A person who is a tenant for
part of a year is entitled to an appropriate
proportion of the year's tax reduction. In a
normal year, the landlord must pay the
amount of the tax reduction to his tenant on
4130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
December 31, or within 30 days of the end
of the tenancy, whichever is the earher, so
that if he moves out on June 30, presumably
it is going to be paid when he pays his rent
on June 1, or it is going to be allowed. This
is probably what is going to happen. But
he must pay it within 30 days of the end of
the tenancy; it is his responsibility to do it.
I assume that in most instances it would be
deducted from the last month's rent, when
that was paid. In 1968 only, because many
landlords will not receive the benefit of tax
reduction until the end of the year, the draft
regulations allow them to make the payment
on or before December 31, without worrying
about the 30 days. They have to do it,
though, in this year— by the end of the year.
It would be unreasonable to require land-
lords to trace ex-tenants who had ended their
tenancy before the passing of this Act.
The landlord's duty is to make a payment
to such ex-tenants as established when they
apply to the landlord for a payment. In other
words, if a person who moved out in January
of this year, on January 31, it is his duty to
claim for that one-twelfth from the landlord.
Some of them will, some of them will not.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. F. Young ( Yorkview ) : How do you
enforce it?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Pardon?
Mr. Young: The problem of enforcement
here is that the tenant has to enforce the law.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps I had better
finish the statement, shall I?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, perhaps the Minister
could finish; the member for Niagara Falls
was pursuing this particular—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry, I did not
mean to interrupt. The tax reduction may be
passed by the landlord to the tenant by
reduction in rent if both the landlord and the
tenant agree to such procedure. When a
tenant owes arrears of rent, it would be un-
reasonable to require the landlord to make a
payment of cash to him; I think that is ob-
vious without elaborating on it. Finally, the
amount of tax reduction in any year cannot
be established imtil the mill rate for that
year is set. To avoid delay in the payment
of tax reduction to a tenant who ends his
tenancy before the mill rate is set, the draft
regulations provide for such payments, which
are to be made before the date on which the
first instalment of tax is payable, to be based
on the amount of tax reduction in the pre-
vious year. He can base it on the previous,
year. I am sorry I interrupted my friend in
the middle of the question.
Mr. Bukator: No, you did not; your in-
formation was quite good. But to get back
to the point that I was trying to make per-
taining to the people who are landlords, and
are feeling that they ought to raise the rent
because the taxes have gone up. As I under-
stand it, there is nothing to prevent them
from raising the rent now on their new leases.
Having done that, they have tenants who are
paying $100 a month, and they have new
tenants as of this year who are paying $125.
What is to prevent them, when the leases are
renewed for the $100 a month tenants, to
raise that to $125?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Bukator: Notliing; that being the case,
the landlord is in a wonderful position to
make a lot of money. The tenant is not going
to benefit by this as much as you are trying to
help him, because they will raise the rent
to pay the extra taxes; raise the rent to get
that $5 back, plus a little more increase for
their trouble.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not follow my
friend's—
Mr. Bukator: No? Well, I will stand on my
feet a litde longer. The man who is bound
by a lease for $100 a month into June of
next year will get his rebate— that tenant will.
But the landlord looks at it from the other
side of the ledger, and he says, "My taxes
have been raised; I cannot get it from Ae
existing leases, I must get my money now
to pay my taxes, and also to compensate me
for my trouble, plus the $5 that I will have
to give them when I must pay the rebate
also," when your bill comes into eflFect.
Having said that, they will raise your rent
by $25 a month and there is nothing that
can stop them and I realize somewhere we
must start.
This is a bad year for the Minister.
Just to follow up a little further, maybe
you can give that to the tenant and make
him happy, but when diat individual has his
rent raised next June from $100 to $125,
what landlord would not be happy to give
him $5 if he collects $25? So there is no way
of giving this money to the tenant. He, in
the first instance, has paid the shot and it
appears that he will pay it as long as he con-
tinues to be a tenant.
JUNE 7, 1968
4131
Mr. Chainnan: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I am simply
following up with the question as to who is
going to enforce this legislation? It looks as
if the burden of the enforcement—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that might
be more properly dealt with under section 7;
we are talking about enforcement.
Mr. Young: I think it comes in here. The
angle I want to speak about is that the ten-
ant himself has to force the landlord to pay
him this rebate; this is the point. I can see
two things happening. Number one, the
members of this House, who have a great
many tenants in their jurisdictions, are going
to be flooded with requests from those ten-
ants to get the money for them. Many of
them will not dare go to the landlord them-
selves, they will say, "We want some rein-
forcement; would you come and help us?"
We are already getting plenty of complaints
about the raising of rents. I had a chap in
just last evening whose rent has been raised
three times in three months and he is getting
pretty desperate because his income is lim-
ited. When this other matter comes in and
he realizes that he has a right to a rebate, he
is going to come to us and he is going to ask
us for our assistance in getting that rebate
from the landlord. Perhaps that is part of
our function, I do not know.
But the second thing is, if in fact he is
serious about it, if in fact the landlord re-
fuses and he has to sue him, go through the
courts; it will not pay him but he may be
stubborn enough to want it. Is the Minister
going to talk to the Attorney General and have
the number of division courts in this province
raised to a place where business can be
handled properly? Here is the problem, where
the tenant himself, it seems, is going to have
to take the initiative to get his share, and
many tenants are going to be browbeaten
into submission by the landlord who will tell
them, "If you try any of this stuff, out you
go," and he will not know where he can go,
so he will keep quiet. I just cannot see the
possibility of tenants getting their rights under
this bill.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
has admitted that there is nothing to stop
them from raising the rents, and further,
there is no way to guarantee the tenant will
share in this grant if he moves.
Let us look at a case: If a landlord has,
say, 300 apartments in this metropolitan area
here and he has an experience of 70 per cent
occupancy, then basically we have maybe 90
apartments floating around with vacancies;
talking about 90 times 50, that is maybe
$4,500 in one area that may or may not get
in the hands of the tenants. So if you have
the potential of $4,500 per unit, being $40
to be distributed by the landlord, you mul-
tiply that by the thousands and thousands of
people who are transient in the apartment
field and you have a gigantic sum of money—
maybe $500,000 to $1 million-floating around
that will never get to the recipients who are
eligible for the money.
Someone said it is not the Minister's fault
he has inherited this can of worms, but it is
good to see them squirm once in a while
because he has not got the answers to these
questions.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, the
answer to the question which was raised by
my friend from Downsview really has been
given by this member. If in fact there are
apartment buildings with only a 70 per cent
occupancy, we would not be here discussing
this this morning.
Mr. Sargent: You pick a figure.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think in point of
fact, the occupancy rate in apartment build-
ings in the city of Toronto is now something
like 98 or 99 per cent. It has been for a num-
ber of months and that, of course, is the
problem as we all know. There is not enough
competition in the market place at the pres-
ent time, for a number of reasons. Costs
have risen and—
Mr. Sargent: There should not have been
vacancy— mobility that are moving. There
was a terminology that people on the move
are transient people.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I see what you mean,
all right.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister,
assisted by his snarly friend from St. George,
suggested that I should read the Act and I
would find that the tenant had to be on the
assessment roll before he could get any re-
fund. I wish either he or his colleague from
St. George would show me where the Act
says that.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Pardon?
Mr. Singer: I said I wish either the Min-
ister or his colleague from St. George would
4132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
show me where the Act says the tenant has
to be on the assessment roll before he is
entitled to his refund or rebate. As I read it,
and I have read it through three or four times
in the last 10 minutes, it is not there.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will point out to
my friend that what is in the Act is a dwelling
which is separately assessed, and that is what
the rebate is made to. It is not made to you
as an owner, it is not made to me as a
tenant. It is made to the separately assessed
dwelling.
Mr. Singer: It is made to the separate
dwelling? There are two kinds of refunds
that you have. You have a refund in section 3
and you have a refund in section 4, and in
section 4 there is no refund to the tenant, and
there is nothing in section 4 or anywhere else
that says a tenant is only someone who is
on the assessment roll. Subsection 2 of sec-
tion 1 shows how he can get on if he wants
to. But there is nothing in section 4 that says
the tenant has to be on the assessment roll
so he can be a roomer, day boarder or any-
thing else.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Provided he is living
in something which is separately assessed.
Mr. Singer: It does not say that. It does
not say that. It says: "And any landlord, in
respect of any residential dwelling, the land-
lord or his agent shall pay to the tenant—"
STibsection 4, section 2. Now there is nothing
there that says—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It starts off by
saying that a reduction in municipal taxes is
made to the landlord. The only way-
Mr. Singer: To the landlord?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right; exactly!
Mr. Singer: And he gives part of it to the
tenant?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right!
Mr. Singer: All right. But let me then
come back to roomers. Are roomers then not
entitled to the refund, and if not, why not?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: If they are living in
rooms which are separately assessed.
Mr. Singer: How do you bring that out?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because they do not
get the credit unless they are in a separately
assessed unit-
Mr. Singer: But that statute does not say
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Could I read the
statute to my friend?
Mr. Singer: Yes, please do.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It says:
Where in any year a reduction in muni-
cipal tax is made to the landlord, in respect
of any residential property, the landlord or
his agent shall pay or allow as a reduction
in rent to the tenant thereof the amount
of such tax reduction.
I think it is obvious it would follow from
that, and I am not a lawyer. If no tax reduc-
tion were allowed to the landlord, then there
is no tax reduction to pass on to the tenant,
therefore the tenant does not get it.
Mr. Singer: No. The building is assessed.
The building is taxed, and it may be taxed
for $1 million and the landlord gets back
his refund based on that in the proportions
that you work out here. Then, you come to
the tenant. There is a tenant in that build-
ing and he says, "I want my refund." Whether
he is on the assessment roll or not, as you
read subsection 4 of section 2—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not talking
about the assessment roll. I perhaps confused
my friend when I brought in the assessment
roll, but as to whether the tenant is actually
on the assessment roll or not probably does
not matter.
Mr. Singer: Oh, but you and the Minister
of Mines were sneering at me a few moments
ago about that.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You brought in the
question of tenants and related that to the
assessment roll. It is whether the dwelling
is separately assessed on the assessment roll.
Mr. Singer: Well then, are the roomers
entitled to get their dwelling assessed?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not a lawyer
but I would read this:
Where in any year a reduction in muni-
cipal taxes is made to a landlord, in respect
of any residential property, the landlord
or his agent shall pay or allow as a reduc-
tion in rent to the tenant—
I would read "tenant" there as person,
roomer, or whatever you want to call him.
Mr. Singer: Now we have got the admis-
sion.
JUNE 7, 1968
4133
An hon. member: Get it on the record.
Mr. Singer: There is just another example,
Mr. Chairman, of how this thing is not pos-
sibly going to work.
Hon. Mr. McKeougli: Would my friend
explain that?
Mr. Singer: Because if you are saying now
that roomers are entitled to get this kind of
refund, the mechanics of any possible enforce-
ment of that are just beyond any imagination
I have. ' ■ - ■ -'lij J- !
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Would my friend
give an estimate of how many of what you
and I would call "roomers" are living in
units which are separately assessed? Which
dwellings-
Mr. Singer: It does not say "separate"
here; it says "assessed."
■ Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I think my friend
l^tiows. It is here. It refers to a section of
The Assessment Act, which says they live in
a dwelling defined as two rooms in one of
which at least meals are prepared. They
sleep and meals are prepared. Now how
,i»any roomers, as we know them, are living
m that kind of accommodation?
Mr. Singer: The operative line insofar as
tenants are concerned is that tenants are
anybody who pays rent. Whether they are
roomers or people who go down to the Royal
York hotel for a night, they are still a form
of tenant, and they pay rent for one night.
The operative section surely is where, in any
area, a reduction of tax is made to the land-
lord in respect of the residential property,
and you are doing it, and therefore, your
wording is too loose. If you intend to exclude
them, and if you intend to include them, will
you please tell us how it is ever possibly
going to be done?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nobody is exclud-
ing or including roomers, or anybody else.
The key word is the real estate, the dwelling.
Mr. Singer: No, it is residential property,
which includes the whole thing or a part of
it, surely.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Provided it is separ-
ately assessed.
Mr. Singer: It does not say that.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, to show you
how widely this whole section is—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Look at section 1,
for instance.
Mr. Sargent: With regard to the assessment
of a hotel or a commercial building, they re-
ceive their rebate in total and the distribution
of this to tenants should be carried forth in
this Act. Take the person who lives in a
hotel; the hotel gets the money; the exemp-
tion as a real estate payment. They do not?
Apartment hotels?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It depends on
whether it is an apartment or a hotel does it
not?
Mr. Sargent: So the apartment hotels re-
ceive it, but hotels do not?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
Mr. Sargent: How do you break down the
difference between an apartment hotel and a
hotel? They have both; lots of hotels have
apartments, so how do you break that down?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Whether the units
are separately assessed or not.
Mr. Sargent: So then the city of Toronto
will be mailing out cheques, then?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hotel bill will be
assessed as a commercial property; the
apartment is assessed as a residential dwell-
ing, and I suppose if you have a combination
then they are assessed two ways.
Mr. Sargent: I am not asking do you sup-
pose. Who is to police this— the assessment
department of the municipahty? Is the Minis-
ter going to reply?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I have ans-
wered it and if the word suppose offends
my friend I will use another word. I will be
positive about it— a hotel will be assessed
commercially, an apartment will be assessed
residentially— where it is an apartment hotel,
where there are two different kinds, such as
the Sutton Place, then there will be two dif-
ferent kinds of assessment.
Mr. Sargent: You must be kidding! Where
in this Act does it say that? This is a real
can of worms you have here.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps while we are wait-
ing for the Minister— the member for
Windsor- Walkerville.
4134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. McKeough: May I return— my
friend from Downsview is worried about ten-
ants. If he would refer to section (i) and
refer to The Assessment Act, I think he
would see that it does not matter who is in
the room, whether it is a tenant or a roomer.
If you look at subsection (i) of section 1:
"Residential property means land separately
assessed under paragraph 6 of subsection 1
of section 20 of The Assessment Act in
which there is a building used or intended
to be used as a residence."
No. 6, "each subdivision" and we are talk-
ing about not polling, but subdivision of a
building, "shall be assessed separately and
every parcel of land," and we go on forget-
ting about land, "provided that no portion
of any building used, or intended to be used
as a residence, shall be separately assessed
unless it is a domestic establishment of two
or more rooms in which the occupants usually
sleep and prepare and serve meals."
Now that is a very acceptable definition. So
what you and I think of as a rooming house,
or a boarding house, which we have stayed
in from time to time, where we might have
a private room or a room but where we all sat
around the kitchen table or the dining room
table, that room is not separately assessed.
I guess we call those people boarders or
roomers— they do not get the benefit.
Mr. Singer: I think the Minister still has
missed the point. The residential property
can be the whole house. Let us take a house
that stands there, and there are 12 roomers
in it. The property by itself is separately
assessed, there is at least one assessment.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right!
Mr. Singer: Come then over to section 4
where "in any year reduction is given to the
landlord in respect of any residential property
separately assessed", and the landlord gets it
because the house is separately assessed. He
then has to give a portion of it back to the
tenant, and he may have 10 or 12 tenants in
there who are roomers. Now it follows from
that— certainly it does.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. He is only going
to get one credit to begin with. He only gets
the one credit because he is only-
Mr. Singer: You do not say that, you do
not spell it out.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. I would like very much to
bring to the attention of this House the group
of 75 fine young students from the great
city of Windsor. They are from the
David Maxwell public school and they are
one of a group of approximately 5,000 from
the city who have been down this year to
see the Legislature in action.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I come back
again to the suggestion which I made at the
second reading of this bill, the suggestion
that the assessment notice should carry a
series of coupons or some device of a similar
kind, which would give a monthly credit to
the person holding the lease.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion
here this morning about the kind of dwelling
that this legislation applies to. If an assess-
ment notice goes out and says "this is an
assessment on a dwelling", that would carry
the device— the coupon or whatever it might
be. It it is any other kind of assessment notice
it would not carry this device. It just seems
to me that this would clear the way and
make it very, very easy for the tenant to
assert his rights, and for the landlord to know
that he must give those rights. It would not,
of course, overcome the problem of him rais-
ing rents— that is always with us— but it would
accomplish much of the things we want ac-
complished. It would overcome many of
these difficulties we have been discussing this
morning.
The Minister gave us some reasons why
he felt this is not a practical solution to the
problem.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In the form of trad-
ing stamps, is that what you mean?
Mr. Young: Not trading stamps, it is a form
of receipt. The government has given money
to the tenant via the landlord, and this is an
acknowledgment of that fact. I suppose it
is a form of money, a form of legal tender,
and that legal tender is attached and it can
be detached, and the tenant recognizes that
he has received a legal tender which the gov-
ernment intended for him.
Now it seems to me that this is a device
which could well be examined again in the
light of the difficulties which have been
brought up today, and I recommend this
solution again to the Minister.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs has moved that subsection 3, of sec-
tion 4, be amended to add the words "before
or after this Act comes into force".
I
JUNE 7, 1968
4135
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear
on section 5 as far as the province is going
to pay the municipahties at the end of the
year 1968, after the municipalities have made
their—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think, when my
friend was out, I indicated that they were
going to be paid starting in June, depending
on whenever their taxes are due, whenever
they allow the credit, or a portion of it.
Mr. Sargent: Well, then, the only point is
that— I may have missed this too— the fact that
the method of payment, for the basis of pay-
ment to the municipality, is based on their
assessment equalization factor, is that cor-
rect?
Hon. Mr. McKeougli: No.
Mr. Sargent: How do some municipalities
get paid more?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: What we are talking
about here in section 5 is how the munici-
pahty is reimbursed by the Provincial Treas-
urer. They total up the amount they paid
out and, in effect, submit a bill to the Pro-
vincial Treasurer and they get the money
back.
Mr. Sargent: It is the mechanics of the
method of payment?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is right.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister discuss
for a moment the variances of moneys re-
ceived across the province, insofar as—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I have discussed
this already and I think most people in the
House understand this.
Mr. Sargent: I will make it very simple
then— answer this question. Because of equaliz-
ation studies in each area, do they pay dif-
ferent moneys?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Chairman: Is there more discussion on
this particular section?
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, on section 5,
some municipalities will rebate to the land
owners the $50, or whatever the case might
be, in the second instalment of their taxes.
Immediately that the municipalities allow
this rebate, as I gather from the Minister,
they bill you and within a period of 30 days.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I hope so.
Mr. Bukator: They get their money back.
I imagine most of the municipalities that we
represent will ask us as members that ques-
tion.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, well I indicated
there was a change. We originally said we
were going to start trying to get the money
out in September. The Provincial Treasurer
has indicated to us that we can start getting
it out in July.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Singer: Section 6, Mr. Chairman; 6(a):
"The Lieutenant-Governor in council may
make regulations describing the forms for
use under this Act and the manner in which
application for reimbursement may be made."
Now, who is going to use the forms for
reimbursement? Only the municipalities, or
the home-owners, or the tenants, or every-
body?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. T^e intent of
6(a) is this: On some sort of a form, which
I have not seen yet, the treasurer of the
municipality will apply to the province for a
refund.
Mr. Singer: Well, I would suggest to the
Minister, that if this is only applicable to
municipalities, that he say so in that section.
A first glance at that section would indicate
two or three possible interpretations, and if
you can interpret it beyond, as it appears
that you can— beyond the use of municipali-
ties—then it would seem to shift the onus onto
tenants and/or to home-owners make some
sort of application, and you weaken the
burden that you will put on landlords to get
back and on the municipality. This seems to
say that there should be some form that
people fill out. I would like to see that
section amended so that that subsection would
apply only to municipalities.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, the word re-
imbursement has only been used in connec-
tion with reimbursement of the municipalities
by the province. I suppose that it is implied
there that applications for reimbursement
only mean the reimbursement of the munici-
palities by the province. However, I cannot
see any harm in adding the words after
4136
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reimbursement "to municipalities". There is
no harm in that.
Mr. Singer: Fine!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Unless legislative
counsel— that is certainly what it means— its
applications for reimbursement by the muni-
cipalities to the province. I cannot see any
hami in adding those two words.
Mr. Ch&irman: Is the Minister seeking a
motion to that effect?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: "To the municipali-
ties" would be the—
Mr. Singer: The words "to the munici-
pality" be inserted.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs moves clause (a) of section 6, on the
second line, after the wording "reimburse-
ment" be amended to include the words "to
municipalities."
Hon. Mr. McKeough: "To the munici-
pality!"
Mr. Chairman: "To the municipalities."
Those in favour of the amendment?
Carried.
Mr. Singer: Now subsection (c) of 6. I
would rather debate that in connection with
subsection 8, and we are in difficulty since
we are doing it section by section, but the
two of them tie in together, Mr. Chairman.
Where would you like to have that debate
take place, because I am disturbed about it?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: All under 8(a)?
Mr. Singer: All right then we hold (c) in
abeyance until we deal with 8.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I believe that we
should either pass section 6 or not.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can just deal with
it under 8.
Mr. Chairman: We can permit the discus-
sion under section 8, is that the—
Mr. Singer: I have reservations about (c)
which relates to 8, and this is the difficulty
because 6 refers over to 8, and the two of
them really fit in together.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In the event that
section 8 is amended, I am sure that the
House would entertain a motion that we
could revert then to 6(c).
Mr. Chairman: Yes, well that would be
necessary in order to revert we would have
to have the concurrence of the House.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I cannot con-
cur the fact that a fine of $200 is due and
payable on the landlord being caught in the
act of not distributing his money. On the
other hand, you allow him, if he is caught,
to credit the $200 to rent. Is that the way
I should interpret this clause?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. If he is con-
victed, he is subject first of all to having
to allow the credit at that point, and then
is subject to a fine of up to $200 on eadi
conviction. So if he has 100 suites and has
not allowed it on each one of them, he could
be in for quite a piece of change.
Mr. Chairman: Section 7.
Hi^
Mr. Singer: On section 7, there have been
various speeches made-
Mr. Chairman: Order please!
Section 7, the member for Ddwnsview.
Mr. Singer: There have been various
speeches made and various suggestions that
the Minister is going to have a task force to
enforce this Act. The penalty section.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not to enforce.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right. I would like the
Minister to tell me how we are going to bring
erring landlords to heel and punish them
under section 7.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, if we are talk-
ing about the task force, perhaps this is where
it comes in.
As I explained in the House, I am quite
sure people— the landlords or tenants, mainly
in this instance, the tenants— are going to
come to members of this House. For example,
on the municipalities. They will write to
"Action Line" and say they have not got the
reduction of tlieir taxes— it has not been
allowed to them.
Many of them will undoubtedly write to
me. I am sure many members will un-
doubtedly write to me. Now I am certain we
will turn them over to the subsidies branch.
That is where they are going now. Un-
doubtedly there will be letters back and forth,
between the landlord and the department, the j
tenant and the department, and sooner or later
JUNE 7, 1968
4137
you get to a point where you are not getting
very far by letter. Maybe tliere have been
some phone calls in the meantime.
When we get to tliat point, when things
are completely frustrated, and the letters are
not being answered, or are not being followed,
then there will be some people available
towards the end of the year to go out from
the office, or from the offices across the prov-
ince and sit down with the landlord or tenant
and see if they cannot bring them together. It
is not going to work in every case. Not by a
long shot, but I think what we have-
Mr. Sargent: It sure is not. This whole mess
should never have happened.
Mr. Chairman. Order! Section 7.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am wondering if
the member for Grey-Bruce has finished.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Dov^tis-
Mr. Singer: No. I want to hear the rest
of the Minister's remarks, if I may.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: So, I do not say that
my friend shakes his head. I do not know
how many there are in this final group— but
the letters have not straightened things away.
But by sending somebody out I think, quite
frankly, in some instances, we are going to be
able to do some good. I am sure they are
going to get many cases where they are going
to decide that the landlord or the tenant or
both are at each other's throats, and the
best thing they can do is get out of there.
Particularly in this first year— you would not
do this in other years— but there may well be a
lack of understanding both on the part of the
tenant as to what he is entitled to and the
landlord as to what he should do. We hope
that these people— and I do not know how
many will be required— really can solve a
few more problems. Ultimately, if the tenant
still feels aggrieved, he goes to the Crown
attorney and swears out an information.
Mr. Singer: That was what I wanted to
find out, and I am very disappointed. I am
not surprised really by what the Minister says.
What your task force is going to be is a sort
of mediation service, a conciliation group,
similar to what the Minister of Labour has in
the human rights aspects. Discrimination and
so on. But surely this is in an entirely foolish
concept. Surely here you lay down very strict
and stringent provisions that the landlord must
give the money back. Now you are going to
set up a task force and, in due course, if it
is brought to your attention, you will go out
and attempt to mediate and try to explain
everybody's rights. If that does not work, then
the tenant is going to have to go to the Crown
attorney and lay a charge, spend time laying
the charges, go back to court, and probably
have to proceed with the prosecution himself.
What tenant is going to go through all of that
nonsense to try and get back $50?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: How would you do
it?
Mr. Singer: I would say that the initiative
has to lie with you. I would say that if you
are going to spend hours and days attempting
to conciliate, and if you cannot concihate
then throw your hands up and say, "I am
sorry. Mister Tenant, I cannot conciliate,
trot down to the Crown attorney and figure
it out with him." And yet the tenant will be
in the same position. He will go down and
spend time with the Crown attorney if he can
find him, take the time out to swear out
the information and in due course, it might
come before the courts. The landlord will
undoubtedly have a lawyer there and it is—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not a lawyer,
but how could the information be sworn out
by a member of my task force and how
could the Crown attorney accept it or not
or be prepared to take it to court or not
without the tenant being there? He has to
be there in any case.
Mr. Singer: That is right and what I am
suggesting is that your role in this is not
to be a concilator. If, on information received
by your department you have reason to
believe that an offence under this Act has
taken place, then if you are serious, you
have a duty to take that offence before the
courts.
But what you have told us -is not that at
all. You have told us that you are going to
try and conciliate. If it does not work, then
the tenant is on his own again. I say that
that really destroys any teeth that might
appear to be in section 7.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, on that back-
ground behind your chair are two scales of
justice which indicate that we are supposed
to be fair in this House, or, at least I trust
that we are supposed to be fair in this House.
And yet there is a deliberate enactment in
this Act which says all landlords are vile,
and no tenants are. There is provision here
4138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for taking a landlord to court and making a
criminal out of him if he has not abided by
the provisions of this Act, although he may
have innocently believed that he had a good
position in refusing to comply with some of
the terms of this Act, Now, why in heaven's
name has the landlord got an alternative of
either paying— whether he thinks that he is
right or wrong— or being branded a criminal?
Why should it go to magistrate's court? Why
not in some other court?
Mr. MacDonald: He has no criminal record
if he is not convicted.
Mr. Ben: He does. He may have a good
reason to believe that he does not owe the
tenant that much money, or else that there
were other arrangements. He may in good
conscience believe that he is right, and go to
court and be proved wrong. Then he has a
criminal record. Now, I tliink that this is
iniquitous and wrong.
Mr. MacDonald: There is no record if he is
acquitted of the charge.
Mr. Ben: There is a thing called mens
rea or intent. The landlord in all good con-
science believed that he was right, in other
words he did not have the intention of
defrauding anybody, but thought that he was
right. He went to court and the court—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, I think
that it is apparent that the debate is going
to continue.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the committee
rise and report two bills without amendment,
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report two bills
without amendment, and asks for leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. RovsTitree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this is
a private member's hour. The subject to be
presented in the House and debated will be
resolution No. 33.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
33 by Mr. A. E. Renter:
Resolution :
TJiat in the opinion of this House the
government should take immediate steps
to institute an educational programme for
our schools to acquaint our young people
with the dangers of glue sniffing, and
further that consideration be given to
passing of legislation to control the sale
of glue and other toxic substances of
similar nature.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South): Mr.
Speaker, a matter which has been of con-
siderable concern to me for some time, and
to many other people, involves the habit of
some of our young folks to indulge in the
use of certain solvents in order to obtain
modern kicks. The most widely reported
incidents involve the inhalation of airplane
glue which is used in making model airplanes.
I am sure sir, that you can recall as all hon.
members can recall, the great pastime of
making models that became popular when
we were quite a few years younger than we
are today. My own early recollections include
the use of a small tube of especially power-
ful glue that made materials stick together
well without the use of nails or screws.
Back in those days, who ever thought of
sniffing the stuff for kicks? The instructions
would say: Use out of doors, keep away
from fire, and I am sure, sir, that you and
I and most youngsters took heed of the warn-
ings, at least to some extent. But what has
happened to our youth in the intervening
years? Why do they seek the kicks that come
from such harmful habits? I do not pretend
to have the answers to those questions sir,
in fact, there seem to be very few answers,
let alone solutions, that are available to us.
There are those who say the more pub-
licity that is given to the problem, the worse
it will get. I will admit the possibility that
this may be so, however, I believe that this
is a risk that we must take in order to gain
control. Certainly, avoiding the problem and
hoping that it will go away does not in any
way provide even a partial solution. While
the control of the manufacture and sale of
such substances probably falls within the
purvue of the federal Food and Drug Act,
and certain aspects come under the jurisdic-
tion of the criminal code of Canada, I do
not believe that there is nothing that can
be done by the province to help bring about
some relief.
Before I offer some suggestions as to what
Ontario might do, I want to review the matter
in some detail, in order that all hon. mem-
JUNE 7, 1968
4139
bers might be fully informed as to the magni-
tude of the problem. One of the very first
reports ever published on the subject was in
Arizona in 1960. Since that time there have
been only a few detailed reports or studies
that have been published. However, there
are many, many press reports, many news
reports, and these are becoming more and
more frequent as time goes on.
First, sir, it is not the glue itself that is
harmful, it is the solvent used in the manu-
facture of the glue. These same solvents are
used in other substances, such as nail polish
remover, lighter fluid, paint thinner and
many other similar substances. Indeed these
other substances are also used to produce
the same results, the same kicks. But the
common ordinary substance called aeroplane
plus is the most widely used today.
I first became acutely aware of the prob-
lem right in my home area in the city of Gait.
This was less than a year ago and since then
I have been gathering all the reports I could
possibly find, and have been following the
press very, very closely— gathering all the in-
formation I possibly could, from any source,
to observe the situation as it really exists not
only in my own area but in the Toronto area
and indeed right across the province and the
country.
There are various citizens' groups that first
brought the matter to my attention due to
an alarming increase in vandalism that was
traced by local police in the city of Gait to
gangs of teenagers. It was found that a sharp
rise in the incidence of glue sniffing was oc-
curring at the same time as the vandalism.
In one particular case, a young gang took
over an old abandoned property in which they
held glue sniffing parties, and they wrecked
this property and eventually burned it down.
In another case, a gang took over a vacant
building that had been slated for demolition
and there were approximately 17 youngsters
rounded up one night, and later released,
because they were juveniles.
In one case a youngster was acting as if he
was a violent mental patient and others ap-
peared to be highly intoxicated. Another
youth reportedly said he had been sniffing
for so long that it took 20 tubes of glue
before he could achieve the kick he was
looking for, and even then he had to carry
spare tubes of glue along with him to pro-
long the effect. Earlier in the year, in Rich-
mond Hill, a jury found that a 16-year-old
girl who had started glue sniffing only last
August, 1967, had died after a complicated
illness resulting from her collapse after con-
tinued inhalation. Just a few weeks ago
three teenagers were found staggering along
the railway tracks in this area with glue
smeared all over their hands. They were
holding their hands to their faces to inhale
the fumes.
In Hamilton, recently, police raided a teen-
age drinking and vapor-sniffing party at a
fashionable Westdale home and arrested
three teenagers and placed pending charges
against nine other boys and girls from 13
to 17. In the city of Gait, just a little while
ago, a newspaper employee picked up 52
empty glue tubes in one of the local parks.
One Sunday night, not too long ago, an
area policeman arrested a 19-year-old youth
who was found whining and howling like a
dog. He had been seen earlier with a brown
paper bag over his head and when he was
arrested he had four containers of glue in
his possession.
An evening Telegram report of March 3,
1966, revealed that three boys, aged 10, 12
and 13, were charged with administering a
stupefying drug to themselves. The report
stated that this was the first time anyone had
been charged with sniffing glue.
The Toronto Daily Star, on November 25,
1965, stated that four 13- and 14-year-old
boys appeared in Metro juvenile court after
they had gone wild on a glue binge and had
toppled 105 tombstones in a local cemetery.
This same article recorded the case of a 16-
year-old boy who tried to beat his parents
and a younger brother to death with a steel
tool. In the same article again, it related the
story about two boys in New York City who
thought they could fly. They plunged to their
deaths from the roof of a tall building under
the influence of glue inhalation.
Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of the
cases about which I have read. I have read
about many, many more incidents of diflFerent
cases but I think these are sufficient to relate
to the House the really serious nature of this
problem. Apart from the dangerous results
while under the influence of inhalation, there
are other physical and mental after-effects
that must be considered. According to a
article in the Canadian Medical Association
Journal, studies have revealed very little in
the way of physical damage to organs. The
article states that there is no evidence that
brain damage occurs. However, there are
conflicting reports and there are certainly
threats arising in the chronics who are emerg-
ing from those who now can be classed as
experimenters.
4140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There is evidence of addiction, as indicated
in the case of the boy I mentioned earher
who needed 20 tubes of glue to get his kicks.
Larger and larger amounts are being taken by
these addicts and there is a danger of turning
to more powerful and more dangerous drugs.
According to an article in a regular news
column with which I am sure most members
are familiar, written by Dr. J. G. Molnar-I
believe is the pronunciation— after repeated
sniffing, damage appears in the liver as well
as in the blood. Other investigations have re-
vealed evidence of long-range effects such as
loss of weight, low blood pressure, change of
personality, brain and kidney damage and
ultimately death.
Dr. Jacob Sokol of Los Angeles, after
examination of 750 glue sniffing children,
reported that the habit causes liver, kidney
and lung damage; abnormalities in the blood,
including anemia; decrease in the white blood
count, and changes in the red cells as well as
pus, bacteria and blood in the urine. Dr.
R. E. Turner of the Clarke institute of psy-
chiatry claims that glue sniffers may undergo
irreversible changes in their intelligence and
behaviour.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, that there can be
no doubt of the magnitude of the problem.
While it appears to have developed only
within the last ten years, the evidence avail-
able clearly indicates the need for control.
There are alarming reports from all parts of
the United States and Canada, and right here
in Ontario, and parents and citizens' groups
are asking for some action.
In some areas of the continent some action
has been taken. In New York state, in 1965,
a law passed at that time prohibits a person
from intentionally smelling or inhaling fumes
from glue containing a solvent releasing toxic
vapour or fumes to cause intoxication, stupe-
faction or dulling of the brain or nervous
system. It also prohibits possession for these
purposes, and the sale or oflFer to sell with
knowledge of such use, and it fixes penalties.
In Colorado, in Denver juvenile court, an
experimental programme to help rehabilitate
young glue sniffers showed results sufficient
to warrant further refined testing and evalua-
tion. In this project, the results of the
programme were used to provide schools,
police and other agencies with a better under-
standing of the problem. Federal funds were
provided to promote this programme which
included group therapy and counselling for the
young addicts. In New England in 1962, The
Department of Public Health enhsted the aid
of merchants, parents and school teachers in a
campaign to try to stamp out the fad. Store-
keepers were urged to report any sudden
increase in sales and were to limit the indi-
vidual sales to youngsters. The Greenwich
health association of Greenwich, Connecticut,
has prepared and distributed a very compre-
hensive booklet entitled, "The Glue Sniffing
Problem."
Many of the states have legislation of one
kind or another, and in Winnipeg, according
to the Canadian Medical Association Journal
of February of this year, the poison control
centre of the Winnipeg children's hospital
has attempted to lessen the problem by a
programme of education amongst school
teachers, ministers and social workers. In fact,
the grade 9 health curriculum in Winnipeg
schools includes a special subject entitled,
"Drug and Substance Abuses," and the chil-
dren's hospital there has made available a
team consisting of a psychiatrist, pediatrician
and a social worker. The Manitoba provincial
health education authority has also launched
a parent education programme, and The
Juvenile Delinquents Act of Manitoba pro-
vides for charges to be laid for deliberate
inhalation for purposes of intoxication and
they have prepared an excellent pamphlet
on the subject.
In Montreal in January of last year officials
at St. Mary's hospital organized a seminar
for teenagers in a neighbourhood YMCA, and
instead of the expected attendance of about
200, over 500 long-haired teenagers showed
up. There is also controlling legislation in
Canada in Alberta and British Columbia.
As nearly as I can determine, Mr. Speaker
—I may be wrong, but as nearly as I can
determine— at the moment very little is being
done officially in Ontario. In 1965, the Scar-
borough board of health decided to contact
federal and provincial members of Parliament
to enlist their aid but I believe nothing re-
sulted. In late 1967, Dr. Edward Turner of
the Clarke institute of psychiatry said the
practice should be made a criminal offence.
At the same time, a Toronto school trustee,
Mr. Alan Archer, urged the Senate at Ottawa
to pass Bill S-22, to which I will refer in a
few moments, and at the same time indicated
he would urge the Ontario Attorney General
(Mr. Wishart) to sponsor a provincial bill.
Early this year, Lepages Limited, a large
Canadian manufacturer of the glue, urged
that strong action be taken against store own-
ers who knowingly sold glue to children for
sniffing purposes. And in January of this
year, Toronto's legislation committee proposed
a motion that would add glue to the list of
JUNE 7, 1968
4141
substances not available to minors under
The Minors Protection Act. Just within the
last month, Mr. Speaker, the problem has
come into prominence again and the daily
press has been full of reports of one kind or
another.
On May 7 the Ontario medical association
was quoted as saying, "There is no way any-
body can stop a juvenile from glue sniflBng."
The article went on to say that the association
did not believe the practice should be made
a criminal offence, but that young sniffers
should be referred to health or social agen-
cies. On the same day, sir. Judge William J.
Little interpreted The Juvenile Delinquents
Act to include glue sniffing and he promised
also to prosecute shopkeepers who sell glue
to children knowing they are going to indulge
in sniffing.
More and more parents, school officials and
others are becoming increasingly alarmed.
Just one week ago, a local mother appealed to
the hon. Attorney General for some action,
and as a result, I understand that an amend-
ment will be sought to the criminal code of
Canada, A meeting will be held with the
local school authorities and local police will
be supported in laying charges against mer-
chants selling glue to children for sniffing
purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit through
you to the Attorney General that this is not
enough. Bill S-22, which was introduced to
the Senate on October 31 last year, was duly
passed but it did not reach the House of
Commons. The bill has died, and with the
political situation now existing in Ottawa,
who knows how long it might be before the
criminal code is finally amended? In the
meantime, the problem continues. Bill S-22
was a good bill; it specifically mentioned in
the schedules attached to the bill the subjects
which would be controlled and which were
to be included. It included bleaches, clean-
sers, sanitizers, glues, household polishes,
and soon— many different types of substances
that did contain harmful solvents.
But, as I say, this bill has died and no one
knows how long we are going to have to wait
until Ottawa does bring about some legis-
lation. Certainly the province must add its
support to desirable federal amendments, but
it seems to me that we in Ontario have a
problem to face that cannot be left up to
Ottawa. Whether or not the inhalation of
glue and other similar substances is an offence
under the criminal code is one thing, but the
distribution and sale of such substances to
our young people is another. I am not at all
prepared to go along with an absence of pro-
vincial control in this respect. Surely we can
extend some of our existing statutes or even
introduce new legislation that will help to
some extent to bring about some immediate
relief.
The hon. Attorney General indicated on
Wednesday of this week that no decision had
been taken to introduce such legislation, but
I respectfully say to him through you, sir,
that such a move on his part would be very
well received by those who are seriously
concerned and that any such legislative action
could not help but produce some beneficial
results. As long as there is no legal control,
the indiscriminate sale to young people will
continue. True, enforcement may be difficult,
but I firmly believe the mere existence and a
wide circulation of publication of any such
statute in this respect would serve as a de-
terrent.
Legislative control over the uses of such
products as well as over the distribution and
sale is only part of the possible solution. The
hon. Attorney General has indicated, as noted
in the local press on May 30, that he frankly
was not aware that the practice had reached
such proportions as it had. On V/ednesday
of this week, he indicated to the House that
he did not believe the matter had reached
dangerous proportions. This, of course, is a
matter of opinion, and I must say, sir, that
in my opinion the whole problem is one of
great danger, so much so that in addition to
whatever legislative control we may bring
about, we need a very extensive programme
of education.
In my opinion, it is necessary that the hon.
Ministers of Health (Mr. Dymond) and Edu-
cation (Mr. Davis), as well as the hon. Attor-
ney General, must get together immediately
and set up an interdepartmental committee,
not to study the matter, but to embark on an
educational programme at once. This pro-
gramme should be directed to parents, teach-
ers, police, clergymen and all people who
might have any concern. Much information
is now available and can be put together in
printed brochures for wide distribution so
that our people can become thoroughly aware
of the dangers of this stupid curse on our
young people.
I urge all hon. members to support this
resolution.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, may I first say how pleased I am
to have another articulate spokesman on this
side of the House, and I would like to wel-
come the member for Waterloo South as a
speaker on this side of the House in his new
4142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
capacity. I would like to say also that I have
listened with great care to his remarks and
I find it very difficult to say many new tilings
about the subject. But I would like to under-
line some of the valid points he has made.
He expressed concern, Mr. Speaker, with
the opinion of tlie Attorney General, tliat the
Attorney General was not aware this was a
significant problem in our society. I would
like to state for the record that there are many
articles on this subject— not just newspaper
articles, but many research articles, par-
ticularly south of the border where they have
known this has been a problem for some time.
For example, in 1963, there is an article
entitled "Glue Sniffing" in the New York
Journal of Medicine, by Drs. H. Jacobziner
and H. W. Raybin— five years ago. It is a
fairly detailed study pointing out the very
harmful effects of glue sniflBng and some of
the reasons why teenagers particularly indulge
in it.
Tliere is another article, in 1964, entitled,
"Acute and Chronic Effects of Glue Sniffing,"
and this appeared in the California Medical
Journal, by three eminent doctors, including
Dr. M. L. Barman. There is anotlier article
entitled, "A Comparison of the Cognitive
Functioning of Glue Sniffers and Non-Glue
Sniffers," which appeared in the Journal of
Paediatrics in 1964 as well. One of the authors
was Mr. J. Dodds. Of course, an excellent
article, which I quoted in a previous dis-
cussion on glue sniffing in this House some
months ago, appeared in 1967, in Paediatrics.
So the point that the hon. member for
Waterloo South made— at least I believe he
made— that this has been a known problem
for some time, this particular problem of glue
sniffing as well as solvent sniffing. That there
has been extensive research on it, as opposed
to press reports on some children who died
from glue sniffing, is well taken, and I share
his concern that the hon. Attorney General of
this province thinks it is largely a non-
problem. It is not. It is a problem which is
serious. It is a problem that deserves action
and not garbled statements about its impor-
tance or non-importance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like next to turn to
a personal connection which I have had with
tliis problem in my own area. I would like to
(juote from a letter I received dated Decem-
ber 12, 1967, from a Mrs. Claire S. MacKay,
who is tlie head of a study group of wives
and mothers in the West Hill area. She sent
me a petition at that time. I would like to read
a few paragraphs from her letter. It is
addressed to Mr. T. Reid, MPP, Scarborough
East, Scarborough, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Reid:
Please find herewith, petition signed by
1,200 persons interested in the govern-
ment assisting in getting a safe glue product
on the market by legislation by removing
die present harmful products from the glue.
She goes on to say that:
Several other petitions have been received
since the petition here was sent to me, on
the same problem.
She continues in her letter:
On behalf of our study and discussion
group, I wish to say thank you for your
interest and concern. We will be watching
for future developments in this regard.
Well, at this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to read to members of this House and to you,
sir, what their petitions said. This is signed by
1,200 ordinary people, hving in the West Hill,
Scarborough and Highland Creek area of
Metropolitan Toronto and they are very con-
cerned. I simply say this sir— that if 1,200
parents out in my area of this city, the area
where I live in tliis city, say there is a prob-
lem, then I put their 1,200 words against the
single word of the Attorney General. Their
petition reads as follows:
In view of the increased use by children
ages 9 to 14 years of harmful glue for the
purpose of sniflBng which damages the
brain, liver, kidneys and blood and for
which there is apparently no antidote, we
the undersigned, urge our government tb
take immediate action to halt this danger-
ous practice by:
First: immediate legislation to ban the
sale of this dangerous product and making
a sale of this product a criminal offence.
This is very strong language! The petition
continues :
Second: legislation to forbid the pro-
duction of this dangerous glue product until
the harmful ingredients are removed or a
harmless but repulsive ingredient is added
—for example tear gas— making it impos-
sible for it to be used for the purpose of
sniflBng.
Third: that the government make low
interest loans available if necessary to |
encourage the manufacturers of glue to
pursue research on safe substitute glue.
They note, that "we the people who have
signed this petition," including my wife and
myself, "are quite willing to pay more for glue
that is safe."
JUNE 7, 1968
4143
That is an essential point, Mr. Speaker. The
petition continues:
We are quite willing to pay more for
glue that is safe. This is preferable to
paying for treatment centres tomorrow to
take care of those persons damaged today
through the indiscriminate use of such a
dangerous and commonly-used household
product.
I think that point about the consumers— the
parents of children, some of whom know
their children are sniffing glue, being willing
to pay more for the product is very instruc-
tive.
In other words, they are saying for good-
ness sakes do not let the manufacturers get
away with doing notliing on the argument
that if they put in something else into the
glue it is going to make it more expensive.
They are saying, sir, that they are willing to
pay more so that argument by the govern-
ment, by the private manufacturers of the
products, just does not wash in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to send this
petition directly to the House leader, the
hon. Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs (Mr. Rowntree) and I trust he will look
at the petition. He will see that it is signed
by 1,200 concerned parents in Metropolitan
Toronto, that it is dated November 27, some
time ago. I asked him to forward it to the
colleague that he thinks should have it.
I would like next, Mr. Speaker, to under-
line another point the hon. member for
Waterloo South made about this being a
serious problem, I would like to quote from
the Calgary Herald. I believe this is some
time within the last two weeks. While this is
in another jurisdiction, I think it is relevant
to the discussion here. It is entitled: "City
Boy Victim of Glue Sniffing" and it reads as
follows:
This was, I might add, sent to me by Mrs.
MacKay who is responsible for this petition.
She had sent a copy of this petition out to a
friend in Calgary who was trying to do
something about it. Subsequent to this, this
boy died.
An inquest has been ordered into the
death of a 14-year-old north Calgary boy
who is the city's first apparent victim of
glue sniffing. The boy, whose name is
being withheld by police, was found a few
minutes after 8 a.m., Tuesday, by his
mother. He was lying on the floor beside
his bed with a plastic bag over his head.
Police found two half empty tubes of
glue on the floor nearby, traces of glue
were found in tlie plastic bag. City detec-
tives put forward the theory that the teen-
ager became so intoxicated he passed out
with the bag still over his head. The boy's
mother told the detectives her son went to
bed shortly after 10 p.m. and he was
found in the morning still clothed. Police
say the incident of glue sniffing among
Calgary's school children has been quite
high in the past. It is especially popular
during the school holidays when students
get together, said a spokesman.
Well, there has been a death in Calgary as
a result from that. I would like to note also,
Mr. Speaker, in the same article is the fol-
lowing statement:
Last fall in Calgary the Alberta medical
association recommended tighter controls
on solvent usage causing glue sniffing an
increase in social and medical problem
here. They said—
and these are doctors, sir-
mental and physical disability which results
from glue sniffing can be permanent.
I would like to underline again, the point
the hon. member for Waterloo South made.
Turning to the comments that the Attorney
General made in this House the other day
and not referring directly from Hansard, Mr.
Speaker, but from a direct quotation from
the Toronto Daily Star, he is reported to have
made this statement which I wanted to ques-
tion. He said, apparently we may be able to
limit the use of glue by making it an offence
—sniffing that is— to be found intoxicated or in
an hallucogenic state from glue. This just
appeals me. If the government has this
approach to its public responsibility, it just
shatters me. I was particularly pleased there-
fore, Mr. Speaker, when the member for
Waterloo South spoke up, as a government
member, against his own Minister's views.
The Attorney General, I think, said that a
ban on glue would only mean a switch to
other substances such as gasoline, nail polish
or vanilla extract. Well I would just like to
counteract that with an authoritative quote
from the article from paediatrics, volume 39,
numbers 3 and 4, March and April 67, an
article entitled, "Solvent Sniffing," written
by Doctor Edward Press and Doctor Alan
Done. I would like to quote this in reference
to that particular point the Attorney General
made as to why children indulge in this glue
sniffing business. The doctors said:
One factor among children in particular
—there are two otlier factors— is the ease of
4144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
obtaining the material for presumably legi-
timate uses and the facility with which that
material can be carried and concealed.
These latter factors appear to determine
to a considerable extent the current popu-
larity of glue preparations.
So I think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to
follow up on the remarks made by the hon.
member for Waterloo South, to state that
perhaps glue is somewhat unique. It is not
like Dutch cleanser, or nail polish. It is some-
thing that a teenager can go into a store and
buy presumably for legitimate purpose. It
is something he can conceal easily in his
pocket. He can carry it around because it is
in a small quantity. This might make this type
of glue— not all glue of course— unique or
substantially different from other types of
solvents which can be used for sniffing.
So I would say that I tliink we can pass
legislation in this House to make it possible
to restrict young teenagers from obtaining
the glue, I think we might be able to put it
in more bulky packages so they cannot carry
it around in their pocket. They might have to
take it home in a big package if they want
to make airplanes— this type of thing. I think
perhaps we could act now on this particular
substance rather than wait until we find out
about the whole problem of solvent sniffing
and other such materials.
Turning next, Mr. Speaker, to the question
of the federal-provincial jurisdiction prob-
lem, I would like to quote from a letter I
have from Robert Stanbury, the MP for York-
Scarborough, in response to my letter con-
cerning this problem of glue sniffing in Scar-
borough. He replied to my letter. His letter
was dated January 9, 1968. He says this—
As jurisdictional health is shared be-
tween federal and provincial governments,
research and education on ths subject
could be undertaken by either or both.
I think that is important. Mr. Stanbury is a
very careful MP and no doubt checked with
the present Prime Minister before replying.
So we have an area of joint responsibility—
neither the province nor the federal govern-
ment are excluded— both can become involved
in the area of research and education. Mr,
Stanbury continues:
Except insofar as criminal penalties
might be imposed, control of advertising or
sale is within the jurisdiction of provincial
governments.
That is what we are into, and I would very
much like the Attorney General to consult
with Mr. Stanbury, or directly with the
Minister of Justice, the hon. Mr. MacDonald,
the acting Minister, to get it clear in his own
mind where the responsibility lies and where
there can be joint action. Certainly in the
area of control of advertising, the control of
sale, this government has a direct re-
sponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, finally I would like to say that
we must not proceed in this area on the as-
sumption that the private sector does not
feel a sense of responsibility in this matter.
I think if we make the assumption that some
of my friends to my immediate left make,
that all private enterprise is bad, and that
all private enterprise has been clobbered over
the head to get it into line, this is being irre-
sponsible in our society. I would like here to
refer to a reply that the clerk of the corpora-
tion of the borough of Scarborough received
from Lepages Limited. This letter is dated
January 4, 1968, and is in response to a letter
that Lepages received from the council of
the borough of Scarborough in response again
to Mrs. Claire MacKay's petition. Here is
what Lepages say. I do not think they go far
enough but they are moving a little bit.
They say:
, Let us state that our company feels we
are a manufacturer with a responsibility to
the general public and for this reason we
have written to our MP and MPP advocat-
ing that legislation be put on the books
that penalizes the unconscionable seller
and the anti-social user.
I think that is important, that they want to
move into that.
I will just conclude then, with one final
remark that this particular private manufac-
turer has made efforts—
— <by including a card in each display of
tubes that these not be put on a self-
service area and that sales of large amounts
be refused to youngsters unless accom-
panied by an adult.
I think the intention of Lepages is there. I
do not think they are willing to go the funda-
mental step of putting something in that glue
which would make it obnoxious for snifiBng,
but I think they do feel a responsibility.
Surely this government, with this type of
attitude on the part of the private sector in
our society, could really move forward and
save a lot of young children from such an
open opportunity of indulging in sniffing.
Thank you,
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Speaker, this problem of glue sniffing by
JUNE 7, 1968
4145
children and young people has prompted over
5,000 people to sign petitions looking for
action from this government. It has prompted
the Toronto school board to press for action
from the government. It is a problem that
any father or mother in Ontario would like
to think would not reach their children so
that they are, along with the people who have
worked on the petitions, waiting, looking to
this government, for a solution to the prob-
lem. Surely, Mr. Speaker, they could not be
asked or expected to do more to draw to
this government's attention that this is an
urgent problem of local concern.
I am rather shocked, Mr. Speaker, to see
the view of the Attorney General when he
said that to make it an offence to be intoxi-
cated into an hallucinogenic state by glue
was the problem. This is not the problem, Mr.
Speaker. It is not just the legality of usage.
This is a problem that is a social and health
problem. The Minister of Health should be
making a statement as to its deleterious
effects to find out how harmful glue sniffing
is. It is up to the Minister of Social and
Family Services (Mr. Yaremko) to look into
the social aspects of the problem.
The Attorney General referred to studies;
what studies he did not say. What we need,
Mr. Speaker, right now, is action. Studies
and the education in this problem can come
later. It is a must for the Attorney General
to deal with this problem. It is a crime that
the children can get this substance so easily
and harm themselves and other children by
doing so, and doing so, Mr. Speaker, in the
ever present spirit of adventure or kicks. For
the Attorney General to issue a statement
correlating the enticement of this substance
with that of nail polish, or vanilla, or gaso-
line, is an example that he is simply not in
touch with the reality of the problem, and
it was ridiculous to drag this type of red
herring over what the real issue is.
Glue, as it has been said before today, and
airplane glue in particular, is a young per-
son's or child's thing. Vanilla has been v/ith
us for a long time, Mr. Speaker, without in-
cidence of usage by young people and chil-
dren. The storekeeper is not going to hand
out multiple bottles of vanilla without it
registering as being somewhat unusual. This
is an excellent example that the Attorney
General has not really come to grips with the
reality of the problem. In the matter of
alcohol, which can be a social and health
problem, there is controlled sale to minors.
It is entirely within the jurisdiction of this
province, and as such must be controlled
through the sale.
Who is it going to hurt, Mr. Speaker? The
children will not go without model airplanes;
they will not go without the correct amount
of glue to build airplanes. It will simply
mean an adult will purchase it, and it will
ensure against the possibility of any un-
scrupulous storekeeper from pushing the sale
of glue to youngsters. I would think the
harmful effects that were drawn to our atten-
tion today by the member for Waterloo South,
in themselves, without this public pressure,
would be suffiicient to draw action from the
Ministers of this government. To say it
should be dealt with under the criminal code,
is to ignore the social and health aspects of
the problem.
The government must know who the manu-
facturers are, find them, control the sale,
prohibit its use by minors, prohibit its pur-
chase—Mr. Speaker, I should say— by minors,
and label it strongly for the dangers of usage.
Responsibility rests squarely with this gov-
ernment. Should there be a fatality or
damage to a child in this interim period of
delay, there is no question whose respon-
sibility this would be. It is not enough for
the Attorney General to say, "We may be
able to get it by making it an offence." Why
allow this to happen to children?
The same technique that is used in the
controlled sale of alcohol in the province of
Ontario could be applied to the sale of glue.
Up until this year, the province controlled
the use of pool halls by minors, yet ignored
this more serious and dangerous problem.
There should not be any hang-up or delay at
all, Mr. Speaker. For the Attorney General
to say, "No, they cannot legislate against
this," is ridiculous. If he will not, perhaps
the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs will.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Gommercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to Monday, and the order paper, it
came to me that in view of the importance
of the debate on the shelter or the municipal
bill, which was not concluded this morning,
it would be desirable to continue tliat debate
to its conclusion on Monday, and accordingly
we will go to the order paper for that pur-
pose, and continue with the estimates of The
Department of University Affairs. I beheve it
was previously announced with respect to the
sequence of other departments, diat Energy,
and Trade and Development would be the
departments to follow.
4146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
\
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of
the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South); Mr.
Speaker, before that motion is put, I rise on
a point of order. Yesterday, I submitted to
'the Clerk, notice of a motion which the
government has indicated they will call for
next Wednesday— a proposed amendment on
tlie supply motion^ so-called want of confi-
dence motion— and it appeared in Votes and
Proceedings this morning. But it appeared in
an edited form in which the real substance
which creates the context of the motion has
been edited out.
Mr. Speaker, I protest most strongly on a
number of grounds, the first of which is that
this was an arbitrary action; we were not
extended the courtesy of any discussion with
regard to it; it simply appeared this morning
in its truncated form. That, I think, is an
infringement on the rights of the House.
Indeed, there are many other things I might
like to say but I shall try to restrain myself.
Second, I would like to draw your atten-
tion to the fact that this is a substantive
motion— in fact that it is modelled directly
on a motion that was introduced in the
British House of Commons, including the
portion which was edited out— and I have a
copy of it here in a book entitled, "Parliament
and Mumbo-Jumbo," by Emrys Hughes, MP,
which is available in the parliamentary library
here. But my most important complaint is that
it destroys the whole thrust and meaning and
purpose of our motion.
So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this
motion appear in the form that we submitted,
which is our right. The edited portion is not
a preamble, as has been decided by the
Clerk. It should appear on the order paper
on Monday in the form that we submitted it
so that it will be available for debate on
Wednesday. I would hke your assurance that
that will take place.
Mr. Speaker: This matter has been drawn
to my attention, and also provisions, I think it
is, of rule 41, which says that there is to be
no preamble or recital to a motion. Whether
or not it is in order in Westminister is of
little concern if it is not in order in accord-
ance with the rules of this House.
The dealing with notices of motion for the
order paper in the past has been, and has
been up to the present time, that they are
given to the Clerk of the House who is in
charge of the Votes and Proceedings and the
journals of the House, and are by him, as I
understand it, printed, not edited. But if they
are not in order they are either referred back
to the member who has submitted them, or
dealt with by the Clerk as the rules of the
House require.
The Clerk advised me that he had looked
this over, that he had tried to get the leader
of the New Democratic Party, probably the
leader was not in just tlien, but in order not
to hold it up, as I understand it, the Clerk
published it in its present form. I certainly
will be glad to discuss the matter with the
leader of the New Democratic Party and
the other two party leaders and the Clerk of
the House. But that is the situation as it
stands at the moment.
I would need to be persuaded, if the matter
were referred to me for a ruling, that what
I looked at casually— because it was not Mr.
Speaker's duty to deal with that— was not a
preamble or a recital as expressly prohibited
in our rules. And I would think that it would
be very easy for the leader of the New
Democratic Party to reword it so that the
thrust would not be lost but that it would
be in accordance with the rules of the House.
I am open to suggestions.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say
to you very firaily that I have no intention
of rewording it. And I refer this to you for
your ruling because this comes under your
direction in the House. It is true that we
follow the rules of this House, and not the
rules of Westminister, but I submit to you
that this is a substantive motion and that we
can seek guidance from the experience of the
British House of Commons. The Clerk has
chosen to describe the edited portion as a
preamble.
I have another substantive motion from the
United Kingdom House which I do not know
whether you, Mr. Speaker, have seen, but
certainly the Clerk has seen it because he
borrowed this book. In that motion, the
quotation from Churchill is not regarded as
an irrelevant preamble, it is an integral part
of the motion. Anybody who reads this, Mr.
Speaker, will recognize that without the
portion that is edited, the whole thrust oi
the amendment has been destroyed.
I am forced once again to come to the
conclusion that political considerations entered
into the decision. And I say very firmly, sir,
that I submit this matter to you for your
ruling. It will have to be a ruling, I assume,
not later than Monday so that it will be
available for the debate which the govern-
ment has agreed to on Wednesday.
JUNE 7, 1968
4147
Mr. Speaker: May I just refer to one or
two matters mentioned by the member for
York South. First of all, our rules do not say
that a preamble needs to be relevant or irre-
levant. They merely say that it shall not be
a preamble, so that that particular point-
Mr. MacDonald: It is not a preamble.
Mr. Speaker: —that particular point, as to
whether it is relevant or irrelevant, does not
enter the picture at all. Secondly, so far as
I know, the Clerk of the House has always
been free from any involvement in politics,
and I think he is in this case. This particular
matter was dealt with by him without refer-
ence to me, other than to tell me the situ-
ation. I suggested he get hold of the mover.
As far as I know, he was in contact with no
one else. I also know that he is a very ex-
perienced official of this House, in its oper-
ation and in its precedents.
I, in a moment, will be very pleased to
hear what the leader of the Opposition has
to say, but I merely say to the member
that as far as his submission today is con-
cerned, I will certainly be glad to discuss it
not only with the Clerk but with the member
who has put it before the House and with
those others who may be concerned, so that
we can deal with it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, dealing with the point of order,
I must say in my view that it is unfortunate
that it was suggested that the Clerk would
in any way be associated with a political
decision in this regard. But I do feel, sir,
that among your heavy duties is the responsi-
bility to decide in matters such as this what
may or may not go on the order paper, and
that it is certainly your duty to get advice
where you see fit, and to listen to advice
proffered in this House. But the decision is
yours, which can be dealt with by the House
if that is called upon.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we can ex-
pect your ruling on Monday, am I correct?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker will give his
ruling in due course.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this motion
has been called by the government for Wed-
nesday and therefore we must have your
ruling by Monday.
Mr. Speaker: The member and the House
will receive my ruling when that ruling is
available, and if matters have to be adjusted
because of the occasion which has arisen they
will have to be adjusted. I certainly will do
my best to ensure that proceedings of the
House are not interrupted or unduly de-
toured.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 112
ONTARIO
Hegisilaturc of ([Ontario
Bebateg
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 10, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Monday, June 10, 1968
Presenting reports, Mr. Welch 4151
Practice teachers overseeing student teachers from teachers' colleges, questions to Mr.
Davis, Mr. Shulman 4151
Millbrook prisoners writing and receiving letters, questions to Mr. Grossman,
Mr. Shulman 4152
Safety of lighted pools on Toronto Island and elsewhere in Ontario, question to Mr.
Simonett, Mr. T. P. Reid 4152
Amalgamation of municipalities in the Porcupine mining camp, question to Mr. Mc-
Keough, Mr. Ferrier 41S2,
Unqualified high school teachers in Ontario, and college of education, questions to Mr.
Davis, Mr. Martel 4153
Statements by the Conservative candidate for Nickel Belt as reported in the Sudbury
Daily Star, questions to Mr. Gomme and Mr. Dymond, Mr. Martel 4153
Public inquiry into increases in Hydro rates, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Sargent .... 4154
Housing loans from private sources, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 4154
Coulter Manufacturing Company Limited, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. Pilkey 4155
Birth certificates procured by James Earl Ray, questions to Mr. Weldi, Mr. Nixon and
Mr. MacDonald 4155
Reduction of municipal taxes on residential property, bill to provide for, reported 4157
Estimates, Department of University AfiFairs, Mr. Davis 4164
Recess, 6 o'clock 4196
4151
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today we have visiting us,
students from St. Cecelia separate school,
Toronto, and Eitz Chaim school, Toronto, in
the east gallery; and in the west gallery,
from Campden public school in Campden
and Grapeview public school, R. R. 3, St.
Catharines. Later today we will have students
from Aberfoyle public school in Aberfoyle,
Woodside public school in Oakville and
North Bridlewood public school in Agin-
court with us.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House, the following reports:
The alcoholism and drug addiction research
foundation report for the year ended
December 31, 1967; the Ontario cancer
institute for the year ended December 31,
1967; the Ontario cancer treatment and
research foundation for the year ended
December 31, 1966; the Ontario hospital
services commission for the year ended
December 31, 1966; the Ontario mental
health foundation for the year ended March
31, 1967; and the 47th annual report of the
public service superannuation board for the
year ended March 31, 1967.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of biUs.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Provincial Secretary. Will the Minister explain
to the House, how James Earl Ray procured
false birth certificates under the names of
Ramon George Sneyd and Paul Bridgman?
Second, does the Minister contemplate any
change in procedures as a result of the
success of these fradulent applications?
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South
has a similar question.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I have
a two part question, Mr, Speaker. In view
Monday, June 10, 1968
of what has happened in the James Earl Ray
application for a birth certificate, does the
Minister consider that procedures need to be
tightened up?
Second, what is the Minister's reaction to
the reported comment in the Globe and Mail
this morning, of Deputy Registrar General,
H. F. C. Humphries that minors are secur-
ing false birth certificates all the time for
purposes of getting into bars and taverns?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am won-
dering, as I am expecting some more infor-
mation which will assist in the answering of
these questions— and with your permission—
if I could defer my answer to a little later
on in the question period. I will then have
that information.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question
for the Minister of Trade and Development.
Has the contract been let for the Chapel
Glen Village HOME project at Flemingdon
Park? If so, to whom? And when is the
expected completion date?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I will take that
question as notice and get the information
for the hon. member.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Educa-
tion. Why have practice teachers in Toronto
not been paid for overseeing student teachers
from the provincial teachers' colleges for the
months of January, February and March?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education
and University Affairs): Mr. Speaker, regard-
ing the payment for practice teachers, these
payments are made directly to the boards
of education concerned and the boards, in
turn, make the payments to the practice
teachers— pursuant to the pay list prepared by
the teachers' colleges.
I understand that the payment was made
by May 15 to the boards of education for
the regular practice teaching sessions during
January, February and March and I am
informed that the Toronto board of education
4152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has paid its teachers for this period of time.
There may be miscellaneous payments for
irregular practice teaching weeks and these
should be in the hands of the boards by
the end of this week.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question? Why does it take
so long? Why do you have to wait to May 15
to make your payments for services that were
given back in January?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this has been
a matter that relates to the administration,
the calculation of the hours and arrangements
with the various boards of education. It is a
system that, I think, is understood by the
practice teachers rather well and while, I am
sure, they would like their payments perhaps
within two or three weeks after the work
has been completed, it is impossible to get
all the information from the teachers' college
and from the boards to pay it in tiiat short
period of time.
Really, there has not been any substantial
objection from the profession. The instance
that the hon. member may be referring to
could relate to the regular practice teaching
situations. There may be a number of these
where the amounts will not be calculated
and available until the end of this week.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, sir. A question
to the Minister of Reform Institutions. Have
any prisoners at Millbrook reformatory been
informed that they may not write to or
receive letters from a certain individual or
individuals?
If so, what is the reason for this prohibi-
tion?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
first question is, "Yes". The answer to the
second part of his question is that this
prohibition may be applied from time to time
in an institution when it is deemed advisable
in the best interest of the inmates and/or
those writing to them, or the security of an
institution and/or for the protection of the
pubhc.
Mr. Shuhnan: Will the Minister allow a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will try one for size
this time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister must have
received instructions from the Premier (Mr.
Robarts). Will the Minister inform us how
many people, at the present time, the prison-
ers may not be allowed to write to?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, Mr.
Speaker, this is not a supplementary ques-
tion. It requires my investigating to find out
what the answer to this question is. I will
try and get this information for the hon.
member.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management. Has the Minister
received a report concerning the safety of
lighted pools on Toronto Island? Are any
changes in the regulations to be introduced
governing the wiring and lighting of foun-
tains, ponds, and pools in the province?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
there has not been suflBcient time to get a
formal report into my hands relative to the
reported electrocution of Mr. John A. Forbes
in a shallow ornamental pool on Centre
Island on Saturday, June 8 last.
However, many exhaustive tests were car-
ried out on the electrical installation over the
week-end by Ontario Hydro research and
electrical inspection personnel and so far, no
trace of any faulty current can be found.
Discussions with the coroner have indi-
cated that there is medical evidence of elec-
trocution. No changes in the regulations are
envisaged at this time because decorative
pool installations of this nature already must
need very rigid safety requirements.
Such installations, however, were never in-
tended to be used for wading pools or swim-
ming pools for children, but if the officials
responsible are going to permit their use for
this purpose, consideration will have to be
given to invoking the newly-revised regula-
tions applicable to bona fide swimming pools.
No action is contemplated until the results of
the investigation are known, and there is con-
clusive evidence that shock current was the
cause of Mr. Forbes' death.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane
South. I
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. j
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister |
of Municipal Affairs. Will the Minister make I
funds available for a feasibility study of the
amalgamation of the municipalities in the
Porcupine mining camp?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici- ,
pal Affairs): In reply to the hon. member, I I
JUNE 10, 1968
4153
would say that, to my knowledge, no such
study has been suggested or requested by the
municipalities in the Porcupine mining camp,
and I really cannot answer that question
until we have a formal request from them.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I have
questions for the Minister of Education: What
percentage of those high school teachers
employed in Ontario during the school year
1967-68 were unqualified?
What was the percentage of unqualified
teachers for northern Ontario? How many
winter course graduates were there from the
Ontario college of education in the school
year 1967-68? How many of these winter
student graduates went to teach under the
supervision of Mr. Roger Allen in the Sud-
bury area? How many went to northern
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, 8.5 per cent,
18 per cent approximately 1,080, 14 and 62.
Mr. Martel: Would the Minister repeat
those a little more slowly? I tried to copy
them down.
An Hon. member: 38-24-36.
Hon. Mr. Davis: My colleague, to my left
had another figure in mind perhaps.
I said 8.5 per cent— these are approximate,
Mr. Speaker-18 per cent, 1,080, 14 and 62.
Mr. Martel: Can I ask the Minister— based
on these figures— a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if it is the
kind of supplementary question that relates
to some specific information, obviously I am
not in a position to accept it. If he is going
to ask me a somewhat controversial question,
which I think I could phrase for him, I
really do not think it constitutes a supple-
mentary question. If it is not controversial,
then I will accept it.
Mr. Martel: I was just wondering if the
Minister, based on these facts, would be will-
ing to have a college of education located at
Laurentian University for the fall of 1969,
because we have no other place to draw
teachers from?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would
agree that this is not too controversial in that
this request has been made over the past, I
believe, year and a half. It was indicated to
the people who made representations from
that area for another teachers' college— or col-
lege of education, rather— that we already had
plaps under way for the one at Queen's.
I announced, very recently, the one at
Ottawa university, and we have to do this
on some system of priority, and I think that
it is fair to state that we could not plan and
develop the facility there for the fall of 1969.
I think it is also obvious that as the number
of facilities are increasing in this province
for teacher education, that both the Lake-
head and Laurentian are two areas that would
be considered as pos-sibilities.
Mr. Martel: A question for the Minister of
Highways. Is it the policy of The Department
of Highways that constituencies which do not
elect Conservative members are cut off from
receiving funds for highways, as was stated
by the former provincial Conservative can-
didate for Sudbury East, and the present
federal Conservative candidate for Nickel
Belt, Cecil Fielding, and reported in the Sud-
bury Daily Star of June 7, as follows:
As far as Hanmer and Capreol are
concerned that two weeks after the last pro-
vincial election the well dried up in Queen's
Park as regards one school and your roads,
which are in deplorable shape.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is "No".
Mr. Martel: Could I ask the Minister a
supplementary question? I am just wonder-
ing if some assurance could be given to the
residents in that area that this is the case
when this type of statement is hitting the
press?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: I think, Mr. Speaker,
the member will circulate the answer.
Mr. Martel: Thank you. A question to the
Minister of Health. When will the govern-
ment take over the radar base at Falcon-
bridge and turn it into a hospital school for
retarded children as was reported in the
Sudbury Daily Star on Friday, June 7?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
I think the Sudbury Daily Star of June 7
must have been very busy. This is the first
I have ever heard of this.
Mr. MacDonald: Wonderful! That cer-
tainly pulled the rug from under Mr. Field-
ing.
Mr. Martel: I appreciate that very much.
TJiis ought to.be a slaughter then.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, m£ty I
answer question 653 asked by the member
for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent)?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
4154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Simonett: His question: Will the
government advise why we cannot have a
public inquiry into Hydro raising its rates
9.3 per cent to rural customers now and 4
per cent to city customers in 1969.
The answer: Justification for the anticipated
increase in interim rates to municipal utilities
was contained in a report of the chairman of
the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario to the utility representatives of the
Ontario municipal electric association on
March 5, 1968. A copy of this report was
mailed to the homes of all members of this
House on March 13.
On June 6, 1968, representatives of the
commission reported to the standing com-
mittee on government commissions and ex-
plained why it will be necessary to implement
the first rural rate in 15 years, as well as the
reasons for anticipating further increases in
the wholesale cost of power to municipal
utihties.
A public inquiry will serve no useful pur-
pose, since all pertinent facts have been
presented. The commission has an outstand-
ing record of maintaining power at low cost,
and we are satisfied that the increases, though
regrettable, are necessary,
Hon. Mr. Randall: I have the answers to
questions, but I would prefer to wait until
the hon. members are in the House, if their
respective leaders would like me to, or I
will give you the information today.
Mr. Speaker: Are they for the oflBcial
Opposition or the New Democratic Party?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Two from the member
for Grey-Bruce, and one from the member
for Oshawa (Mr. Pilkey).
Mr. Nixon: Let us have them.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Question 631 from the
member for Grey-Bruce: In a press report
in the Globe and Mail on Monday, June 3,
Mr. Robert Bradley, executive director of
the Toronto housing authority, stated that
Toronto leads North American cities in a
housing shortage. Would the Minister advise
if he will approach the following agencies for
housing loans:
(1) The international development agency;
(2) the American federation of labour; (3) the
GIO?
The answer: The basis for Mr. R. B.
Bradley's statement was vacancy rates for
certain selected United States cities com-
pared with stated vacancy rates for Toronto.
An anlysis of United States and Canadian
vacancy figures shows that these cannot be
considered on a comparable basis. In Canada,
vacancy rates are measured for apartment
buildings of six or more units.
In the United States, all available rental
housing is included. The method of conduct-
ing vacancy surveys in the United States
differs considerably to that of Canada. United
States mailmen check empty units on their
routes. By this method a unit which has been
rented but not yet occupied would be in-
correctly included. The effect is that United
States vacancy rate figures over-state to a
large degree the extent of vacancies as
measured by Canadian standards.
Vacancies show but one aspect of the hous-
ing situation. For example, between 1961
and 1966 the percentage of "doubled up"
families in Toronto decHned from 12.1 per
cent to 8.7 per cent. This is a much higher
standard than obtains in most United States
cities.
The number of housing starts in Toronto
last year ranked third highest on the North
American continent. In terms of starts per
1,000 population, Toronto had a ratio of
nearly 15 per 1,000 last year. For the ten
largest cities in the United States the aver-
age ratio was below five per 1,000. The
highest, Washington, was 10 per 1,000.
In answer to the question with regard to
the other development funds the first is:
The international development agency, to
which the hon. member referred in his ques-
tion, is an agency of the world bank and
makes long term investments in under-devel-
oped countries by financing the construction
of water supply systems, roads and other such
services that are basic to economic develop-
ments.
Under, or partially developed countries, in
the opinion of the IDA, would be those
where the per capita income is in the range
of $300 per annum. I am sure the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce would agree with
me that Ontario would hardly qualify for
such assistance.
The American federation of labour and
the congress of industrial organizations !
merged in the 1950s to form the AFL-CIO. |
This body, which performs a co-ordination
function for its affiliated unions, has, as its j
counterpart in Canada, the Canadian con- i
gress of labour and more specifically in
Ontario, the Ontario federation of labour.
The Canadian labour congress together
with the co-operative union of Canada and
JUNE 10, 1968
4155
the Canadian union of students founded on
March 27 of this year, the co-operative
housing foundation. One of the stated objec-
tives of that foundation is to encourage and
promote all forms of co-operative housing and
to stimulate organizations and groups to
develop co-operative housing projects. The
Ontario housing corporation is working very
closely with this organization and will cer-
tainly do everything possible to assist the
Canadian labour congress in directing its
energies and funds into this area.
In answer to the second question, No. 637,
Mr. Speaker: I am advised by CMHC that
at no time has a statement been issued that
the lowest level of income eligible for a
National Housing Act mortgage is more than
$8,000. In order to make a meaningful state-
ment concerning minimum income levels for
NHA mortgages, one would have to know
the amount of the mortgage, the prevailing
interest rate, the term of the mortgage, the
amount of municipal taxes and whether
the level of income refers to the head of the
household or to the family.
DBS statistics for February, 1968, show
that the average weekly wages and salaries
for the industrial composite was $109.78.
This represents an income per year of $5,709.
Not included in this average income are pro-
fessional persons, self-employed persons and
similar classes in a higher income bracket.
In four major urban areas in Ontario, aver-
age wages are: Toronto, $5,750; Windsor,
$6,193; Hamilton, $5,906; and Ottawa $5,195.
In answer to question No. 647 from the
hon. member for Oshawa: Coulter Manu-
facturing Company Limited announced on
May 30, 1968, that they will be phasing out
their operations in only one of their two
Oshawa plants over the next several months.
This was recorded in the Toronto Globe and
Mail on May 31, 1968. Members of my
department have already been involved in
discussions with its management on this
matter.
The company manufactures door locks,
seat adjusters and sundry stampings associ-
ated with the automotive parts industry. For
many years. Coulter Manufacturing has been
a direct supplier to General Motors in
Oshawa.
Reasons given for the phasing out of the
plant are, that as a result of the new United
States automotive safety regulations, there
has been a change in design of parts made
by Coulter Manufacturing. General Motors
have decided to discontinue two sets of tool-
ing for these parts, consequently this activity
at an outmoded plant will be displaced.
The number of jobs affected will be 150
but it is unlikely that more than 75 persons
will actually be laid off. The rest will be
used at the remaining operations.
Most of the employees are skilled or semi-
skilled so that persons laid off will probably
have little dijfficulty in finding a new job, par-
ticularly since the unemployment rate in
Oshawa is relatively low. Members of my
department will be contacting the company
with a view to finding an alternative use for
the property when it becomes vacant.
In discussions with The Department of
Manpower and Immigration, as well as the
Ontario government's Department of Laboiu",
I understand that there will be little trouble
in finding work for displaced employees
because of the announcement on May 4, 1968,
that Honeywell Controls Limited will estab-
lish a new plant in the area as a result of a
decision by the Ontario development corpora-
tion to grant the firm a $219,000 forgivable
loan.
Employment needed by Honeywell will be
initially 80 persons which is expected to rise
to 175 within 5 years.
Mr. Speaker: Has the Provincial Secretary
the answers now to the questions reserved
a moment ago?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is just
one further piece of information which is on
its way. I might just answer a question which
was raised by the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce in the House on Friday.
I will repeat the question: A Toronto hotel
owner states this morning that a province-
wide beer strike could force many hotels out
of business if it continues two weeks. What
intervention of the government is planned to
meet with Brewers Warehousing Companies
Limited?
In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker,
on the basis of information which I have
received from the liquor control board of
Ontario with particular reference to an
anticipated decision which is to be handed
down by the arbitration board in that matter,
the government does not plan any steps at
the moment insofar as this situation is con-
cerned.
Mr. Speaker, I might make some reference
now to the questions directed to me by the
hon. leader of the Opposition and the mem-
ber for York South.
4156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In view of the publicity being given to the
matters raised in these questions, and par-
ticularly the inference to be drawn from some
of the press reports, and I am now quoting:
It appears to them to be an easy matter
for anyone to obtain birth certificates
fraudulently.
As the Registrar General of the province, I
feel that the matter is of such importance
that the members of this Legislature are
entitled to a full explanation of the pro-
cedures followed by the office of the
Registrar General in the issuance of birth
certificates. An applicant for a birth certificate
must apply in writing either by letter or by
the completion by a departmental form
designed for that purpose, setting out his full
name, place of birth, date of birth, full name
of father, and full maiden name of mother.
The applicant must sign the application
and indicate his address. If the application
does not contain sufficient information or is
made by a person other than the person who
is requesting the birth certificate, additional
information is asked for, or the written
authorization of the person is required.
It is interesting to note at this stage, Mr.
Speaker, that we have some 1,200 applica-
tions for birth certificates on a daily average,
received by mail, and some 200 to 300
applications are received and made in person
by those who attend at the pubHc counter
of the Registrar General at the office at 70
Lombard Street. These applications, whether
they are received by mail or filled out at
the public counter of the office of the regis-
trar, are processed within three days and
mailed to the applicant at the address fur-
nished by him.
This is just the general procedure which
gives you some of the background for the
particular questions we have. If I might turn
now to the questions of the hon. leader of
the Opposition, it is perhaps unfortunately
worded in that he is asking me how false
birth certificates are issued. We do not issue
false birth certificates, and I would like to
make that point quite clear. What use may
be made of a birth certificate after we issue
it is another matter, about which I should
like to make some reference shortly. In other
words, any birth certificate-
Mr. Nixon: My meaning is quite clear.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It says quite clearly: How
did he procure a false birth certificate?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): It was
false as far as he was concerned.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That is a different mat-
ter. The birth certificate was not false.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that is very
important to get this straight. We do not issue
false birth certificates. A birth certificate is
simply the registration of an event.
Mr. Nixon: How did it get it into his
hands?
Hon. Mr. Welch: My answer to the hon.
leader of the Opposition with respect to this
certificate is that the department records show
that a letter purporting to be signed by Paul
Edward Bridgman, and dated April 10, 1968,
was received in the office of the Registrar
General on April 11, 1968. A money order
for $2 was enclosed with a request for a
birth certificate in the name of Paul Edward
Bridgman, and the address given was 102
Ossington Avenue, Toronto.
The letter contained tlie full name of the
applicant, the date of birth, the place of
birth, the full name of the father, and the
maiden name of the mother. The letter
mailed from the department of the Registrar
General to Paul Edward Bridgman, 102
Ossington Avenue, was returned to the office
of the Registrar General, the sender marked
unknown.
A letter dated April 16, 1968, purporting to
be signed by Ramon George Sneyd, was
received in the office of the Registrar General
on April 18. There was enclosed in the letter
$2 with a request to send a birth certificate
for Ramon George Sneyd, at 962 Dundas
Street West, Toronto. The letter contained
information and repeated all the required
information, and such a certificate was sent
out to Ramon George Sneyd at 962 Dundas
Street West, Toronto, and as of the giving of
this ansv.'er has not been returned.
Referring to tlie second part of his question
and the first part of the question of the hon.
member for York South, I have asked my
Deputy Registrar General to review all these
procedures once again to satisfy me as to
the adequacy of the precautions to be taken,
such precautions to be consistent with the
service which we must continue to give to
the public reqviesting this type of information
in the legitimate way they do.
To turn to the second part of the question
of the hon. member for York South, he wants
to know my reaction to this business of using
birth certificates in bars and taverns, and
my reaction is one of great shook. Thit
JUNE 10, 1968
4157
Deputy Registrar General refers me to the
statement which is attributed to him in this
morning's Globe and Mail— and I am now
quoting:
The kids are doing this all the time:
persons under 21 frequently obtain false
birth certificates, indicating ages over 21
so they could get into bars and taverns.
The Deputy Registrar General assures me that
this does not in any way refer to a person
obtaining a birth certificate of another per-
son under false pretenses. According to infor-
mation which he has personal to him, it
refers to a situation in which a minor ap-
parently either borrows or rents the birth
certificate of a friend who is over 21 years
of age to use it for this particular purpose.
And I hasten to underline the fact once again
that a birth certificate is the record of an
event, it is not proof of the identification of
a person.
I would assume if birth certificates are
being used for this purpose in this type of
establishment, it is incumbent upon those
who have the responsibihty of satisfying
themselves with respect to the age of the
person using the certificate that the person
and the certificate belong to the same per-
son, if you get what I mean. After all, there
should be some responsibihty in view of the
fact that this is not obvious by this certificate
itself. I trust that I have now answered all
parts of these two questions.
Mr. Singer: That is your responsibility, too.
Mr. MacDonald: How would you suggest
they do it?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Hon. members opposite would probably put
a photograph on the birth certificate.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the members
of the meeting again on Wednesday noon at
12:30 with members to discuss matters of
procedure and tradition in the House. I
understand that these are proving very fruit-
ful.
May I also, for the information of the
members, advise them that at noon today the
member for York South, in his capacity as
member and leader of the New Democratic
Party, and the Clerk of the House met in my
office on the matter which was raised on
Friday. It has been adjusted by the publica-
tion of an amended notice of motion which
will be in the order paper tomorrow. 1
thought the members would like to know
that there is therefore no necessity for a
ruling by Mr. Speaker in this regard.
Mr. Nixon: Mr, Speaker, do you expect
to call that motion on Wednesday of this
week?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker
has no control over when motions are called
—that is the prerogative of the government
and the House leader. So, as far as Mr.
Speaker is concerned, it will be in the order
paper and can be called on any day from
Wednesday on.
Mr. MacDonald: I might say, Mr. Speaker,
the House leader assured me on Friday that
Wednesday would be suitable— though I
recognize that circumstances may require a
change. As I understand at the moment,
Wednesday is a suitable day. And if there is
any change in that, I would appreciate know-
ing—as well as many others.
Mr. Speaker: In any event, it is my
understanding that these matters are arranged
in advance by the party Whips so there is no
question of one party not being ready to pro-
ceed. I presume the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party and his Whip will ensure that
this is cleared.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 8th order, com-
mittee of the whole House; Mr. A. E. Renter
in the chair.
REDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL TAXES ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
( Concluded )
House in committee on Bill 91, An Act to
provide for the reduction of municipal taxes
on residential property.
Mr. Chairman: On section 9:
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): No, sec-
tion 8; section 8 has not passed.
Mr. Chairman: Neither has section 7
according to the Chairman.
Mr. Singer: Oh all right. It certainly is not
section 9.
Mr. Chairman: We have passed section 6.
I believe the member for Humber was deal-
ing with section 7.
On section 7:
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): That is correct, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I started to discuss
4158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
section 7 last week before the House leader
adjourned the discussion for the purpose of
having a debate in the private members' hour.
I was saying at that time that I was very
much disturbed by this section because it
makes criminals out of people who have no
intention of finding themselves in that posi-
tion and who are acting in complete good
faith.
I pointed out that a person could have a
legitimate state of mind feeling that he did not
owe a tenant any money. Or perhaps he did
not owe to the tenant as much as the tenant
was claiming, and he would be resisting either
the payment of the total amount or part of
the amount in complete good faith. He would
be hauled up before the magistrate and,
since the magistrate can only make an order
awarding a sum to the tenant if he had in
the first instance found the landlord guilty,
the landlord would have to be found guilty
and obtain a criminal record.
Now I do not know whether the hon. Min-
ister ever intended this or not, but I think
the hon. Minister last week expressed in his
own mind that he did not think this was
just. Surely, Mr.—
Mr. Chairman: Please. There is a consider-
able amount of interference and conversation
taking place in the House. It is difficult for
the member for Humber to speak.
Mr. Ben: Surely, Mr. Chairman, it would
perhaps be fairer to have this matter go
to a division court judge who would be
empowered to adjudicate the matter between
the tenant and the landlord. If he finds the
landlord is liable to the tenant he could
make an order, that the amount that he finds
due should be paid. In addition, if he does
find that there is an amount owing, and that
the landlord will, without just cause, try to
avoid paying this amount to the tenant, then
he could impose a fine.
In other words it would be the reverse
of what section 7 provides for at the present
time.
Another solution would be to have a rental
court, as at one time they did have. But first
of all, I think it should be the job of the court
to determine whether or not an amount was
owing. A fine should only be imposed if the
landlord wilfully refused to pay over the
money.
I may appear to be digressing for a
moment here, Mr. Chairman, but I am not.
When I was on council there was a great
deal of controversy about obtaining a per-
manent voters' list, and it was felt that only
those people who were on an electoral list—,
the assessment rolls— should be entitled to
vote and it should be their responsibility to
ascertain that the assessment rolls are, in
fact, up to date.
Perhaps the Minister would have a lot of
the worry taken away from him if he did
enact some legislation which would compel
either a landlord or a tenant, or both, to
immediately notify the assessment commis-
sioner in any municipality of a change of
ownership or tenancy. That way the assess-
ment rolls would always be up to date. Since
the Minister has stated that only those who
are on assessment rolls as occupying a resi-
dence, will be entitled to a rebate, he would
have an up-to-date assessment roll that would
obviate the necessity of having enumerators
go out at election time. This section would
not be as required, as the Minister seems to
feel, because then the municipality would
relieve the landlord from making any rebates
whatsoever. They would simply send out a
cheque to the person on the assessment roll,
and since the assessment rolls were always
up to date, they could even pro-rate it. If a
landlord has two or three or more tenants
during that one year, who would have quali-
fied for part of the rebate, the assessment
department as a municipality could send
these cheques to the tenant, and you would
not have to have this section 7 in here at all,
Mr. Chairman, I am not moving any kind
of amendment. I think this particular kind of
section is iniquitous and that the Minister
himself spotted the iniquity as I was speak-
ing last Friday. I feel that the Minister must
have some alternate solution. Surely, having
expressed himself, he is not going to permit
this section to stand. He will have to come
up with some alternate solution, and I am
going to wait to see what his answer will be.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Afi^airs): I did not say that it was iniqui-
tous. All I suggested on Friday was that you
and the hon. member for Downsview should
get together and sort this out.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8:
Mr. Singer: On section 8, Mr. Chairman,
I do not understand this at all. This is an
effort I suppose, to try to give tenants in
public housing some sort of refund. In my
riding I have the Lawrence Heights develop-
ment, which is probably the largest public
housing development in Canada. I know a
JUNE 10, 1968
4159
bit about the rent structure, and I am glad
to see the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment, because he has some knowledge of the
rent structure also. In fact, I handed to him
the other day a brief complaining about that
structure, and I have talked about it with
him and his officials on many occasions.
To bring the Minister of Municipal AflFairs
up to date, the rent structure in this devel-
opment and, I suppose, most developments of
this kind in the province of Ontario are very
complex.
Presently the scale calls for rents ranging
from 30 per cent of gross income down to
practically no per cent of gross income.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, be-
cause my friend says that be does not under-
stand the section, perhaps it would be helpful
if I gave an explanation of what the section
means, and then he could carry on from there.
Mr. Singer: I was using the phrase, "I did
not understand" with some poetic licence,
Mr. Chairman, because I am going to pick
out the odd phrase from it and ask the Min-
ister if I am correct in my assumption, if it
means what it says; if it is supposed to be
interpreted the way that it is written; or
whether he has some secret method of in-
terpretation which does not appear in the
written words that appear in section 8 of
the statute, that was why I was laying the
groundwork for this.
As I say, the rent structure within these
developments is very complicated and they
relate to the ability of the people who have
the benefit of this kind of structure to pay
the rent required. They tie in very closely,
in some cases too closely, with the gross in-
come of the people who live in this kind of
accommodation. It can range, as I say, in
the top limit of 30 per cent of gross income
down to no per cent of gross income and,
in some cases, there is no rent payable at all.
As I try to understand what is written here,
apparently the credit is going to be given
for an amount that is not less than a sum
determined in accordance with the regula-
tions under this Act.
We have no regulations under this Act
having regard to similar privately owned
residential property in the area, is there then
a project afoot to evaluate what is the eco-
nomic rent of all these units in Lawrence
Heights and so on? In Lawrence Heights you
have some 2,200 separate units; is there now
a system afoot to determine the economic
rent of each of these imits?
If this is the case, you have set yourself
a very complicated task. Whether it is you
or the Minister of Trade and Development
who has set yourselves this task, I do not
know. But tlie way that the bookkeeping is
done now by the Ontario housing corpora-
tion, they have no idea like this in mind.
What they have is a complicated set of
books, a certain amount of subsidy, and cer-
tain gradation along the rest of the way. If
you are then to determine who is going to
get benefits by setting an economic rent— if
that is the phrase— on each of these units,
you are going to embark on an exercise that
has not hitherto been embarked upon and
it is going to be very complex.
Maybe it would be a worthwhile exercise,
provided the time is taken to do it properly
so that when information is available, we
will be able to attack in a more meaningful
way the present schedule of rents charged
by the Ontario housing corporation.
Now let me quickly add that the rents
charged by the Ontario housing corporation
—the Minister of Trade and Development is
going to tell me this any minute— are a
schedule that has been recommended by his
corporation and approved by the Cabinet in
Ottawa; and I know that. I am just saying
that it is not properly done, no matter who
approves of it or who drafts it. I do not
think it is properly worked out.
Who is going get the benefit? This is my
substantial question— who is going to get the
benefit? The people who live in there are
most concerned that their scale of rent is
far too high. One would have thought that
when the government was going to embark
on this kind of a plan, as imperfect as it is,
and goodness knows it is imperfect, that
some of the first people likely to benefit would
be those people who would be hving in pub-
licly subsidized housing.
Those are the people who should get the
first benefit, far ahead of people who are
Hving in single family homes which they
own themselves, certainly far ahead of people
who are able to pay substantial taxes. One
would have thought that the government
would have been looking for a method to
assist people who have to live, through no
choice of their own, in publicly assisted hous-
ing projects.
This is not going to happen here and sec-
tion 8 does not provide that it is going
to happen. Who is going to benefit in Law-
rence Heights? Those people who are per-
haps above the acceptable salary schedule.
4160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who have stayed in that development long
enough and who will not be evicted by the
Ontario housing corporation— notwithstanding
the fact that their income has increased—
because they have no place to go, so their
rent has gone up. Those are the only people
who are going to benefit.
But the people on the lower end of the
scale, the people who really need help, the
people who are being charged on the 30 per
cent of gross income and less; the people
who are being charged because the wife has
gone out to work for a few extra hours to
bring a little more money into the house;
the people whose rents have been raised be-
cause their teenage children have gone out
to work and every time a teenage child goes
out to work, there is an extra increase to the
gross income of $75 a month. Those are the
people who are not going to be helped, Mr.
Chairman.
Now it would seem to me that somewhere
along the line this government should have
recognized that, when they were going to
embark on this kind of a scheme, they should
have directed a substantial amount of care
and attention to those people who live in
publicly assisted housing. The way this sec-
tions reads, I do not see how it is going to
work to the advantage of the people who
need help more than any other group in our
community. I think if you are going to give
benefits you have to give benefits across the
board, and you have to give benefits to the
people who live in this publicly assisted
housing.
All right, we came down to the phrase:
"Shall determine the rent of similar privately
owned residential property in the area". I
say that is going to be a very difficult job.
I do not know how you compare apples to
oranges. I do not know how you can com-
pare what an economic rent would be if these
buildings were privately owned, because in
fact they are not privately owned. Maybe
that task can be done and some sense can
be brought to these words: "The agency shall
determine the amount of reduction that would
have been made to the municipality under
section 2 if the residential property had been
assessed and taxed in the usual way"— which
is not being done— "and shall allow such
amount in reduction in accordance with sec-
tion 4, may apply to the department for
reimbursement". Then "the person who pays
the taxes shall apply to the department for
such reduction, the Treasurer of Ontario shall
pay to such agency the total of such
amounts".
Now there is my final concern, Mr. Chair-
man, because in this case— I wish I had the
Minister with me— in this case it is going to
be the Ontario housing corporation who is
going to apply to the department, to the Pro-
vincial Treasurer, for the refund, and the
Ontario housing corporation is going to give
the money back.
So there is no indication in this section at
all that even the people on the top level are
going to get any reduction in their rental.
Now we worry under section 4 about how
tenants are going to benefit, and we found
that it is going to be a very difficult thing
to work out. Here, under section 8, tenants
in publicly owned housing, are not going to
benefit in accordance with what is written
here.
The refunds that are going to come back
are going to come back to the agency. In
the case of Lawrence Heights, the agency
is the Ontario housing corporation. This does
not make sense, it just does not make sense.
What are you doing? You are taking it out of
one pocket and putting it in the other. Or
is there any real desire in the mind of gov-
ernment to help the people who live in
publicly owned housing in the province of
Ontario?
If you are going to help them, there is
certainly nothing that I can read in section 8
that indicates that they are going to be
helped in any way at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well I admit, Mr.
Chairman, that it is a very long section under
8. But I think if my friend, the poet, would
underline these words he would read it the
way it possibly should be read: "The agency
shall determine the amount of reduction and
shall allow such amount as a reduction in
the rent."
Mr. Singer: Where is that?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The middle line is:
"The agency shall determine the amount of
the reduction and shall allow—"
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, you are right.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: —"shall allow such
amount as a reduction in the rent." But I
admit it is a very long and involved sentence.
Mr. Singer: Well, if that is the case-if
that is in fact the case— how do you allow
reductions on those rents based on 30 per
cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent, 5 per cent of
gross income? Is the benefit going to be
spread all the way through?
JUNE 10, 1968
4161
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Singer: How then do you justify it?
Surely if there is going to be a benefit, then
every group that hves in there, except the
people on welfare who are paying no rent,
should benefit. And this does not seem to be
the case at all.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, first of all I
am told— I think my friend raised a couple
of questions— I am told that in any case, re-
gardless of this Act, the Ontario housing
corporation wanted to determine what the
economic rent would be. So that is not being
specifically done for the purposes of this Act.
They would have been doing that anyway. I
have forgotten the reason although it was
explained to me, but they would be doing this
in any case.
Secondly, I do not think it is the intention
of this Act— and I think this is the philosophy
behind this section— to subsidize something
twice. I am not knowledgeable in this field
at all. My friend from Downsview most cer-
tainly is and certainly the Minister is. Perhaps
they might like to discuss it. But if there is
something wrong with the present subsidy,
then it seems to me that that is where it
should be corrected. If, in your view, the
present subsidy is not at the right level, we
should not muddy the waters by bringing in
another subsidy in this direction. I think that
is the underlying philosophy of section 8 all
the way through.
Perhaps if I read the memo it would ex-
plain exactly what is involved. This section
provides:
—that the tenant of a residential property
that is owned by a public housing agency
will be eligible for a tax reduction only if
he pays an amount of rent that is the same
as, or close to, the rent of similar privately
owned residential property in the area—
The general thinking behind this section of
the bill is that most tenants of a pubhc
housing agency pay a rent that is substan-
tially below the market rent. The rent of
such tenants is related to their ability to
pay as measured by income and bears no
relation to the cost of the market value of
the property. It is not the intention of the
government to allow a tax reduction on a
residential property where the rent is sub-
stantially below the market rent and is related
to the tenant's ability to pay. However, the
bill as amended provides that these tenants
of a public housing agency, whose rent is
equal to, or very close to, a full market rent,
shall receive the benefit of the tax reduction.
I think that is the philosophy behind it and
I think what my friend has said— and I am
not equipped to argue this with you, or dis-
cuss this with you really-I think the bulk of
your remarks is to the effect that there are
some tenants, many tenants, in public hous-
ing, who are paying too much rent. Well this
bill is not designed to get at that problem-
if, in fact, it is a problem.
Mr. Singer: Well, we have the Minister of
Trade and Development here and I would
like to get some more sense out of this than
presently appears from what the Minister
says. I would think in Lawrence Heights
that there are very few people who are
paying what eventually is going to be con-
sidered an economic rent. Out of your 2,200
odd units I do not think you are going to
have more than a handful who are paying a
so-called economic rent. The end result of
this is going to be that the Treasurer is going
to take money out of one pocket and give
it to the Ontario housing corporation in the
other pocket. Per unit, the Ontario housing
corporation will have more money. But the
people— and they will not pay it out— they
will pay it back—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Singer: No?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No— unless the money
is going to be passed on to the tenant. The
agency shall determine the amount of reduc-
tion and shall allow such amount as a reduc-
tion in the rent. If they do not do that,
there will be no application to my depart-
ment—to the Treasurer— and the money will
not flow.
Mr. Singer: All right. I will accept that.
Supposing you do not have the complement-
ing bookkeeping entries. Still to go back to
the philosophy of it— if the government's
philosophy is to help people who need help,
is there a group in this province who need
more help than those people who live in
publicly subsidized housing? There is not.
Despite this $150 miUion that you are now
throwing into the kitty designed to protect
or to help people who are homeowners
and/or tenants, you have all of those tenants
who live in publicly assisted housing who are
not going to get any help. You just have a
tiny little handful which is going to be able
to get any help and I think this is wrong.
Come back to my Lawrence Heights devel-
opment and I would be surprised if the Min-
ister can show me more than a tiny handful
which is paying the so-called economic rent.
4162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But they are paying rents that they feel are
onerous— far too onerous. They are being
assessed extra rental if the wife goes out to
work. They are being assessed extra rental
if the teenage children go out to work. They
are struggling to keep their heads above water.
They are locked into these developments
because their rent takes every available extra
penny of their disposable income. They can
never get out. The rents are geared so high
that they can never amass sufficient savings
so that they can build up a down payment
to buy a house.
So, this is what you are doing. You come
along with $150 million expenditure, Mr.
Chairman, and here is an opportunity to really
assist people who need help. The Minister
shakes his head. Well, the principal phil-
osophy is not to help these people; it is
another department that is supposed to help
them.
Mr. Chairman, here is an opportunity and
you are missing it. You have muffed the play
badly. Here you have a real opportunity to
help people who need help and you are not
going to help people because for as much
assistance as section 8 is going to be to any-
one in Lawrence Heights or in Flemingdon
Park, when and if it gets underway. This
statute is hardly worth the paper it is written
on.
I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that some-
one in the front benches of the government
would not have recognized that here was an
opportunity to do sometliing that would be
helpful to people who, more than any other
group in the Ontario community, need help.
You are not giving them any here. It is a
grave disappointment that this section is
worded the way it is.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would simply say,
Mr. Chairman, I think my friend has indi-
cated that he does not approve of the present
scheme of rentals in Ontario housing units,
and that the subsidy is not great enough.
Now surely if that is his problem, or if that
is anybody's problem, that is where the
burden of your remarks should be directed.
I cannot imagine anything which will be more
confusing in terms of government subsidies
than if we start piling subsidy on subsidy.
My friend says, one way or another, that
this bill does not subsidize people who are
already subsidized. I admit that completely.
I think that is the intent of the section. We
do not pass on a subsidy to people who are
already subsidized. What you have said is
that those people who are on subsidies may
not be receiving enough subsidy. Fine, then
let us attack that subsidy. Let us deal with
that problem but do not muddy the waters
by coming at it this way too.
Mr. Singer: If we do not want to muddy
the waters here, when are we going to get
a consolidated government programme that
is designed to attack harm and hurt where it
exists, and stop playing ping pong and bounc-
ing the problem from Minister to Minister?
"It is not my fault", says the Minister of
Municipal Affairs. "It is the fault of Trade
and Development". And it is not going to be
his fault, it is the fault of somebody else.
This is what bothers us about this govern-
ment. You cannot accept responsibility when
a problem hits you in the face. You keep on
shoving it away. Somebody else is responsible
—let somebody else look after it. It is no good
—it is no good at all. You are not helping
the people who need help more desperately
than any other group in the commimity. That
is why this Act is such a dismal failure.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I want to tie two points together
that have emerged in this debate. The Min-
ister just said that he cannot think of anything
more confusing than contemplating adding
subsidy to subsidy. For once I have some
sympathy for him. I cannot think of any-
thing more confusing than this bill from start
to finish. If there ever was an administra-
tive and a legislative monstrosity, this one is
in a class by itself, and no government-
Socialist, Tory or any other— could trim this
one.
It is just beyond description and I am
convinced that what I am saying is what you
really believe— as I interpret the smile on the
Minister of Mines' face, I suspect that he
understands it.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
I am not smiling with you; I am smiling at
you.
Mr. MacDonald: The only reason why I
cannot build up very much sympathy, is that
while you are doing a lot of studying on the
Smith report and all its recommendations
before you implement them this is one you
seized quickly and threw it out for election
purposes. Now you are stuck with it and oh,
what problems you are having to implement
it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, we
went through all this on second reading.
Mr. MacDonald: I know it.
JUNE 10, 1968
4163
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It really gripes them
over there that we kept an election promise.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Now, let us get ofiF
the second reading and get on with section 8.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no. Let me deal with
the two points now in the context of the
comments I have made.
On the one hand, the Minister uses an
excuse that it would really be beyond des-
cription to contemplate giving a second sub-
sidy to what is, in the overwhelming majority
of cases, the group of people who are most
economically deprived in this province-
people who are having a tough time to get
on.
He is revolted at the thought that a second
subsidy should be given. Then, Mr. Chair-
man, we talked earlier about the proposition
of the inequity of a government that is try-
ing to help our citizens and yet will not grasp
the nettle of sorting out foreign ownership of
cottages which are not even basic shelters.
There are only a few months of the year
that they are being used. The Minister threw
out a figure, and many of these are just edu-
cated guesses, that he thought 10 per cent
of the cottages might well be foreign ovmed.
Now I suggest to the Minister that instead
of being appealed at the idea of piling sub-
sidy on subsidy to a group that is an
economically deprived one, and therefore is
entitled to get another subsidy, he should
sort it out and sort out those foreign owners
of cottages who are only up here for five or
six months of the year.
This would only be one more little problem
in administering this bill and the money that
you are going to give to Americans to sub-
sidize their summer cottages, in many in-
stances, so that they pay no tax at all, give it
to these people. That is a defensible proposi-
tion. So do not be appalled by another com-
plexity because you have many to live with
in this bill.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: I believe the Minister has
an amendment to section 10. This was the
date of its coming into effect.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, referring to
section 4.
Mr. Chainnan: This amendment was
handed to me: That clause 10 of Bill 91 be
amended as follows: "The Act with the excep-
tion of clause 4 comes into force the day"—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, well that was
the amendment moved by my friend, or
suggested by my friend from Sudbury East
(Mr. Martel), and I think we added the
words in section 4, subsection 3, "either
before or after the passage of the bill" and
I think that handled that amendment.
Mr. Chairman: That eliminates this amend-
ment.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let me speak to
section 10 just for a moment. I had a copy
of that proposed amendment too. I indi-
cated to the member for Sudbury East that
if he had moved it, we would have supported
it. We have a very difiBcult task in this bill
in trying to express, as loudly, as firmly and
as sincerely as we feel it, our contempt with
the way in which this government has pre-
sented this bill and the mishmash that it has
created.
Our support of this amendment would have
been only for the purpose of expressing that
contempt. The sum of $150 million being
given back to the taxpayers as inexpertly and
unfairly as it is being done, at least is a
small step forward. And, as I think I said in
the beginning, no one really votes in favour
of shooting Santa Claus.
But this bill is an abortion, Mr. Chairman.
This bill is a disgrace. It helps some people;
it does not help all of the people of the
province equitably. With those remarks, I
say had this amendment been introduced,
we would have supported it to express our
sincere feelings about the way this bill has
been brought in.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I really cannot
understand, Mr. Chairman, after those re-
marks, why the hon. member does not vote
against reporting the bill. He is so worked
up about it.
Mr. Singer: I explained that.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not very well.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Bill 91, as amended, reported.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves that the
committee of the whole House rise and report
one bill with certain amendments and ask
for leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
4164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report one bill
with certain amendments and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The 19th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of University
Affairs): Mr. Chairman, in the estimates of
The Department of University Affairs, it
provides for the fifth year of operation of
this particular department. Since traditionally
decades and half decades seem to be re-
garded as reasonable periods at which to
review events and accomplishments, I should
like to take this occasion to examine, rela-
tively briefly, what this five-year period has
meant to higher education in Ontario.
This is not intended as, nor will it be, an
exercise in trumpeting the achievements which
have marked the period since the department
was founded in 1964. I hope, however, that
such a review will bring an appropriate
degree of perspective, not only to this debate,
but to the general understanding of what is
taking place in regard to university develop-
ment in our province.
The events of the past several years reveal,
I believe, the considerable interest and com-
mon desire of all who are concerned with
higher education for the best university sys-
tem that can be developed. As a result there
may be a tendency, at times, to concentrate
our attention and efforts on those imperfec-
tions and problems that seem almost inherent
in a field as complex as university education.
This, to my mind, should be regarded as a
positive phenomenon, from constructive criti-
cism and advice, improvement will inevitably
come. It may be, however, that at the same
time it can lead us to overlook some of the
very significant achievements that are the
result of joint concern and effort. For these
are years without precedent in our history,
and with few parallels certainly in this
country, and, indeed, in any jurisdiction any-
where.
To give you some idea of what I mean, let
me outline for you certain basic facts and
figures, in which I am sure you will be
interested. I shall use 1964-65, the first year
of the department's operations as a base, and
relate the figures of that period to the expec-
tations for which this budget provides.
Just to give a few figures, Mr. Chairman: in
1964-65, the total enrolment was in the
neighbourhood of 44,852. For 1968-69-and
these are estimates, of course— 82,022. Post
grade 13 undergraduate students, 1964-65,
37,085; estimated for 1968-69, 68,441. First
year students, 1964-65, 13,552; estimated for
1968-69, 24,652. Graduate students-a very
interesting increase— 5,421 to 9,768. And per-
centage of age group, taking the 18 to 21
age factor, in 1964-65, no matter how one
might debate statistics, I think the percent-
ages will end up roughly the same, 11.8 per
cent; and the estimated for 1968-69, 16.9
per cent.
I have figures here that will be included
in this presentation relating to the individual
institutions (see appendix). But I shall move
on to the total amounts for university operat-
ing grants in 1964-65, $42,376,000 and the
estimated this year $201,949,102. The capital
support, $45,600,000 in 1964-65 and this
coming fiscal year, $125 million. The student
awards from $4,955,069 to $32,086,000, and
the number of students assisted from 8,654 to
50,000. And the teaching staff from 3,247 to
6,718.
Consistent with the growth which these
statistics reveal there has been, as might be
expected, significant physical expansion on the
17 separate campuses of our 14 provincially
assisted universities. Since July 1, 1964, over
200 building projects have been approved for
provincial support and the results are clearly
visible to anyone who would care to visit
any one of our institutions of higher learning.
Given our geographical proximity to the
University of Toronto, I need only remind
members of this House that, as they glance
westwcurd when they approach these Parlia-
ment buildings each day, they see a chang-
ing skyline, now dominated by one of the
largest medical science buildings ever con-
structed. It is an excellent example, Mr.
Chairman, of what I am attempting to
describe.
Since the events of the last half decade
have taken place in such abundance, perhaps
it would be worth reminding you, as another
case in point, that in June of 1964, that
a relatively short time ago, neither Brock nor
Trent Universities, Scarborough or Erindale
Colleges, nor the York campus of York Uni-
versity had yet been opened and that both
Guelph and Lakehead had only recently
received full university status.
JUNE 10, 1968
4165
More important, however, than the physical
make-up of any institution, are the faculty
and students who occupy such premises and
the programmes that are offered within them.
While the physical expansion has been under-
taken to deal with the increasing number of
students, we have, at the same time, allowed
for not only the necessary growth of well
estabhshed programmes and courses but for
significant additional developments as well.
As a result the range of offerings now avail-
able is most comprehensive.
These initial comments on recent achieve-
ments have been of a relatively concrete
variety, several of them quantitative in
nature. But we are aware that all significant
aspects of higher education cannot be meas-
ured in such terms. That is why, during the
period in question much attention has also
been given to many other important factors
including the relationship between govern-
ment and our universities.
The appropriate role I believe of govern-
ment in higher education is an issue that has
concerned legislators and members of the
university community throughout the western
world. It is an area in which, in my opinion,
Ontario's record stands second to none.
Members will be well aware that as early as
1959 the government took steps to establish
an impartial body that would assure our uni-
versities that their interests would be con-
sidered in an objective and sympathetic
fashion and that academic freedom and
university autonomy would be effectively
safeguarded. Like any vital organization, the
advisory body then established has evolved
in a manner consistent with changing needs
and, since 1964, has undergone a number of
further significant changes. Most important
among these has been the addition of aca-
demic members to the committee on univer-
sity affairs. This arrangement has now reached
the point where a majority of committee
members are or have been active members
of the academic community. Equally signifi-
cant was the appointment, in 1967, of Dr.
Douglas T. Wright, former dean of engineer-
ing at the University of Waterloo, as the
first full-time chairman of this important
organization.
Chief among the committee's goals has
been the establishment of an effective work-
ing relationship with the committee of presi-
dents of universities of Ontario, the body
which may be regarded as the legitimate
collective spokesman for our provincially
assisted institutions. The fruits of that rela-
tionship are to be seen through reference to
a number of the more noteworthy accom-
plishments of this last half decade.
In this regard I need only point to the
development of the formula to guide the
distribution of operating grants to our uni-
versities and colleges as a primary example.
In addition there was the jointly sponsored
study of graduate work in Ontario which,
despite initial reports to the contrary, has
had and will continue to have considerable
influence upon this important area of our
university system. Even more recent are the
steps taken to develop regional computer
centres which, it is beheved, will offer to
our institutions of higher learning the ulti-
mate in computer service. As well, a jointly
sponsored space utilization and inventory
study is now underway which, hopefully, will
lead to a similar approach for provincial
capital allocations to universities with some
of the same features as the formula for
operating grants.
Dramatic increases in enrolment, unpre-
cedented levels of support and effective
co-ordination of effort are all very tangible
examples of what has been accomplished
during the last four or five years. Yet they do
not tell the whole story. For they are only
steps on the road to ensuring our primary
goal— that there will be equality of educa-
tional opportunity in this province at all
levels. And paralleled with this quest is our
effort to ensure that the educational pro-
grammes are of the highest quality.
No one would claim that perfection has
been attained in either of these areas. Neither
need we apologize for the record that has
been established. It can be this province's
proud boast that despite the unparalleled
increases in demand for university places, no
qualified student has failed to find a place
during this decade in one of the provincially
assisted institutions.
At the same time, despite the obvious
difficulties caused by rapid growth, despite
the very real challenge of finding qualified
staff in the face of worldwide competition
and, indeed, despite the very sharp debate
which continues as to the appropriate forms
that the university education should take,
there is wide agreement that the quality of
our university programmes is high. One
needs only to travel to other parts of this
country, to various parts of the United States,
and across the ocean to Britain and the
continent to begin to appreciate the fine
reputation which our universities and their
graduates enjoy. The results of our deter-
mination, therefore, are clearly evident and
4166
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we can hopefully look to continued improve-
ment in the years to come.
I said in the beginning of my remarks that
this review of University Affairs in Ontario,
during the period in which the department
has existed, would be relatively brief. This
is not because there is any lack of material to
which to turn. But, for this occasion, these
comments will suflBce. For those whose appe-
tites have been whetted, however, I commend
to your reading the first report of the Minister
of University Affairs which will be made
available to you in the very near future.
Now I press on, for I realize full well that
in this day and age there is very little mile-
age, in any sense, in dwelling too long in
the past. For no matter how notable our
accomplishments of prior years may be, it is
to the future that we must now look. It is to
the future that we must give our attention
and our energies.
What does the future hold in this particu-
lar area? If I were to employ the language
of the Hollywood press agent, then I might
be content to tell you that it offers drama,
excitement and a good deal of suspense. Yet
I proceed on the assumption that the mem-
bers of this House are interested in something
of a more specific nature. And so, to the best
of my ability, I shall attempt in the next few
minutes to project the course of higher edu-
cation in the remaining years of this decade
and the early years of the next.
First, the most obvious characteristic of
our provincially assisted university system
will be continued expansion. The 73,805
students of this year will increase to 82,000
next September, and consistent with our well
established pattern, places will be available
for all who are qualified within our existing
institutions. In keeping with the depart-
ment's earlier estimates, we continue to an-
ticipate an enrolment of over 100,000 by
1970-71 and further growth of approximately
10,000 students each year, through at least
the first five years of the next decade.
Such growth should allow the Minister of
University Affairs of 1975 to talk of a uni-
versity enrolment double that which is now
found in this province. By that time, the rela-
tive number of young people in the 18-21 age
group attending university should be ap-
proaching 25 per cent and, I would expect,
their counterparts in our colleges of applied
arts and technology may be pushing toward a
similar level. For those who have felt that
we have lagged too far behind our neighbours
to the south in terms of opportunities in
education at the higher levels, these should
be encouraging statistics.
Increasing enrolment may be the most in-
evitable part of our development but it
brings with it a demand for additional pro-
grammes which in turn require new staff and
facilities, both of which we must make every
effort to provide. I have said on numerous
occasions in this House that, while we must
always seek and encourage highly qualified
persons from other jurisdictions to undertake
teaching careers in our universities, we can-
not rely upon meeting our requirements for
teaching personnel in this particular way.
We have the responsibility to provide for
ourselves and this we are succeeding in do-
ing. In looking to our past achievements I
did not refer to the Ontario graduate fellow-
ship programme, but the record here speaks
for itself. It is one of our most successful
ventures. It is no coincidence that the in-
auguration of this form of graduate assistance!
and the upsurge and growth of our graduate
schools have run parallel courses. Given this
well established foundation we can expect
that this growth in the graduate area will
continue at a pace probably in excess of that
of the undergraduate level.
Obviously, all candidates who receive
masters' degrees or Ph.Ds will not enter thte
teaching profession. Nor will all who under-
take graduate work remain in our own prov-
ince. It would be naive if we were to think
otherwise, and selfish if we were to expect
it. It is clear, however, that when the many
we shall retain are combined with the persons
we shall continue to attract from elsewhere,:
the strength of our university teaching stiff
will be assured.
In the latter regard, I must say that
Ontario is proving exceedingly attractive—
the real province of opportunity— to people
from other jurisdictions. One need only look
at the lists of recent staff appointments, as I
have had an opportunity to do, to see how
clearly evident this fact is. I think it speaks
well for our institutions and for the province
which supports them.
From time to time, I have heard it sugges-
ted that 14 universities is really too many
for a province of seven million people and a
university enrolment of 80,000 students. As
a result, say tlie advocates of fewer institu-
tions, we not only have institutions that do
not operate as effectively or economically as
they might, but even within some of the
larger institutions there are faculties that
reflect the same characteristics. I am willing
to concede that this indeed may be the case
at present. But who would deny that eatda
of our universities will have more than aft
JUNE 10, 1966
4167
ample role to fulfill in the years that lie
immediately ahead?
And I would interject here— while one can-
not say for sure that there is any single
cause and, of course, there is no single cause
for certain student unrest in some other juris-
dictions, there is no question that the lack
of facilities in one or two jurisdictions were
a part of the great difficulties they have
experienced.
Given the time and careful planning that
it takes to become established, would anyone
suggest that we began a moment too soon to
have our new universities established? From
each of our universities I believe we can
expect increasing efficiency in its operation.
In this regard, there were what I consider
important and meaningful words in the 1967
annual report of the Ford foundation— an
organization which recently directed a sub-
stantial grant to the University of Toronto
which has developed one of the most
advanced studies on effective planning in
North America.
The report, in part, reads as follows, and
I think really is fairly relevant:
Our current belief is that the next
promising area may be in the field of
support for those who are working to
install new and better methods of manage-
ment all along the line, both in raising
money and in spending it. The subject is
a sensitive one, and we have no desire to
add our voice to those which are raised at
intervals in protest against the "unbusi-
nesslike" methods of the academic world.
Colleges and universities are not busi-
nesses, and great damage can be done by
a crude effort to apply the folkways of one
to the problems of the other. On the
other hand, effective management is just
' as important for the academic institution
as for any other large and costly enter-
prise, and the best men— there are too few
—and the best evidence— there is too little-
combine to tell us that there is room for
great improvement.
During the last four or more years, we
have asked each of our institutions to plan
its own capital development and to submit,
for purposes of provincial support, its needs
on a project by project basis. In each case,
the institution has justified its requests by
indicating, not only the way in which the
new facilities would be used, but the in-
creased capacity for enrolment that would be
derived. •.:./.. ...v- ■.. : .,.,.;.;,■...
All such submissions have been carefully
reviewed by the department's architectural
services branch. Given the fact that our
future needs were, and are, so great it has
been obvious that every facility would be
fully utilized witliin a relatively short period
of time after it had been opened.
Nevertheless, given the magnitude of what
has taken place, and what is planned for the
future, it seemed that now was a reasonable
time to reassess the situation. Further, recog-
nizing that universities have found it increas-
ingly difficult to find private support to meet
their share of capital obligations, we must
seriously consider the possibility that 100 per
cent of the basis costs— and I emphasize basic
costs— of required facilities will have to be
met by the province.
If this is to be the case, then obviously we
must have very clear standards of both space
requirements and costs against which each
university submission can be measured. It is
towards these very goals that the committee
on university affairs and the committee of
presidents have undertaken jointly the space
inventory and utilization study to which I
referred earlier.
A private consulting firm is now co-ordinat-
ing the detailed work required in this under-
taking and each of our universities is
co-operating fully. It is anticipated that the
results will be available sometime in late
1969, and will provide us with a much
clearer indication than we have ever had
about our future space needs and the stan-
dards which should apply in meeting those
needs.
In the meantime, for 1968-69 each provinr
cially assisted university has outlined its
priorities of capital development and sub-
mitted these to the department. At my
request, the committee on university affairs
reviewed all of these submissions and related
them to total provincial requirements. The
recommendations which I have received, as
the result of this careful review, have been
reported to the various institutions and will,
I know, ensure that our capital funds are
effectively invested in university expansion
during the new fiscal year.
It is obvious, and to some small extent
frightening, to reahze that if we are to con-
tinue to meet demands not only of expansion
but of educational programmes that are con-
sistent with the increasingly complex world
in which we live, we must continue to make
an extremely heavy investment in higher edu-
cation. An effective and equitable distributicwa
4168
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of those funds among the various institutions
will also remain essential, as well as the need
for each university to be wise and prudent in
the manner in which these funds are used.
The operating grants formula, of course,
has been a most significant step towards en-
suring equitable distribution. It is interesting
to note in this regard that, just as nearly
every other province has now followed On-
tario's lead in establishing an advisory body
on matters of grant distribution and univers-
ity development, so now an increasing num-
ber of our sister provinces have either
announced, or are giving serious considera-
tion to following our example in terms of
formula distribution.
I would stress for them, as well as for
ourselves, that the formula which we are
using currently is under constant review and
we can expect, from time to time, changes in
course weights and other related matters as
new evidence comes forward.
Here again we should be encouraged by
the degree of co-operation which exists be-
tween universities and the province. A joint
subcommittee on formula financing continues
to meet regularly and its counsel will be of
importance in decisions reached prior to any
grant announcement for 1969-70 and the
years beyond.
There remain, of course, certain stiuations
for which the formula is not applicable. It is
in regard to these relatively few cases that
the major concerns often seem to arise as to
the adequacy of the grants made. This is
probably not surprising since we are relating
one subjective, although learned, judgment
to another. Towards resolving this situation,
the committee on university affairs has already
undertaken certain studies.
There will be, I understand, an increasing
tendency on the part of the advisory body to
review, with institutions to which the formula
does not apply, longer term patterns of need
so that, with some fair indication of what
funds can be made available, each institution
can carry out its planning in a realistic way.
The increased support to our universities,
both real and relative, over the initial years
of this decade are without precedent. We
have, for example, seen during the last five
years increases in total operating grants to
the provincially assisted universities of the
following magnitude: for 1965-66 over 1964-
65, 49.8 per cent; for 1966-67 over 1965-66,
32.6 per cent; and for 1967-68 over 1966-67,
99.2 per cent; while the grants set out in
these estimates represent a further increase
of 22.4 per cent over 1967-68.
The formula grant of 1967-68 allowed
what was indicated to be a 15 per cent in-
crease in the value of the basic income unit
and the gain for this year is approximately
10 per cent. These latter increases, I would
remind the House, represent an allowance for
improvement in quality and for increased
cost of living since, within the formula,
adjustments are automatically made for both
increased erurolment and changing mixes of
programmes.
Yet, despite these significant advances, it is
my opinion that our universities have every
right to expect that they will be allowed to
seek further quality improvement and, obvi-
ously, to meet increases in living costs. I
believe, however, that it is only realistic to
assume such advancement must be related to
improvements in our economy. In this way
the universities gain what should be regarded
as their fair share of our economic improve-
ment and wealth to which they contribute so
heavily.
To give some indication of what lies ahead*
by providing for the patterns of enrolment
which have been projected, and allowing for
a reasonable annual improvement in the basic
income unit, we can expect that by the time
that another five years pass, operating grants
to our universities will have reached a level
of $400 million.
As great as that figure may be, I hope
and have every expectation that a healthy
economy will allow us to sustain it. Indeed,
I would remind you, as I have before, that
such an investment is required if we are go-
ing to maintain a healthy economy. But the
benefits of university education are not re-
lated solely to economic improvement. It
contributes to human betterment and cultural
development in the fullest sense. I will,
therefore, be incumbent on all who are inter-
ested in the cause and welfare of higher edu-
cation, to continue to explain and outline
to our citizens, who must support this finan-
cial investment, that not only are these out-
lays of public funds necessary, but that th©
wisest possible use of these funds will be made.
I shall not dwell long on capital financing
since I have already indicated where I be-
lieve the trends lie. We are now, and this has
been made retroactive to July 1, 1964, pro-
viding 95 per cent of the approved cost of
academic buildings and the related student
facilities that are essential to a sound educa-
tional programme. Even if we increase that
JUNE 10, 1968
4169
amount to meet all basic costs, it should
not be considered that this will do away with
the need for private funds.
On the contrary, there will still be con-
siderable scope for those who wish to sup-
port our institutions to do so both on the
operating and the capital side. In a very real
way, what we are again striving to achieve
is something close to the formula approach,
whereby private donors can readily see that
their assistance is, in every sense, over and
above what government is providing, not a
replacement for it. Such additional assistance
will enable the university to do many things
that public support, no matter how extensive,
can provide.
The area that reflects the largest relative
increase in government support to higher
education is that of student awards. This is
a programme which is under constant ex-
amination both inside and outside the gov-
ernment service. Indeed, it might be said
that it is a focal point of attention of our
student organizations as it rightly should be.
We have, as a result of constant re-examina-
tion, made significant changes from year to
year in providing financial assistance directly
to students, although the programme planned
for 1968-69 is essentially that which has been
carried out during the current year. That we
have gone through this period of change
should not be surprising, for we are, in a
very real sense, into a completely new era,
based on a quite new philosophy, of student
support. What we are doing today has very
little resemblance to the programmes of as-
sistance which were prevalent only four or
five years ago.
Again, we do not claim to have attained
perfection, because in a period of changing
circumstances, no such thing exists. But I do
feel that for this particular point in time we
have a very sound approach, the positive
aspects of which we may have tended to take
for granted while concentrating on the prob-
lems which have been found. But I am ready
to invite members of this House to tell me
where on this continent, a better, more
equitable, programme of student awards
exists.
I would go further and suggest that, when
these comparisons are made in the context
of the other forms of support which this
province is offering, directly and indirectly,
to provide educational opportunity for our
young people at the post secondary level,
there are not too many parallels. Whatever
reasons might exist, therefore, why able
young people do not proceed beyond the
secondary school, I would suggest that lack
of financial resources to meet the necessary
costs need not be one of them for any
citizen of Ontario.
Further, there are few, if any, programmes
in North America, and we have looked at a
number of them, that place less emphasis on
the loan aspect of assistance than we do in
Ontario. But I would stress that any pro-
gramme of this type involves two groups of
people about whom we must show equally
great concern. The first group is obviously
the student body whom we seek to assist.
The second is the citizenry at large who fin-
ance the programme.
The changes that have been made this year
have kept both groups in mind. We have
attempted to ensure that the money allocated
is placed in the hands of students who have
financial need, not those who for any number
of reasons would simply like to have such
support. At the same time, because there has
been speculation that some few students may
have obtained assistance under false pretences,
the department has undertaken discussions
with the provincial auditor towards institut-
ing new procedures so that we can continue
to assure all concerned, students and citizens,
that this programme is being carried out in
an effective and proper fashion. With expen-
ditures of the kind that are now involved,
you should expect no less and we assure you
that you shall receive no less.
I would add, however, that I do not think
that any of us should content ourselves that
the present patterns of student assistance are
necessarily the final answer to needs of this
kind. We shall continue to study the situ-
ation in Ontario as well as what is being done
in other jurisdictions. In this regard, we in-
tend to look particularly to certain new con-
cepts such as the educational opportunity
bank which was proposed by a committee of
academics and other citizens under the chair-
manship of Dr. J. R. Zacharias and presented
to President Johnson during the last year.
Whatever our approach, we must be pre-
pared, as in other areas, to make an increas-
ingly heavy investment in our young people,
who, after all, hold in their hands the future
of this jurisdiction.
Having made these observations about stu-
dent awards, perhaps this provides a suitable
opportunity to turn attention to more general
comments about our students, present and
future. Some would stress that we are deal-
ing with a new breed of students today and
must adjust to the fact. Others claim that
students are really no different than those of
the past.
4170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not intend to become involved in this
type of issue. I would simply note that
whether or not they are a new breed, they
seem to have taken interest in issues that,
heretofore, did not seem to occupy the time
and attention of young people and they are
certainly using new techniques to display
such interests.
Whatever the viewpoint, however, I think
there is a matter of assigning credit where
credit is due. And to my mind, we must give
a great deal of credit to our students for
creating concern and focusing new attention
on the very important concept of what a uni-
versity should be and the manner in which
it should be organized and operated. For
essentially, while we must constantly wonder,
and quite frankly worry, and plan about mat-
ters such as salaries, buildings, and faculty,
the basic question, surely, is whether or not
the kind of education we are providing in our
schools, including our institutions of higher
learning, is really relevant to the needs of oiu:
times.
It is essential, therefore, that we take the
time and make the effort to stand back and
really look at ourselves and the kind of edu-
cation that we are offering and decide
whether it matches up to the needs of our
society. And this, I would assert, is certainly
one issue of which our students have encour-
aged us to take note.
I noted a year ago that if we believed in
the idea of autonomy and academic freedom
—and I shall have more to say about these
matters later— most of the necessary discus-
sion should take place among the members
of the university community. Further, I would
continue to stress that situations differ from
campus to campus so that meaningful discus-
sion can only be carried out on the basis of
individual institutions. Despite the fact that
some may not feel that such discourse is mov-
ing far enough or fast enough, it pleases me
greatly that there are many indications that
an important exchange of view and fruitful
inter-action are not only underway but are
extremely active. Indeed, there has probably
never been a time when more people includ-
ing governors, administrators, faculty and
students sat down and expressed their various
points of view as to what the university is all
about.
In a democratic society, such exchange is
a necessary predecessor to positive change
and I think we should all be encouraged by
these events.
The increased degree of student involve-
ment and student activity, as it is being pur-
sued on a wide variety of fronts, is, of
course, disturbing to some. Student imrest
or the movement toward student power is,
without question, the subject of great public
attention. Thus it would be unrealistic, in-
deed impossible, to conduct any debate on
university affairs in the current era without
giving some attention to this very important
aspect of higher education.
But, in doing so, I think that there are a
few basic observations that should be made:
1. What is taking place is, in every sense
of the term, on a worldwide basis. From both
sides of the iron curtain, from Asia and
Africa, from Europe and South America and
from our own continent, there has come over
the last year an almost constant barrage of
reports of student protest in various forms.
2. Those who are in the forefront of the
movement, the so-called activists, form an
extremely small percentage of our total stu-
dent body. Yet, it should be noted that be-
hind the 2, 3, or 4 per cent who form the
activist group there is a large segment of
the student body who feel enough sense of
uneasiness and dissatisfaction with the world
in which they live, and the educational pro-
grammes which they are being offered, to
sympathize in varying degrees with the
principles underlying what student activism
is trying to accomplish.
3. Ontario students have, with very few
exceptions, and there have been some, ex-
pressed their views and conducted them-
selves, including the visible means of protest,
in what should be regarded as a most respon-
sible manner.
4. In a democratic society, such as ours, the
right to dissent and to protest is inherent and
we should in no way be upset by the fact
that people choose to assert their rights in
this regard. Those who do become upset, I
would assert, might better devote their time
and energy to looking behind the protest,
whatever its form, to identify that which has
given it cause and the merits of the case
that is being presented.
It should be clearly evident by now that
there is a segment of our society, particularly
among the young, and thus within the stu-
dent bodies of our universities and other
post-secondary institutions, who are greatly
disturbed and quite dissatisfied with the
nature of the world in which we live. One
must concede these are circumstances which
prevail which justify such dissatisfaction,
circumstances which relate to a whole variety
of social problems. For the students, this
JUNE 10, 1968
4171
necessarily includes matters related to the
institutions of which they are a part.
Filled with a sense of reform and motivated
by a considerable degree of idealism in many
cases, there is a call for change. They may be
joined and, at times led, by those who may
be drawn not so much from any idealistic
base as by the desire for power or influence.
Because they are intelligent and articulate,
such students have a very real flair for
organization and for publicity whether it be
by petition or press release, speech or campus
newspaper, demonstration, or march.
Through these devices, they give us much
to think about. But here, with all respect to
Mr. McLuhan, I think we might be better to
concentrate on the message rather than on
the medium. One need not always agree
with the basic philosophy which underlines
student causes, or with what may seem to be
the impractical characteristics that arise from
idealism, in order to concede that there is
room for improvement in our universities and
in our society. But to simply say, as I have
heard many suggest, that we need only wait
until they mature and become more respon-
sible citizens, is hardly the answer to the
current situation.
What I would like to stress is that because,
in Canada, we are an orderly, well behaved,
indeed, if I might suggest it, a relatively con-
servative people, and I put this with a small
V so as not to disturb members opposite
—the non-student adult community may
sometimes become very impatient and, in-
deed, rather annoyed with the various pro-
tests that take place. At times some will
suspect that we have developed a group of
professional protestors who spend most of
their time chasing causes around which they
can rally.
Others will advocate that since students
are supported at extremely heavy cost by the
general citizenry, they should be restrained
in a firmer manner from some of their pro-
test activities. But may I repeat, that in our
democratic system all of our citizens, young
and old, have certain fundamental rights that
should not and cannot be denied. We need,
therefore, to be patient.
More important, however, we need to look
beyond the protest to the elements of our
society which give rise to it and to decide
what positive steps can be taken to remove
the causes. In this regard I am in full agree-
ment with those who say: If reform is re-
quired, let us put ourselves at the forefront
of the movement, not behind the ramparts
defending the status quo.
Yet while stressing the right to protest,
I would remind those who seek to assert
this right that, whatever the shortcomings
they see in our society, be they reflected
in the world at large, in our government or
in our institutions of learning, there is a
further and equally important democratic
principle which relates to responsible conduct.
The laws of our land should and do allow
ample scope for expression but they do not
allow for violence in any form or obstruction
of any type. Certainly actions of that kind in
my view are intolerable in a province where
the freedom of the individual is paramount.
And certainly the last place where one
should expect to find conduct of anything
other than a responsible nature would be
within that segment of our citizenry which
has benefited from education at its highest
levels. There is full scope within this coun-
try to work towards a better society. Those
goals must be sought, however, with com-
plete regard of the rights of everyone con-
cerned.
The future holds a very great challenge
for us to which all who are involved in
higher education must devote time and energy.
Recognizing in a realistic way the problems
we shall encounter is certainly an important
key to meeting that challenge. It is a future
which, in my opinion, must balance many
varied and important factors. For example—
and I do not suggest that they are all en-
compassing. They reflect personal opinions;
so, to my friends in the academic community,
I would say they can add or substract to those
I am suggesting.
1. Our needs for expansion and improve-
ment against, and I do not want the term
against to be misunderstood, the availability
of funds;
2. The requirements of a growing economy
against those of human betterment;
3. The needs of particular institutions
against the needs of the whole society;
4. The sound tradition of the past against
the innovation and creativity needed in the
future;
5. The ideas we derive from other juris-
dictions against those that are generated
within our own province;
6. The needs of those who enter post-
secondary education for the first time against
the requirement of all of our citizens for
continuing education;
7. The requirements of our elementary and
secondary schools against the requirements
of institutions of higher learning;
4172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
8. The requirements of our universities
against those of other forms of post-secondary
education;
9. The needs of society against the tra-
ditional autonomy of the universities.
It is impossible, Mr. Chairman, to discuss
any of the basic problems which we face
such as expansion, requirements for staff
and facilities, government-university relation-
ships, student activity and others— without
recognizing that all such matters relate to
the questions of academic freedom and uni-
versity autonomy.
I would only stress that we are as firm in
our conviction today, as we were four years
ago when The Department of University
Affairs was created, that academic freedom
should prevail on our campuses and that our
institutions of higher learning, as institutions,
should have the greatest possible degree of
autonomy.
There is, therefore, no more inclination in
1968 than previously to indicate who shall
teach, who shall be taught or what shall be
taught at any university in Ontario. I can say,
without fear of contradiction, that academic
freedom in this province is as complete as it
has ever been and, so long as I have any
relationship with this department, nothing will
change in that regard.
I would maintain that, in regard to univer-
sity autonomy, the government remains firm
in its conviction that each institution should
have maximum scope in conducting its own
affairs. I have no desire to turn these
remarks, which I regard as a report on our
accomplishment and future requirements to
the Legislature, into any kind of partisan
statement.
If I felt otherwise, there would be ample
opportunity to quote extensively from state-
ments expressed on the other side of this
House on previous occasions about the need
to protect university autonomy, and then to
relate those to some of the more recent
requests I have received, both during the
last session and the present one, in regard to
"guiding" the internal affairs of certain of
our universities and colleges.
If, however, in the debate that follows,
someone would care to raise this issue, I shall
certainly be pleased to discuss the matter at
greater length. For I think all who are con-
cerned with higher education in this province
have the right to know where our various par-
ties stand on what is, to me, still a very cri-
cial issue.
As to our position, I need only point to the
approaches that we have adopted, including
the technique of formula allocation of operat-
ing funds— a procedure which allows the uni-
versities almost complete scope in deciding
their priorities of expenditures— as well as to
the other co-operative techniques we have
followed in deciding on future courses of
action.
What we are seeing in Ontario, perhaps, is
the development of what Sir Eric Ashby of
Cambridge University has termed "collective
autonomy". This, in my opinion, may be more
appropriate to the day and age in which we
live, and should allow our institutions to
maintain much of their traditional position
in relation to the total society.
If, however, our universities are to retain
this freedom, and if this province is to main-
tain the sense of balance to which I have
referred, then it is obvious that together we
must plan our future development with the
greatest degree of care. Towards this purpose,
last year I announced that I would appoint
a commission on post-secondary education to
examine in detail our needs between now and
1980. We have not been able to move as
quickly in this regard to this important body
as I would have hoped.
It has taken time to review with all con-
cerned the proposed terms of reference that
would apply. In fact there have been two or
three suggestions as to re-orientation of some
of the terms very recently. More important
and more difficult has been the task of finding
people of the very highest quality who are in
a position to free themselves from their cur-
rent assignments to devote the necessary time
and effort to this undertaking. I am hopeful,
however, that following discussions scheduled
over the next two weeks, this whole matter
will be finalized in a satisfactory manner.
In the meantime, we shall not be standing
still. So far as our universities are concerned,
the committee on university affairs will con-
tinue its role of examining university develop-
ment and recommending policies which its
members regard as consistent with our needs.
I already cited the study of space utilization
and management which will have a profound
effect on the future of capital development.
I have mentioned only briefly the steps now
being taken to rationalize the acquisition and
use of computer equipment through the
establishment of regional computer centres.
While it would be premature to beat any
drums on the merits of this approach, there
is every indication that, if successfully insti-
tuted, it will give each of our universities
access to the ultimate in computer power at
the lowest relative cost attainable. Mean-
JUNE 10, 1968
4173
while, discussions are already underway to
develop a rational approach to future library
development. Here too, it is obvious that
co-ordinated eflFort is required. Our universi-
ties, through the committee of presidents,
have indicated they are willing to tackle this
problem and we should look hopefully to
constructive suggestions in the near future.
Reflecting on the accomplishments in the
last four to five years, I think the people of
Ontario have every reason not only to be
satisfied but they should take some pride in
what has happened. As important, however,
is the way in which we have paved the way
for future growth and change. Obviously
there will be problems— very great ones— and
we must combine the best minds and the best
ideas available to meet and overcome them.
Not everyone will be satisfied, of course,
with every step that is taken. The depart-
ment has the most intelligent and most arti-
culate clientele of any area of government.
But then we have realized from the begin-
ning that no decisions involving so many
people, and indeed having such an impact
upon our province, can be made without
considerable public discussion. That is why
Mr. Chairman, we welcome advice and all
forms of constructive criticism. For we seek
a common goal— the best university system
that can be devised.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): At the
outset I would like to state that I hold the
position of an assistant professor of economics
at York University.
For 1968-69 this will be a one-third time
appointment.
Some members might believe that this
teaching connection with a university biases
my thinking and my remarks in the area of
government-university relations in favour of
the universities of Ontario. I have attempted
to be objective in the preparation of these
remarks. I am speaking not as a university
teacher but as a member of this Legislature
in my capacity as the official Opposition
spokesman for The Department of University
Affairs.
I would like also to inform the members of
this Legislature that the hon. member for
Peterborough, (Mr. Pitman), the NDP spokes-
man on university affairs, and I have dis-
cussed a division-of-labour for our opening
repHes to the Minister's statement.
This division-of-labour in our joint opening
criticism will be clear when we have con-
cluded our remarks. On most matters of basic
criticism, our views tend to be similar. Any
differences that may exist will come forth in
our detailed criticisms of the Minister's
specific estimates.
I would like first of all to discuss the exist-
ing framework in which the university policy
of the government lies. Beginning in 1961
with the establishment of the advisory com-
mittee on university affairs reporting to the
Minister of Education and especially since
the establishment in 1964 of a separate
Department of University Affairs albeit under
the same person, the Conservative govern-
ment of this province established a new
framework within which government policies
and the development of the 14 provincially
assisted universities of Ontario, co-exist.
Various supplements to that framework
have been added since 1964, notably "formula
financing" in the area of operating grants.
The reasons for the creation of this new
framework have often been stated by govern-
ment spokesmen.
For example, when The Department of
University Affairs was created in 1964, the
Premier (Mr. Robarts), made the following
comments in the House:
The department will be asked to develop, in
co-operation with the universities, methods of ensur-
ing that full [educational] value— will be deaved
from the vast amounts of public money that will be
required to be spent on university education over the
next few years.
The Premier added that:
The new department will administer all provincial
grants paid to the universities and will maintain a
constant scrutiny of the procedures and administra-
tive methods by which this is carried out.
It is contemplated that a very careful look will be
taken at possible areas of co-ordination and co-opera-
tion among our universities.
I would like next to state that there is a
need for university co-operation. There is no
question that our provincially-assisted univer-
sities in Ontario must co-operate and co-ordi-
nate among themselves in order to ensure,
for example, that the $250 million in ordinary
expenditure grants budgeted for in 1968-69
is well spent. This is public money and it
must be wisely spent. For example, the estab-
lishment of 14 university law schools, one at
each university, would clearly be an unneces-
sary duplication of costly faciUties and a
waste of the taxpayer's dollar.
I would like next to refer to what I con-
sider to be the basic policy premise of the
Conservative government. The argument of
the Conservative government has been, and
still is, that the degree of co-operation and
co-ordination among our universities required
4174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for financial eflBciency could only be achieved
by the particular framework the government
has established. The basic premise of the
present Conservative government's university
policy is that it is the state that should and
will decide what degree of co-operation is
desirable and how fast it is to be made oper-
ative.
The creation of this special framework was,
then, a response to the questions: "How will
co-ordination and co-operation among Ontario
universities take place?" And second, "Who
will supply that framework and on the basis
of what criteria?"
Next I would like to turn to what I con-
sider to be the impact of the present poHcy
and framework of the Conservative govern-
ment. There is little doubt in my mind that
the non-statutory creation of the government's
advisory committee on university affairs to the
Minister and the statutory creation of the
government Department of University Affairs
spurred Ontario's universities on to a some-
what greater degree of co-ordination and co-
operation than they would otherwise have
achieved.
It must be remembered, however, that such
a conclusion is not testable.
Our universities might have achieved their
present high level of co-operation and co-
ordination without the framework established
by the government. Nevertheless, I believe
there have been some "eflBciency benefits" as
a result of the creation of the new institu-
tional framework.
But there have also been undesirable
"costs". And I think these costs will become
greater in the years ahead unless a new
framework is created. I think further that
the eflBciency benefits of the present frame-
work are diminishing and will diminish
greatly in the years ahead. We will get these
benefits without the continuation of the pres-
ent framework.
The main cost of the present framework is
the continuing threat to the autonomy of our
universities. This threat is the direct result
of the policies of the Conservative govern-
ment. The implementation of the govern-
ment's university pohcy rests on the "carrot
and stick" approach of the government and
especially the Minister of University Affairs.
This can be called "Ministerial benevolence".
In a democratic society, the autonomy of our
universities ought not rest on the benevolence
of a Minister of the state. When a funda-
mental principle of a government policy and
institutional framework is wrong, the gov-
ernment must be seriously questioned.
Let me put the matter bluntly. The basic
goal of this goverrmient's policy is to bring
about a more rational use of the public funds
which the universities receive. This ration-
alization is to be brought about via co-oper-
ation among the universities. I agree with
this goal. The means this government is using
to achieve this goal is the continuous threat
of saying, "You do this, or else". On prin-
ciple, I flatly reject this technique. It is
inconsistent with the goals desired.
The result is that today, while our xmiversi-
ties are still autonomous, they are uncertain
as to just how much autonomy they have
and the nature of that autonomy. The Ontario
university presidents have commented quite
explicitly on this question of uncertainty. For
example, in their joint 1966-67 annual review
they say:
It is . . . essential to clarify the role of
the advisory committee on university affairs
vis-d-vis the universities on the one hand
and the Minister of University Affairs on
the other. The committee acts in an ad-
visory capacity to the government, and
there is a natural desire on the part of its
members to have its advice accepted on as
many occasions as possible.
They concluded— and this, I believe, is a
damning statement:
This situation carries with it the danger
that the committee may be tempted to
tailor its advice to what it believes to be
consistent with the government's own
order of priorities.
These comments assumed the continuation
of the basic framework established by the
government. I question this framework both
on principle and in terms of necessity. The
desired results can be achieved by means of
an alternative framework. However, before
turning to this alternative framework and
policy, I would like to state briefly why uni-
versity autonomy is a vital ingredient, a vital
need in our democratic society.
Dr. J. A. Corry, principal of Queen's Uni-
versity and the former chairman of the On-
tario committee of presidents states the need
most clearly. He made the following remarks
on May 16, a few weeks ago:
The university has meaning only as it
supports and nourishes the life of the mind.
Mind can thrive and renew itself only if it
is free to range, to inquire without hin-
drance, and to report what it finds. The
university is a collectivity. When it came,
the universities wanted to guarantee con-
tinuity of inquiring, teaching, and learning,
and also to provide a defense against the
JUNE 10, 1968
4175
outer world for men engaged in learning.
This is the original mission of the universi-
ties. They more than any other organization
have kept the tradition of learning alive
and they are the best hope for buttressing
the free life of the mind. Of course, they
may fail.
It is clear enough in the last few months
that we are approaching this crunch in
more provinces than one. I believe that a
society that puts an exquisite social justice
above the claims of the free ranging mind,
its nurture and education, will end by los-
ing both. This, I believe, is especially true
for the urban industrialized society that is
coming to dominate our social landscape.
. If we are to keep its complexities from
bringing us to paralysis, we must have
great resources of highly educated intelli-
gence as well as goodwill and passion for
justice. We must be continually watchful
of the propensity of our burgeoning tech-
nology to get out of hand and to debauch
or destroy essential human values.
We need desperately social critics who
are not only repelled by the impersonality
of our massive productive apparatus and
its materialism, but who also understand
how it ticks and how to defend the human
spirit against its assaults. Rightly under-
stood then, the free university protecting
the free minds within it is not in competi-
tion with the claims of justice, but an
indispensable ally in the refining of jus-
tice in a complex society. The status quo
must be kept under constant review. This
can only be done effectively by educated
intelhgence imbued with the tradition of
western humanism. If universities do not
prepare such people, no other organization
will.
What Dr. Corry is saying is that the search
for truth in our universities is often, perforce,
in conflict with the majority views and values
of our society. This is a creative tension in a
democratic society. Without universities free
from the dictates of the state, we lose a
necessary ingredient of democracy. The
derogatory statements made in this House by
the Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr.
Grossman) last week concerning the views
and criticisms expressed by Professor Mann
in his book about some of the reform institu-
tions in Ontario, are clear and present evi-
dence of the threatened dangers to freedom
of inquiry in our universities if, however,
and only if, the present policy and framework
of this Conservative government are allowed
to persist.
The muted criticisms of this government's
social and university policies by the presidents
of our universities is an even more damning
example of what has happened to university
autonomy in Ontario under this government.
Surely, individual university presidents should
be among the leading social and government
critics in Ontario. They are not. Why? Be-
cause they are fearful of Ministerial bene-
volence—afraid that they will lose the carrot
if they criticize the stick being used on them.
Finally, we have a government Minister of
University Affairs in this province who be-
lieves that one objective of our universities is:
The provision of graduates whose attitudes are
consistent with the free society in which we live.
This is from Hansard, June 5, 1967. I state
categorically that this view, if forced on our
universities, is not consistent with the univer-
sity that Dr. Corry talks about; the status quo
in Ontario means many people are not free
in our society.
Thank goodness, sir, some at least of our
graduates this year have attitudes that are
not consistent with status quo Conservative
definition of freedom in our society. Ontario
is not "A Place to Stand" for many indivi-
duals and families in Ontario.
I would like next, Mr. Chairman, to turn
to an alternative university policy and frame-
work. The new policy and framework has
two prongs. Both prongs are aimed at restor-
ing meaningful autonomy, to our universities.
Both are aimed at undercutting Ministerial
benevolence and the atmosphere of uncer-
tainty felt by our universities concerning the
degree and nature of university automony.
The first prong, the establishment by
statute of an independent university com-
mission. The establishment of such an in-
dependent commission would eliminate the
uncertainty universities feel concerning their
autonomy. If such a statute were passed
there could be no doubt as to what the chain
of communication was between the imi-
versities and the state. It would eliminate
the uncertainty I feel as a member of a free
society about government intervention in our
universities. The majority of the members
of this commission would be composed of
persons other than government-appointed
members. This Legislature would approve
the total amount of funds available from the
public purse for our universities. The com-
mission would decide on its allocation among
the universities.
The establishment of the commission would
eliminate both the government advisory
committee on university affairs and The
4176
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Department of University AfiFairs. We can do
away with some of the government bureauc-
racy that has built up. The secretariat of the
present department might be transferred to
the commission. The estabhshment of such
an independent secretariat has been high on
the list of recommendations of the universi-
ties' presidents for a number of years.
I firmly believe that the higher degree of
co-operation and co-ordination achieved to
date by the committee of university presi-
dents, and its many research and working
committees, by themselves, would continue
with a change in framework from a non-
statutory advisory committee to a Minister
of the state to an independent university
commission.
As a matter of speculation, I could see
some further reduction in the degree of in-
dividualistic autonomy on the part of each
university at the same time as the degree of
collective university autonomy was clarified
and strengthened. The essential point is that
the giving up of a further degree of decision-
making on the part of each individual uni-
versity would not be to the state, as has
happened in recent years, but to the com-
mittee of university presidents, for example,
and to some extent the independent university
commission. Such inter-university co-ordina-
tion and co-operation would, I believe, ensure
the wise use of public funds without the tech-
nique of continuous government threats. I am
convinced that this alternative policy, given
the present high degree of co-operation and
co-ordination among our universities would
result in the proper balancing on the one
hand the government responsibility for the
expenditure of public funds and on the other
hand of the independence of the universities.
When Ken Bryden was a member of this
House, he said:
There is frequent objection to the establishment
of commissions. I think wholesale condemnation of
commissions is ridiculous. There are proper areas
where commissions should operate and there are
areas where they should not operate. This is one
area where we should have a commission.
He was referring to the university com-
mission, and I agree completely with this
former Opposition critic who understood this
problem so well.
This, then is the first prong of the new
policy. It would remove the dependence of
the degree and nature of university autonomy
from government Ministerial benevolence in
the years ahead. It would, at the same time,
achieve the desirable degree of co-operation
and co-ordination among our universities to
ensure the wise use of public funds.
The second policy thrust may be much
more controversial than the first. And it may
be open to a greater degree of misunderstand-
ing on the part of the board of governors of
the universities in Ontario, and perhaps some
of the university presidents.
This second recommendation has to do
with changes and reform of the 14 university
statutes or Acts of the provincially assisted
universities of Ontario. It is interesting to
note that of these 14 university statutes of
this Legislature, one university is operating
under laws last revised, I believe, in 1957—
eleven years ago. Seven universities are being
governed under laws dated between 1960 and
1965. Five universities are being governed
under laws dated 1965 and one university is
being governed under laws last revised by
this Legislature in 1967.
I believe this government has a responsbility
in this area. It is an area which establishes
the framework within which the universities
exercise self-government. It is in this statu-
tory area that the universities exercise their
autonomy. Nothing in the university Acts
must nullify the concept of the autonomous
university as expressed, for example, by Dr.
Corry. It is my belief that this Legislature
must reform, in close consultation with the
universities, the university statutes. I believe
that certain reforms would strengthen the
degree of autonomy of the universities by
strengthening them from within.
When I say close consultation with the
universities before changes are made in the
university Acts, I mean close consultation
not just with their boards of governors but
with the Ontario committee of presidents,
with representatives of the teaching staff and
students and, perhaps, with representatives
of the graduates of various universities.
I mean, therefore, consultation with the en-
tire university community— the collectivity, as
Dr. Corry calls it, not just a fragment. I
believe that close consultation with only the
boards of governors and the presidents would
not be representative of the views of the
universities.
It is my belief that the boards of governors
of Ontario's universities, and their domination
by members of the business community, have
been a mixed blessing— often helpful in
financial matters but equally unhelpful in
terms of the reforms that must come about
in the internal governing of our universities
by all the members of our universities. I am
fearful of a faculty revolt such as is occur-
ring at Simon Eraser in British Columbia. I
am fearful of the spread of student revolt.
JUNE 10, 1968
4177
Action, now, by this government and our
universities in reforming the university sta-
tutes would, I beheve, defuse the element
of justifiable revolt on our campuses.
I firmly believe that the domination of our
universities by members of the business sec-
tor—even though most of these men have
made an essential contribution to the de-
velopment of our universities in the past-
must be seriously questioned as we look into
the future. The business community must be
represented on the governing boards or coun-
cils of our universities, but they must not
continue to have such a preponderant influ-
ence. They should not be able, under the
laws of this province, to perpetuate them-
selves in their influence year after year by
reappointing themselves to their own boards.
I must emphasize that the general reform
of our university statutes should not take
place until after this Legislature has estab-
lished by statute, the independent university
conmiission and eliminated The Department
of University AJBFairs and its foster child, the
advisory committee on university affairs. Once
the air has been cleared in this regard, con-
structive steps could then be taken to examine
the question of reform of our university Acts.
The intention of the government for reform
within the context of university autonomy
would be clear.
I would also like to emphasize that I am
definitely not proposing a university of
Ontario which would absorb the 14 univer-
sities now in existence. I am proposing an
alternative policy both to the legislative crea-
tion of a single, all-encompassing university of
Ontario and to the present framework of
the Conservative government.
The second prong of the new policy, within
the necessary context already noted, would
be for this Legislature, on the recommenda-
tion, perhaps, of the education committee
under the active chairman of the present
Minister of Education, to pass minimum
requirements that must be contained in each
of the 14 university Acts. I repeat: These
would be minimum requirements.
This policy would not result in 14 uniform
university Acts, for each of the 14 universities
in Ontario has a distinctive history, distinctive
traditions, even somewhat different objects
and purposes. There is a strength in diversity;
there is strength in different traditions; there
is strength in doing things differently, as long
as the fundamentals are right and just.
One very real advantage in this proposal is
that instead of having an uproar in changing
each university Act separately— one at a time
—on certain highly internal sensitive matters
—and, in my opinion, there will be, in the
immediate years ahead, intense internal pres-
sures from within each university for changes
in their respective Acts— we can carry out tiie
basic reforms that will have to be made all
at once, together, in close consultation with
the various members of the university com-
munity.
The question of the reform of the internal
exercise of power and decision-making within
our universities is an immediate question.
The government must face up to the "living
reality", this hard if somewhat unpleasant
fact of life. It cannot be swept under the
rug: the rug has been rudely pulled away.
This basic fact was made only too clear once
again when the board of governors of Lauren-
tian University came to the education com-
mittee of this Legislature only a few months
ago.
The board members were articulately op-
posed in their proposals for changes in The
Laurentian University Act by some members
of the teaching staff and by some students of
that university. In its wisdom, the committee
thought that the problem should go back to
the university, which it did. We ducked the
issue at that time. We must no longer duck
the issue.
My intuition tells me that the universities
of this province simply cannot solve these
basic questions about how they are to be
governed from within themselves. The situa-
tion is, in my opinion, explosive. Action now
by this government could defuse that explo-
sion.
First, I think that, with the legislative
estabhshment of an independent university
commission, the Lieutenant-Governor in
council should appoint three or four members
of the community to each university board
of governors or governing council. At present,
nine university Acts of this Legislature have
such appointees— varying from two to 32—
and five university Acts do not. One of these
persons might well be the local member of
this House. The Minister of University
Affairs talks a great deal about the relation-
ship between his government and the univer-
sities, yet in this key area of government
appointed persons to university boards of
governors, he has not, to my mind, stated his
views.
Second, I think that, with the establishment
of an independent university commission,
certain members of the immediate commu-
nity in which each university is located, should
be ex officio members of each university board
4178
ONTAtllO LEGISLATURE
of governors or governing council. At present,
only three university Acts state that the board
of governors shall include the mayors of their
respective cities, the warden of the county
and so forth.
It is interesting also to note that universi-
ties such as Carleton, Guelph, Laurentian,
Trent, Ottawa, Windsor and York all have
in their Acts a statement that one of their
"objects and purposes" is the "betterment of
society" yet their Acts do not also specify
that the members of their immediate society
have a legal right to representation on their
boards of governors. I think if we want to
improve town-gown relationships, we should
have written into each university Act, as they
are already written into three Acts, that local
representation by the mayor is ex oflBcio and
legal.
Third, I think that we must write into each
university Act a minimum requirement that
there must be some sort of meaningful teach-
ing staff representation on each board of
governors or governing council. I think that
this step would meet, to some extent at least,
valid teaching staff criticisms concerning the
present way many basic decisions are made in
our universities. The warning signs are up in
Canada: Simon Eraser is but the first open
flash. And at Simon Eraser the Canadian asso-
ciation of university teachers has censored
the board of governors.
To a significant extent the conflict lies, I
beheve, in the conflict between social and
educational values of the businessmen who
dominate the present boards of governors
and the social and educational values of the
teaching staffs of our universities. While
business representation is essential, what is
at question is the degree of their influence.
This is a philosophical point if you like. I
am concerned with the predominance of the
"business ethos" and I think it is too power-
ful today in Ontario universities. This is a
philosophical point. A value judgment. A
normative conclusion on my part, but it must
be thrown out into the open and we must
discuss it fully in this Legislature. It is not
however, essential to my present argument.
The following is the present legal situa-
tion with regard to teaching staff or faculty
representation on university boards of gov-
ernors in Ontario. Three universities have
had written into their Acts by this Legisla-
ture that there shall be some sort of faculty
representation on their boards of governors.
Another five universities have had explicitly
written into their Acts that members of
faculty are legally ineligible to be on their
boards. Eor another six university Acts, there
is no reference to this matter at all.
What is at stake then, as in the first two
areas, is not a question of principle, since
existing university Acts contain conflicting
principles.
In principle, members of the teaching staffs
of our universities should have equal rights
to representation regardless of which uni-
versity in Ontario they teach at. It is rather a
question of a struggle for pofitical power
within our universities, especially between
the boards with a heavy business representa-
tion and the rest of the university. I want to
underline that, I believe firmly it is true.
The fourth recommendation, Mr. Chair-
man, in this second prong of the policy, if
you like, is this. I think we must write into
each university Act a minimum requirement
that there must be some sort of meaningful
student representation on each board of
governors or governing council. The Western
Ontario University Act, 1967, states that the
board of that university shall include one.
member elected by the student body who
shall be either the holder of a degree from,
the university, or a former member of the
faculty, and such member shall not at the
time of his election be or have been within
the preceding 12 months a member of the
student body or of any of its affiliates. He
may, however, be enrolled in a post-graduate
course in any other degree-granting insti-
tution.
Note, however, that students elect a mem-
ber to the board, but this person cannot be
a student of Western University. None of the
remaining 13 Acts of the provincially assisted
universities in this province give students the
legal right to elect a person— student or
otherwise— to boards of governors. Western
is alone in this regard. However, none of
these 13 university Acts state that a student-
is legally ineligible for appointment to boards
of governors which means that student could
legally be thus appointed. However, it seems
very unlikely that the five universities with
Acts that explicitly exclude teaching staff
from eligibility to their boards would appoint
students to their boards.
Another aspect that should be considered
in this general rewriting of university Acts
is this. It should be noted that five of the
14 universities have now in their Acts provi-
sion for graduates of the university to elect
between two and six graduates to their
boards: Western 2; Queen's 6; McMastef 5;
JUNE 10, 1968
4179
Ottawa 2; Windsor 2. Of these 5 universities,
Queen's excludes teachers, McMaster and
Ottawa exphcitly include teachers, and Wind-
sor neither explicitly includes or excludes
teachers.
I tliink this is an area where we could
strengthen the community relationship be-
tween our universities and the community by
having specifically written into each Act
something to do with the graduate repre-
sentations.
Surely there is justification for students in
this province at our universities to have equal
legal rights regardless of which university in
Ontario they attend. Surely with the student
riots throughout the countries of western
civihzation, this government must be aware
that there is something basically wrong with
the way universities in western civilization,
including this province, are governed from
within. University students must have the
legal right to be on, or at the very least to
elect people directly to, the governing body
(rf their universities.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like
to make my final recommendation to this
government and my final recommendation is
the elimination of double university govern-
ment.
I thinjc the time has come to seriously
question the relevancy of the existence of
present university boards of governors in
Ontario. The universities can hire fund-
raisers to raise their funds. The universities
can hire experts to sign their contracts. You
do not need men on boards of governors to
do that.
Now is perhaps the time to establish at
each university a governing council which
would include the persons noted earlier. If
a university is a collectivity, as Doctor Corry
calls it, surely it should be governed in a
collective manner.
I would like to conclude on this point with
a direct quotation from an address given a
week ago, June 1, by Dr. C. T. Bissell, presi-
dent of the University of Toronto. He made
tile following remarks at the honorary degree
ceremony at the University of Windsor. I
shall read this quotation in conclusion. It is a
direct quotation:
Change initiated by the tactics of the
extremists are not changes that will enable
a university to grow and strengthen influ-
ence. Such changes leave a legacy of dis-
trust and suspicion; in the process the mind
of the academic community turns from
large goals to tactical issues; and the uni-
versity is weakened as an independent
centre of dissent and criticism. I have
suggested that the only protection against
the sequence that disrupted Columbia
University in New York City is a wide-
spread concern in the academic community
with poHtical goals. Such concern leads to
a response that is at one at the same time,
conservative and radical: conservative in
the sense that it reasserts the function of
the university as a centre of intellectual
activity; radical in that it is prepared to
look critically and freely at the structure
of the luiiversity. The real issue is not
student participation and certainly not stu-
dent power. I know of no senior university
administrator in the province who does not
accept the necessity for increased student
participation at all levels of university gov-
ernment. The real problem is to find the
form of representative and responsible gov-
ernment that assures the greatest strength
and unity of the university. The modern
university— and he is referring to Ontario-
has not yet devised a central body that will
command the allegiance of all members of
the commimity, and that is why in a crisis
we often have fragmentation, rather than
this consensus. We need a body that repre-
sents all the constituents of the university
community— staff, students, administration,
alumni, concerned laymen— a body that
speaks for and to the university, that com-
mands authority and respect. The Coliun-
bia experience turns a theoretical goal into
an immediate necessity.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, it is a very great pleasure for me
to follow the hon. member for Scarborough
East and make a few remarks on the presen-
tation of the estimates of The University
Affairs Department.
Perhaps I might begin on something of a
philosophical note very much as the Minister
concluded his remarks and suggest that we
are faced perhaps with most diflBcult problems
to overcome. We have, what could be called,
the traditional role of the university to pre-
serve knowledge; to transmit knowledge; and
of course, to increase knowledge.
Yet at the same time, we find ourselves in
a society in which universities are expected
to provide much more. They are expected to
prepare people for the business world. They
expect universities to find means of increas-
ing productivity, thus increasing the well-
being of the people of the society.
We look to the university to provide men
and women for the professions and in some
4180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
jurisdictions, and I am very happy to say not
the jurisdiction in which we hve, even the
defence department decides on what is to be
a major role which a university should per-
form. The irony is, of course, that the second
group of responsibihties are the expensive
ones. These are the ones which increase the
budgets of universities across this province
and continue to be a worry to the Minister
before us. The irony is, that in order to carry
out the secondary roles— that is, providing
for our society— we must safeguard and give
freedom in order to carry out the first. Ifet,
if we do not carry out these social responsi-
bilities, we will no longer be viable entities
in which the first and most important aspects
of a university's role can be performed.
And so, as we look at this department, we
realize that it is a "department of compro-
mise", of cost and compromise. In essence,
this is the price I suppose, of the freedom of
university that it must compromise in peri-
pheral areas suflSciently to provide for the
needs of society. The great difficulty, of
course, is to ensure that, in making this com-
promise, that freedom is not lost. This, I
suppose, has been the historic problem in the
short history of The Department of University
Affairs.
Well, how can the government then carry
out its responsibihty; maintain the freedom
within the universities to carry out its tradi-
tional role and yet provide the university
with the means for carrying out its, what
could be called, secondary roles?
This, of course, has been a problem across
the country. It is a problem which we see in
British Columbia and I suggest to you that,
unless this compromise is effectively met,
then we may see what has happened in other
jurisdictions take place here. Perhaps we
may find a Minister of the Crown reading a
speech very much like the one which eman-
ated from the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan
just a few months ago. The Premier stated,
in essence:
—that the university will be obliged to
make its financial requests to the Legisla-
ture in the same manner as any other
spending department. This year the gov-
ernment must find $28 million for the
University of Saskatchewan.
I am sure the Minister wishes he only had
to find $28 million.
The campus population is growing at
the rate of more than 1,200 students per
year. Thus it seems apparent that the cost
to the taxpayers of Saskatchewan for these
institutions will grow at an alarming rate.
Our government is concerned by the fact
that today the elected representatives of
the people have virtually no control over
university spending.
Year after year with few details we,
in fact, almost write a blank cheque. This
was not too serious when only a few mil-
lion dollars were involved. But today the
university is fast becoming one of our
largest spending departments.
Under the circumstances, we intend at
the next session to reform our University
Act in a major way. Final details have not
been worked out.
Thank heavens, the final details were never
worked out in the manner in which the
Prime Minister of Saskatchewan suggested.
In essence, the university would be
obliged to make its financial request to the
Legislature in the same manner as any
other spending department.
For example, they will have to request
so much for salaries, so much for travelling,
so much for new buildings. I wish to em-
phasize that the government will not inter-
fere with the internal operation of the
university.
Well, of course, the final statement would be
impossible on what has already gone before.
My final quote:
But from this time forward— there will
be direct financial control.
So it can happen here in Canada. The free-
dom of the university can indeed be eroded
by policies which can be made by a provin-
cial government.
Universities are very expensive, and we in
Ontario are very fortunate that we have 14
good universities. There are not many juris-
dictions of which this can be said. Very often
you find jurisdictions in which there are tiers
of universities. They are centres of excel-
lence, as one man has called them. Then you
have fairly good universities, and at the bot-
tom you have just "universities." And in
these are concentrated those who do not have
adequate educational background.
But we in Ontario have 14 universities,
and I am very proud to say that all of them
are universities to which one can send a
young person in in this province and know
that they can emerge with a bachelor of arts
degree or a bachelor of science degree, which
is a respectable degree, and one which will
be considered so by people in other countries
of the world.
JUNE 10, 1968
4181
And that, I think, is the situation we want
to preserve in this province.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Great government.
Mr. Pitman: I suggest in my remarks to
the Minister of Reform Institutions that the
universities in many cases preceded this
present government. However, I would
concede to the Minister of Education that
tiiere are several universities which have
not preceded this government. I would
like to deal with this whole problem of in-
suring freedom for the universities, at the
same time having to deal with these pres-
sures which are placed upon universities by
the society in which we live, recognizing that
the expenses continue to mount radically year
by year. It is quite obvious that the univer-
sities are not entirely happy. I am sure that
the Minister will suggest that they never
could be entirely happy.
One only has to read the press release
from the presidents of the universities at
the time of the announcement of the operat-
ing grants for 1968-69 to recognize the very
real concern which these university presidents
have.
The presidents "applauded the government
decision to give education the highest pri-
ority in its pattern of expenditure for 1968-
69," and "they recognized the necessity of
restraining the rate of government spending
in keeping with the province's resources."
They, "felt bound," however, "to point out
the impHcations for the social and economic
progress of Ontario of failing to invest the
sums needed to operate the universities on
an appropriate level." I will read just another
paragraph:
The universities had conducted a care-
ful analysis of what their operating costs
were likely to be in 1968-69, and had
made a joint presentation to the committee
of university affairs showing the sums that
would be required simply to maintain
present levels of service in the face of
rising costs. The operating grants just an-
nounced fall significantly short even of that
minimum, and will not provide the means
necessary for many needed improvements.
I know in the Minister's remarks a few
moments ago he indicated the very real
problems that existed in doing this. However,
I do want to suggest that this kind of prob-
lem would most certainly have less political
significance if the committee on university
affairs was, as the member for Scarborough
East suggested, replaced by a completely in-
dependent commission.
I notice the Minister himself used the word
impartial; that as early as 1959 the govern-
ment took steps to establish an impartial
body. No one would deny that it has been
impartial. But I think that the time has come
to take the next step, and create a completely
non-pohtical body.
I think it was inappropriate last March
when the chairman of the committee on uni-
versity affairs. Dr. Wright, found himself in
the position of having to defend the govern-
ment because of the grants that have been
given to the various universities. I think it
was an unfortunate position in which to place
that chairman. I think that this is the role
the Minister himself must play in explaining
the government's priority in spending in the
various sectors of education, and I suggest to
him that a grant commission would be a
definite improvement over the situation
which at present exists.
I know that in the report of the commis-
sion sponsored by the Canadian association
of university teachers, or what is better
known as the Duff-Berdahl report, the follow-
ing statement was made:
Although the advisory committee at
present constituted seemed to have made a
good start, we would hke to comment be-
fore the custom becomes crystalized that the
typical Canadian advisory committee differs
somewhat in the nature of its membership
from the highly regarded university grants
committee in Great Britain.
The next statement is the statement with
which I wish to take issue.
It is doubtful whether university gov-
ernment relations have matured suflBciently
in any Canadian province for the university
grants commission precedent of having aca-
demic majority on the co-ordinating com-
mittee to be regarded as a viable model.
I would suggest to the Minister that it is
time. That this is the next step to take be-
cause of the problem of ensuring greater
freedom for universities. I think it is un-
fortunate too, when a university president
feels that he should make a statement, as was
made by the president of York University,
in which he suggested that the imiversities
were pulling punches:
Ontario's 14 universities have begun to
soft-pedal criticism of the provincial gov-
ernment because of their theory of biting
the hand that feeds them. York University
President Murray Ross said today that this
418:
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
gradual decline in taking pot shots at what
the government does for higher educa-
tion-
He said this in his annual report to the board
of governors—
—was a serious issue, because one of the
important roles of the academic is criticism
of public policy.
And as the Minister of Education would
agree, if there is no criticism in the uni-
versity, then indeed there is very unlikely to
be criticism anywhere else in that society.
Then he went on to point out that York's
institute for behaviour research would make
great strides against problems—
—that gnaw at and destroy the fabric of our
social existence if only it had enough
money— and if that money does not show
up from somewhere our best social scien-
tists would emigrate to the United States
where there was money.
And so I hope that the Minister would take
this under advisement: There is only one
short step to go. It is a very short step to
take before this present committee could be
a completely politically independent uni-
versity grants commission. And along with a
university grants commission there must be
some means of providing a longer range pro-
gramme for each of the universities in rela-
tion to capital costs.
We must have a five-year forecast of what
the needs of the province are, and I realize
this is very, very difficult. I think nearly every
report to the Minister has indicated the diffi-
culty of doing this, and I do not in any way
minimize those difficulties. I do suggest that
the secondary role that I have suggested for
the university can never be effective until
this is recognized.
In the area of social services this was
recognized two or three years ago, and a
response has been made. And I suggest to the
Minister that far beyond anything that the
Ontario institute for studies in education has
already done, must be done, before we can
designate the areas of gravest need for the
professions and business world, and for the
productivity of this province. Only in that
way can we provide for those needs within
our universities.
As well as that, of course, the projection
of the student needs must be a part of that
plan. I am not at all sure that this can be
done by the committee or commission which
has been set up to examine higher learning,
which is mentioned by the Minister in his
final remarks this afternoon. I am not sure
tliat this is the role of this committee, be-
cause this is a temporary body and it will last
for some 18 months, as the Minister sug-
gested.
And during that period of time, I do not
think that the kind of in-depth work can be
produced, and not being an on-going com-
mission, this in itself would undermine any
effort that it might make in trying to under-
stand a matter of this complexity.
I merely point out to the Minister another
section of the Duff-Berdahl report in which
he suggested a need for the master plan.
Each province which does not already
have a long-range master plan for the
development of higher education should
embark in the next decade on this project
as soon as possible. Some provinces may
want to plan together on a regional basis.
I do not think that would be so in tiie case
of Ontario.
As mentioned above, we recommend
that the master plans be developed under
the auspices of the advisory committees,
which are in the best position to integrate
all the various plans and make good plans.
I would suggest that it should be done in
relation to the university grants commission,
but the plan should be tiie result of the joint
participation of all universities in the province
—and this is the important thing— there should
be consultation with the governing bodies, the
administration, and the faculty. I think that
this is desperately important if the plans for
the university are to have a relationship to
the society in which they find themselves.
The great problem, of course, of a five-
year plan is the accountability to this Legis-
lature, to the people of Ontario. As the
Minister recognizes, this government operates
from year to year, and in many parts of this
jurisdiction, of course, this is entirely right
that it should operate from year to year. But
there is no need for a long plan which would
demand that the Opposition would give over
to the government its right to question ex-
penditure year by year, and I would suggest
to the Minister that possibly this can be
overcome.
First, of course, it will be partly overcome
by the fact of a university grants commission,
itself, being non-political. Second, I think
that the five year plan which was put forward
by this university grants— the advisory com-
mittee that is studying the economy— would
be brought before the education and univers-
ity affairs committee, and that those plans,
not the details within each university, but
JUNE 10, 1968
4183
the plans for the province over the next five
years could be explained in co-ordination with
the needs of the province— as shown by the
studies made by the Minister and his depart-
ment and committees, and as indicated by the
university grants commission.
It should be brought before the university
affairs committee and from there to the Leg-
islature and here, I think the whole question
of public confrontation could be settled.
I do believe that a great deal of the
cUiger and frustration which sometimes erupts
within the universities is the feeling of frus-
tration that they do not know exactly where
they are going and they are not sure what
they will be able to do from year to year.
Beginning and developing a university or
carrying on one with its long tradition both
are very complex institutions, and the process
is a very demanding exercise. It is made much
more demanding if there is no assurance that
the plans made from year to year have no
viability and no relationship to the possible
grants to come.
Now, I think that The Department of Uni-
versity Affairs has made a great step forward
in the concept of formula financing, and this
in itself takes some matters of money out of
politics to some extent. However, even this
has its dangers. For one thing, it does not
look after the smaller university. It is recog-
nized that extra grants are needed in order
to allow these universities to cover what can
only be called the basic costs and develop-
ment which are, in many ways, the same for
the smaller university as they are for the
larger university, with many more students,
and especially those with more post-graduate
students, and many more who are in more
specialized courses and who are in final years.
Therefore, the emerging university will
continue to need further grants, and I would
suggest to the Minister that the province
must recognize that a university takes a long
time to emerge. Someone has called an
emerging university a university which is
always in a state of "emergency", that is
perhaps one definition. I think that the defini-
tion which is perhaps more acceptable and
more approprate is that it is the university
which is still growing, and still reaching, and
the new universities in this province, for
some time, will need an opportunity to reach
and develop.
I would suggest that the last thing that
the Minister would want to see would be
a pseudo-university, or semi-university, an
institution caught somewhere between a uni-
versity and a college of applied arts and
technology. I am sure that he would not
want to see it. I would suggest to the Min-
ister that the decision to create a university
or new universities, a few years ago, was a
political but wise and courageous decision.
I think that he is right in his remark this
afternoon when he suggested that although
critics have stated that we have too many
universities, those critics are wrong. I think
that for the province of Ontario, and the
population that it will have and its economic
needs, 14 universities are not too many at all.
But it would be sad if it had 10 or 12
universities and four or six pseudo or semi-
universities, and so I do suggest to the Min-
ister that the newer, emerging universities
need his special attention and concern, and
that of a university grants committee. I would
hope that it would receive special attention
from those appointed to that body.
I think that it is important that the formula
financing should not be seen as a means of
making all universities the same. A few days
ago, we talked about the whole question of
admission to universities and I suggested
that there were some problems in the secon-
dary schools which made admissions rather
difficult. The Minister replied that in many
cases, universities have not provided suflBcient
programmes for different kinds of students
going on to the universities.
I would suggest that the way to get the
greatest variety of courses and to provide for
the needs of individual students of all kinds,
is by having as many different kinds of uni-
versities as possible. It would be a sad thing,
indeed, if, at the post-secondary level, there
was a kind of levelling off, or sameness to the
universities at the same time the Minister is
trying to provide variety in jurisdictions at the
secondary and primary levels in the new
boards of education being created.
I do make a special plea that for all the
formula financing which now is being pro-
jected for capital grants, thought be given to
the necessary differences within universities
which keep them alive, vital and will provide,
in one way, one of the main defences against
the kind of student unrest that you find in
those jurisdictions where universities tend to
have a monotonous sameness.
As well as that, I would suggest that we
need to look at the problem of financing in
relation to student power. I am going to say
little further about student power, but I
want to say this— that when you look at the
students who are revolting or disrupting
4184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
society, whether it be in France, other parts
of Canada, in Columbia University, or Berk-
ley, there seems to be a certain oneness in
the desires of these students, and that is the
desire to retain individuality.
I would suggest to the Minister that you
will not be able to achieve this struggle for
individuality unless the grants of The Uni-
versity Affairs Department are sufficiently
generous to allow the kind of student-
professor ratio which allows, in itself, the
kind of contact which must take place if
young people are to feel that they are re-
ceiving an "individual" education.
In other words, I do not think that you can
separate student power, the demands for
student power, from these demands which
the students themselves are making. In many
cases, the demands they are making can be
found in the most respectable reports, such
as the MacPherson report, which was pre-
sented to the senate of the University of
Toronto.
In that report, you find again and again the
demand that we get away from large lectures,
that we try to set up more seminars, that we
try every means possible to bring student
and professor together, that we try to get rid
of the lack of individuality that takes place
when students feel they are nothing but a
number over in the registrar's office; when,
indeed, they very rarely have an opportunity
to say one word to the professor who has
taught them throughout the year. These are
not merely agitators, they are people who are
in essence trying to achieve what we in this
chamber would regard as legitimate goals,
the increase of individuality.
I would like to say just a word or two in
conclusion about the whole question of
resources. Now, I recognize the Minister's
dilemma. In his remarks at McMaster Uni-
versity last week, he turned the problem
around and he said, "I recognize what the
university needs are, but as a Minister of the
Crown I must recognize also what the re-
sources are."
He stated that these are the resources
which exist and, therefore, he must in a
sense find the priorities within the education
system that would allow him to work within
these resources. And I think this was a
very sobering point to make before a uni-
versity audience on that occasion.
I would suggest that the Minister place
within his list of recognized values, the fact
that the resources needed for the universities
of this province rate very high in that priority.
because they rate very high in terms of the
kind of province we are going to have, the
kind of productivity this province will have,
the way in which it will establish new wealth.
Therefore it can logically be placed very high.
But I recognize that the province of Ontario
has moved in many different directions
towards more colleges of apphed arts and
technology— 19 of them— and towards teacher
training or teacher education in the univer-
sities. These are very expensive thrusts within
the various branches of his department. How-
ever, I do suggest that this whole question
of resources is a very subjective decision. I
suggest to him that the remarks of university
presidents in this regard represent a very
responsible comment. The resources which
have been placed in the hands of the univer-
sities are not sufficient this year for them to
grow as they feel they must grow if they are
going to be able to carry out the wishes
which this Minister and this government
wishes them to carry out.
I recognize the priorities and I recognize
also the desperate need that these priorities
be given sufficient comment within this gov-
ernment. That is why I am pleased to see,
in the remarks the Minister made a few min-
utes ago, the fact that within the next couple
of weeks, I think he stated, he would be ready
to appoint the committee on higher education.
I do not see it as fulfilling some of the
expectations which some people in the aca-
demic world have suggested. I do not think it
is going to solve all the questions which the
university hopes. I do not think it can. This
is why we made these other suggestions— at
least I think you heard them from this side
of the House this afternoon. But I do believe
that this committee can point up what the
priorities are, what the needs are, and will
give the Minister a great deal of ammunition
as he goes before his Cabinet and before his
Treasury board in the placing of these priori-
ties very high within tliis government.
I also must point out that sometimes when-
ever we discuss education and sometimes
when we discuss anything else, I feel as
though the spectre of the Provincial Treasurer
( Mr. MacNaughton ) hangs over this Legisla-
ture. Once again we find them having to
see that these priorities are related closely to
the chaotic and ineffective taxation system
that we have in this province and in this
nation.
And I would hope that very soon, when the
committee on taxation sits down, that one of
the problems it will deal with is this whole
question of finding a means of providing for
JUNE 10, 1968
4185
the kind of priorities which the Minister him-
self said were so very important in the speech
he made here today.
I hope it will mean a very great measure of
support on the part of the Minister for the
re-assessment of where we secure our taxes
and the case of a more just system of taxation.
I do not think even the mention of the Carter
report is entirely inappropriate in the discus-
sion of The Department of University Affairs.
I hope that, in re-negotiating with the fed-
eral government, there will be a new recog-
nition there of its responsibilities for the
financing of higher education in this and
every other province in this nation.
I make one final statement on the whole
question of student aid. I recognize that, until
these resources are found, these new taxation
sources are found, that the Minister cannot
deal very effectively with this problem. He
himself, I think, has indicated that what we
have in Ontario is not perfection. Indeed it
is not perfection. I would suggest it is doing
exactly what he himself has indicated at every
stage would be against his own goals and his
own principles— that of providing for equality
of educational opportunity.
It seems strange that we provide free edu-
cation up to the age of 18 and after the age
of 21. Somehow we have built a wall from the
age of 18 to 21, which in itself affects those
all the way down in our secondary schools
and our elementary schools. I think it is
desperately important for student morale—
and here again it relates to the question of
student power and the unrest among our
students— but I think it is also important for
student morale in high schools that we recog-
nize that higher education is an investment
by the province in these young people. I hope
it will have a philosophical effect upon young
people.
One of the things that always bothers me
with charging young people fees is that they
get some silly idea they have paid for their
education. Of course, they have paid for a
very small percentage of that education. And
I would suggest that some of what might be
called the less "social" concepts of young
people towards paying income tax and to
taking over a greater share of public expense,
is the fact that they think they have an
inherent right to what they have been able
to earn.
Of course, this is sheer nonsense. In many
cases, those who have the highest incomes
have been subsidized to the greatest degree
by the public purse. And I bring again this
point that, in many cases, what you have here
is a situation which allows young people to
believe that they have somehow of their own
gained an education and therefore do not
have any public responsibihty.
I am not going to read very much of this.
I am not going to read what Professor Porter
has said. I understand there are some in this
Legislature who feel his statistics are some-
what inaccurate, but I would hke to read just
a comment from a study of Ontario grade 13
students as it has been presented in "From the
60's to the 70's", a publication by the com-
mittee of presidents of universities of Ontario
in June, 1966.
Professor W. G. Fleming found that 39
per cent of those who went on to university
had fathers in managerial, professional, or
executive positions, but only 14 per cent
were the children of semi-skilled or un-
skilled labourers, although the labour force
of appropriate age to be fathers of grade
13 students had 16 per cent professional,
managerial, or executive categories and 31
per cent unskilled or semi-skilled.
In university this bias was even more
pronounced. A survey of Canadian uni-
versity students, done the same year by
DBS, that the fathers of 15.6 per cent were
professionals, proprietors or managers, as
against 15.4 per cent of the labour force in
these categories; that 5.1 per cent had
fathers who were labourers, as against 20.5
per cent of the labour force. This data was
10 years old, but again an analysis of the
Canadian post-secondary student population
of February, 1965, shows that the pattern
persists.
In Ontario, 56 per cent of the respond-
ents reported fathers in the proprietary,
managerial, professional occupations, com-
pared to 23.3 per cent for the labour force
in 1961. And 31 per cent reported com-
bined parental incomes of $10,000 a year
and over.
Now the Minister knows this and he
would agree with this report. All this proves
is that the well-off white collar family's chil-
dren are continuing to attend Ontario uni-
versities out of all proportion to their
numbers in population.
It well behooves this jurisdiction to take the
step towards what the Minister regards as
perfection— that perfection being, of course,
the end of the fee barrier for young people.
The province of Ontario's student aid pro-
gramme still allows those who have the least
to go farthest into debt. It still is a negative
feature when it comes to the education of
women, and it certainly is a negative feature
4186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
when it comes to the education of those who
are in the lower incomes. I think that in
some ways there are those who are worse off
now than they were five years ago. I say this
with all respect because there were a large
number of fee-paying scholarships a few
years ago— particularly given by the newer
universities— which allowed a bright student,
not a brilliant student, a bright student, to
pay off his fees by means of a scholarship.
Now tliat scholarship has been reduced to
$150 because anything over $150 will simply
be deducted from the award portion of the
province's student aid programme. In other
words, there are those who would have had
their fees paid some years ago who now must
put themselves into debt.
At the same time, we are faced with a very
serious summer of unemployment for uni-
versity students, and I just suggest to you
that in all the talk of a just society, I think
university students have a place.
I think it is unfortunate when this kind of
an aid programme creates the feeling that
there is some cheating going on among uni-
versity students. I do not believe there is
much at least, in my experience I have not
found students who have cheated. I have
found a great many students who have been
in very dire need and I think that this is
something which I am sure the Minister, once
he has had an opportunity to place his priori-
ties before this government, as soon as this
province's taxation system has been made
more just, and more effective, might consider
this is one of the first advances that might
be made on this point.
May I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by repeat-
ing what I have suggested here this after-
noon:
1. The need of independent university
grants commission;
2. The need of a five year plan which will
be based on the employment needs, on the
student needs, and on what in a sense is the
full need of this province.
3. A recognition of the problems of the en-
tire spectrum which can only be done by an
immediate appointment of a commission on
post-secondary education.
4. The end of the present fee structure and
the present problems of the student aid pro-
gramme which is, I think, detrimental to the
education of so many young people in this
province.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just to
reply very briefly to the observations made
by the two hon. members, I would say at the
outset that, in the main, once again they were
constructive and, to a degree, helpful— the'
degree we will discuss as we go along during
the course of these debates— but nonetheless,
for the most part, they certainly would be
helpful for the discussions that will take place
during the estimates of this department.
Dealing with some of the observations in
a general way, I think that I can say to the
member for Scarborough East— I sometimes
get these areas in Scarborough a little bit
confused— but if he reads carefully, and in a
positive way, with no suspicion, which I do
not suggest he has, some of my own remarks
in my preliminary statement today, he will
find are not too dissimilar to some of the
observations he has made with respect to the
consideration of change that is necessary in
the internal operational structure of university
government.
I cannot specify here today, perhaps as
completely as he has suggested in his re-
marks, just how this change should take place
or what, in fact, it should be. He quoted
from Dr. Bissell, from an address made to
the University of Windsor a week ago, I
guess, Friday— an address really that was not
too dissimilar to the annual report of Dr.
Bissell of a year ago when he was indicating
then that perhaps there should be— if you
could use this term— almost a single tier
approach to university administration. These
are things that obviously must be explored
and must be brought about in an intelligent
and logical way.
However, I do want to point out one or
two areas in his remarks— not that I take ex-
ception to them because I am sure he did not
intend them in this way. This is always a
great problem, I find, in this department; you
have to be so careful of what you say so that
the academic conmiunity does not seize on a
single phrase or word or sentence that, some-
times, if read in total, is more readily under-
stood than if taken out of the total presen-
tation you are making.
Now the member for Scarborough East
categorically, he says, rejects the philosophy
that his interpretation of what I enimciated
a year ago where I suggested that universi-
ties have a number— and I listed a number,
not just one— of specific objectives that fall
within the general purview of their overall
aims and purposes. And, of course, the mem-
ber for Scarborough East referred to the
provision of graduates whose attitudes are
consistent with the free society in which we
live.
We would have to get into a definition of
what we mean by attitudes, what we mean
JUNE 10, 1968
4187
by consistency, what we mean by free
society. I think in fairness one would have
to read that particular portion along with
items 1, 2, 3 and 4, and also in the conclusion
of what I said, to attain any or all of those
objectives. Of course it is essential that our
universities carry out their work in an atmos-
phere of complete academic freedom.
But I suggest, with respect, that when one
takes a portion out of a person's remarks that,
perhaps, it should be related to the total, and
this is particularly true and very difficult
when dealing with these sometimes intangible
situations we discuss in the academic com-
munity, of which I am not a part.
The hon. members who spoke here this
afternoon are. They are very close to the
academic community and obviously cannot
help, and they should, reflecting some of the
environment in which they hve from time
to time. But I say to the hon. member that
he did not really need, at the beginning of
his remarks, to indicate that there might be
some thought that he was putting them for-
ward just because of his association with a
particular university. As far as I am con-
cerned, Mr. Chairman, he does not need to
make that point with me. I accept that he
would not do it in this light.
I was just a little concerned, though, and
I say this very facetiously to the member
for Peterborough, when I heard his discussion
about emerging universities, knowing that he
is with one of those institutions— they do have
very real problems which are hard to tackle
and we do not know all the answers— I was
wondering whether he was, to a degree,
reflecting the particular cause of say, Trent,
Brock, the Lakehead and Laurentian, but I
see he is shaking his head, and I am sure he
was not. But it is one of the very tough
areas.
As I listened to the presentations here this
afternoon, I think you could divide— perhaps
the hon. member disagrees— the remarks of
the member for Scarborough East, and the
area, shall we say, of government university
relationships as they relate to funds, ques-
tions of control, and then the other aspect
which he relates, which I do not think need
necessarily be related and that is the internal
administration of the universities themselves,
and the change in government that must
evolve over a period of time.
As I say, I think in the latter area, perhaps
we are closer to some agreement than we
might think. In the former area though, Mr.
Chairman, I think I should point out that
while it is very popular on occasion to suggest
that if you divorce everything from the gov-
ernment, or from the control of the Minister,
you just automatically solve all your prob-
lems; this, Mr. Chairman, is not borne out
by experience elsewhere.
What the hon. member for Scarborough
East has suggested, and the member for
Peterborough has supported— although the
member for Peterborough, I must say, sug-
gested this is the next step-that what has
been happening has been right, and that the
next evolutionary step is the divorcing of
the university affairs committee from the
department or from the government— and I
say, Mr. Chairman, is this in fact realistic?
Is it, in fact, in the best interests of the
universities themselves? Are we saying the
advisory committee on university affairs com-
posed, in my view, of competent people, is
competent? Of course, Mr. Chairman, the
member opposite can say— "well, some of
them have had some political experience and
background." But this surely does not mean
they are not competent or able to deal with
problems, where today-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
They all have the same political experience
and background.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is not true and it
has not been the case. Until a couple of
gentlemen retired a year and a half ago, I
think one could say that there was a wide
variety of previous political interest repre-
sented on that committee.
Mr. Nixon: Not elected politically.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know what posi-
tion the senator is in. You are quite right,
a senator is not elected. I would agree with
the hon. member but surely it indicated, I
think, a degree of political philosophy and
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have to be
very careful not to say to oiu-selves that
because these are appointed by government,
they automatically then come under the in-
fluence of say the Minister, or the Cabinet,
or the government of the day, because this is
not necessarily the case.
Mr. T. Reid: It is a question of uncertainty.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get around to the
question of uncertainty. We never rejected
a grants commission just out of hand. There
has been a great deal of discussion. I am not
saying what we have today in the advisory
committee is perfection or that it is the ulti-
mate. But I think even the members of the
4188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
university community themselves who have
studied this very carefully, would relate the
experience of the university grants commis-
sion in the United Kingdom as not being a
complete answer. You know you can-
Mr. T. Reid: I referred simply to an "in-
pendent university commission."
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, the university
commission or grants commission are not
unlike one another. All you have to do is read
fairly recent material from the United King-
dom. This is clearly not the attitude of many
elected persons. The Financial Times states:
At the time of writing the offices of over-
worked, overpressed university administra-
tors are being invaded by the officers
of the controller and auditor general, du-
plicating in a large way scrutinies hitherto
adequately carried out by the UGC. This
momentous innovation which must, in all
sorts of ways, affect to a disadvantage the
standing of UGC.
This is what they are going through in the
United Kingdom.
It was enthusiastically recommended de-
spite an overwhelming majority of expert
opinion to the contrary by the public
accounts committee chaired by a Conserva-
tive ex-Minister and it clearly reflects an
attitude of distrust, if not hostility, funda-
mentally inimical to the atmosphere con-
ducive to the healthy growth of university
situations,
Mr. Chairman, that indicates the rigidity of
the approach of the grants commission. It has
not been all sweetness and light. I know two
or three of the individuals who initiated it
had a great deal to do with the development
of the grants commission in the United King-
dom, and it is like everything else. When it
is working in some other jurisdiction then
you think this might fit your own purpose.
You believe that this may make sense, but it
does not.
Mr. T. Reid: You do not have to duplicate
the United Kingdom experience.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right. Whatever you
do here does not have to be exactly the same,
but the closest comparison a person can make
between the recommendation from the mem-
ber for Scarborough East and what has
existed in the existing jurisdiction would be—
Mr. T. Reid: The Prince Edward Island
model—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, with great respect,
once again you are comparing, in this ins-
tance, potatoes with apples or something. I
do not think you can compare the experience
in P.E.I, with the problems that we face
here in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: No, the point is that there are
other models than the one you are referring
to.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that surely the ex-
perience in the United Kingdom deahng in
dollars and numbers and so on, is more
closely related to what we are going through
here. And the experience there has not been
all positive. They have had some difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very con-
clusively that I do not believe anyone in this
day and age can say that this is the set pat-
tern for the next 20 years.
I question, really, whether the so-called
commission where total funds are allocated,
say, by the Legislature— and this means that
total funds are voted on the recommendation
of Treasury to a commission which is inde-
pendent, so-called, of political interference
or influence— is not in any way going to solve
the growth problems and the problems that
relate to the universities per se. I say this to
the hon. member for Scarborough East, that
while all has not been easy I think I can
fairly state that there have been no large
"P" political considerations involved in the
recommendations of the advisory committee
to the Minister and the government.
Mr. T. Reid: It is the uncertainty you
create.
H^on. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the uncer-
tainty exists no matter which mechanical way
you do it because the uncertainty relates to
the total number of dollars that are available.
If the dollars available are voted as they
should be, by the Legislature of the province
of Ontario, there is no guarantee to the uni-
versity community whether you have an
advisory committee or a so-called grants
commission, that the total dollars in the next
year or the year after need necessarily be as
much or could even not be less than what
was voted in the previous year.
Mr. Nixon: What about the political refer-
ences referred to by the presidents last year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, somebody
has to make decisions and there are always
going to be small "p" political suggestions if
whatever is done.
JUNE 10, 1968
4189
Mr. Nixon: That is not what they are re-
ferring to.
H(On. Mr. Davis: I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that with the evolution of the formula
approach, in the area of operating grants on
the general basis, the advisory committee has
been able to take this whole question of op-
erating grants out of the area of small "p"
political discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we
are reaching a point with respect to capital
allocations, where perhaps a comparable for-
mula approach will once again resolve the
problems that perhaps exist in the minds—
and I suggest that it is in the minds on many
occasions— of the university community with
respect to the availability of dollars per capita
purposes.
Mr. T. Reid: Why do you not let go?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
saying that over a period of time, and I say
this in an evolutionary sense, alterations will
not be made, but I do say that the grants
commission, if one can relate it to existing
experiences, does not necessarily provide the
answer. It can build in a degree of rigidity,
a degree of government involvement, as is
happening in the United Kingdom, that the
university communities themselves would be
the first to criticize.
To say today that the move from the advis-
ory committee to the so-called grants com-
mission will be the panacea for the solution
of our problems is wishful thinking. It really
is.
Mr. T. Reid: I repeat: Why do you not let
go?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, all right, all right-
then a "substantial" improvement over the
existing situation with respect to the function
of the advisory committee. I also say this to
the member for Scarborough East, and I
hope he agrees with me, he is setting as a
condition— a precedent— to the alteration, shall
we say, in university administration, that the
question of advisory committees, grant com-
missions—or whatever terminology is used—
be settled before these other changes which
may come about take place.
And I say with respect, Mr. Chainnan, on
the matter of the advisory committee— while
it is important and we must always keep an
eye on just how this should develop over a
period of time— I really think the other area
could be more important from the time stand-
point. And I would like to think the member
for Scarborough East does not reject the idea
of changes that might take place being
dependent on this other problem being solved.
I do not think they have to be related.
Mr. T. Reid: Government initiates changes
only if the statutory creation of an indepen-
dent university commission precedes such
action.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is
where I guess the member for Scarborough
East and I are going to disagree on the sub-
ject of changes taking place, because I do not
think they have to be related.
The other points that could be made with
respect to the suggestions from the member
for Peterborough relate to the difficulties we
experienced with the emerging universities. I
think his assessment is quite right. We are
interested in developing universities in this
province that are all quality institutions. I
think we also have to expect, Mr. Chairman,
that all institutions will not achieve the level
they set for themselves perhaps as soon as
they would like to.
I think that within the university area and
the whole field of post-secondary education,
the question of priority, which is very tough
to determine, must be recognized. At the
same time, I say, categorically, there is no
question that we wish to see the emerging
institutions other than as first class universi-
ties. I only say that you do not achieve this
overnight and I was delighted to hear his
observation, because it is one that I had made
myself, that we are fortunate in Ontario that
a student who decides to go to university and
cannot determine which institution to attend,
is not prejudiced because of any choice that
he might make; that we have good univer-
sities in this jurisdiction.
Mr. Chainnan, there is a great deal, I guess
that one might add. Perhaps these other
points will come out during consideration of
the details of the estimates. As I say, I fovmd
the contributions helpful although I do not
necessarily agree with all that has been said.
In my view, and I have now been living witli
it for some years, it is one of the very difficult
areas of government administration— this whole
question of how the universities should evolve
over a period of time, the question of priori-
ties, the relationship between government
and our academic community.
I think that I can say this to the member
for Scarborough East: In spite of the fact he
refers to the stick and carrot approach, the
benevolence of the Minister, I really think he
would be pretty hard pressed to find any
4190
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
specific examples that really relate to this
type of situation. The possibiUties of it hap-
pening, I do not deny, but the possibihties
exist whatever system you use— who knows!
I am just saying that, getting down to actual
cases, I believe that the advisory committee
and the reaction to their recommendations
from the Minister and from tlie government
have been of most positive nature during this
past four or five years in this province. And I
say this v^th some slight knowledge of what
has gone on.
On vote 2401:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I was interested
in the Minister's opening remarks, his predic-
tions, as to the increase in cost to support this
department up until, I believe, 1974. In add-
ing the $250 million that is essentially going
to finance post-university education from
this department to the $175 million that is
to be spent from the university capital aid
corporation, we get the grand total of $425
million. I realized from amendments to the
statute and things that have been said in the
estimates already, that some of the funds from
the university capital aid corporation will be
going to Ryerson and the community col-
leges; probably about $45 million.
At this time, I wonder if the Minister can
tell us what share of the $425 million that is
projected for post-secondary use this year
would be balanced by a fiscal transfer from
the federal government. He said he would
have this looked into and perhaps this would
be the time when he could tell us what he has
been able to negotiate with the Minister of
Finance.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, tak-
ing the two departments together and recog-
nizing that capital is no longer involved in
consideration of fiscal transfer we are talking
in the neighbourhood of $220 to $230 mil-
lion. This is only an estimate, because we
have to have the auditors' statements from
the universities. But taking this general area
of operation of 50 per cent fiscal transfer for
post-secondary institutions, we are talking in
the neighbourhood of $220 to $230 million.
Now this is a total for all post-secondary, so
it relates to this department and to The
Department of Education.
Mr. Nixon: Then the part that is applicable
to The Department of Education would be
for grade 13, community colleges, Ryerson,
teachers' colleges. Included in that list, would
there be any of the other institutions like the
schools for nursing, and musing training and
so on, or would they all be under the Min-
istry's jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Nursing, of course, comes
under The Department of Health, but that
figure represents what we calculate will
probably be transferred to this province. As
I say, I cannot be pinned down to it. We are
talking between $220 and $230 million in
total.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I am quite interested in
the predictions for the next few years. Are
the predictions that the Minister has given
us based on the studies made by the Smith
committee or by the studies made by OISE?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the predic-
tions with respect to student enrolment and
also, to a degree, with cost are based on
several sources of information— some of it
going back really before the institute was
founded, some of it the Smith committee
reported and some from the institute. I think
if the hon. member goes back through our
debates in the last three or four years, you
will find that I made reference on several
occasions to material, prepared by Dr. Jack-
son when he was associated with OCE, con-
cerning student numbers.
It is very interesting to note, Mr. Chair-
man, we really have been quite close to the
projected student enrolments over the past
four or five years. But once again, these are
projections and the cost is something that
perhaps will not be as accurate as will the
student numbers. I think it may turn out to
be a shade conservative, but it is fairly dose
to it— that is, the $400 milhon operating cost
Mr. Nixon: I do not supi)ose that this is a
time for any major policy statement, but the
Minister knows that there will be the fiscal
negotiations and agreement, hopefully for
this year. Is he going to put forward again ah
approach through our representatives' meet-
ing in the federal-provincial conference for
more support specifically for education, or
more fiscal transfers based on education? Or
does he feel that the present situation is one
that the province can adjust to if there is
support in some other area?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
one looks at the total cost of education which
the leader of the Opposition himself outlined.
—I think it was $1.5 billion as it related to
the department's operations for this ciurent
fiscal year— I cannot say on this occasion what
the total policy of the government will be.
JUNE 10, 1968
4191
As far as I am concerned, my responsibili-
ties will be to indicate to the government that
from the educational point of view, the
resources we have at present certainly could
be added to substantially by any form of
fiscal transfer. When you see the projected
growth that would take place if one were to
even go part way toward accepting the policy
of the leader of the Opposition— moving to
80 per cent at the elementary and secondary
levels— the dollars are just so staggering that
obviously there has to be either restructuring
or more funds made available from the federal
jurisdiction.
I really did not want to get into this, be-
cause I think it relates to total government
policy, and I do not want my remarks to be
interpreted as saying to Ottawa: If we have
not got enough money, give us more so that
we can do it. I think there are other occa-
sions for that.
Mr. Nixon: Well, this is not the occasion
for discussing the government's approach to
the federal-provincial conference. That will
come some other time in a session.
On the other hand, I know the Minister
will agree that with the information that only
he can provide, it makes the discussion a
little more useful.
In vote 2401, we have the administration
of the students' awards— the student awards
branch, and the funds that are awarded by
that branch come under anotlier vote. Per-
haps you want to divide the discussion. But
one thing that would, I think, come under
this vote is the small difficulty that arose—
based on a statement by the chief student
awards officer— that there had been some
misrepresentation in the applications made
over the past year.
It might serve to clear the air— and I must
say that this has been done fairly well already
—if the Minister would give us an account
of what led up to the chief student awards
officer referring to the fact that there had
been some considerable misrepresentation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, from my
knowledge of it, is after the statement in
(luestion was made by the awards officer in
the department— which I think really was
prompted from hearsay discussions or sug-
gestions—that we contacted the various stud-
ent award officers at the universities. While
I am sure there may be exceptions to this,
their reports to us indicated that there was
no widespread misuse or misrepresentation.
At the same time, in any system of this
size, Mr. Chairman, there are 50,000 awards
or applications involved. I think we have an
obligation, as I mentioned in my introductory
remarks, to tighten up the accounting pro-
ceedings-all the procedures related to it—
to see that there is not any opportunity for
misuse.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that one can say
the vast majority of student awards are
related to those students who have legitimate
needs. But as I say, in any system of this size
we have an obligation, I believe, to tighten
up procedures where we can, just to ensure
that ther is not any misuse.
Mr. Nixon: Another matter of information
regarding policy has to do with the meeting
of the individual student's requirements to
continue at university. I have always under-
stood that public and private fimds met, in
general, about three-quarters of the cost that
an individual year at post-secondary level
would actually entail. Is that a broad, gen-
erally-correct figure?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am wondering, Mr.
Chairman, if the hon. member would explain
three-quarters of the actual cost.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, the actual cost— meaning
one-quarter to be met by the student.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it all depends, Mr.
Chairman, on how we relate the earnings of
the student during the summer months. If
you are suggesting that this is his 25 per
cent, I doubt that it comes to 25 per cent.
Mr. Nixon: Less than that then?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think so. I would
think, Mr. Chairman, that really— take an
example, if we can, of the student who has
no earning capacity during the summer.
Mr. Nixon: Are there may of them?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that really the
award that is available both in the loan and
the grant portion, comes very close to meet-
ing the average student's total needs. Now
obviously we calculate into this the ex-
pected parental contribution. Also the stu-
dent has to show that he was not able to
obtain some earning— perhaps for health or
some other reasons that prevented him
from receiving any funds for summer work.
Mr. Nixon: I perhaps did not make myself
clear. I understood that the total cost to
keep a student in university for a year— on
the average that is, it is more for medicine
4192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
you know— is something around $2,000. And
I understand that pubhc funds without stu-
dent awards of any type would meet three
quarters of that cost. Are these generally
accepted figures?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, of course, Mr.
Chairman, the figures never remain the same,
vmfortunately.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, well this is what it has
been for a couple of years.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Right. The cost, I think
one could say, on the average, in the coming
fiscal year will be close to $3,000, and that
public funds grants will look after five-sixths
of that cost.
Mr. Nixon: So he still has to find $500.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is exclusive of the
student award programmes. That is the
average. The average tuition fee is still, I
think, in the neighbourhood of $500.
Mr. Nixon: Right, but with that in mind,
it appears that our student award programme
is moving— as the Minister predicted once
that it would— to close the gap entirely for
the funds that an individual student must
find somewhere, either through his own en-
deavour or from his family or from the
student award that would permit him to
continue at university.
As I do some rough calculations, the extra
money needed to do away with tuition en-
tirely would not be much more than some-
where between $12 and $15 million. It
appears more and more that the reason for
not meeting 100 per cent of the tuition re-
quirements of the students in Ontario is not
simply a lack of funds. But something in the
principle of the thing offends the conserva-
tive mind. I well remember the Premier
speaking on this point during the estimates
three or four years ago in which he ex-
pressed himself clearly that he felt that it
would not strengthen the moral fibre of the
students if this tuition requirement were
done away with.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He
said it was in conflict with the free enterprise
system.
Mr. Nixon: There is a basic division of
opinion here. I do not believe that the Min-
ister has ever agreed with the Premier in
this regard because of his urging, as far as
the Treasury board is concerned, to have a
better student award programme. We are not
prepared to say that it is perfect by any
means, because I believe that with a little
more eff^ort we could do away with tuition
as we have accepted it and have been forced
to accept it down through the years.
There has always been the statement made
by those who have not followed the figures
too closely that it would simply be an in-
superable financial barrier. But I believe th^
the barrier is being eroded and worn down
in size until the amount of money is becom-
ing insignificant in the $2 billion budget
under the control of this Minister.
While there is always a tendency for those
of us on this side to urge the government
to expand its services without expanding its
tax base, still there is a matter here of some
concern. Because the Minister has heard tlie
arguments from this side and from less sub-
jective sources that the present fee structure
and tuition structure plus the cost of con-
tinuing education, are giving an unnatural
mix to the students from this province and
from outside this province who will make use
of our post-secondary facilities.
I believe one of the barriers that stand in
the way of making it a much fairer and more >
just approach to the attendance of post-
secondary institutions can soon be done away
with as we move in this direction. Surely tl»
Minister can see that as a goal— and if he
were to accept it as a goal, it would be a
very valuable thing indeed in meeting mud)
of the criticism that has been levelled at oat
system.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, may I say,
my math and the leader of the Opposition's
math are not quite the same. I would bow to
his greater expertise, but as I calculate it if
we have 80,000 students enrolled next year,
and if the tuition fee on the average is $500,
we are talking about a $40 million bill for
this coming year.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but you are already need-
ing almost $30 million out of student awards.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, because, Mr. Chair-
man, in the total cost we are talking $3,000
as the university's cost. This does not include
the student's cost, which could be perhaps
for living expenses, books and so on— a total
of $1,500 if he is from out-of-town.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, beyond that. Of course, I
am prepared to recognize, and the Minister
knows that we put this argument from this
side, that something has to be done to assist
those students who cannot live at home and
who cannot otherwise finance their living
costs at university. But the abolition Of
tuition is almost a cornerstone of the arg^
JUNE 10, 1968
4193
ment and the abolition of tuition is some-
•tfiing that I wish the Minister would accept
as i reasonable goal.
' It does not have to be political in any sense,
but I believe this is one way whereby we
could put some additional assistance in the
hands of those students who are finding some
diflBculty in continuing their education.
There is still the attitude, that the Minister
must surely recognize in a good many families
that do not have a history of post-secondary
education, that it is simply beyond them, and
no matter how much preaching comes from
political or other sources that advanced edu-
cation is not denied to anyone and that it is
available to everyone without regard to their
financing, there is a psychological block, and
I submit a real money block, to the continu-
ation of education that we could move to-
wards eliminating if we were to do away
with tuition.
Mr. Pitman: I would like to carry on with
what the leader of the Opposition says. I
would like to quote from the student awards
brochure. And I am sure the Minister would
not accept this as being the case:
While it is felt that in the first instance
the responsibility for providing the neces-
sary funds rests with the parent, guardian
or immediate family, and/or the student—
Now, there is the philosophy which is stated
in that brochure, that we are not investing in
people in this province, that essentially re-
sponsibility belongs to the parent or to the
student. And, therefore, education then re-
lates to the financial ability of that parent or
student. Now I would like to finish this off
in the final sentence:
In this way, all citizens of the province
may be assured that all qualified students
are being given equal opportunities in edu-
cation—that available funds are being dis-
tributed to students on a fair and equitable
basis.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that that just
simply is not the case and it has no place
whatsoever in an official document of this
government.
They are not receiving equal opportunity.
That very barrier itself gives it an inequality
of that situation.
I am wondering, also, if the Minister could
tell me whether there have been any studies
done in jurisdictions where loans have been
an important part of student aid, as to the
cost of recovering loans, and whether, in the
long run, it would not have been better to
have given the money in the first place rather
than have the expense of carrying and then
of recovering those loans.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we have
not conducted this because Ontario has left
the loan business, as of two years ago. So we
have no way of determining the administrative
costs involved in the loan programme. This
is something that the hon. member would
have to obtain from the federal authorities.
Incidentally, you will find the phraseology
slightly different in the 1968-69 brochure for
the student awards. Perhaps you will not
find it quite as difiicult, but I say this to the
hon. member-
Mr. Pitman: I am glad to hear that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not completely differ-
ent, I assure you of that. I would say to the
hon. member that one must accept certain
priorities in this situation and recognize that
tuition fees are increasingly a decreasing
portion of his total costs.
This must be understood, and while I do
not want to get into a debate with my friend
from Scarborough East on the relative statis-
tics, here or in the state of California, I think
I am still right when I relate the total per-
centage in that state as they come from the
various income groups within that jurisdic-
tion. I think it still has validity, and this is
based on a non-fee paying type of post-
secondary institution that has been in exist-
ence there for some time— although this, too,
is a bit of fiction.
Because while I say it is non-fee paying,
there are certain ancillary fees that impose
something of a burden on the students
attending the University of California. There
is no question that their fringe fees are
probably higher than they are here in this
jurisdiction. As I say, and I think the stu-
dents themselves recognize this, the problems
really are not necessarily related to the stu-
dent ward programme per se.
The difficulties, if they exist, and I believe
they do exist, start perhaps at the elementary
or secondary level. Our statement is this, and
I think it is valid, Mr. Chairman, that any-
body who obtains or has the ability to enter
a university has the financial resources now
to do so.
Mr. Pitman: If he goes into debt.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think where we are
having difficulty is perhaps where some stu-
dents, in the early grade levels or secondary
grades who, for one reason or another— and
I do not know the reasons; with great respect
I think Professor Porter has indicated some
4194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of them, but I do not think it is conclusive
in itself, I think he might agree with this—
but the fact remains, that this student
award programme is not directed at, nor
can it solve, the problems that may exist
at the secondary level. I think this is a
different situation, and I think the students
themselves recognize this.
We have said to the students of this prov-
ince, we have said to the committee that is
advising the department, "within the total
dollars that are available, suggest to us ways
and means of improving the programme".
And I think in fairness they have had really
pretty wide scope in making these sugges-
tions. And as I said in my opening remarks,
I do not say we have perfection. But we
have not found, certainly in this jurisdiction,
a better philosophical or practical approach
to the provision of student assistance. And
as I say I would be delighted if the hon.
members know of schemes that are superior
to this; we would hke to take a look at them.
Mr. Pitman: Could the Minister tell me
whether the cost of sending a student to a
college of applied arts and technology, if the
fees that are charged there relate in the same
way to the total cost of education. Are the
fees of a student at a college of applied arts
and technology a quarter or one fifth of the
total cost of education, as they might be at
the university level? Because I do see a real
problem here of social stratification, of send-
ing the lower income or lower middle income
people to a college of applied arts and tech-
nology and of those who are in the upper in-
comes continuing to be the major group who
are in the university, just as we read in these
statistics here.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
give the hon. member this information. I do
not think it will be available for another year
or two until we get greater stability in the
college programmes. It is obvious that the
cost of education at a college of applied arts
and technology is substantially less than at
the university, so are the fees. What the
percentage of cost is related to fees at the
colleges of applied arts and technology, and
to have any validity in comparing this with
the university, I think we are a year or two
away before we can make this type of com-
parison. In other words, we are going
through a phase where it is very difficult to
make a valid comparison. Suffice it to say that
fees are less, costs are less.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to comment on the last question raised by
the member for Peterborough.
Information I have here is that for 1968-69,
operating costs for a student at university axe
$3,237 whereas operating costs based on an
estimate of 25,000 students in the CAATs in
1968-69 is $1,917. Now I will just refer those
statistics to the Minister. I think they are from
his own department or from OISE. The table
that I have got is labelled table B6. I do not
know where it came from; someone stuck it in
an envelope and sent it to me.
And I think the question the member for
Peterborough—
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is not valid either,
because when you take these statistics from
the universities, you have to include in it the
cost of graduate work which you do not have
in a college programme. This is why I think
you cannot make a valid comparison as to tli^
percentage a student is paying by way <rf
fees to the college programme, as it relates
to the university at this stage.
I can give you the total number of students,
I can give you the total cost. But what valid-
ity this has by way of comparison, I question.
Mr. T. Reid: Right. But the member for
Peterborough simply asked, the Minister, Mr.
Chairman if he takes $3,237, which is the
cost calculated by OISE, I understand, for a
student for 1968-69, and put over that the
tuition fee, which is about $575 now at some
universities, you get a percentage.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The average is about $525,
I think.
Mr. T. Reid: So you get a percentage.
What the member for Peterborough wanted
to know was what is some sort of average
tuition fee for the CAATs, put that over
$1,917 and what do you get? We are very
suspicious over here, of course. In our minds
is that the people in the CAATs might be
getting less, or they might be getting more.
We want to know what you think is equitable.
Not whether it is another question of statis-
tics. Answer the first question, the question
of statistics.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as I say,
it is too early to determine this as far as the
colleges are concerned, because we have not
achieved a level of maturity where one can
say this will be a continuing cost of the
programmes. I think in two or three years
we can come up with a cost because I think
the figure will be higher. I think the cost of
operation at the colleges, probably on a pei^
centage basis, will go up in the next two or
three years more rapidly than they will at the
JUNE 10, 1968
4195
universities. I think that this is understand-
able.
As the programmes themselves become
more widely based, and the quality is up-
graded, I do not think there is any question
that thet percentage cost increase will be
higher then. As I say, I think we are too
fearly to make this type of comparison and
have validity. I can give you statistics, but
this does not solve the problem.
' I am sorry, the average cost this year in
the arts course— I was wrong— is about $485,
not $525.
Mr. T. Reid: Could I just follow up speci-
fically on this, Mr. Chairman? I accept the
Minister's remarks, but it is difficult.
Hon. Mr. Davis: And also one other point
is that we are talking mainly about this year,
the first year of the college programme, or at
least most of the students are in the first year.
They will now be going into the second.
There will be three-year programmes and, as
the hon. member, I am sure, knows, it has
been brought to my attention with great
regularity that the cost of operation of the
universities in third and fourth years are
higher on the average than in the first and
second years. This is why we cannot yet say,
when we are dealing basically with first
year students, that we have come up with a
good average cost figure for the college
programme, because we have not moved into
the second and third year of operation.
Mr. T. Reid: Yes. We will get to this ques-
tion about whether cost in third and fourth
year should and ought to be— in a later
estimate.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not saying that. I am
saying the universities say they are higher.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, we will question that
one. I have some statements when we get to
that area.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member
would like to withhold his questions for the
time being.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
4196 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
APPENDIX
(See page 4164)
PROVINCIALLY ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES OF ONTARIO
1964-65 1968-69
(Estimated)
Total enrolment 44,852 82,022
Post grade 13 undergraduate students 37,085 68,441
First year students 13,552 24,652
Graduate students 5,421 9,768
Percentage of age group 18-21 11.8% 16.9%
Full-time enrolment by institution
-Brock University 124 919
-Carleton University 2,729 5,720
-University of Guelph 1,927 5,094
-Lakehead University 466 2,055
— Laurentian University 556 1,702
-McMaster University 3,312 5,657
-Ontario College of Art 883 1,050
-University of Ottawa 3,838 5,066
-Queen's University 4,029 6,234
-University of Toronto 15,207 21,345
-Trent University 105 973
-University of Waterloo 3,137 7,824
—University of Western Ontario 5,274 8,989
-University of Windsor 1,986 3,727
-York University 795 5,667*
— Osgoode Hall law school 484
Total 44,852 82,022
Provincially assisted universities operating grants $42,376,000 $201,949,102
Capital support
Actually paid to universities 45,600,000
Available 54,675,000 125,000,000
Student awards 4,955,069 32,086,000
Number of students assisted 8,654 50,000
Teaching staff 3,247 6,718»»
*Osgoode Hall law school will be a part of York University effective July 1, 1968.
* ''Estimate reported by the individual universities as at November 15, 1967.
No. 113
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 10, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1068
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
/
I
CONTENTS
Monday, June 10, 1968
Estimates, Department of University Affairs, Mr. Davis, concluded 4199
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Wishart, agreed to 4237
Errata 4238
4199
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS
(Concluded)
On vote 2401:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarbor-
ough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, a point of information, I have some
remarks to make on the student aid pro-
gramme and I know that we have been dis-
cussing this in these estimates; should I wait
until we get to the specific estimate?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of University
Affairs): I was wondering the same thing,
Mr. Chairman. I have always been relatively
flexible but I think, really, to give some order
to it, we should wait until vote 2404.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, then I would
like to commence my remarks on vote 2401
in the following context.
I would like to refer the Minister to the
Prince Edward Island Act which he no
doubt knows. I would particularly like to
record some of the sections in it which I
think are quite important, because, as I see
the Prince Edward Island Act, which estab-
lished a university commission for more
property for the secondary vocation commis-
sion, it is quite different in terms of concepts
from the Act the Minister referred to in the
United Kingdom.
It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that con-
cepts can be valid without application to the
geographical, social and institutional setting.
In this case I think some of the concepts
in the Prince Edward Island Act are worthy
of serious consideration by the Ontario gov-
ernment, when it moves— -perhaps after the
next provincial election in 1971-72— to estab-
lish an independent university commission.
The section in the Prince Edward Island Act
I would hke to put into the record is section
3, subsection 2, and this is what it says:
It says that there shall be three advisory com-
mittees established to assist and make recom-
MoNDAY, June 10, 1968
mendations to the commission in examining
the role of post-secondary education in the
province. Of coiurse, in Ontario, I am talking
about the university commission only.
The first committee is called the academic
advisory committee. This includes representa-
tion of presidents of universities, perhaps
some of the administrative officers of the
universities, and members of the faculty or
teaching staff of the university, some of
whom would perhaps be appointed by the
president, but certainly most of whom would
be appointed by the faculty in the universi-
ties in Ontario. I think that would be a
very valuable committee to have for the
Ontario university commission.
The second committee is what is called the
government advisory committee. This is in-
teresting because it switches the roles around
from the present situation in Ontario. In
other words, under the university commission
there is a government advisory committee,
and this would be composed, in the case of
Prince Edward Island, of the Premier, the
Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister
of Education, the Minister of Labour, the
Deputy Minister of Labour, the Provincial
Treasurer, and the Deputy Provincial Treas-
urer. So in that committee we could reverse
the roles. We could have a very active gov-
ernment advisory committee to the commis-
sion.
Finally, the third standing committee of
the commission would be the student advisory
committee which is made up, of course, of
student representatives from the university.
The method of selection should be deter-
mined by the representative student organ-
ization. Here you have, I think, a somewhat
different model with somewhat different con-
cepts from the university grants commission
in the United Kingdom. I think some of the
concepts in the Prince Edward Island Act
could be and should be seriously considered
in this province.
One otlier section, Mr. Chairman, in the
Act is simply this, section 3. There shall be
at least one meeting annually when the
directors, tlie academic advisory committee,
the government advisory committee and the
student advisory committee shall convene
4200
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to exchange views and information in order
to assist the directors— that is, the directors
of the commission— to carry out their func-
tions. Those are a couple of the concepts
anyhow, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to
read into the record and pass on to the
Minister of Education.
I would also, at this time, like to make
clear and to underline the basic point I
made in my previous remarks, concerning
what I call the tlireat to university autonomy
in particular or the uncertainty under which
universities operate vis-d-vis the government
with a quotation from the president's report,
1966-67, York University. This will back up
the quotations I made in my prepared re-
marks quoting the committee of presidents of
the province and other sources. This what
the president of York University said in his
annual report. I just want to underline this
to the Minister. He refers to the problem of
the success of the system that the Minister
is establishing. Then he refers to the cause
of this:
This problem relates to the gradual de-
cline in the luiiversities of criticism of gov-
ernment policies and practices in the field
of higher education in the province, that
is Ontario. This is an unusual state of
affairs, for one of the important roles of
the academic community is criticism of
public policy.
The reason for this is not that there are
inadequate grounds for criticism, for no
system is perfect. The reason may relate to
the close working relationship established
among members of the Minister's depart-
ment, the committee of university affairs
and the many members of the academic
community involved in the work of the
committee of presidents. All are co-part-
ners in a growing enterprise, conscious of
its strengths and imperfections and co-
operatively responsible for them. One does
not criticize publicly one's own work or
that of a colleague in a joint project.
A more apparent reason may be that the
universities are becoming increasingly de-
pendent on the provincial government for
their funds and for the attainment of vari-
ous goals. There is a less than subtle ten-
dency not to be critical of one's main
source of support. However understand-
able all this may be, it deprives the public,
the members of the Legislature and often
the government itself, of the critical judg-
ment of those who should be knowledge-
able about policies and practices in respect
of university development in the province.
There is not, of course, a conspiracy of
silence, but there is an inevitable dulling of
sharp criticism.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, on this sort of general
aspect, I would like to say a few things about
the proposal this party has made concerning
the co-ordinated reform of The University
Act.
Now in this regard, I believe my notes
were taken correctly from the Minister's
remarks. I believe the Minister said words to
the effect that he was very aware of the views
of Dr. Bissell on the subject. He was very
aware of these views over a year ago since
the views were contained in Dr. Bissell's
annual report last year. I do, however, think
it is significant that Dr. Bissell repeated those
views only a week ago.
Instead of the Minister just sitting on his
hands for a year why did he not act on Dr.
Bissell's suggestion which he stated he ac-
cepted and knew of over a year ago? Why
was the acceptance of the need for reform
not a vital issue in his opening statement to
the Legislature?
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say of
a general natmre.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
not want to disagree with the member for
Scarborough East. I guess, as I say, we retain
some flexibility. But really, I think his con-
tribution has been an effort, to a degree,
either to substantiate or refute remarks made
in the opening remarks; which is fine, I do
not quarrel with this. I would only point out
that, certainly we are prepared to look at
Prince Edward Island and the legislation
there; but the hon. member himself made an
observation that we cannot always compare
two jurisdictions. He said it was not valid,
necessarily, to compare the grants commis-
sion in the United Kingdom with what he
was suggesting here, and I do not disagree
with this. No one pattern that exists some-
where is necessarily applicable in this juris-
diction, and I think the same applies to
Prince Edward Island.
As I understand the situation there, and
the hon. member can correct me if I am
wrong, as part of the government policy they
are talking about a single university for that
province, that St. Dunstan's, and Prince of
Wales are going to become a single institu-
tion. I understand the head of Prince of
Wales, and my memory may be wrong, has
been less than enthusiastic; that they have
had a great measure of controversy over this
and that the advisory concept that the hon.
JUNE 10, 1968
4201
member suggests is something in reverse,
that what they are doing there maybe should
be part of our system here.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you if one
could project this type of thinking into the
thinking of Ontario I can envisage this occur-
ring: three years from now the hon. member
for Scarborough East saying to me: "Here
you are on the advisory committee to this
group, what in heaven's name has gone
wrong?"
They are getting too much, or not enough
—the exact same arguments would apply.
All I am saying— and I will not be repeti-
tious because we have been through this in
three other sessions— I do not say that the
existing system represents perfection, I do
not say the advisory committee and the con-
cept that has been developed here is neces-
sarily the final step on what will happen in
the relationship between government and
university; all I say is, and I think that the
facts will record it and history will record it,
the last four or five years represent the most
significant growth in university development
in this jurisdiction compared to any in Canada.
The relationship between government and
the universities, while it is not, once again,
perfection, probably is as healthy as can be
found. And I do not care-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Where did your modesty go?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I was being
very modest!
I say this from a purely practical point of
view. I do not reject consideration of the
grants commission or any other method that
can better the situation or improve it. All 1
say is that no matter what vehicle is selected,
the desire on the part of the member for
Scarborough East who in some way com-
pletely divorced the operation of the grants
commission from any government or legis-
lative involvement— which in fact is what he
is trying to do— is just unrealistic.
The same problems will come back and
be debated here year after year. I can just
see it now. "A grants commission appointed
in 1969; X number of dollars allocated by
the government to the grants commission; To-
ronto University does not get enough"— you
think we will not hear about it in this
Legislature? "York University does not get
enough"— do you thing the hon. member, in
spite of his desire to dissociate himself from
that great institution in the northern part of
Metro, do you think we will not hear about
it in this House? Of course we will! And so
we should; I do not quarrel with this. But
let us not—
Mr. Nixon: You said you did not have a
crystal ball.
Hon. Mr. Davis: 1 do not have one, but
I can predict this much. This is very basic.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Have
you been provoked?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Never, I have never been
provoked, Mr. Chairman.
I am just saying let us discuss these issues,
I am delighted to do so, but let us also
recognize that the proposed grants commis-
sion—which is not new in itself, 1 say this
with respect to the member for Scarborough
East, this is not new. The member for Peter-
borough nods his head in agreement, he
recognizes it is not new.
Let us not suggest that this is a solution
and a permanent solution to the problems
that 1 think are going to continue to exist.
But of course, Mr. Chairman, I guess if we
did not have problems there would not be
need for some of us to carry on certain re-
sponsibilities.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): I would
like to say a few words on this.
I think there is a misconception. It seems
to me that the responsibility of the Minister
is to see that sufficient overall resources are
available for the universities of Ontario; all
the universities.
Hon. Mr. Davis: In whose judgment?
Mr. Pitman: In the judgment of the Minis-
ter and in terms of his relationship to this
government.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, but, Mr. Chairman, I
do not want to interrupt the hon. member,
but here he is putting the Minister in the
postion of making a judgment based on my
own knowledge-
Mr. Pitman: No, based on advice.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, 1 do not. I make my
judgments based on the advice of the ad-
visory committee on university affairs, and I
present these to the government.
This is correct; this is the great difference.
Really you are giving me far greater author-
ity, or proposed authority, on your joint
scheme than we have now.
4202
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, as it is now
the advisory committee on university affairs
makes a certain recommendation, the Minis-
ter goes before the Cabinet, or goes before
the Treasury board, and is unable to secure
sufficient resources. He then goes back to
the committee on university affairs, and says
there are not these resources, we are so many
hundreds of thousands of dollars short.
Therefore, they take the money and they
distribute it in a certain way. As it is now,
the individual institutions jump over tlie
committee on university affairs and come
directly to the Minister. It seems there is a
confusion of issues here.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right.
Mr. Pitman: Should the Minister be re-
sponsible for finding the resources? Then the
university grants commission, as a completely
independent body, is responsible for dividing
the money which the Minister has provided
for.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is
exactly what has happened. The advisory
committee on university affairs has deter-
mined the allocation. And certainly it would
happen if you had a so-called independent
grants commission. What is an independent
commission? It is a commission appointed by
the government of any jurisdiction as repre-
sentative of the total public. I can assure
you once again, with some experience be-
cause it has happened elsewhere, that if
the grants commission did not receive suffi-
cent funds, in the minds of the university,
do you think they would be content and
say, "Well, the grants commission has not
done a job, and we do not like their alloca-
tion, but we will let it go at that"? Do you
think they would not be on the doorstep of
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) the next
day? Of course, they would.
Mr. Pitman: It seems the responsibility of
the universities would be to make sure the
Minister and the government realized that,
in their opinion, the total amount of money
which had been allocated to university edu-
cation in this province would have to be
increased for the sake of the economy, for
the sake of the—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are
talking about two principles. One is the total
resource available; the other is the method
of distribution. I do not care how you develop
whatever technique you may wish or you
may imagine. The total resource available, I
think in the foreseeable future, will meet the
expectations of the academic community or
the university community. I think we might as
well accept this, and it is not the function of
the Minister, surely, in this mythical reorgani-
zation.
Surely it is not the function of the Minis-
ter with limited knowledge— no advisory com-
mittee—to go to the Provincial Treasurer ( Mr.
MacNaughton) or Treasury board in the
Cabinet and say, "On the basis of my limited
knowledge I think the university grants com-
mission this year should have $300 million.
We will let them decide how it is to be dis-
tributed." What validity is there in my
judgment? If it is not sufficient, and chances
are it might not be sufficient, do you think
the universities are going to be content mth
the distribution by the grants committee?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to horn in
on this, there has been enough of it already.
I am not so interested in the mechanism, but
the Minister says he does not want to be the
man who wants to make the judgment. But
this year the university presidents said they
needed to maintain their necessary expansion,
$340 million, and you exercised your judg-
ment to $220 million or something like that
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, let us be
factual. I did not exercise my judgment to the
Treasury board.
Mr. MacDonald: The Treasury board did
it for you.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, with great respect,
the university affairs committee, in the same
way as the grants commission would function,
made recommendations to this government.
They did not accept the overall request made
by the universities. They never have. They
made a recommendation to the government
Mr. Pitman: There was no change in Aat
recommendation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there was a change
in the recommendation, but not to the extent
nor in the way suggested by the member for
York South. I might also say, Mr. Chairman,
it is the first time that any reduction was
made. And the distribution was left entirely
up to the committee on university aflFairs. Or,
shall we say, the determination of distribution.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to state that what the Minister has said just
now is in flat contradiction to what the presi-
dents of Ontario have said in their report. I
JUNE 10, 1968
4203
would like to put this on record right after
the statement he just made. On page 42 of
their 1966-67 report, they say:
The committee acts in an advisory capac-
ity to the government and there is a natural
desire on the part of its members to have
its advice accepted on as many occasions as
possible. This situation carries with it the
danger that the committee may be tempted
to tailor its advice to what it believes to be
consistent with the goverrmient's own order
of priorities.
The point I have made and we have made,
that Ken Bryden has made in this House,
that my leader has made in this House, is that
you can do away with that danger by getting
out of it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, in the
practical point of view, you cannot. Let us be
very practical about it. I am delighted to
participate in, shall we say, theories, but the
practice would be the same, whether you had
a so-called independent grants commission
or not; at some stage the government is
involved in the total number of dollars
involved. With great respect to the member
for Scarborough East and the quotation from
the university presidents, and I am always
interested in the way these things are phrased
from time to time— "this may happen", this
might happen", "there is a possibility that
this might exist"— but the fact remains that
for the years that I have had the responsibil-
ity in this area, the recommendations of the
advisory commitee have been accepted by the
government until this year when they were
reduced— really in a very minimum way, but
they were reduced. The important aspect—
and I think this is a relevant part, Mr. Chair-
man—was the determination of how the
moneys were to be distributed after the reduc-
tion was left in the hands of the university
advisory committee. It had nothing to do with
the Minister or the government.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister described it
as minimal and the reduction was, as I under-
stand it, from $340 million requested by the
presidents to $220 million-that strikes me as
being a bit more minimal.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I
recall it, the amount that the university afiFairs
committee recommended to the government,
which was discussed by the government and
returned to the university affairs committee
—and I think I am right in this— that the
request for a reduction was in the neighbour-
hood of $4.5 miUion in the total budget-
$4.5 million— and I think this, in the total con-
text, is a minimum reduction in budget. $4.5
million that was the total reduction.
You cannot compare, Mr. Chairman, what
the university presidents in total are asking
for with the initial recommendation of the
committee on university affairs. They made a
recommendation to the government and this
amount was reduced by $4.5 miUion.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, one of the
things which I mentioned in my opening
remarks had to do with the whole question of
long-term financing. I would like to read just
a small excerpt from the book "From the 60s
to the 70s":
In 1964 the provincial government
changed its method of capital support to
universities from grants out of current
revenue to loans amortizable over a thirty-
year period and placed the administration
of the programme of capital support in
the control of The Department of Uni-
versity Affairs. The committee on university
affairs has not been consulted on capital
development except for projects which are
for one reason or another atypical. It has
not therefore been in the position to take
the over-view of the system as a whole. The
experience we have quoted by different uni-
versities under this arrangement has varied
widely, in some cases there has been
nothing serious to complain of except
delays, in others the planned and phased
constructions scheduled have been inter-
rupted or even stalled without adequate
explanation or without any apparent con-
sideration for the academic consequences.
Apart from the uncertainty and frustra-
tion involved for particular institutions, this
way of handling capital programmes pre-
cludes any knowledgeable academic assess-
ment of the situation as a whole. One can-
not really say that consistent and co-ordi-
nated planning exists either individually
or collectively. The principal victims of
this impasse may turn out to be the stu-
dents. It is the amenities provided for the
student use that are x'd out of plans for
new academic buildings as not qualifying
for financial support.
Now, a few moments ago I mentioned the
question of long-term planning over a four
or five year period. The Minister did not
reply to that in his remarks. I would be
very pleased to hear what he has to say and
what he feels the new committee might have
to do with this question of giving plans to
the universities for a four or five year period.
4204
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
How does he propose to deal with the yearly
estimates in that context?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am quite
prepared once again to debate the presidents'
report of 1966-67 although I should point out
that I think we debated it— certainly the
leader of the Opposition and I debated one
or two aspects of it a year ago at this time
and I recall several excerpts being read to
me from that same report. I do not mind
going back a year but if the hon. member
for Peterborough would refer to page 15 of
my remarks as it relates to capital, because
the presidents' report is not— and they would
I think recognize this— accurate in light of
what has happened.
In the meantime, each provincially assisted
university has outlined its priorities of capital
development for 1968-1969 and submitted
these to the department. At my request the
committee on university affairs reviewed all
of these submissions and related them to
total provincial requirements. The recommen-
dations which I have received as a result of
this very careful review have been reported
to the various institutions and will, I know,
ensure that our capital funds are effectively
invested in university expansion during the
new fiscal year.
The other point, Mr. Chairman, that is
relevant, is the space utilization study— for
want of a better term — that the university
presidents had agreed and the university
affairs committee had agreed was the best
way to come to grips with the question of
capital costs and capital planning. This study,
Mr. Chairman, is currently under way.
Let us also face this fact: even under the
considerations that were made recently for
1968-1969, there are going to be some insti-
tutions that are disappointed, and yet, Mr.
Chairman, there will be a total of $125 mil-
lion made available for capital purposes. I
am sure, just because of the competitive—
and understandably so— nature of these insti-
tutions there are going to be some who will
say this not sufficient for us. I recognize this,
but the committee had to make certain
decisions and I think that they based them
on a high degree of validity and conscien-
tious thinking.
I have accepted their recommendations
and this is the situation as it relates to capi-
tal. I say once again, with respect certainly
it is not necessarily perfection, but I think
it represents a great deal of thought on the
part of the committee and the department in
making an effort to see that the universities
can plan and develop intelligently. Some of
them will not be able to develop at the rate
they would like, and I think this is something
that has to be expected.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask this,
Mr. Chairman. It seems to me we are having
trouble here with words: "reviewed all these
submissions and related them to total provin-
cial requirements."
What is meant by total provincial require-
ments? Do you mean requirements in terms
of manpower; do you mean requirements in
terms of the needs of various professions, of
business schools; do you mean requirements
in terms of student enrolment? You see the
question there is that the departments of the
universities do not know what these require-
ments are— they do not know what you want
in terms of these various areas. As a result
there is no way that they can plan over an
extended period.
The Minister still has not given me any
indication that he recognizes the universities
would like to be a part of the total planning.
They do not want to simply pass on what
they believe to be their requirements within
their narrow purview and then have the
committee tear them dovvTi and say, "This is
not our requirements." They go to the com-
mittee and say, "Well, what do you mean by
your requirements?" They say, "We do not
really know; we cannot really tell you what
our requirements are because we have not got
all the studies and the results of all these
needs in various sections of the economy."
Some of the universities are completely and
very confused as to exactly what the Minister
really wants.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, what the
Minister really wants— I am not sure how rele-
vant this is as to what the Minister really
wants— and I say that while there may be a
certain degree of confusion, and I say it is
minimum, the great problem is, as I stated
earlier, that under an approach such as this,
where resources will not meet the expecta-
tions of all the institutions, certain very hard
decisions have to be made. This is going to
cause some difficulties at some institutions,
I recognize tliis; but then the alternative is,
of course, to say to each institution, "Yes,
you can proceed with every capital project
that you have sought us to accept." This
cannot work either, Mr. Chairman.
The universities recognize it and I say,
with great respect, and perhaps the hon.-
member is closer to all these institutions than
I am— I do not know, perhaps he is— I do not
JUNE 10, 1968
4205
think the confusion really exists to the extent
that the hon. member suggests. I think they
know. I am not saying they are completely
content with it, do not misunderstand me.
I am sure that with the recent allocation of
capital there will be some that are unhappy
about it. I do not dispute this.
Mr. Pitman: I do not want to press this too
much further, Mr. Chairman, but the point
is this, I think. The universities would like,
rather than to be bringing things to the Min-
itser— or to tlie committee, I should say— to
have them chopped down in terms of the
resources and in terms of what appears to be
provincial needs; they would prefer, I think,
to be a part of the planning and see exactly
where they did fit into it over a five-year pro-
jection.
I think the Minister realizes that building
a university is extremely complex and you
have got to look for your colleagues, look for
your professors, two or three or four years
ahead. You have to know how many you are
going to have, in terms of buying equipment,
in terms of hiring technical assistance. All of
these things have to be done on a several
years basis. In some cases I think it is a
wasteful method if, for example, a university
is successful in hiring and looking after its
professional needs for a two- or three-year
period and then discovers that it has to cut
back on some capital project which would
have made the best use of those professors
and of that staflF.
What I am suggesting is that if they could
find themselves as part of a plant and could
see where they were going, I think they
would be far more willing to accept the sug-
gestion which the Minister has made— that
they will achieve the status or the size or the
role of a full university over a more extended
period because of the resources or lack of
resources that exist.
In other words, I think what the university
does resent is being given the expectation at
some point that it is going to have so many
students or certain capital projects completed
by certain date, and then having them slashed
back and then having to readjust the entire
university for perhaps a two- or three-year
period. Then, of course, as I say, you have
a waste of both human and actual talents
when you do this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to prolong this either because I think
to a degree we are not that far apart. To say
that the universities should be involved, we
could not agree more and they are. They are,
shall we say, not co-sponsors necessarily but
they are very directly involved in the space
utilization study which I think is very basic
to the planning of future physical plants. I
do not think there is any question about this
and they are very directly involved in it.
But, as I say, you know we could go back
into discussion of the recommendations on
graduate study. There are some pretty speci-
fic recommendations there. The universities
have accepted some. They have rejected
others. It did not provide any panacea either
to the problems that we face in the field of
graduate work. All I am saying is that there
is no easy, pat solution to these situations. I
think really, that while we have some prob-
lems, I do not think that we have inhibited
the growth of our institutions of higher learn-
ing. I do not think there are many, if any,
imiversities really in the position suggested
by the member for Peterborough— not that I
know of at this particular point in history.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, could I just
add a word on this one?
The Minister referred to the leader of the
Opposition referring to the presidents' report
last year. I think we should be clear that
the Minister was probably referring to the
report entitled "From the 60's to the 70's",
whereas the report that we have been using
here, the member for Peterborough and my-
self, I believe, is the publication entitled
"Systems Emerging", which is the first annual
review of the committee of presidents of
universities.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought he was using
the other report, but I am not sure. All right.
Mr. T. Reid: The point is that this publi-
cation came out in September, 1967 and of
course, you could not have heard it being
used last year. It is a much more up-to-date
document.
In this document, on page 28, there is a
discussion of this problem that the hon.
member for Peterborough has brought up.
The presidents refer to a committee of uni-
versity officers concerned with capital financ-
ing who were engaged in a study for the
committee of presidents. Of course, there
probably was liaison with the Minister's de-
partment. They say that the study of the
short-term problem— that is, I believe, from
July 1, 1964, to June 30, 1969-the study of
the short-term problem is now well advanced.
They said this in September of 1967, many
months ago. To continue with the quo-
tation:
And it is hoped that it will lead to a
means of revising on an interim basis, the
4206
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
current capital financing arrangement so
as to enable the university to carry on
with expansion plans for the next two years
while a more sophisticated method of ap-
proach is developed.
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is in fact what has
been done.
Mr. T. Reid: Is the report available?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. The universities were
informed of the interim approach on March
26, 1968. This was moving to the 95 per
cent, the review of capital projects from
1964, to see if we could not help with the
backlog of their financial problems. As I
understand it, while once again there may
not be complete acceptance as to total
dollars, this interim capital policy has been
accepted by the universities. This has been
done. They were informed of this on March
26 and that relates specifically to what the
hon. member is referring to.
I could be wrong, but I did overhear the
member for Peterborough refer some time
this afternoon to a publication entitled "From
the 60's to the 70's" which is the one which
the hon. leader of the Opposition did refer
to in the estimates last year. I think the hon.
member for Peterborough referred to "From
the 60's to the 70's," I may be wrong, but
he did.
Mr. T. Reid: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we
have pursued this type of capital planning
as far as we can at this point. All we can do
is say we hope that the government will come
up-
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is an interim situa-
tion. We know and yet I think, in fairness,
it is equitable.
Mr. Pitman: Can I take just one point on
the same area as the hon. member for Scar-
borough East— I will give the floor back to
him in just a moment.
It seems to me that all the planning which
is talked about here is from one end. That is,
what we are doing is space utilization and
we are going to look at suitable enrolment.
We are going to deal with all these prob-
lems but I never seem to feel that there is
any co-ordination with the statistics at the
other end of what we are trying to produce.
This, it seems to me, is what you have
to co-ordinate. This secondary role of the
university, which is much on the Minister's
mind and which is taking most of the Minis-
ter's expenses, is the needs of the universities
—the economic needs, the manypower needs
which the universities are trying to fulfill.
This is the kind of planning which never
seems to get off the ground in the sole
question of university planning.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, turning now
to a slightly different area and a much more
specific problem.
The Minister referred in his speech— page
18 of the copy I received— that we could ex-
pect to be expending $400 million for oper-
ating costs on our universities, I suppose col-
leges are included in that, in 1973-1974.
Can I ask the Minister how many students
that is based on? That is, what is the student
enrolment projection in our universities in
1973-1974?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, these pro-
jections—and I hope in an aside this afternoon
I said these were estimated costs— relate to,
shall we say, experience over the past ten
years and projections that, to date, have been
relatively accurate. As I recall my figures
this afternoon, I suggested that by 1970-1971
enrolment would reach 100,000; it would
probably continue to grow at a rate of 10,000
per year thereafter. So this means if we use
the figure $400 million in 1975, we are talk-
ing of 140,000 to 150,000 students.
Mr. T. Reid: Just to follow up. This is a
table and perhaps the Minister could tell me
whether he agrees with these estimates. It
gives the following estimates for university
enrolments and operating costs:
For 1968-1969, an enrolment of 87,000, total
operating costs for 1968-1969, $281.6 mil-
lion. Then for 1975-1976-
Hon. Mr. Davis: What is the source of
this?
Mr. T. Reid: This is a table entitled "Table
B6— projected enrolment and operating costs
of various educational streams."
Hon. Mr. Davis: From where, again?
Mr. T. Reid: This is one of the problems
I have, Mr. Chairman. It just came in the
mail to me and I do not know where it is
from.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot help the hon.
member then.
Mr. T. Reid: The thing I wanted to know
is whether your figures jibe with these.
JUNE 10, 1968
4207
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know if they do.
You have figures for 1968-1969 of at least
our projected enrolment which I gave in my
opening remarks. You have the costs as set
out in the estimates. How close they come
to the material you received through the
mail, I do not know.
Mr. T. Reid: For 1975-1976, you give a
university enrolment figure of about 122,000,
and total operating costs of $668 million.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you know if this
includes graduate studies as well? I used a
figure of around 140,000 to 150,000, maybe
something shghtly less than 140,000.
Mr. T. Reid: Right. Do the Minister's esti-
mates, say for 1975, include an operating
cost per student of somewhere in the neigh-
bourhood of $5,500? That would have an
inflation factor in the—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
in a position to be that specific. We are say-
ing, and I think we are relatively close, a
figure of $400 million for 1975. Once again,
it is so difficult to make projections because
one cannot determine whether certain areas
of university education will increase in cost;
whether new techniques will be found to re-
duce it in certain other areas. But I think we
are relatively close at the $400 million figure.
As I say, it may turn out to be a bit of a
conservative estimate because who can pro-
ject really what the dollar will be worth in
1975? This is something over which I cer-
tainly have no control.
Mr. Pitman: I notice that the cost in the
main office has risen almost double in the
last two years; we are losing about 24 per
cent just in this year. I wonder if the Minister
could indicate what activities in the main
office have been responsible for this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, of course
one of the major items this year in the main
office expenditure increases was the $100,000
for the proposed special committee on post-
secondary education in Ontario. This is one of
the significant increases.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister could
elaborate on this committee for post-
secondary education. I remember reading last
year, I think, a statement that this was one of
the most significant steps. I think I vwll read it
from the Globe and Mail:
Mr. Davis called it one of the most
significant steps ever taken on higher educa-
tion in this or any other jurisdiction.
I think you would have to admit it is also one
of tlie slowest steps that has been taken. I
wonder if he could elaborate on what he told
us this afternoon as to why it has been so
difficult to get people to serve on this com-
mittee.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is only part of the
problem, Mr. Chairman. Part of the problem
has been personality; the other complicating
features have been really the terms of refer-
ence and the structure of the commission.
There is a very strong point of view that it
should be a very representative type of com-
mission involving representatives from many
areas of the academic community. It would
not be serving on a full-time basis and, with
perhaps three or four commissioners serving
full time, then the total commission meets
once or twice a month, for perhaps two or
three days. This has been one method sug-
gested.
It has also been suggested to me that it
really should be developed on the basis of
two or three individuals. This would involve,
of course, having people forget about their
present employment for a year-and-a-half or
two years. There has also been discussion
quite recently as to the orientation of such a
study committee, whether we should be
getting into one or two of the areas men-
tioned by the member for Scarborough East?
Whether the straight statistical part of it is
becoming— perhaps I should not say unimpor-
tant—but not as important as we felt it was
when all of us were discussing this a year
ago? Whether some direction should be
given toward the structure of the institutions
involved? I have found in my limited experi-
ence that it is very difficult to get unanimity
in the university committee community— if not
almost impossible— although I think there has
been a very good relationship. I am hopeful
in the next very few days to see if we cannot
reach some consensus on the best method of
proceeding on this.
I think this is very important— although I
will not say, Mr. Chairman, that this is
necessarily the only way to come up with
some of these decisions or some of these
recommendations. Nor will I say that the
terms of reference should not be altered to
include certain other situations— it is some-
thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see
finalized very shortly. I am optimistic that we
can. But, once again, I think it is very
important that the selection of persormel and
the terms of reference really be done in
complete consultation with the university
community because in order to have, I think.
4208
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the report— can be valid from the govern-
ment's point of view; it might be vahd from
the total university community point of view
perhaps— but I think to be acceptable to
them in total it has got to be done in a way
that makes sense to them as well as to the
government. Now that is a very awkward way
of phrasing it but what I am saying is that
it has to be done, as has been suggested to
me so many times, in complete consultation
with the university community and the other
post-secondary institutions.
Mr. T. Reid: One further point. Is the
estimate of $100,000 for the special commit-
tee on post-secondary education in Ontario
inclusive of all the research that will be done,
or will the research arm of the main office
be used to do some of the research for the
committee? In other words, do we see in
the items labelled research information branch
an item to do some of the research for that
special committee which is not included in
the $100,000?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we
anticipate that some of the resources in the
existing research and information branch, a
lot of the statistical information that is already
available, and some of the work which will
be ongoing, will be available to tlie commit-
tee. Also, I think it should be pointed out
that the $100,000 amount estimated here
relates probably to an eight-month period,
not a full year's period of operation. Our
estimates here are based on our fiscal year,
whereas when you are discussing the esti-
mates, grants and operating costs of the uni-
versities, you are talking about the university
fiscal year from July 1, until the end of
June, I think.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to follow up on
the general rates of increase in the various
items in the main office expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, if one takes the period
1965-1966, right through to the estimates
for 1968-1969, tliat is a period of four years,
1965-1966, 1966-1967, 1967-1968, and 1968-
1969, one gets the following results. I would
like to state these and then ask the Minister
to conunent. It follows up directly from what
the hon. member for Peterborough said when
he asked: "Why is there such a rate of
increase in main office expenditures?"
In order to get a consistent time-series, you
have to net out certain items. For example,
up to 1968-1969, the grant for the advisory
committee on university affairs was included
in the main office estimates. And for 1968-
1969, it has been transferred to a separate
estimate. So one must net that out. The
estimated increase in the costs of the advis-
ory committee on university affairs is from
$50,000— and these are the estimate figures—
in 1965-1966, to $75,000 in 1967-1968.
But we must take these out of the main
office expenditures to get a consistent series.
This is necessary if you want to compare the
rate of increase in main office expenditures
over a number of years. I have taken the
option of excluding this grant from the time
series over the number of years.
This is what one finds by taking this out,
but, leaving in the $100,000 for the special
committee on post-secondary school educa-
tion—which occurs only in 1968-1969— we find
that the main office estimates— and these are
not the expended figures but the estimates
only-in 1965-1966 are $282,000, increasing
to $396,000 in 1966-1967, to $685,000 in
1967-1968, and to $1,006,000 for next year.
This is a rate of increase between 1966 and
1967, and next year of about 168 per cent.
It is halfway between doubling and tripling
over a two-year period.
What I find interesting, Mr. Chairman, is
that the Minister in his statement today on
page 17, refers to the tremendous increase
in support to our universities, both real and
relative over the initial years of this decade.
In other words, he stresses the fact that uni-
versity grants have been increasing tremen-
dously. But the interesting point here is that
when we compare the increase in estimates
for his own main office, to the increase in
grants to the universities, we find that the
increase in the cost of the Minister's own
office— his bureaucracy, if you like— is greater
than the increase in the operating grants to
university and colleges in Ontario.
I would like to draw this to the Minister's
attention because the rate of increase in ex-
penditure is not just for grants to universities;
it is in his own bureaucracy. It is in his own
main office. I would, therefore, like to ask,
Mr. Chairman, what the reason is for such a
massive increase over a period of two years.
If you take the main office estimates you find
that they are halfway between doubling and
tripling in a two-year period from 1966-1967
to next year, 1968-1969. Salaries, for ex-
ample, have more than doubled; maintenance
costs have almost tripled in his office; mainte-
nance costs have increased from $115,000 in
1966-1967 to $315,000-and that is a great
deal.
There is, of course, the additional $100,000
for next year. But why, in heaven's name,
JUNE 10, 1968
4209
does the Minister's maintenance costs almost
triple, whereas the operating grants to the
universities and colleges have less than
tripled. Is there any reason for this? Is it
really necessary for salaries to more than
double over a two-year period in his own
office?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I could
rely on the argument used by the member
for Peterborough that this is an emerging
department, the cost of emerging administra-
tions are more than those that are established.
I think that this might be a very valid argu-
ment. Perhaps the hon. member for Peter-
borough-
Mr. Nixon: You have used it for two or
three years now!
Mr. Pitman: As long as I can use it, too.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I can assure you,
your colleagues at Trent do use this, and
understandably so.
If one can relate it back, say one year only
-and let us take it a year at a time— The
increase is $240,000. Inclusive in the sum last
year was $75,000 for the committee on uni-
versity affairs which has been taken out. In-
cluded this year is the $100,000 for the
proposed commission. When you look into
the field of administration, actually our cost
this year— for the administration branch of the
department as I read the figures— probably
will be $6,000 less than it was in the previous
year.
And taking the accounts branch, Mr. Chair-
man, as I read the figures, we are roughly
the same. There is a substantial increase,
Mr. Chairman, in the architectural services
branch and this relates, firstly, to the change
in policy whereby we have had to review
so many submissions, and secondly, because
of the increased number of capital projects
that now are coming into the department.
There has been an increase, of course, in the
student awards vote— some $20,000— and this
once again relates to the substantial increase
in the number of applications that need to be
processed.
We have added, Mr. Chairman, and I think
properly so in fact, I think some might argue
we should have done it before— an informa-
tion section to the department which we did
not have prior to this year. This is included
in the research branch, but it is a new service
that we will be providing for the department,
and I think it is valid. I think, Mr. Chair-
man, these account for the bulk of the in-
crease in expenditures. The hon. member
suggests that our rate of cost as it relates to
the main office has gone up on a percentage
basis more than total grants. I do not dispute
this for a moment. But when you look at the
total ordinary expenditure-$285, 982,000-
with a main office expenditure of $1,600,000,
I do not think it is to far out of line.
Mr. T. Reid: One has to watch one's pen-
nies as well as one's millions—
Hon. Mr. Davis: We are very careful
about pennies in this department. We try to
administer it with the minimum number of
personnel.
Mr. T. Reid: I would just like to know if
I am correct in this statement. The public
accounts do not give the actual amount
expended for the various subadministrative
units in the Minister's office. In other words,
I could not find in the public accounts—
perhaps I just was not able to find them— the
actual amount expended for administration,
for the accounts branch, for architectural
services, for financial requirements, research
and students awards branch. The thing that
strikes me, if I am right in saying that the
public accounts do not actually let us know
whether you are within your estimates, not
just on the top items, but within your internal
administration, is that I find it very difficult
to be an effective critic.
Why does this information not appear in
the public accounts? If the universities were
so sloppy with their accounts I can just see
this govemnment cutting their grants,
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
say why public accounts do not contain
information in the same fashion as this. Here
we are discussing the estimates as they relate
to the breakdown we have provided for the
members of the House on these various items.
I am not in a position to say what pubhc
accounts should or should not do. I do not
think this is relevant to the discussion. This
is maybe appropriate on some other occasion.
I cannot be any more helpful than in out-
lining the areas of growth as I see them, from
last year to this year, under the breakdown
that we have provided here in our own
estimates.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if the Minister could
tell me the number of students who are now
in grade 13, and how this relates to the
number of new places which have been pro-
vided in all 14 universities?
It seemed to me that last year there were
lots of places— in fact, there were some uni-
4210
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
versities which had diflBculty in securing the
total number that they had expected. I am
wondering too, about these projections. It
seems to me that the projections were made
by the head of the OISE, and I think at one
point there were six different projections, all
on different assumptions. I am wondering
just what changes have taken place in these
projections as a result of the rise of the
colleges of applied arts and technology.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will endeavour to get
the current enrolment in grade 13. I had it
here last Thursday.
So far, the projections— and I am not sure
they were really six sets of figures, I believe
there were at least two sets of figures or
projections— have been within, probably, one
or two per cent over the last four years. I
think it is also fair to state that last year
there was a surplus of university places in
this province. The extent of the surplus was
not really significant, in that some institutions
adhered very strictly to their admission re-
quirements. Some, and I think appropriately
so, became a shade more flexible. As a result
the actual number of admissions was not too
far off the projection. I think we were some-
where in the neighbourhood of 36,000 this
year, and we are using this as the basis for
projection this year. We are really using in
most instances, the universities' own projec-
tions.
I would say though, that this could be an
interesting year— I will be very frank about
it— we do not know whether the change in
the procedures in grade 13 may add some
additional students who will be entering
university. If it does, I think it is a good
thing, and I believe that the universities can
physically accommodate them. I think there
will not be that great a difference but if there
is any, I think it will be, shall we say, on the
increase, rather than on the decrease. And I
think this is a very helpful thing if it hap-
pens, but this is one time when, Mr. Chair-
man, I just cannot accurately say what this
June will determine. This is something that
we are going to have to live through.
Mr. Pitman: I think this is the point I was
trying to make the other night in relation to
the part of education estimates, that actually
the so-called 60 per cent, which previously
had been a 60 per cent created by The
Department of Education, would now be
created by each of the individual schools.
This might create some very real problems.
The Minister does give the impression that
he feels that universities are keeping out
people who should be in the university. Is
this-
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not intend to give
this impression, Mr. Chairman. I do not want
to be misunderstood. I am saying that last
year, some of the universities took a some-
what more flexible approach to university
admission. I do not want to go back to The
Department of Education debates because I
think we discussed this to a degree there. I
think the debate really centred around— and
I expressed this point of view then and I still
ex-press it— that no single criteria should be
used as the basis for admission to any institu-
tion. I was hoping we were reaching a point
where total student records and other forms
of evaluation would be helpful in determining
a student's admission to a post-secondary
institution. So I am not saying that some
universities are too high in their standards,
or some are too low. I think there has to be
a flexibility on the part of the universities,
and I think some of them demonstrated this
last September.
Mr. Pitman: On the architectural services
branch. In your remarks this afternoon, I
think you said all such submissions have been
carefully reviewed by the department's archi-
tectural services branch. Am I given to
understand that in this departmental branch,
there is a far greater degree of reviewing of
the various buildings? Is there planning of
the various buildings, and to what extent is
there an attempt to create a degree of same-
ness in the kinds of buildings that are placed
on the various campuses across Ontario?
It seems to me that one of the things that
we have in Ontario is campuses that look
very different, and have a pleasing difference.
I am wondering to what extent this depart-
ment may be imposing a lack of variety?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The architectural services
branch relates costs of individual projects to
similar projects at other institutions. This is
one method of comparison. The architectural
services branch has not dictated a uniform
design for, shall we say, laboratory facilities
and what have you; they have not done this.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I might ask, to
what extent the OISE is heavily involved,
both in the research of information and any
other aspects of the work of this main
office.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that the institute is not heavily involved
in research as it relates to the operation of
JUNE 10, 1968
4211
this department, other than in the area, of
course, of statistical projections. This is their
main area of interest. It is quite different
from The Department of Education, where
the research with respect to changes in
curriculum, teaching methods, techniques,
and so on, is a very necessary and valid part
of the department's involvement. But in
matters of curriculum and so on, I think it
is not an area of involvement for The Depart-
ment on University AflFairs.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I might bring
up a matter which interested me. Some
years ago, I think the Ontario institute for
studies in education was about to initiate a
study of the failure rates in the first years
in Ontario universities, and the Ontario
institute did not carry through this project.
I am wondering why, and also if, the
Minister would regard that as a valuable
piece of research for this institute to carry
on.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Really, we should have
discussed this last week. I do not know of
this project, but I shall endeavour to find
out for the hon. member, whether it was
proposed and, if it was, why it was not
pursued. I quite frankly do not recall it.
I shall endeavour to find out for him.
Mr. Pitman: I am sure there was one
meeting held, and after that one meeting, it
appeared that the Ontario institute of studies
in education became very disinterested in
that particular project. I am not sure whether
the board of governors decided that it was
not such a good idea, or whether there was
some pressure from the universities, but
whatever the reasons—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that if this did
happen it might be the universities who were
not enthusiastic. I do not know; I will find
out.
Mr. Pitman: Fine.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to isolate one aspect that has been
discussed earlier, because it is the one aspect
that worries me most about the whole uni-
versity affairs development. There has been
considerable discussion in the last year as
to whether or not we did not make a mistake
through over-expansion to 14 universities
in this province. I ag-ee with the Minister
and others in the debate earlier, that we
did not over-expand. If we did, it was
certainly for only a short time. With the
increase of students coming up, those facili-
ties are going to be needed to the full, and
the over-expansion period will be, at worst,
for a very brief period.
Further, the Minister has indicated that
because of the limited resources that are
available, the capital expansion programme
has been expended. T^e universities presum-
ably, as of March last, know that that capital
expansion programme is going to be ex-
tended. But then the Minister made this
comment, and this is the one that I want
to zero in on. He said that as far as he
knew, no university was stunted in its
development— or words to that effect.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I used the word
inhibited.
Mr. MacDonald: Inhibited in its develop-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They will not agree with
me on this.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain that
I agree with you. We have had the benefit
in the House of two Opposition spokesmen—
who are involved with universities— and
quite frankly, I welcome this. I welcome
members who can come with a detailed per-
sonal knowledge, whether it is from business
or looking after the emotionally disturbed
or working in a university.
An hon. member: Or farmers.
Mr. MacDonald: Or farmers, right— any
group— particularly if there is a genuine dirt-
farmer.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not say this to be
facetious but I have never found the member
for York South at a loss to contribute quite
constructively to the university affairs.
Mr. MacDonald: I am always most suspi-
cious of the Minister when his blandish-
ments point in my direction.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I mean it, anyway. I
wish people would not be so suspicious.
Mr. MacDonald: What I wanted to isolate
in this general discussion is the contention
that the emerging universities— concerning
which hon. members for Scarborough East
and Peterborough might be a little inhibited
—are being stunted in their development. If
one examines the statement that was put out
by the university presidents, they point to
the reduction of the grants— a reduction
4212
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
beyond which they expected, and which they,
I think, had some reason to beheve, would
be available this year.
They point out the result of larger classes,
in reduction of already insufficient oppor-
tunities for enriching contact between faculty
and students. They point out— and this
strikes me as extremely important— "Particu-
larly serious is the effect the level of grants
support will have on libraries. The libraries
of the Ontario universities are deficient, not
only in the extension and costly corrections
needed to support graduate studies, but even
at the basic undergraduate level." Then they
point out: "New programmes already under
way will be slowed down."
Setting aside the extension of the capital
expansion over more years, if you are slow-
ing down the regular programmes, if you
are "inhibiting"— and I use the Minister's
term— the development of good libraries; if
you are creating bigger and bigger classes
so that you reduce the kind of enriching
relationship between the student and the
faculty; it seems to me you are— I will use
my word now— "stunting" the university
development.
This is what disturbs me, because it seems
to me the government was responsible for
what might be described as the political deci-
sion of having 14 universities. The govern-
ment places itself in an invidious position,
if at some stage in the process of develop-
ment, the government suddenly says: "Well,
we discover we have not got enough resources
for you to develop into a full-fledged univer-
sity in an adequate period, so you have got
to be inhibited for a few years." I do not
think this is fair to the universities. I think
the responsibility is back on your step—
because if you made the mistake in saying
some five or six years ago, that we are going
to have 14 universities rather than 10 or 11
or 12, it was your mistake. I do not think
the universities should have to pay for it
now. And I think in the long run, it is
not wise that they should have to pay for it.
Now, is my proposition an unfair one?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be the last one to
suggest that the member for York South
would ever be unfair. I say, that I think he
is perhaps using information that relates to
operating grants and translating this into the
area of capital as well.
Mr. MacDonald: No. No, I was deliber-
ately setting aside the capital moneys and the
slow down in capital expansion. These are
operational grants and the inhibiting results
they are having on the development of the
existing university and its programme.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say this with
respect to operating grants : The recommenda-
tion from the committee took into account
the emerging situation with respect to these
new institutions. In fact, York is still in-
cluded as an emerging institution, and special
grants were made available for four or five
mstitutions. There is no question about this.
It was also indicated to them— for purposes of
future planning— that this matter, of course,
was subject to review, but that certain prin-
ciples would probably be applied over the
next two or three years, so they would have
some idea of what is involved.
I do not think there is any question that
some of them feel that they could logically
utilize more resources this year. I think the
committee feels, and feels very strongly, that
diis still gives them the opportunity to de-
velop as a viable first-class institution. Now,
in these matters of judgment, Mr. Chairman,
I do not question for a moment that initially
when the universities— the emerging institu-
tions—calculated moneys they felt would be
coming, they felt they were inhibited.
Also, when you get into the area of capital
resources I am sure that some of them feel
this way this year as well, I do not know. I
have not discussed this with them individ-
ually, and yet it is interesting to note that we
are providing— even with the problems we
face as a province— $25 million more for capi-
tal this year than the universities have in fact
been able to spend over the last two years.
When I say over the last two year, I think it
was about $100 miUion last year and this
year we have allocated $125 million, so that
there should not be too much inhibition. I
am not saying, though, that they are all con-
tent. I would not say this.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, having isolated the
problems of the emerging universities, I am
not going to belabour the point. I was wor-
ried about it, and the Minister has not com-
pletely allayed my worries, but I will leave
the matter rest. We can examine it next year.
But one final and rather small point that
has always intrigued me. Two or three years
ago, when we attempted to have our annual
discussion on the closing of the door to uni-
versity entrance by cutting off at 60 per cent,
the Minister on one or two occasions made
rather tough statements that students should
not be kept out. McMaster, as I understand
it, accepted students with a 55 per cent
JUNE 10, 1968
4213
average, as an experiment, to discover how
much greater the failure rate would be in
that group as compared with those who came
in at 60 or even 65 per cent. I have been
puzzled by my difficulty— and maybe it is
my own fault— in getting a real assessment of
that experiment. It seemed to me that the
experiment must have failed so badly that
even McMaster has not been very explicit
about the results— or perhaps again I am
wrong. Can the Minister enlighten me on
exactly what was the result of that experi-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
enlighten the hon. member on exactly what
the result was. Now that he brings it to
mind, I intend to pursue it myself to a
greater degree. I understand though, that the
experiment was not overly successful. In
other words, it did not solve many problems.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
mentioned a few moments ago that it could
well be that the new approach to matricula-
tion examination would possibly result in
a small increase in the number of students
accepted at university next year. University
entrance is something that is giving some
concern, I believe, and that is the basis of
assessment at the universities on what stu-
dents will be accepted. I agree that the de-
cision of the registrar or the admitting officers
has to be as broad as possible and that the
background of each student should be in a
form that can be put before them.
We know as well that the universities are
bemoaning to some extent the fact that there
is not one set of marks that will give them
an up-to-date assessment of the applicant.
The Minister is also aware that here in
Ontario there is some efiFort to develop an
objective assessment of the ability of a stu-
dent for continuing education. Also the com-
mittees of Ministers of Education working
together across Canada have a programme—
or some federal office of this type has a pro-
gramme—that may very well provide an ex-
amination that would assist the universities
in making their assessment on something more
than just a provincial basis. Thus, students
from one province to the other would have
sort of a standard approach.
I wonder if the Minister can enlighten me
and the other members of the House on this
matter. I understood that at one time there
was sort of a competition as to which ap-
proach the public moneys under the Min-
ister's direction would be used to support.
What assistance are we giving universities in
this regard? ' , .;.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are not
directly giving universities assistance. We did
discuss this, I felt, to some extent during the
estimates of The Department of Education in
reply to a question by the member for Peter-
borough with respect to the SACU tests.
These are the national tests that are being
developed where there are some final diffi-
culties at the moment. As I said then— and I
am still in this position— I cannot indicate
what the extent of our support will be be-
cause of their present financial difficulties.
Mr. Nixon: SACU?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Service for admission to
colleges and universities. This is the national
—this is an independent organization that was
initiated, really, I guess by the association of
universities and colleges of Canada, in
Ottawa. This is a national organization com-
parable to the college entrance boards in the
United States.
We have in Ontario, though— because we
were not sure just how far the national
scheme might or might not go— been develop-
ing through the Ontario institute the OACU
tests, which once again are comparable to a
degree at least to the college entrance board
examinations of the United States. I would
think— and I am just guessing this and some
of the members opposite would have a better
idea than I have— that universities this year
will be using the student record, their recom-
mended situation from the individual high
schools, and the OACU tests as the basis for
admission for this coming September.
I would think they will be using all three
criteria and where they will give the greatest
weight I do not know. If I could ofiFer any
suggestion, I would really think that the
recommended marks or position, from the
school might be given some more weight just
because the school has had a greater exposure
to, and interest in, the particular student. As
I say, I am no expert in this.
Mr. Nixon: I am sure the Minister will
remember— and this has been mentioned be-
fore but it fits in here I think with some
relevance— the fact that the grade 12 matricu-
lation came to have a value depending upon
which school had granted it after the depart-^
mental jurisdiction in control had been re-
moved. I am quite sure that the Minister is
right in urging, as he has done, that the
universities put as much emphasis on the
teachers' rating as possible.
Yet there is no doubt that the reason they
might balk at giving this rating the emphasis
that we would wish is the fact that certain
4214
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
school systems tend to achieve higher levels
of excellence than others. I do not know
what can be done to level this out, whether
or not it should be levelled out. But I believe
further that there would be quite an advan-
tage to students in this province if they were
to have at least one objective rating from a
source that was outside the province.
For that reason, I think we ought to con-
tinue to at least consider giving support to
this organization with national jurisdiction so
that we can give our young people the ad-
vantage of, perhaps, having a test or a recom-
mendation of a type that would be acceptable
to universities in other jurisdictions than our
own.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask the
Minister— there was some very real concern
in the universities last fall when it was dis-
cx)vered that various universities would have
to appeal to each individual school in the
province in order to receive the grade 13
marks. I think the answer the university
registrars received was that for this year they
would receive the marks from the central
office of the department, but that from then
on each university would have to expect each
individual school to send marks. It would
seem to me that, in view of the number of
schools, this is an unacceptable way for each
university to have to operate.
I am wondering whether there has been
any agreement on this matter with both the
schools and the universities?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are
going through this transition period and I
think practical implications will dictate what
is going to happen. I think there was some
suggestion, initially, that there should be a
central registry of these marks from which
they would be distributed to the universities.
I think from a practical point of view,
because of early admission policies of some
institutions, that the marks from the individ-
ual schools will be made available— and I am
just saying this— to the institutions rather
than to try and centralize it all. I think this
is the way it probably will resolve itself in
the next year or so.
Mr. Pitman: I think the great fear was the
universities will have to contact each indi-
vidual school in order to get the marks for
each individual student who might apply. I
think the universities would prefer to have
some kind of co-operation with the depart-
ment to get it from a central source.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, while the
department is quite prepared to do this, I
think with the policies of some universities
where, in fact, they are granting early admis-
sions based on, say, grade 12 or certain other
testing or admission techniques, then, of
course, the question of a central registry be-
comes relatively academic. While we do not
want in any way to inconvenience the uni-
versities, I think, from practice, that the
student marks— or the total school marks-
will be submitted with the student applica-
tion, which is perhaps the best way to treat
it. We have no objection to a form of cen-
tral registry in that we want all these results
anyway, but there are several universities
admitting, I think, even now on the basis of
the grade 12, and the Christmas and Easter
grade 13 results.
Mr. Pitman: Will the department be collect-
ing the marks for all the schools?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The universities are
already getting them.
Mr. Pitman: Yes, I realize that, but I would
like to ask the Minister whether in the future
it is the expectation that the department will
be collecting the marks from the grade 13
year into university and will they be recorded
in the department? I was under the impres-
sion that the principal would simply send the
name to the department who would then
simply mail out a piece of paper, saying—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not
sure yet just what we are going to want for
our own research or statistical information. It
is not relating to the granting of the certificate
that we may require in one year, say, total
provincial marks in certain subject areas, so
we can have some idea of the experience
across the entire province. Our own policy in
this regard certainly has not been finalized.
Mr. Pitman: I am wondering if the archi-
tectural services branch also deals with
student housing?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Student housing, Mr.
Chairman, is dealt with under a vote relating
to The Department of Trade and Develop-
ment, under the Ontario student housing
corporation.
Mr. Pitman: Perhaps I might just ask this
as a general question. It arises from the
"System Emerging," a document which we
have been deahng with; in the last sentence
on page 39, the second paragraph:
However, it would appear that full
carrying charges and amortization can be
met out of charges to students only by
JUNE 10, 1968
4215
raising residence fees substantially above
current charges for student accommoda-
tion.
Does the Minister have any plans, any poli-
cies, to try and keep down the costs of
residences across the province? I think last
year this matter of residence was discussed
at some length. I do not want to repeat what
was said at that time, but I think the Minister
indicated that from this point on, with the
housing shortage in Ontario, it would become
quite obvious that the universities would
have to build residences; residences would
have to be found beyond the availabihty of
private homes. I am wondering exactly what
the Minister's plans are in relation to this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think
really the most equitable way of deahng with
this, without getting into the question of sub-
sidizing the total residence facility where
some students may need it more than others,
is to take into account any increase in resi-
dence fees in the cost to the student when
we make the calculation of assistance under
the student award programme. I think this
is probably the most equitable way of dealing
with it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2401?
Mr. T. Reid: I was wondering whether I
should restrict my remarks concerning the
position of the new universities to vote 2402.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I think really that
this is probably where we should have been
on most of this discussion.
Mr. T. Reid: I will leave that for the
moment then, Mr. Chairman. But I would
like to return to the discussion I was having
through you, Mr. Chairman, with the Minister
about the need for an Opposition critic to
have the actual expenditures for the various
sub-items in the Minister's department. I
realize this is not his responsibility and
perhaps my request should go some other
place. I would like to let the Minister know
that it would make my job as a critic much
easier if I had the actual amounts expended
on the sub-branches in his department. The
reason this is helpful to an Opposition critic,
Mr. Chairman, is as follows.
When one compares the estimates to the
actual expenditures for the years in which the
actual expenditures are available, one can
find out very interesting things about the
operation of the budgeting procedures of a
department. For example, in the main office
expenditures there seems to be a consistent
bias in that, for some items, the department
keeps asking for more public funds than it
expends; whereas in others, again in the main
oflSce only, the department and the Minister
keep asking for less public funds than they
actually expend. Now the latter— the concept
that it asks for less public funds than it really
expends and needs, means that persistent
Treasury board additional grants become
necessary.
Let me give some examples of what I mean
in this context. For example, in the main
oflBce salaries in 1965-1966, the estimate was
$172,000 and only $150,423 was expended.
This is an error of 13 per cent. In 1966-1967
there was an even greater error in the same
direction. That is to say, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister comes to this Legislature, asks us for
more money than he actually expends — he
does it repeatedly.
Hon. Mr. Davis: At least we are spending
less than we are asking for, which is not
always the case.
Mr. T. Reid: And for next year, in the
terms of the salaries in the Minister's main
o£Rce, I would like to know whether we are
being asked to approve yet another padded
figure of $561,000. Roughly 13 per cent,
$84,000, is pure pad. Let us look at another
persistent bias in the other direction— main
office maintenance. In 1965-1966 this Legis-
lature approved $85,900 and this government
spent in that year $135,851, an error of
$48,000-or almost 60 per cent. The same
error, Mr. Chairman, was repeated in the
next year. In 1966-1967, there was an error
in the same direction of even greater magni-
tude. What is up in this department? For
next year we are being asked to approve
$315,000 for main office maintenance. Is this
Minister going to go back to Treasury some
time in the months ahead and ask for another
$150,000? If so, what is the use of us being
here as legislators approving his expenditure?
If a university persistently submitted such,
and I use a colloquial word, "rotten" esti-
mates year after year, what would the Minis-
ter do? He would tick them off in public for
not being efficient. I think we have a right
to ask the Minister why he allows the per-
petuation, or these persistent biases, in both
directions. Surely his budgeting procedures,
surely his forecast of staflF and maintenance
should be much more accurate than they are.
I think this is bad budgeting and I would
like to know when the Minister is going to
become efficient.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will
accept the question in the very good spirit.
4216
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of course, in which it was obviously not in-
tended, and indicate to the hon. member that
it is not always possible to predict accurately
the total moneys spent. It is significant that
in most of the situations referred to by the
hon. member that at least we have spent
something less tlian the moneys we asked for.
I think one could fairly state this would not
necessarily be the case if the universities
received more by way of grants than they
actually needed. I do not think the Minister
would have an opportunity to tick them off
because I would be confident they would find
some way to expend them. This is the great
advantage in the formula, you know, because
I do not have to get involved in that sort of
situation. The one item to which the hon.
member refers once again reflects the fact
that when you prepare estimates your pro-
grammes are not necessarily finalized.
This government, Mr. Chairman, and this
will perhaps sink home to the hon. member
as he spends more time with us, does make
changes. It progresess, it makes alterations
and, from the time the original estimate was
prepared for maintenance in the one year as
it related to the then proposed programme
until the actual fiscal year was completed, the
amount spent was quite different because of
the introduction of the student award pro-
gramme.
There was, of necessity, an increase in the
amount of main office help required a year
ago last summer, to expedite the number of
student award applications. This was a very
legitimate and logical increase in expenditure
in that particular area. I am sure the hon.
member would support it and agree that
these things are not always predictable. We
have been relatively close in our projections,
and in case there is no alteration — which
there may not be in the public accounts
statements for next year— I shall endeavour
to get as good a breakdown of these expendi-
tures for six items as possibly they relate to
the moneys we are voting, hopefully tonight,
so that he will have them for our continuing
dialogue a year from now— or whenever it
may take place.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to follow up another point and this has to do
with the Minister's policy with regard to
some of the aspects of the Acts under which
the universities operate. Let me outline the
facts on this.
Four provincially assisted Ontario universi-
ties have incorporated, or have had incorpor-
ated, in their Acts— in the case of Queen's, a
charter— references to education in accordance
witli Christian principles, or university man-
agement based on Christian principles, or a
distinctively Christian university. Ottawa
University includes Christian principles in
its explicit section on objects and purposes.
Laurentian and Windsor refer to management
based upon Christian principles. Queen's
University has a statement that the university
shall continue distinctively Christian.
Mr. Chairman, most universities including
Ottawa, Windsor and Laurentian, which I
have just mentioned, have statements in their
Act that "no religious test shall be required
of any professor, lecturer, teacher, officer,
servant or student." These universities are
Laurentian, Ottawa, Guelph, Carleton, Lake-
head, Toronto, Wateroo, Western, York and
Windsor. Trent and Brock do not refer spe-
cifically to students but do refer to any mem-
ber of the university, which presumably
includes students. That is to say, for most of
the universities there is no religious test "on
paper" in the university Acts except for one
university.
A point I want to underline here, Mr.
Chairman, is not whether or not a religious
test at one university is being applied. The
point is simply this that it is in the legal
charter and this concerns me.
I should note that McMaster University
makes no mention whatsoever of a religious
test, or of no rehgious test. I do not want to
be misinterpreted at all in this House, be-
cause these are "paper" statements, I am not
suggesting at all that they are being imple-
mented in fact. But the Queen's University
charter states twice that "the trustees of the
university shall satisfy themselves of the
Christian character of those appointed to the
teaching staff." There is also a specffication
that the chancellor of the university shall be
"chosen without reference to his ecclesiastical
connection except that he must be a Prot-
estant."
I would like to ask the Minister if he might,
when he thinks about this— we are talking
about university education— I would like to
know if he is happy with these statements,
these paper statements — particularly about
the paper statements in the Queen's charter
that the trustees of the university shall satisfy
themselves of the Christian character of those
appointed to the teaching staff. I am worried
about that. It is on paper, and also the refer-
ence about the chancellor having to be a
Protestant. I was wondering whether we
should not refer this to the commission of
human rights.
JUNE 10, 1968
4217
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as the
hon. member wisely and appropriately
pointed out, these are paper situations at
some of our institutions of higher learning.
I do not want to minimize them, of course,
because the hon. member obviously thinks
they are of great importance or he would not
be raising them here. There are more signifi-
cant problems at the present moment with
respect to our universities and to possible
alterations in their structure. While I do not
minimize this at all, I must say that I have
not given this matter a great deal of thought
up to this moment because, to date, I do not
think this has ever been a practical problem
at any of the institutions that I know. I
think, in fairness, one can say this.
The hon. member refers to Queen's Uni-
versity which— as he well knows— was estab-
lished by Royal charter, quite different from
the other institutions. It dates back to 1841
and I would think that Queen's University, in
their alterations to their charter, probably
just accepted what was there- perhaps for
matters of tradition, who knows? But I do
not think, Mr. Chairman, that when one looks
at it from a practical point of view, as the
hon. member himself observed, that this is
necessarily the most significant problem we
have with respect to any alteration or re-
structuring of the university legislation.
Mr. T. Raid: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say that this is again one of the things
that might be considered when the Acts are
revised.
Mr. Chairman, I would hke to ask the
Minister whether he is concerned, whether
he has a policy, or whether the council of
education Ministers in Canada or whether he,
in that role, as a member of that council, is
thinking about participation of this province
in the establishment of a world university?
Hon. Mr. Dayis: I do not believe that the
council itself has— well, I know it has not-
given any thought to this or whether any
members of the council have, or have not,
or even whether this should be a function of
the council. Quite frankly, the matter has
never come up. I do not say that consider-
ation should not be given to this. I do not
know. I certainly have not, as chairman
of the council, asked that this be put on the
agenda for any of the meetings.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
then, to take this opportunity of giving the
Minister some views on this concept. I think
it is a proper role for his department and I
think Ontario, under his leadership in par-
ticular—as he really is quite an outstanding
gentleman— could really press forward in this.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, I will have to
get from you, your definition of "outstanding".
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to say that the
first thing the Minister should consider is the
question of whether or not there is a need
for a world university.
In my opinion, national systems of uni-
versity education are often severely limited.
Many national universities, which claim to be
truly international, do not, in fact, have
opportunities for continual confrontation of
the varieties of national truths and values
which are often taken for granted, rather
than subjected to critical analysis. There is
a wide gap, I think, between the ideal of the
scholar of full intellectual inquiry, and ex-
change among persons of all fields of knowl-
edge, and reahty. Often the reason for this
limitation is the result of ideological barriers
to participation in various national universi-
ties, particularly, through admission policies
and the national value judgments reflected in
the curriculum.
Two examples illustrate the extent of these
barriers. The Friendship University in Mos-
cow does not admit persons from nations
belonging to the western and military blocs.
It is also partly a reverse exclusion, because
some of the western bloc countries would not
grant visas to any of their citizens washing to
study or teach there.
On the other hand, the international
Fletcher school of law and diplomacy in the
United States, a Tuffs-Harvard project, has a
course— economics 5A— which is entitled "com-
parative economic systems" which has as its
subject matter: capitalism, sociahsm and
totalitarianism with the USSR as the example
of totalitarianism. This is a national value
judgment which would be unacceptable at a
truly international world institution of higher
learning.
While it is true, therefore, that many
national universities have students and fac-
ulty members from many other countries,
this does not mean that their coverage is
universal in scope. They are not world uni-
versities.
Furthermore, because a national university
has non-academic barriers to entry, its own
national culture and value system which
form essential ingredients of a national ideol-
ogy, tend to dominate the ethos of the uni-
versity. One implication of this is that foreign-
ers, particularly from the politically-uncom-
4218
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mitted, so-called economically -undeveloped
countries, attending such national university,
are open to indoctrination, along with their
education, by the culture and political ideol-
ogy of that nation. This may or may not be
intentional but it seems—
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
on a point of order. May I ask what vote
we are on?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2401.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I cannot see anything
in here that has to do with the subject that
the hon. member is speaking on,
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister is not complain-
ing? I am just trying to bring to the atten-
tion of the Minister an item of policy which
he might follow up. If the Minister thinks
this is out of order I will be delighted to
leave it.
Mr. Chairman, as I say, this may, or may
not, be intentional, but it seems inevitable in
any national university, no matter how open
or free the discussion, such bilateral academic
exchanges tend to strengthen the existing
political blocs. In a world university, no
single ideology or culture must dominate.
I believe that a proposal for a world
university can only have a realistic chance of
permanent success if it starts by offering
something non-cultural, non-ideological and
non-political, that all nations of the world
want and need. That is, in the area of science
and technology. At a later date, when each
country is committed to seeing that the
experiment works for its own benefit, the
social sciences, and eventually the humani-
ties, could well be added. By that time, hope-
fully, a standard of continual, academic,
international co-operation and understanding
and a desire for knowledge, apart from
ideological viewpoints, could have been
created.
In the field of science, the international
centre for theoretical physics, the antarctica
treaty, the international geophysical year, as
a few examples, have had participating
scholars and experts from diversed political
and ideological blocs. Their success lies in the
fact that the participating nations believed
that they would benefit from participation.
Financial commitments followed as a result.
The theoretical physics centre, for example,
in Italy is serving the interest of the partici-
pating nations. It is encouraging good physics,
not just in one field, but in an inter-disciplin-
ary manner. The results— some of which were
decisive achievements are shared among the
participating nations. The centre has already
laid the foundation of an active and prolonged
co-operation between physicists from the so-
called east and west.
During 1965 and 1966, for example, two
groups of plasma physicists from the US and
the USSR, some 25 senior men, collabor-
ated for a full year. The centre has helped
physicists from the economically under-
developed countries who, after a long period
of silence, have begun to write and publish
during their one to four month visits to the
centre each year. The creation of this oppor-
tunity of remaining in touch, while they are
permanently employed in their own countries,
might persuade some of the best physicists in
these countries not to seek permanent exile
abroad.
The individuals who proposed the physics
centre are very practical men. They are also
far-sighted: "One could hope that a success-
ful theoretical physics institute might possibly
set a pattern for future united nations uni-
versity."
I believe the world university could start
with theoretical physics at tlie core of its
academic programme. Other sciences, relating
to problems such as increasing agricultural
yield, should also be given an essential place.
Another increasing non-political field of
learning is the area of administration and
management.
As A. M. F. Palmer stated:
If an intelligent observer from Mars or
Venus should come and examine all large
contemporary industrial concerns, public or
private, in the United States or Russia, as
working enterprises, he would notice their
overwhelming sameness.
This is the central argument that John
Kenneth Galbraith brings to the fore in his
recent book The New Industrial State,
Galbraith maintains that wherever technology,
planning and organization are features of the
productive process, the management of the
enterprise is "a technical matter; ideology is
not involved."
More and more, what one would expect to
be a sensitive, ideological area, in countries
witli different political and economic systems,
is showing great possibilities for study,
exchange of information, and technological
co-operation. A world university in this
province, Mr. Chairman, could well be able
to start with a faculty of administration at the
core of its academic programme.
JUNE 10, 1968
4219
What should not be attempted at the begin-
ning, are subjects which are heavy with
national, and international, ideological propo-
sitions. Any attempt to include political
science, philosophy, history and aggregate
economics in the initial curriculum, would
severely prejudice the chance of the idea of
a world university being translated into an
institutional and living reality. Part of the
reason why it would be most difficult to
include such subjects in the initial curricu-
lum of the world university, is the non-
universality in the curriculum programmes of
national universities.
Too much of North American education, for
example, including education in this province,
in the humanities, is tied up with the main-
tenance of national and provincial cultural
traditions. Much of this is necessary and
important. However, when the attempt is
made to visualize curriculum texts for a world
university, the width of the gap is starkly
apparent. There is very little in common,
even in the way of definition to build on. In
science and technology, however, there is a
great deal in common, particularly in terms
of common definitions to build on.
The argument that I am making to the
Minister for an initiative on his part, both as
a Minister of University Affairs in Ontario,
and as chairman of what might be called a
national council of university Ministers, ends
with a truism. The idea of a world university
is a good one; a world university is needed
but it can only work if all nations want it to
work. If it is based on the de facto operating
principles of the United Nations, it has the
same chance for ineffectiveness and failure
due to partisan politicking and exclusion of
certain countries.
The idea of a world university has to be
put on a practical basis. I suggest that the
Minister of Education in this province is very
adept at this type of arrangement. It must
bo within every country's interest to see that
it does not fail. Unfortunately, the desire
for peace is not enough to get the proposal
accepted, financed and established. There
must be a practical basis for intellectual
dialogue, learning and research. This will
increase the chances of a willingness to study
other more sensitive areas. The progression
should be for mainly sciences and technology
to the social sciences, beginning, perhaps,
with anthropology, psychology, and then
into economics and political science to the
humanities. Depending on one's view of the
university, the fine arts may or may not have
a place. A parallel progression would be
from a heavily research-oriented centre to
a more balanced research and post-graduate
student university.
Mr. Chairman, Alfred North Whitehead
once wrote: "Any serious fundamental change
in the intellectual outlook of human society
must necessarily be followed by an educa-
tional revolution."
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the speaker
if his statement is just about finished?
Mr. T. Reid: I am right in the middle of
the last sentence. I would like to repeat that
quote because the Minister might not have
thought of it. Alfred North Whitehead once
wrote, Mr. Chairman: "Any serious funda-
mental change in the intellectual outlook of
human society must necessarily be followed
by an educational revolution."
Perhaps for once this process can be
reversed. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that
the Minister would report back, next year,
that he has taken this proposal and pushed
it in Canada.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister,
what are the fimctions of the architectural
services branch?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
really think I answered this, perhaps while
the hon. member was out, and he would—
Mr. De Monte: I was here, but I did not
hear the answer.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, very briefly, the
architectural services branch reviews the
projects submitted to the department for
approval for capital support. This very gener-
ally is what the architectural services branch
does.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, does that
mean that it specifies certain materials or
specifies—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not involve
itself in specifications per se. It does not
prescribe to the universities that they must
build of certain materials and so on. We do
not get into that determination.
Mr. De Monte: What type of a determi-
nation do they get into? Do they get into a
certain square footage per student, or certain
size?
Hon. Mr. Davis: We get into, basically, the
total cost of the facility, as it relates to
4220
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
facilities at other institutions and, of course,
to the number of students to be served by
that facihty.
Vote 2401 agreed to.
On vote 2402:
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): One
point, Mr, Chairman, on a question I raised
some time ago. In the north we have the
greatest potential for mining engineering
going and yet, of our universities in the north,
we do not have the facilities to offer either
one of these courses. The Minister suggested,
at the time that— I believe it was the board
of governors or some group— would not give
the sanction to this being located in the north.
But, controlhng the purse strings as he does,
and because we have the most ideal area for
mining engineering, and because in all other
courses the students from the north have to
come south except for arts, I was wondering
if the Minister would use his good office to
induce the heads of the universities to allow
the offering of mining engineering in the
Nickel Basin?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will not
prolong this discussion because, once again,
I am faced with this very conflicting point of
view from the members opposite. I am told
that, on occasion, I have refused the charac-
teristic approach that we should have all this
completely divorced from government and
then, in the next breath, one of the hon.
members is saying, why do you not use your
good offices to force an institution into a
particular faculty or area of study.
Mr. MacDonald: Not "forced," you are
exaggerating.
Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. To, shall we
say, "encourage," "push," "shove," or what-
ever term you may wish to use.
I replied to this question on an earlier
occasion when, as I recall, it was indicated
that Laurentian University had shown some
interest. They were told, at that time, to
make a formal submission to the committee
on university affairs, and to the best of my
knowledge, this submission has not yet been
made.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, this vote under
item 1 contains more than $200 million in
grants for operating costs. Would that sum
include a certain amount which would be
repayable to the government in payment of
principal and interest relating to previous
loans made by the university capital aid
corporation? And if so, how much would
return to the government?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, item 5
relates to the amount that is being paid to
the universities to be returned to the govern-
ment, some of it by way of interest and some
by way of capital for the item referred to.
The first item relates only to operating grants
which are divorced from the debenture
situation.
Item 5 is the $23 miUion which is paid
to the universities and which is returned to
the government.
Mr. Nixon: That would be simply a book-
keeping entry— $23 million?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is $23.2 million.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, under the
grants to universities and colleges, I gather
there is a new $42 million library being
built at the University of Toronto; I was
wondering if the Minister could say whether
this is included.
Hon. Mr. Davis: TJiat, Mr. Chairman, is
not included in this, at all. The $42 million
to University of Toronto library resource is
part of the capital programme. It does not
relate to the grants for operating costs.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is
one of the problems I have in understanding
this particular vote, 2402. Would there not
be some reflection of the financing of this
building in this vote next year.
Surely the Minister has to make grants to
the U of T and the U of T has to pay
interest on the debentures. So surely this
would explain why there has been a
doubling of the item "university debentures
for capital purposes" between 1966/1967,
1968/1969, that is for an estimate $9.4
million in 1966/1967 to an estimate for
1968/1969 in the Minister's budget of $23.2
million. Would some of that building not
be reflected in—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the facility
has not yet been started, and it is doubtful
just how much of this would be, in fact,
completed during this current fiscal year.
The reason for the increase of course, to
the $23.2 milHon, is the interim poHcy that
I informed the House about a few minutes
ago, relating to the capital programme,
JUNE 10, 1968
4221
where it has been necessary to go back to
1964 to pick up certain situations, to resolve
our capital problem there. This reflects itself
in the increase to the $23.2 million. I do
not think, Mr. Chairman, I would have to
check this out in detail, that there will be
sufiicient amount of money spent by the
University of Toronto on their new library
centre in this current fiscal year, to reflect
any substantial amount in the $23.2 million.
Mr. T. Reid: In future years, this is an
item that will be building up. It gets to the
point that I am concerned about. I know
that the Minister is reluctant to make 5 year
estimates but can he give us some idea, on
this side of the House, what that item 5,
"university debentures for capital purposes"
might grow to, by 1973 or 1975? The rate
of increase is fantastic. We know on an
index with 1966/1967 equal to 100, the esti-
mate for next year is 249. That is a per-
centage increase of about 150 per cent. Well,
with the universities, particularly the so-
called emerging universities, having to
borrow so much from the capital corpora-
tion, I believe, and having to pay interest
on that which they have to receive back, in
part, from the provincial government, in
terms of operating grants, because interest
payments are operating costs, is this not one
df the items that is just going to sky-
rocket?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this item
obviously is going to increase as the number
of capital projects increase, and the total
investment increases. It is only a projected
figure. By 1972/1973 this item could be in
the neighbourhood of $70 million. This is
•the money that is paid to the universities.
And— as the leader of the Opposition points
out— it is to a degree a bookkeeping entry
which, in turn, is returned to the capital aid
porporation. I am not sure that the leader
of the Opposition will recall during our de-
bates in previous years enthusiastically
endorsing this method of doing it and yet—
Mr. Nixon: Oh, no, you will have to do
more careful research tlian that. We said—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, maybe you—
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, far from enthusiastically endorsing it,
we— it is our opinion over here that it is a
needlessly complex and useless procedure.
- HoiL Mr. Davis: I said that you did not
enthusiastically endorse it.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, all right.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I said you did not, I did
not say that you did. I thought I misinter-
preted you; that you were going to endorse it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to follow up this particular item, the grants
of operating costs to the universities in par-
ticular. Again, when we look at the pubUca-
tion titled "Systems Emerging," which is a
new piece of information in the Legislature,
we find the following statement. Since the
formula, this refers to the operating grants
formula, on page 25, is
not suitable for both emerging universities
and established institutions, the emerging
universities receive, in addition, grants
based on examination of actual needs. In
the fully established institution, the for-
mula grant alone is not suflBcient to cover
new undertakings such as a new faculty
or school, and special supplementary grants
are made to support such projects. Special
provision is also made to the two universi-
ties in Ottawa and Laurentian offering in-
struction in both French and English.
Well, that statement was made in September
of 1967. Then we find that after the grants
were made last year, the university presidents
issued a press release dated March 13, 1968
which reads—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Grants for this year.
Mr. T. Reid: Grants for the current year,
and my arguing point— which is relevant to
the argument now— is that I would like to
know what the Minister has done about many
of the criticisms that he has received this
year, in his estimates for 1968-1969, that we
are being asked to approve? I am particularly
interested, for example, in what he has done
about "the unit," and what the measure of
that unit is. But I would like to record the
problem that the emerging universities feel
that they are experiencing.
The press report on page 2 said this about
the grant that has been made during this
current year:
The whole university community in On-
tario regards with concern the effects that
the inadequate level of provincial support
will have on the development of the new
universities. These universities were estab-
lished in recent years, with strong encour-
agement from the government of Ontario
to round out the facilities for higher educa-
tion throughout the province and to bring
a university education within the geo-
graphical, and thereby to some extent, the
4222
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
financial reach of thousands of potential
students. Financial stringency for the
newer universities will mean not simply a
slowing down in their capacity to absorb
the growing number seeking higher educa-
tion, but will also place severe limitations
on their ability to introduce much needed
new programmes — including projects of
special relevance to the region— and will
delay their progress towards that variety
and breadth and excellence that a uni-
versity education in Ontario has come to
mean.
The reason that I bring this up again is that
in the first publication which is dated Sep-
tember 1967, the universities were hopeful
that the new formula would be fair to the
emerging universities by the addition of spe-
cial grants. Then, in their press release of
March 13, 1968, they come out very hard, in
very careful language stating that really it is
the new universities that are getting caught
in the crunch. There are a number of other
statements that one could put on the record,
and I will just refer the Minister to them, I
will not quote them at length.
In the president's report of Carleton Uni-
versity for 1967, he makes the same point,
very quietly, and very sedately. In the 1966-
1967 report of the principal of Queen's Uni-
versity, the same point is made on page 14,
that the basic unit is lower than they wanted,
and this really hurt. He says this:
In February 1967, it was announced by
the Minister of University Affairs, that the
value of the basic unit for the first year of
the formula, 1967-1968, would be $1,320.
This was less than had been expected, and
it was disappointing that for the first year
of the formula the value of the basic in-
come unit was set at a level which would
put many universities without significant
other income, on short rations.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister's
comment on this. I know that he has obvi-
ously come to some resolution in his own
mind. The formula is an improvement— is a
step forward— there is no question about that.
But how is he dealing with this very difiicult
problem of the emerging university? He
knows full well the difficulty of applying a
formula to universities that started at differ-
ent base levels, with different numbers of
students — universities that have diflFerent
growth rates.
In other words, the formula must not be
his panacea, for his government's involve-
ment. There are problems to it. How is he
facing up to those problems?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, very
briefly, we have never suggested that th«
formula is a panacea to the operating grants
to the universities. In fact, it has been made
abundantly clear that in several statements I
have made and in communications to the
universities, that we recognize that the for-
mula itself does not solve the problems of the
emerging universities. Further, it does not
solve certain problems within existing and
older institutions in certain specific areas. We
know this. No formula ever will. With great
respect, no formula devised by a grants com-
mission would either, because it gets down to
a question of judgments. To deal with this
problem, there has been a subcommittee of
the committee on university a£Fairs set up.
The advisory committee will be meeting with
three of the emerging universities shortly to
discuss this problem— but just so one can keep
this in perspective-let us consider some of
these institutions, with relation to the formula
basis.
Brock University receives a $1,274,784,
estimated grant. On a special grant, they
receive $1,393,972, which means that they
are getting 100 per cent more special grant
than they are getting under the formula.
Surely this is a recognition by the committee
of certain special needs at that institution?
I am not saying that they are completely
content with it, or that it does not create
problems. This was a valued judgment made
by competent people, as to the relevant
needs of these institutions. I could go to
Trent-a delightful institution-$ 1,335,857 is
estimated under the formula and an addi-
tional special grant of $1,387,940. You can
go through the other emerging institutions
and find comparable figures. I do not like
to get into individual comparisons bet\veen
institutions, but I think there is a very clear
indication here, that the advisory committee
has recognized the very unique position of
the emerging institutions. While the institu-
tions themselves are less than satisfied, I
think to suggest that something has not been
done, or that we are not coming close to a
rational approach to it, is not quite accurate.
As I say, the university affairs committee
have appointed a subcommittee to deal with
these institutions and to attempt further to
develop approaches in succeeding years that
make sense.
It is a very tough area. It is very diflScuU
and they are value judgments. In the final
analysis somebody has to make them. Either
it is the university affairs committee or a
JUNE 10, 1968
4223
proposed university grants commission, but
the same judgment by competent people is
still required.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask a
question on this. How long does a university
emerge, that is, how many years do you
suspect that these special grants will be con-
tinued in such a way that the formula of
financing will not be a destructive influence
on the hopes and the future of these uni-
versities?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, of course
I think one has to retain a degree of flexibility.
Once again it is only an estimate, but I think
the university goes through an eight to ten
year growth, or emerging period. Whether
this changes over a period of years, quite
frankly I do not know, but I would say
between eight and ten years.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to ask a specific
question. Last year the basic unit was $1,320
—What was the basic unit this year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is $1,450.
Mr. T. Reid: That is an increase— okay,
we will forget that one. I have got my slide
rule.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I notice you had your
slide rule earlier today. I was wondering just
what wonderful permutations and combina-
tions you were trying to work out for me. I
saw it actually work, did I not? The slide
role, I mean?
Mr. T. Reid: Yes. I was wondering if the
Minister could clarify a comment on the
statement by the president of Carleton Uni-
versity recently, where Carleton disagreed
with aspects of the weighting procedures that
difiFerentiate sharply between honours and
general degree students in the second and
third years? Under our system the two
categories receive practically the same atten-
tion and occasion similar costs in these years.
The Minister knows the unit system very
well, of course, but I would like to bring
tfie following problem to his attention. If
you differentiate too sharply between the
honours— that is the four-year student— and
Ae general degree students, in the second
and third years, and you give the university
a higher grant for honour students, I think
that this could harden the transferability
between the three- and the four-year pro-
grammes in the universities. For example,
at York University we have a system whereby
students do not enter the university into a
three-year or four-year programme in the
arts faculty. The student comes to York in
his first year and is part of the general student
population in first-year art. He is not differ-
entiated at all. Then, if he manages to get
what we call a "C" I believe, he has the
right in the second year to register in the
honours programme.
Even then, we find that our second-year
students, who are in a three-year programme
or a four-year programme, taking, for exam-
ple, second-year economics — there is a
general introductory course in economics.
They do not become differentiated. The thing
that worries me, just in the second year
aspect, is that somehow you will build into
the university accounting system, the prefer-
ence for students registered in the honours
programme. There will be pressure put on
student advisors to persuade their advisees
to register in the honours programmes. The
university can say they have got more honour
students than necessary.
In other words, it interferes directly with
an academic function of the university. I
have been a student advisor— students come
to me at the end of their fi^st year— we talk
about what they want to take in the univer-
sity. If I feel any pressure on me to try
to persuade those students to enter into the
honours programme so that the university
can have a higher unit grant, then I think
this is a direct infringement on the university
autonomy.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, of course, a man
of your integrity would not persuade them to
do it if you did not think it was right. Is
not this correct?
Mr. T. Reid: No, this is not the point.
The point—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is, Mr. Chair-
man, a very valid point. What the hon.
member is saying is that there are people
in the university community who would per-
suade the students to take a course not
really related to their capacities, in order to
receive extra support by way of the formula.
I do not think that people in the universities
will do this.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, unless the
Minister is rising on a point of order— The
point is very simple. There is a definition in
the grant formula that states that for students
who are registered in honours programmes
the university receives more money for their
education. I am saying two things. I am
4224
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
saying first of all, that it does put a pressure
on the university to try to get more honour
students if they want more money for badly-
needed programmes. You know how these
things work?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know,
Mr. T. Reid: Secondly—
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not operate there.
Mr. T. Reid: Secondly, it is, in a sense,
encouraging something which is not, in fact,
correct. In other words, take York and per-
haps Trent too. There is no diJ0Ference in
the costs of educating a student registered in
an honours programme in arts, compared to
a student taking a three-year degree pro-
gramme in the second year in arts. There is
no difiFerence in educational costs. Why is
that built into the formula?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well because— Mr. Chair-
man, if the hon. member is asking me a
question I will give him—
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, is tliis, or is
it not, a point of order?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Chair-
man, surely only one member has the floor
at one timel
Mr. T. Reid: Is it a point of order?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I was asked a question.
I was just going to give him an answer.
Mr. Singer: Well, why do you not wait
until he is through?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I just did not want
to forget the question.
Mr. Singer: Surely you too must observe
the rules of the House?
Mr. T. Reid: You sit down and keep quiet!
When it gets into the third year, in some
of these universities— and remember, my re-
marks were based on a statement of a uni-
versity president— the present Minister does
not feel too responsible for him, which is
good. But when you get into the third year,
you get the same type of problem. In other
words, in the third year it is still possible
for a student who has registered in a three-
year programme, to transfer to a four-year
programme if he wants to. It is an imrealistic
formula.
It applies to a traditional university— such
as the University of Toronto, which is much
more rigid. If you were trying to build into
the universities a streaming system that Mr.
Robarts has built into the secondary school
system, I think you are doing a disservice to
university education problems.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member will now let me answer his ques-
tions—and I offer this in a very kindly way-
he does make me—
Mr. Singer: Kindly Minister, we used to
call him.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. There is no need to
point. You know, when the hon. member for
Scarborough East points so enthusiastically,
I wonder whether I have got a spot on my
tie, or what has happened. I can understand
him when he is trying to make a point. I
would just say this. The whole question of
weighting is— as I said in my opening remarks,
if the hon. member will read them carefully-
one which has to be the subject of constant
analysis and review.
Tlie joint subcommittee of the advisory
committee on university afFairs, and the com-
mittee of presidents— while there may never be
unanimity, as to the weighting that should be
determined— has established the weights on
the best consensus that they can find within
the university community. It is really quite
interesting to me to hear from the hon. mem-
ber tonight, because this not the informa-
tion that is supplied to us by many of the
universities— that the honours programme and
the third and fourth year really cost no more
than the general arts programme. I am not
sure it is even the position taken by his own
institution, but I can check this out. All I am
saying is that—
Mr. T. Reid: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister has implied that
my remarks are based on my position at York
University. I categorically deny that.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make it
very clear to the hon. member that I am not,
in any way, suggesting that his remarks are
related to his position at York University. If
I were going to do this I would have made
this an issue right at the beginning. All I
am saying is you referred to York University,
not I. You referred to the third and fourth
year programmes at York, as I recall youi
words- i
Mr. T. Reid: It is not my university.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
JUNE 10, 1968
4225
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. Mr. Chair-
man, I recognize that it is not the hon. mem-
ber's university, it is not mine, it is not any-
body's—he is quite right.
However, let us get back to discuss the
weighting. The weighting, Mr. Chairman, is
something that we all recognize has to be re-
evaluated constantly because the whole con-
cept must change with changing conditions
within the universities. The formula ap-
proach is the one that is valid. It makes
sense. The unit cost is the one that is also,
I guess, most relevant to the total university
community. The question of weighting is
something that can be reviewed year by year,
which it is. You will never get, once again,
complete unanimity by all the universities
with respect to the weighting because this
just cannot be done. You have to take it on
the broadest consensus that you can get. I
think this is the only equitable way to do it
and— just read my remarks— I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, to the hon. member for Scar-
borough East, that we recognize the weight-
ing provisions have to be reviewed. They do.
There is no question about it.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could make a
remark or two on this very point?
It seems to me that we are dealing here
with a very real problem, not so much in
terms of the weighting, but rather the whole
question of relating the finances to the num-
ber of students in the institutions. I cannot
help wondering whether there should not be
some kind of a halt on this whole business of
adding more and more students in order to
get more and more grant money.
Now if I could just go on with this for a
moment, because it is significant, I think. In
other words, what is happening is, I think,
the committee is encouraging universities to
gather in as many students as possible be-
cause each one of these students represents
some thousands of dollars. This is going to
create some of the problems, at least, which
we have seen in the American universities
where you have too many students and a
number of professors for the kind of facih-
ties that are available in university.
Now there is a danger here that we are
going to dei>ersonalize the universities. We
are going to do the very things with our
universities for the sake of the formula
financing scheme which we do not want to
do. I think this is a very real problem.
1 suggest that the form of financing needs
restrictions in relation to the fact that a
university cannot have any more students
than it can deal with, with a number of
faculty and with the facilities which it has
on hand.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to say something about the impact of this
fact on decision-making within the university
on academic programmes. This is a very
important aspect. In other words, you set
up differential weights. If the university has
PhD students, it gets more grants per student
than it does for first-year students. The
same thing with MA perhaps with a differen-
tial grant depending on science and arts and
this type of thing.
But the concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is
that what has happened in the grant formula,
is this: You have built-in incentives for the
universities to go into honours programmes
as opposed to three-year programmes; you
have given them incentive to push forward in
graduate programmes particularly— and per-
haps the low cost graduate programmes. The
same thing with the PhD progranmies. I
think the Minister must realize that the
formula financing— the formual criteria if you
like— for the calculation of operating grants—
the basic division of the pot, if you hke—
between or amongst the imiversities is going
to have "incentive effects." If you set up
incentives in our system of a free enterprise
economy, a response to incentives is going
to take place.
The question I am raising here is: has
the Minister really thought about the incen-
tive effects? Is the formula financing simply
based on what are estimated to be the real
costs of educating students of certain types
and certain years in university or, is the
formula financing also partially based on a
policy of encouraging universities to get into
other three-year programmes? leave those
for the CAATs; get out of three-year pro-
grammes; go into four-year programmes;
encourage certain universities to drop under-
graduate programmes in terms of the weight
within their total efforts— such as the Univer-
sity of Toronto— and get into a graduate
university? In other words, there are clear
incentive impHcations to formula financing
and there are different responses from among
the 14 universities in Ontario.
I suspect— I do not know— all I can do is
suggest a research project, Mr. Chairman,
to examine the incentive effects of formula
financing. I think one thing might happen.
You will find the University of Toronto will
go ahead because it gets reinforced through
4226
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
formula financing into the area of graduate
work even more so than now.
In other words, I think one of the dangers
of this is— particularly in the context of my
remarks and quotations about the problems
of the emerging universities— that the Uni-
versity of Toronto is going to be reinforced
by higher grants and they will get the money
to go ahead. Thus, the emerging univer-
sities are being very subtly told: "Down, boys,
stay in undergraduate work," and so forth,
"but do not get involved in heavy commit-
ments in graduate work."
It is an impossible question. If the Minis-
ter has some comments to make, I would
like to hear them. If he has no comments
to make, I would like to suggest that some-
one—some good economist, some professional
economist pursuing economics full-time—
should look into the incentive effects of the
formula financing and the structure of uni-
versity policy making.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman to conclude
these discussions, two points must be made.
One that I hope that I have made previously
is that the weighting within the formula must
be a subject of constant re-examination. We
recognize this. I also suggest, with respect,
that I sensed a certain contradiction in the
hon. member's observations when he sug-
gested the formula weighting led to an
encouragement of the four-year programmes
and graduate work and then he was com-
plaining because the University of Toronto
would be reinforced for graduate work to
the detriment of other institutions.
This is not the intent— nor do I think it
will, in fact, be the results— of the formula
particularly as the weighting must be re-
viewed. Now I sensed this contradiction in
the hon. member's argument. It may be that
I should not have but I think if he reads
Hansard carefully he will see that that
contradiction exists.
The second point is this. The formula was
devised in complete co-operation with the
subcommittee of the presidents of universi-
ties of Ontario. It was not imposed on them.
They not only understand the complexities of
it and the problems inherent in formula
financing, they were part of the formula that
was developed.
While I recognize that there will be
problems— there always will be no matter
what you do— nonetheless, we have come
yery close to finding an equitable way of
distributing total provincial resources to the
universities of this province in a way that
is generally acceptable. Once again, we have
not achieved perfection but I feel we have
made very substantial progress. I believe this
view is shared by all the university presidents
in this province, even including those of
the emerging institutions who feel at this
point in time that they have not received all
that they need.
Mr. T. Reid: I will conclude with this re-
mark, Mr. Chairman. The Minister referred
to contradiction and I would just like to
clarify this. In logic, it is called "a fallacy of
composition" and the Minister made that mis-
take, not myself. The comment I was making
was that, in general, the unit system results
in a pressure on all universities to get into
honours work and MAs and PhDs. Okay,
that is called an aggregate argument.
The specific argument, the micro argument
is that within that general outside pressure
on all the universities, one university gets
reinforced time and time again through this
type of formula financing. This means all the
universities try to get higher grants by get-
ting into the areas where they get higher
grants and within the university system, one
university predominates.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask a
question on this vote.
There is a special fund available to uni-
versities for temporary accommodation. Could
the Minister indicate specifically what that
refers to and under item 4 research awards
$750,000, what are the nature of the research
awards under this vote 2402 item?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, during the
course of the year, there have been situations
arise where the universities have had some
capital project delayed which they would like
to have had available or because of strike
problems perhaps, or other practical situa-
tions have been unable to occupy. We have
provided every year a fund for temporary
accommodation where the universities have
been permitted to enter into, shall we say,
leased arrangements for short periods of time.
I think for instance, but I am not sure of this,
York may become involved in this with re-
spect to the new law faculty. I am not sure
of this point. But this is the type of situation
where we have provided assistance out of the
temporary accommodation fund. It is, shall
we say, a short-term measure to look after
practical problems that have been created.
With respect to the research grants, Mr.
Chairman, these grants were administered for
several years by the Ontario research founda-
tion. They were actually included in another
JUNE 10, 1968
4227
department's estimates, and these were trans-
ferred to The Department of University Af-
fairs during 1966-1967. During the past year
the committee on university aflFairs authorized
the estabhshment of a study committee com-
posed of prominent scientists who examined
the programme of grants in aid of research
and made recommendations accordingly. This
is not, of course, in the total context of re-
search, a large sum of money, but it repre-
sents those moneys, shall we say, transferred
to The Department of University AfiFairs in
the fiscal year 1966-1967.
Vote 2403 agreed to.
On vote 2404:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, some weeks
ago I asked the Minister a question in regard
to the charges that were made by the director
of the Royal Ontario museum in relation to
the taking over of the financial support of the
university by The Department of University
Affairs.
At that time, I think, the Minister replied
that he had not taken over at that point,
therefore he felt that there was no necessity
for any close liaison with the director of the
museum. I am wondering, has the Minister
taken steps now to restore some kind of
sensible co-operation between his department
and the museum? Perhaps he could give us
a running commentary over what has taken
place over the last few weeks, after these
terms had been made.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to thank the member for his co-operation
but, as I indicated, really the channel or line
of communication in the formal sense has
been— and will continue until the legislation
is introduced, which I anticipate will now be
this week, setting up the ROM under its own
board of governors— through the University of
Toronto. This has been the formal line of
communication. I would think when the
legislation is passed, as I anticipate it may be
by this Legislature, that the ROM will then
under its own board of governors, function in
a way that from many standpoints at least
will at least resolve many problems except I
must say this in advance— it will probably be
one of those situations as well, along with our
other institutions, where expectations will ex-
ceed resources for a period of time.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make a few re-
marks under the vote for the Royal Ontario
museum, on what I feel to be its very restric-
tive hours in which it is open to the general
public. My first experience with these restric-
tive hours was many years ago when I tried
to book tours for classes of children to visit
the museum, and found out that by the end
of April they stopped taking bookings for the
months of May and June. This, plus the fact
that it is only open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday to Saturday, and Sundays from 1 to
5 p.m., shows that what with the population
explosion and the increased number of school
children that take excursions these days, the
hours are totally inadequate to service the
large amounts of classes that are desirous of
visiting the Royal Ontario museum.
I would like to say at this time that the
work of its board and staflF and the quality of
exhibits are such that every child in this
province should be afiForded an opportunity
to visit the museum.
I think that if the museum was to open
earlier in the day, and was to get with it and
add evening hours— plus the fact that the
McLaughlin planetarium is going to be open
in the not too distant future— there would be
a logical tie-in there to correlate it with the
Ontario museum for evening hours. I think
the visitors should have a new deal.
If the guides are overworked and cannot
cope with the large number of children try-
ing to see the exhibits there, surely university
lecturers could be hired on a pro tern basis
for the spring and I am sure that the added
revenues from admissions of adults would
more than ofiFset the increased expenditures.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2403?
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the Minister would
like to comment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would
be quite prepared to send a copy of the hon.
member's remarks to the new board of
governors when it is appointed which I
anticipate will be very shortly for the conduct
of the ROM. I would only point out this. I
wonder, if you open before 10 o'clock,
whether, apart from the Metro students,
there would not be many students who from
a practical standpoint will get there much
before 10 o'clock in the morning in any
event. Evening, I think, presents a different
situation. I can only say that I think a
resource of this kind should be utilized to the
maximum if at all possible and I shall pass
on the hon. member's very constructive sug-
gestions to the board when it commences
operations.
4228
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, no doubt one
of the reasons the facihties of the museum
have not been available as much as the hon.
member would wish is that their budget has
been seriously restricted for many years, as
the Minister no doubt knows. Whether the
fact that it is going to be constituted inde-
pendent of the university will correct that
remains to be seen. The Minister has pre-
dicted some continuing disappointment.
The passage of this Act, of course, will set
the musemn up as an independent organiza-
tion with purposes that are somewhat similar
to the Centennial centre of science and
technology also in this city. Is it in the
Minister's mind that the two will be co-
ordinated in any way or will they be allowed,
as I think would be appropriate, to maintain
their individuality and their own courses?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think it
is perhaps a shade premature to determine
how co-ordination should take place. I do
not think there is any question that there
should be some form of co-ordination between
the institutions of this kind in this province
to see that there is no duplication in exhibits
or facilities available to the public, but I am
not in a position to say just how this form
of co-ordination should take place at the
present time.
I think one could also say that one could
include the art gallery of Ontario in this type
of approach too, because there are certain
areas that could be common to the ROM and
to the art gallery, or where certain divisions
of responsibility over a period of time should
be determined.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2403?
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, on this vote I might add one
further comment to that of the member for
Hamilton Mountain in that many school chil-
dren travel for four or five hours to reach
our queen city and eventually attempt to get
into the museum. I feel that possibly they
should be given some priority during the
afternoon hours and if you just add that to
the suggestions that would be going to the
new directorate I would appreciate it. Simi-
larly, on the tours of the Legislature itself,
we notice that tlie Toronto students have the
prime times booked and they can readily
come to the Legislature any evening and see
it in session and possibly—
Mr. Nixon: Lots of room in the galleries
now.
Mr. Paterson: —and possibly the out-of-
town students should have some preference
here. I would like the Minister to comment-
is this new board of directors for the ROM
going to involve itself in the direction of the
Ontario art gallery and the Centennial science
centre?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Chairman, I
made this point clear to the hon. leader of
the Opposition, that I think there has to be
co-ordination among these institutions but tfie
legislation that I vidll be proposing to this
House sets up the ROM under its own board
of governors. The art galley is under its
board, as is the Centennial centre.
Mr. Nixon: You could be vice-chairman of
them all.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I have nothing to do
with the art gallery.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2403?
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I do not know
whether this would be in order at this point
but I would like to make a suggestion to the
Minister that he can pass along with the
rest that he is piling up over there. That is
that many students, certainly from northern
Ontario, and northwestern Ontario in par-
ticular, do not get the opportunity to travel
down to Toronto to see the Legislature in
action— something perhaps which they can do
without in any case— but they certainly do
not get a chance to see the Royal Ontario
museum. What I would like to suggest at this
time is that the museum give some thought
to a travelling museum, such as we had wiA
Expo where they have a long trailer or a car
with some of the exhibits that are presently
in the Royal Ontario museum to give the
people— not just the students— of northern and
northwestern Ontario a chance to see some
of the history that exists that we have in the
museum.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, not to
prolong this discussion— the hon. member for
Peterborough has a 20-minute speech to
make on the subject— I hope not. The museum
has already obtained two of the Centennial
caravans which they will outfit wiih. exhibits
and which will be made available to areas
of the province that are not as accessible to
Toronto as one might like.
Mr. Pitman: What I have to say, Mr.
Chairman, will take about one minute. I
want to pass along a suggestion for the new
board of governors that I wish they would
JUNE 10, 1968
4229
get rid of those ratty looking Indian figures
that are in the basement of the Royal Ontario
museum. They have been there for at least
25 years, they are no longer authentic, and
they are really the most disgraceful example
of exhibiting the Indian culture of this country
that I can imagine. I do hope they will do
something about that. I can remember seeing
them when I was trooped down there when
I was eight years old and they are still there;
they are moth-eaten and indeed, they are not
even correct in some cases. So I would hope
the Minister might pass that along to the
board of governors too.
Vote 2403 agreed to.
On vote 2404:
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on vote 2404,
I would like to make some remarks about
student awards.
The purpose of the student awards, and I
refer particularly to the Ontario programme,
as outlined I believe in the pamphlet
"Ontario Student Awards Programme, 1968-
1969" is as follows:
To ensure that every person with tlie
abihty and desire to pursue a programme
of education beyond the secondary school
level, will have suflBcient funds to meet the
cost of such an undertaking.
Then the pamphlet continues, I believe, with
the following statement:
While it is felt that in the first instance
the responsibility for providing the neces-
sary funds rests with the parent, guardian
or immediate family and/or the student,
the province of Ontario is prepared to
supplement family or student resources as
determined by an objective form of needs
assessment.
Now, one judgment I would make in these
statements is that the presumption is that
education is a privilege, as opposed to a right.
I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman,
that the loan factor discriminates against poor
students. By "poor" I mean students who
are economically poor. Loans are a deterrent
to people in lower income groups. Donald
Bethune, the director of student awards, is
quoted as saying that student aid is a form
of "welfare". However, there are many
graduate students who sacrifice relatively
large incomes in order to do further study.
Another drawback, Mr. Chairman, is that
women who have received loans go into
marriage with what amounts to a negative
dowry.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Are there any of them,
these days, go into marriage with a positive
dowry?
Mr. T. Reid: Another aspect, Mr. Chair-
man, is that I believe the private sector, or
the business sector of the Ontario economy,
profits from graduates who go into business.
Therefore, in a sense, the taxpayers pay and
business profits.
Now, the loans are supposed to be paid
back beginning six months from graduation.
Many students cannot pay so soon after
graduation or discontinuance of study. For
example, the costs incurred in setting up a
medical, dental or legal practice are usually
pretty high and the six-months' period is a
hardship. So one of the recommendations I
would like to make to the Minister is that
perhaps this period after which a student
must pay back his loan, that this period might
be extended to some extent.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to interrupt and I hope the hon. member
will not misunderstand what I am saying but
any question of repayment or extension of
time for repayment or really the loan pro-
gramme itself is something over which I have
no control. This is completely within the
scope of the federal jurisdiction. I want to
make this abundantly clear. We do not deter-
mine the length or the time of repayment at
all. This is done by the federal government.
Mr. T. Reid: This is a very confusing area.
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no confusion, this
is factually the case.
Mr. T. Reid: The facts are also that the
two programmes are highly integrated and it
is very difiicult—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, but it is not that highly
integrated. The federal government deter-
mines the repayment provisions; there is just
no question where the responsibility here lies.
Mr. T. Reid: Your programme is a partial
function of the federal programme?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, we have integrated
the programme but the fact is we cannot
make any detemunation of the length of time
for repayment of the loan. This is an exclusive
area of federal responsibiUty.
Mr. T. Reid: Right, Mr. Chairman, I accept
this point and certainly this is something we
should all bring up to the federal government.
An hon. member: There is your opportunity
right now.
4230
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Who is that guy muttering in
the background?
I would like to talk now about ehgibility.
I understand that the eligibility clause for the
loan and the grant states that the parents of
the dependent students must be residents of
Ontario. Secondly, my understanding is that
an independent student, who is a Canadian
citizen or landed immigrant, must have been
a permanent resident of Ontario for at least
12 consecutive months immediately prior to
first enrolling in the academic programme for
which he is requesting assistance.
Last year the regulation was that he must
have been a resident of Ontario for 12 con-
secutive months prior to his apphcation for
an award. For example, if a married couple
immigrated to Canada and the wife worked
so the husband could study immediately, the
husband would never be eligible for assist-
ance under that regulation for that period.
There is also the question in terms of
eligibility of the students who are in theology.
Theology students are eligible for assistance
only under the Canada student loan plan.
Now, this gets pretty diflBcult to figure out,
and the Minister will no doubt clarify the
problem. The argument has to do, of course,
with the church and state and church-related
institutions.
My understanding is that the church-affili-
ated colleges can get grants and that students
at a church-affiliated college cannot get grants
if they happen to be enrolled in a theological
course. A student in a three-year tlieological
course could end up having to pay back
$3,000, since the maximum loan is $1,000
per year. While a student in an arts course
who received the maximum award would,
under existing regulations, be paying back
only $1,800. Again, there is the problem
here of fairness of figuring out what it means.
There is another drawback I think to the
award and some students have made this
complaint. They complain The Department
of University Affairs will not process an appli-
cation without a social insurance number,
and that it takes up to six weeks to get one
if you have not already got one; the applica-
tion is unnecessarily delayed. This is a ques-
tion I think the Minister should look into.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Who provides the social
insurance number?
Mr. T. Reid: The federal government does.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Maybe the member
should take it up with them as to expediting
the availabihty of this number-
Mr. T. Reid: This is a valid point, Mr.
Chairman, but I think the Minister should
know that in his application form the social
insurance number is required-
Mr. Nixon: Why do you need that?
Mr. T. Reid: —and that it is very difficult
for students— because of the bureaucracy in
Ottawa, if you like, and I admit there is
bureaucracy in Ottawa—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member will not get
any argument from me.
Mr. T. Reid: But the fact is that this does
pose a hardship on students who do not
happen to have a social security number. I
am sure there should be enough flexibility in
the Minister's programme, Mr. Chairman, for
him to accept these applications without
social security numbers. I do not even under-
stand why he needs it. Perhaps it has some-
thing to do with checking the income tax
statistics on the parents. Why do you need it?
Mr. Singer: Why do you need social
security?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I was going to wait
until the member asked all his questions,
and I shall try to answer them, I am sure, to
his complete satisfaction.
Mr. T. Reid: The Minister and I seem to
have an understanding, Mr. Chairman. The
last time I quizzed him I gave him questions
one after the other. I decided I would give
them all to him at once this time. Maybe he
might get caught in one of the pellets.
In section 22 of the form that students
must fill out, I gather that the students are
only allowed the cost of one return trip home
as opposed to two trips home last year. Pre-
sumably, if a student wants to go home at
Christmas, he sort of hitchhikes a ride from
Santa Claus. I would be interested in know-
ing whether I am correct?
Hon. Mr. Davis: He has a free trip home at
Christmas and maybe he has to hitchhike
home after the exams are over in April.
Mr. T. Reid: But I understand there has
been a change this year from last year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right, they re-
duced it from two to one.
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, and I am interested in
sorting out your valued judgment in making
this decision.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I have a very simple
answer for the member.
JUNE 10, 1968
4231
Mr. T. Reid: Now, in section 23 of the
form that students have to fill out, Mr.
Chairman, there are regulations governing
what is meant by independence and I gather
this year the regulations are much more strin-
gent. An independent student is one who has
completed four successful years of post-
secondary education or is married before the
beginning of the academic year or is 21 years
of age and has worked for 12 consecutive
months prior to first enrolling in this aca-
demic programme.
Well, hypothetically, here is one problem
example: A student who perhaps failed a
year, here or there, could be 24 years old and
still considered a dependent. This is one of
the peculiar things that happens when you
carry regulations to tlieir logical extension.
Or again, a student might have saved
enough from part-time jobs to finance his first
year of a BA programme. He then drops out,
perhaps for financial reasons, and works 12
consecutive months in order to save some
money to get through second year. This is,
of course, assuming that he either had no
parents, or did not receive any help. Even
though he is self-supporting. The Department
of University AflFairs would consider him de-
pendent, because his period of employment
was not prior to first enrolling in his course.
This is one of the things about red tape;
when you get involved in too specific defini-
tions you get involved in abuses to the system.
I think that there surely must be some
efi^ective system of appeal within the regula-
tion so that a student who gets caught within
the regulation and cannot figure things out,
can appeal an unfair incidence of the regula-
tions on him.
Let us have a look at sections 32 and 35
on the awards application form. The student
whose parents refuse to complete sections 32
and 35 on family income, or declare their
child to be financially independent, gets noth-
ing. Last year, he would have received a loan
to the maximum amount of $1,000. Now, I
understand that the Minister may change this;
it is not written in the brochure, and he may
revert to last year's policy. But if it is not
changed, a large number of students will
suffer and I would Hke to recommend that
the Minister change that particular aspect.
Also, many university students object vehe-
mently to these regulations. They say that
this makes them tied to their mothers' apron
strings.
Also, they say that because their parents
control the purse strings, their parents can
bring pressure to bear on them for them to
take the courses that the parents choose. It
sounds a httle far-fetched, but I believe that
it has occurred, particularly among immigrant
families. I raise that with the Minister.
Whetlier or not we can do something about
it, in the regulations, I do not know. It is a
problem, and if there is a solution or partial
solution, I hope that the Minister and his
departmental officials will try to seek it out.
I also understand that all students in com-
munity colleges are considered dependent. Is
this correct? Perhaps you could check that
out. It seems funny that if we are interested
in adult education at the community colleges
that we should, by definition, say that the
students at these colleges are dependents. It
just does not jibe, if it is correct, with the
philosophy that the CAATs should have
open-ended education for adult students.
There are some parents who are disturbed
about filling in the form relating to their in-
come. They feel that it is some sort of
invasion of privacy, and is not relevant.
After all, they are not the ones applying for
assistance. Now, this particular objection I
do not sympathize with, even though I think
that the whole thing has to be revamped. Do
you have this type of means test, or needs
test?
Hon. Mr. Davis: If you want to borrow
money, you do not have to answer anything
more than if you were doing it through some
other agency. Agreed?
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, I will just leave that
because this is where I think criticism is a bit
weak. Now, there are some particular points.
In section 33, it asks for gross earnings. That
is correct. Now, this does not take into ac-
count mortgages, car payments, etc., and does
allow for income tax, uninsured medical and
dental expenses, maintenance of dependant
relatives, wedding expenses and school fees.
Now, even the income tax department allows
for union or professional dues, and I wonder
if the minister's department should not allow
for that? Other expenses that should be
allowed, I believe, are insurance premiums,
religious donations— since some families make
quite heavy religious donations to their
churches— pension plan contributions and so
forth. In other words, there is an area, here,
where there is inconsistency between the
federal income tax exemptions and the ex-
emptions of the Minister's department, with
respect to the student awards programme.
I am not saying that inconsistency is all
that valuable. I am saying that there are some
more things that should be included in the
4232
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deductions from gross income. The aim
should be to obtain a reahstic estimate of a
family's ability to contribute to a child's edu-
cation, and not to set arbitrary figures which
are often totally out of line with the actual
situation. In some instances that I know of,
a parental contribution amounting to one-
eighth of gross income was expected. Very
few famihes can contribute to that extent. It
is that type of abuse of the situation, where
the present regulations do not apply, with a
value judgment imposed on the parent of
how much they should have saved, or they
should contribute to the education of their
children that is particularly objectionable. I
think that there are cases where it has
amounted to one-eighth of the gross income,
and I suggest, sir, with the greatest of re-
spect, that this is out of line. As long as there
are a few cases like this, there is room for
improvement.
Now, married students do better this year
than last. They are now allowed $25 per
week for room and board, as opposed to $350
for the academic year. However, the baby-
sitting allowance is totally inadequate. If the
wife is working to support her husband
through school, the family can deduct $500
per year for baby-sitting allowance, under
present regulations. This works out to less
than $10 per month for the calendar year;
for the academic year of course it is higher.
Also, if the type of family has small chil-
dren, a car becomes a necessity. Now, al-
though it is not assessed as a resource, under
the test applied to them, there are expenses
such as insurance for the car which amounts
to a considerable portion of their disposable
income. I think that this would be a vahd
deduction for such families. I know that the
transportation allowance would cover the cost
of gas to and from these universities, but it
just does not include the cost, as I understand
it, of things such as car insurance. I think
that this is a particularly vahd one that might
be included. Like the section for income of
dependent students, these questions do not
provide a reahstic assessment of the situation.
There is also the complaint about the regula-
tion: "Must have completed four successful
years." This has a moralist tone to it, and I
think that it is out of tune with public policy.
Some students, and I share this, think that it
should be "years," not "successful years." As
the Minister has often said, he is against the
concept of failure in education, and yet his
regulations refer to success in education.
Surely this is a concept that we should be
getting away from. This is a moralistic
concept that we should be getting away from
in the student award programme.
I would like next, Mr. Chairman, to turn
to the summer savings and how the Minister's
department treats these. Each student is
expected to save a certain number of dollars
from summer employment. An arbitrary figure
is decided upon, depending, of course, on the
year in university and the sex. This figure
is considered in the assessment. This year,
as last year, the summer employment situation
is drastic, and a large number of students
will be unemployed. In the Thermotex strike,
students took jobs in a "finky" manner
because they were desperate for summer
earnings, in the light of the OSAP policy. It
also forces students to take jobs which are
not helpful in the course of study, but which
pay more.
I think, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, that
the principal criticism the official Opposition
has, in that OSAP, in its present form, dis-
criminates against low income groups. It is
a burden to carry a substantial loan into
graduate school, and many lower income
students are prevented from continuing post-
graduate study because they do not want to
increase the amount of the debt. The reply
to this criticism, which I am making of in-
adequate and stringent regulations which hit
those who do not fit this norm, is that the
students who do not receive a parental con-
tribution, or do not have summer savings,
and so forth, can appeal.
This is true, but there are the three im-
portant qualifications to the appeal. First
they cannot appeal until after registration at
university, so that many go into classes in
September not knowing if they can afford to
finish their year. This creates an insecurity,
and tliis is something tliat is unnecessary, and
an administrative bungle in the regulation,
if it is true. This is something that must be
looked into. The appeal must be shifted into
a more reasonable way.
Secondly, last year the students very, very
often waited two months before they received
the decision on their appeal. This is an ad-
ministrative matter. The Minister is aware of
the difficulty that is caused the student. I
would like to know whether he has smoothed
out the administration's programme in respect
to the decisions on the appeals, made to the
department.
Thirdly, increases in the size of the award
most often took the form of an extra loan,
rather than a higher grant.
This apparently is justified, by the depart-'
ment, on the reasoning that the first respon-
JUNE 10, 1968
4233
sibility for providing funds rests with the
parents.
Mr. Chairman, I think the student award
programme has improved over the years. I
think it is essential. I have serious objections
to many aspects of it, but within that frame-
work, without questioning the framework
the Minister has estabhshed, I draw a lot of
these particular complaints to his attention.
I hope that before September comes around,
some of these complaints will be dealt with,
in an effective way.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, just to
reply very briefly on some of these matters.
A number of those raised by the hon. member
relate to alterations in regulations, not in
philosophy of the plan. They have been
made, basically, to live within the total dollars
available for the student award programme.
I am not saying that some of these suggested
changes do not, in a period of time, make
some sense, but we are talking now about,
in total student awards a $32 million pro-
gramme, related to some 82,000 students, for
sake of argument. This is a generous plan,
in fairness, and I think even the students
recognize this. This is a pretty substantial
commitment on the part of the public, with
respect to student awards. A goodly number
of the items mentioned by the hon. member
do relate to an increase in benefit. The
suggested alteration in regulation involves,
with it, automatic increases in the amounts
that must be made available. With respect
to the independent student, I think the only
main alteration that was made this year—
and really, it did not become more rigid
per 5^— all we are saying now is that it must
be four years instead of three. I think, Mr.
Chairman, this is not any greater rigidity; it
is a case of extending it from the three-year
to the four-year period.
There is no difference in philosophy
between the independent student, whether
he is in the community college or in the
university; except in the community colleges,
of course, are basically two- and three-year
institutions. With the CAATs, the question
of independence, after four years, becomes
academic, because with very few exceptions,
as I foresee it, they will not be developing
into four- or five-year programmes. Thus,
there is no basic difference between them;
it is just that the four-year rule has applica-
tion only in the university environment.
With respect to the appeal procedures, Mr.
Chairman, there is no question that ways
and means will be found to expedite these
situations. But one must also remember that
they relate very definitely to the administra-
tive structure within the universities. The
appeal procedures are initiated there. They
must go through the universities themselves,
and, while I am not in any way suggesting
that they have not administered them wdth
speed, nonetheless, it has been a new pro-
gramme for them this year. The appeal
procedures, I am sure, can be improved.
Although I do say this to the hon. member,
I am not sure yet how you would appeal
the problem of summer earnings prior to
September until you know what, in fact,
your earnings would be. I see this as being
a very practical problem but I do not see
the solution. I think that the hon. member,
if he reflects, would also agree that it is
pretty hard to appeal a situation until you
know what it is going to be. I think that
this is a very valid position to take.
With respect to the loan portion, Mr. Chair-
man, as I pointed out, and I think that this
must be made abundantly clear, the adminis-
tration is being integrated with our own pro-
gramme. We did this knowing that quite
jFrankly, politically perhaps, there was great
merit in saying the federal government are
the fellows who are making you repay your
loans, and the province will be the good
fellows, who are giving only awards, and have
two completely separate programmes. This
could have been done, but we thought that
philosophically and administratively this was
wrong; that we should endeavour to integrate
the two programmes.
I think our decision was right, although on
a strict political basis probably it was unwise.
But we do so and I think that this really sets
something of an example to other jurisdic-
tions. Look at the student loan amounts, Mr.
Chairman, as we relate them to other prov-
inces. I won't give you all the figures, I will
just tell you this; that the average loan
amount in Ontario is less than any other
provincial jurisdiction in Canada.
Dealing just momentarily with the question
of the tables of parental contribution— I think
the hon. member should know this— the tables
have been developed really to get away from
as much detail as we can on tlie forms them-
selves. The Canada student loan administra-
tors hired special consultants to advise on
what the deductions might be for a family
earning "X" number of dollars. In other
words, they attempted to strike an average
area of costs or deductions and this is how
the new table was established.
We have, along with the other provinces,
4234
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
adopted tlie table established by the federal
government under the Canada student loans
programme, and this is how it has come
about.
This was done really to get around a lot of
the detailed information that might otherwise
be requested.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that I have not
answered all the questions from the hon.
member. I shall review Hansard very care-
fully. I shall pass on his suggestions to the
student awards committee for consideration,
of course. I shall endeavour, if in my answers
I have missed some of the ideas he suggested,
to communicate these to him, and the under-
standing we have of them within the depart-
ment, so he will have them for his own
information.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2404. The member
for Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Could I make just one short
comment. I am wondering if the delays
which took place in these awards have been
straightened out. If next year there has been
some indication, I do not want to go over
what the hon. member for Scarborough East
has stated about the awards, but I know that
there are a number of young people who
were really almost driven right up the wall
over these awards last year.
I know some of the fault was the univer-
sity administration, but I also understand that
the computer went right off the rails in the
department which was dealing with this thing.
As a result, there were tremendous delays,
even when the university did complete the
forms. To complete this item, I wonder if the
Minister could indicate his philosophy of
student aid.
We seem to be dealing with two things.
The Minister, I think, has not really told us
whether, if the money became available, he
would prefer to see the end of fees and the
end of this barrier which still remains to free
education in Ontario. In other words, does he
have any philosophic feeling that this would
not be a good thing if the money was avail-
able?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chainnan, not to get
into any lightly philosophical discussion on
this occasion, may I say my position has been,
and is, that we should make every effort with
the resources available to us, to see that any
student in this province who has the qualifi-
cation to attend university is not prejudiced
from doing so by lack of economic resource.
I think this recognizes that, basically, fees are
not the only problem with respect to univer-
sity costs.
Let us face it, the elimination of fees for
some people who, quite frankly, have the
resources, means that you then have to add
resources to assist those who perhaps do not
need the assistance. I think that this is a
very fundamental approach, and one with
which the hon. member for Peterborough, if
he thought very carefully, might even agree.
We are not talking about fees per se, we are
talking about availability of resources. As I
said earlier today, I think the problem that
we face is not really basically with the
students who graduate successfully from grade
13. I think their problem, perhaps, comes
before that point in time, and does not relate
itself directly to fee structure.
The other point, with respect to adminis-
tration that I would make, is that we have
determined this year that application forms
must be in by October 31. This, I think, will
negate a lot of the problems we faced in this
past year because it was open-ended and
students were making application well into
the New Year. This, of course, was one of
the reasons for delay.
Now the member for Scarborough East did
ask one other question. I just want to make
this clear. The only reason the social security
number is listed on the form as being required
is so that we can relate it to some form of
documentation for computers to expedite the
situation. We suggested this as being a logi-
cal way of doing it.
It does not relate to income tax or any
other information we wish to find. It is just
a way of identification of students because
the majority of them probably will be bene-
ficiaries of this programme for a three- or
four-year period. It does give a continuing
identification for the use of the computers,
and we hope will expedite the whole question
of the processing of student awards.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York-
Forest Hill.
Mr. E. Dunlop (York-Forest Hill): I should
like to ask some questions and make some
observations with respect to the Ontario
fellowship programme. The Minister, in his
opening remarks this afternoon, referred to
the very great expansion in the graduate
training programmes of our universities. I
think since 1964-1965 to the present session
the numbers of graduate students had
approximately doubled from nearly 5,000 to
nearly 9,000.
It is my understanding, however, Mr.
JUNE 10, 1968
4235
Chairman, that the Ontario fellowship pro-
gramme is entirely, or substantially, limited
to students in graduate programmes in tradi-
tional fields of art and science and that it
discriminates against students in graduate
programmes in the applied sciences, and in
the professional schools such as engineering,
social work and medicine. This difiSculty is
mitigated to some extent by the existence
of national research council and medical
research courkcil fellowships.
But if the diflBculty is as I portray it, I
think that we are limiting the contributions
which the imiversities can make to the pro-
ductivity of our society. We are in great
need of engineers with higher degrees. It
may be, too, that even in the much-vaunted
legal profession there should be some oppor-
tunity for people to take degrees higher than
the LLB.
I fear that this discrimination against
professional schools and the applied sciences
is actually reducing the maximum contribu-
tion which the Ontario fellowship programme
can make to the society which must support
the universities and support this grant.
I should like to hear what the Minister
has to say about this suggestion, that there
is discrimination against those taking gradu-
ate programmes in professional schools, such
as veterinary science and others, and that
this is in some way a limitation upon the
contribution which the universities can make
to our society.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have
always taken the position that it is not a
case of the programme discriminating. I am
saying that it is a programme that has a
leaning to certain situations. Of course, the
original concept of the programme was to
encourage young people to pursue their
graduate work with the hope and the thought
that a goodly number of them would find
their way into the teaching professions at our
universities.
This was the basic philosophy behind the
programme, and while I know that the
members opposite from time to time have
constructive criticism to make, I think in
all modesty I can say this has been an
extremely successful programme here in this
jurisdiction. Extremely successful. I do not
think there is any question about it, Mr.
Chairman.
However, I heard our colleague's suggestion
of a year ago. While these things are difficult
and any extension involves additional funds,
perhaps he will be delighted to learn that
the programme is being extended this year
in the areas of applied science and the law,
with the hope, of course, that the extension
will provide personnel, some at least, for
teaching positions within our universities.
Thus a portion of his plea of a year ago has,
in fact, been met, and an extension into the
other areas that he suggests, if this is to be
done, will be done in consultation with the
Ontario council for graduate studies. It will
relate to the availability of funds and prior-
ities which the council, in consultation with
the committee on university affairs, deems
to be appropriate.
Mr. Dunlop: I was delighted to hear of
the proposed extension, Mr. Chairman, into
certain fields such as applied science.
I wonder if the Ontario council of graduate
studies, which advises the Minister in the
matter of the fellowship programme, has
taken into account that many of the graduate
programmes which they have not included
within their recommended ambit for the
Ontario fellowship programme, are among
the more expensive schools which, under the
grants programme, have a very high weight-
ing. That is to say, they suggest, or at least
the university advisory committee suggest,
that the government should spend very
substantial amounts on the support of these
schools. The Ontario council on graduate
studies suggests nothing should be spent to
support the graduate students in these schools.
This seems to be inconsistent advice that the
Minister is getting. One from one side and
one from another— all ultimately reflected in
the spending estimates of this department.
The Minister has suggested that funds
available to him for the Ontario fellowship
programme are limited. Indeed, they seem to
be limited in these estimates to some $5
million.
I would suggest that the Ontario council
on graduate studies should think of making
the $5 million that seems to be available—
and the Minister should think of making the
$5 milHon that is available— available on a
competitive basis. This is not simply because
people have chosen one form of graduate
education rather than another. If any form of
graduate education is worthy of the support
of the taxpayer, it should be worthy of the
fellowship support for its participants on the
basis of their merit.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think one
must keep in mind— but do not misunderstand
me, I say this to the member for Forest Hill
—that the council itself would not like to see
4236
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an extension of the programme. I am sure
they would be dehghted to see an extension
but once again, it relates to the priorities and
the availability of funds. One cannot get away
from the initial concept and philosophy behind
the fellowship programme which, I think, still
has very real vahdity. That is, it was intro-
duced to encourage students to proceed
towards higher degrees so that they could,
in turn, make a contribution to teaching at
the university level.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2404. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: I just have one final comment
to make on this item and that relates to the
effect which the province of Ontario student
aid programme has had on the Ontario
scholarships. It is my understanding that the
Ontario scholarship programme will continue
during the coming year and the grade 13
scholars this year will have an opportunity
to receive one of these. They have been
reduced to $150. Of course, the total effect
of the province of Ontario student aid pro-
gramme has been to— well, almost end— the
increasing number of scholarships that were
becoming available, simply because groups
feel that there is no point in providing for
scholarships unless the scholarship is at least
$1,500 or something quite generous. There
is no point in a scholarship which simply
deducts from the province of Ontario student
aid programme, from the award section of
the aid programme, and then leaves the loan
programme untouched.
I am wondering how this relates to what
the Minister said a few minutes ago when he
indicated that one of the major problems is
not necessarily that of economics while a
student is in university, but is rather a moti-
vation problem farther back in high school.
I am wondering, in our efforts to use the term
democratize— that is, provide aid for every-
one—a form of aid which includes both loan
and award and our bursary type aid— whether
we are destroying, or at least not encouraging,
a degree of motivation for bright young
people who previously could expect to receive
a $500 Ontario scholarship and also the great
range of scholarships which exist all the way
from $200 to $300 up to $1,400 and $1,500.
I think this has got a very real effect upon
that motivational drive which perhaps existed
farther back.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, once again
not to prolong this, I think if the hon. mem-
ber will pursue his own arguments to their
logical conclusion, he is really saying, if I
follow him correctly— that it is the upper and
middle income group, particularly the upper
income group— who are primarily the bene-
ficiaries of university education. This means
then, the bulk of the scholarship moneys have
been going progressively over the years to
the same group of people. If we are really
concerned about need, and interested in get-
ting more young people into the universities,
then I think that these awards must be related
to need.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both
ways. As far as the student award programme
is concerned, you cannot have a scholarship
programme duplicating at the same time, the
student award programme. We do not dis-
courage scholarship. If a student gets a
$1,500 scholarship, we do not take it away
from him. Surely, though, you cannot expect
that the student will then receive an addi-
tional $1,500 by way of grant and loan so
that he has $3,000 available to him?
As I say, it is not really the problem I
think the hon. member visualizes. I think that
there is still a place, and there will be an
increasing place, for the private interest in
scholarships for excellence, and as a means
of motivation. But our philosophy with the
student award programme— and I think that
it is basically sound — is based on need,
because we think that the private sector can
move in the area of scholarship.
Now, touching on the Ontario scholarship
programme for a moment, it partly relates to
the student award programme, and also
relates to the fact that, as I pointed out
during the estimates of the other department,
without the external examinations set by the
department and marked by the department,
it is very difiicult to continue a scholarship
programme on a total provincial basis. We
are going to continue to do it on the basis of
the recommendation of the individual schools.
The students will be given credit for $150
under this programme. At the same time it
is not calculated in the total need assessment,
because we have allowed $150 without any
question of the assessment being made.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Minister, did they not
suggest that it should be more? The Minister
would have to accept the fact that there are
now fewer scholarships being given by private
interests than there were before the OSAP
came into effect. It has the efi^ect of lessen-
ing the number of scholarships. Now, I do
not think that there is dichotomy here. I am
not suggesting that the OSAP programme is
wrong because it deals with the need aspect.
What I am suggesting is that there is also the
JUNE 10, 1968
4237
problem of bright young people who need to
be motivated for scholarship excellence and
for achievement.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Do they do it on the basis
of money?
Mr. Pitman: I wish we could say no. But
I think that we live in a society in which
certainly awards of some kind, either mone-
tary or other, play a very large part.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Right, but I do not think
that they necessarily have to be money. I
think that young people are motivated with-
out the concept of certain dollar signs being
there at the end. Maybe it is wishful think-
ing.
Vote 2404 agreed to.
On vote 2405:
Mr. T. Reid: I note that the world univer-
sity service of Canada had a specific grant
for 1965-66-67-68. Why, Mr. Chairman, was
there not a specific allocation to the Univer-
sity Service of Canada in the estimates for
next year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this area
of grant has been transferred to the cultural
exchange programme which comes under the
first vote of The Department of Education.
Mr. T. Reid. So the world university ser-
vice of Canada will be getting at least some
regard—
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I think that it will
be somewhat larger this year.
Mr. T. Reid: Great.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. Pitman: I have one question on the
last item— "miscellaneous." It turns out to be,
of course, three times as much as the speci-
fied grants are. Has the Minister any idea
where this money goes?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I shall very
briefly give you an indication. I think that
they are all very valid. Finnish student
exchange, $1,000; Canadian association of
physicists, $1,000; Ontario union of students,
$7,000; world university service, $6,500;
Canadian federation for university women— I
will not read the whole list. Glendon College
centennial project— I am sure that the hon.
member for Scarborough East would say that
this is a very valid programme. No question
about it.
Royal Canadian institute. University college
library and athletic society. Do you want me
to read the whole list? These are the miscel-
laneous items, Mr. Chairman, that came in
after certain decisions were made with regard
to the main vote. This is the situation every
year and chances are that these will all vary
again next year. We will not have Glendon
Centennial College for next year.
Mr. Nixon: But you will think of some-
thing else I am sure.
Votes 2405, and 2406 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates
of The Department of University Affairs.
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves that tlie coimnit-
tee rise and report that it has come to certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that tomorrow we will move
to the estimates of The Department of Energy
and Resources Management.
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves the adojurnment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:20 o'clock, p.m.
4238
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ERRATA
Hansard
No.
Page
Column
Line
Correction
97
3534
1
48
97
3534
1
49
97
3535
2
22
97
3538
1
18
98
3565
1
47
98
3569
1
34
98
3572
1
23
98
3587
1
28
99
3597
2
99
3598
1
4
99
3607
1
43
100
3652
1
11
100
3653
1
4th
last
line
100
3653
2
7
100
3662
1
46
100
3662
1
51
100
3665
1
2
100
3665
1
22
100
3665
1
48
100
3668
1
26
100
3668
2
20
100
3668
2
21
100
3668
2
33
100
3677
2
11
100
3677
2
25
101
3683
2
8
Kent— should be— (Canada)
rate— should be— (rates)
we want more- should be— (we do not want more)
was— should be— (had)
to— should be— (in)
Quimet— should be— (Ouimet)
take— should be— (check)
add-(I)
beginning with— Hon. Mr. Grossman at the
bottom of the page and continuing to conclusion
of first paragraph, colunm 1, page 3598— this is
all part of quote from Hansard.
remove— (not)
Kingston— should be— (on King St.)
gambit— should be— (gamut)
Trade union and industry advisory board— should
be— (Trades and Industries Advisory Board)
hand goods— should be— (canned goods)
concussions— should be— (contusions)
sued— should be— (used)
Borne— should be— (Bowen)
Hitwood— should be— (Hipwood)
Walm— should be— (Bowen)
Harlow— should be— (Harloff)
and— should be— (in)
Jailer— should be— (Jail)
and— should be— (or)
going— should be— (doing)
Be it time— should be— (Bedtime)
Institute— should be— (Institution)
No. 114
ONTARIO
Hegiglaturc of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
TORONTO
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
Second report, standing committee on education and university affairs,
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence 4241
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 4241
Commercial fishing in Lake Ontario, questions to Mr. Bnmelle, Mr. Shulman 4242
Restrictions on correspondence of Millbrook inmates, question to Mr. Grossman,
Mr. Shulman 4243
Refugees coming to Canada to escape violence, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon . 4243
Clergymen in politics, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 4243
Safety regulations in Quetico park due to drow^nings, questions to Mr. Bnmelle,
Mr. T. P. Reid 4244
Replacing of municipal police by OPP, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4244
Death of Patricia Miller, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4245
Purchase and possession of firearms, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4245
Wire tapping by police, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4245
Removal of OPP detachment from Samia to Petrolia, questions to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. Bullbrook 4246
Estimates, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Mr. Simonett 4246
Recess, 6 o'clock 4282
4241
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon we have a
large number of students with us. In the east
gallery from St. Cecelia separate school in
Toronto; in the west gallery from Humber
Valley Village public school in Ishngton and
in both galleries from St. Anthony's separate
school in Toronto.
Later this afternoon, in the east gallery,
the ladies from Howick women's institute,
Wroxeter will be with us.
We welcome these young people here
today.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence from the standing
committee on education and university affairs,
presented the committee's second report
which was read as follows and adopted:
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill without amendment: Bill 140, An
Act to amend The Schools Administration
Act.
Your committee begs to report the follow-
ing bill with certain amendments: Bill 141,
An Act to amend The Secondary Schools and
Boards of Education Act.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Workmen's Compensation
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this bill I
have introduced includes a number of major
amendments to The Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act which are designed to improve
benefits for men and women involved in
compensable occupational accidents.
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
As you, sir, and tlie hon. members know,
The Workmen's Compensation Act of
Ontario was first approved in 1915 and it
was considered a major step forward in
social legislation at that time.
Since tlien, the governments of Ontario
have ensured that our system is kept modern
by amendments to the Act following the
recommendations of Royal commissions of
enquiry.
In June 1966, the Hon. Mr. Justice J. G.
McGillivray was appointed a Royal com-
missioner to enquire into and make recom-
mendations concerning The Workmen's
Compensation Act.
The McGillivray report is a comprehensive
study. The government appreciates the work
which has been so ably performed and this
bill includes recommendations from that
report.
At this time, I would like to outline to the
members of the House a number of improve-
ments in the Act which the government pro-
poses to make.
Substantial increases are proposed in the
pensions paid to widows and children. And
the increases apply to all such pensions
regardless of the date of the accident.
The widows pension will be increased to
$125 monthly and tlie pension for each child
will be increased to $50 per month. Pensions
for orphans will be increased to $60 each
per month. The minimum payable to a
widow with three children will be $275 per
month regardless of the earnings of the
deceased.
The burial allowance will be increased
from $300 to $400 and the initial lump
sum payment to the widow will be raised
from $300 to $500.
Maximum earnings will be raised from
$6,000 to $7,000 per annum for compensa-
tion purposes. Where there is a recurrence
of compensable disability, compensation will
be based on the earnings immediately prior
to the lay-off due to recurrence or the original
earnings basis, whichever is the greater. Pro-
vision is also made for permanent disability
awards for serious facial disfigurements.
4242
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The waiting period before compensation
entitlement begins has been gradually
reduced over the years from seven days in
1915 to the present three calendar days. The
amending Act provides for the waiting period
to be the day of the accident only. Com-
pensation payments will begin on the day of
disablement following the accident.
The board's vocational rehabilitation pro-
gramme has been significantly expanded in
the past year to ensure the continuing success
of this essential service. The limit on the
amount of money which the board may spend
annually will be removed.
The board has traditionally followed the
practice of allowing the workman the right
to choose initially his attending doctor or
other practitioner. This right will now be
written into the Act.
Where an employer's work injury fre-
quency and accident cost are consistently
higher than the average for the industry,
the board may substantially increase the
employer's assessment. In the amending Act
provision is also made for the board to
require such an employer to establish a safety
committee at the plant level.
Mr. Speaker, these are the major improve-
ments arising from the government's study of
the Royal commissioner's report. The Ontario
Workmen's Compensation Act is sound social
legislation and the proposed amendments will
enhance it.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the leader of the
Opposition and the member for York South
would yield the floor to the member for High
Park who has an urgent appointment and
would like to ask his question.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Thank you
very much, Mr. Speaker. I have an appeal
at the workmen's compensation board which
must be heard at 3 p.m.
I have three questions of the Minister of
Lands and Forests.
Is it correct that the united empire loyalists
have an ancient claim to the fishing grounds
east of Port Hope, as suggested by Dr.
C. H. D. Clark, chief of the fish and wild-
life branch in today's Toronto Daily Star?
Will the Minister intervene to allow Mr.
Walter Zilow to trawl in the fishing areas
east of Port Hope? Inasmuch as alewive
carcasses are a nuisance on Ontario's beaches,
why does the department not encourage
trawling for these fish everywhere in Lake
Ontario?
Hon. R. Bnmelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for High Park.
Question 1: The answer is yes, many
original land grants have shore rights and
water lots and fisheries have been in exist-
ence since the first settlement.
Question 2: The department is not pre-
pared to issue new licences for the eastern
area of lake Ontario. The conversion of an
existing licence for trawling would have to be
considered on its merits, and on its com-
patibility with other fisheries. This would
be the only way in which a trawling licence
could be established in the eastern basin.
Question 3: The department has done
everything in its power to establish a trawl-
fishery for alewives and smelt in Lake
Ontario. Most of the Ontario waters of the
lake would be open to such a fishery, and
we would hope that there are suflBcient stocks
of fish to sustain it. The initial steps would
not be taken in the area presently covered by
gill net licences.
Tenders were called for an experimental
trawl-fishery recently and arrangements have
been made to sell any fish taken. It would be
our hope that any success in this departmental
venture will immediately be followed up by
the commercial fishing industry, as its sole
purpose is to establish what can be done. It
is by no means certain that intensive commer-
cial use of alewives would stop the nuisance
of dead fish on shore. For instance, there is
a very active alewive trawl-fishery in Lake
Michigan, and tliey still have dead fish.
Mr. Shulman: A supplementary question.
Could the department not allow trawling east
of Port Hope at a depth that would only
affect the alewives?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Speaker, I would
say to the hon. member for High Park that
I would be very pleased to have this Mr.
Zilow come to my office and meet with my
game and fish people. I am sure that together
we can find— we hope anyway— a satisfactory
arrangement.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have a question for the Minister of
Reform Institutions.
Following my complaint that a letter had
been sent to Ontario jails instructing that
visiting MPPs' conversations be written down
and forwarded to the department, was a
second letter sent to the same institution
instructing that the first letter be removed
JUNE 11, 1968
4243
from the files and locked away by the local
jail governor?
Will the Minister please rescind the instruc-
tions that visiting MPPs' conversations with
prisoners be written down and forwarded to
the department?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, while I think I
could answer, I will take it as notice, and
make sure there is not one word in my
answer that could be misconstrued as mis-
informing the House. So I will take it as
notice; and while I am on my feet, Mr.
Speaker, if you will permit me? Yesterday
the hon. member for High Park asked a
question about restrictions on correspondence
of inmates at Millbrook reformatory.
As a supplementary question he asked me:
"Will the Minister inform us how many
people at the present time the prisoners may
not be allowed to write to?"
The answer is, at Millbrook there are 11
people to whom various inmates have been
forbidden to write, and/or receive letters
from.
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be a good
time to ask the hon. Minister of Reform
Institutions if the hon. member for High
Park is on that list?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: At the present time,
I could not answer that definitely, but I would
think not.
Mr. Nixon: I see. I was just curious. Mr.
Speaker, I have a question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would think he was
one of the most prolific correspondents we
have.
Mr. Nixon: Or as somebody said: If not,
why not? Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the Premier arising from a press report of
one of his speeches.
Can the Premier tell the House what steps
he has in mind when he suggested, in an
address to the national conference on human
relations in labour and management on June
6, that as Canada has become the new home
of persons who have fled their own countries
to avoid violence: "We can welcome to our
country the refugees who want to escape
such pressures and hopefully we can provide
a haven for them."
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, from the quote just made there are
a few words omitted. What I actually said
was: "Perhaps as we have done in the past,
we can welcome to our country the refugees
who want"— so you can see, if those words
are included which were in the text I was
using, it could be seen that I was not pro-
posing any long, or any new, form of immi-
gration policy. I was just referring to what
had occurred in this country in the past. I
was thinking in terms of those Hungarians,
for instance, who came here after the Hunga-
rian revolution. I was thinking of the influx
of Europeans into this country after World
War IT.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The
Prime Minister was surprised by the head-
lines?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I was a trifle surprised,
but I have a standing practice never to say
that I have been misquoted.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the
Premier that I had no intention of misquot-
ing him here. As a matter of fact, I think
the attitude is a very commendable one, and
it may very well be that some initiative on
the part of this government could improve the
situation.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well I am merely trying,
Mr. Speaker, to explain exactly what I had
in mind when I made the remark. I would
be happy to supply a copy of the remarks
I made because I find when I make certain
speeches, I am wiser to have a text to work
from than just say what I think off the top
of my head. But those words were in my
text, and they do change the meaning of
that quote. I just wanted to make it quite
clear.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Prime Minister, submitted a
day or so ago. When the hon. member for
Grey South (Mr. Winkler) told a Waterloo
meeting, as reported in the Toronto Daily
Star of Wednesday, that— and I quote—
"dedicated clergymen should keep their noses
out of politics"; was he expressing the official
view of the Conservative Party?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have not
seen the text of the speech made by the hon.
member for Grey South, nor did I see the par-
ticular news report. I can only say that as
far as the portion of the Conservative Party
with which I am associated, we have had men
of the cloth representing this party in the
4244
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House, in years gone by, and we do have
presently. So perhaps, that is the answer to
the hon. member's question. The hon. mem-
ber who sits back here is an Anghcan min-
ister and sits on this side of the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister
assure us tliat the hon. member for Grey
South is attached to the same portion of the
Conservative Party as himself?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Absolutely! All the way.
He is a man I support, supported vigorously
last October, and will support in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Rainy
River have a question?
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Lands
and Forests. Is the Minister considering the
implementation and enforcement of new
safety regulations in Quetico park due to the
increased number of drownings during the
past 15 months, which number in total 12,
and due to the drowning of three Minnesota
fishermen on May 17 on Basswood Lake on
the Ontario-Minnesota border?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member for Rainy River, our
records show that in 1967, there occurred
eight drownings within Quetico provincial
park. On May 17 last, three bodies were
recovered from the Canadian side of Bass-
wood Lake, which is international water. It is
not known whether the drownings occurred
in the Ontario Quetico provincial park or in
the United States boundar>' waters canoe
area.
In periods of high water, as at present,
which cause extra hazards near rapids and
rivers, all of our border crossing points
issue special warnings when issuing the
licence to travel. No specific new safety
regulations are contemplated as persons using
this park for canoe trips are considered to
make such trips on their own responsibility.
Our staff offers advice when dangerous prac-
tices are seen and when advice is sought.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Will the Minister accept
a supplementary question? As you may be
aware, sir, perhaps you can confirm this for
me— but the problem in some of these drown-
ings has been because of overloading of
canoes and boats. Would you be prepared to
give your forestry officials the power to en-
force regulations for minimum loadings for
canoes and power boats used not only in
Quetico park but in the province?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would
say that we could certainly make it known,
but as far as making it compulsory, I do
not think that it is within our competence or
jurisdiction. This matter of boats, as you
know, comes mainly under the federal juris-
diction, but we certainly would be pleased to
try and make it known to those using canoes
and boats that they should observe the federal
regulations as they exist.
Mr. Speaker: I assume that the member,
in directing the question to the Minister,
meant the maximum loading and not the
minimum loading as he said?
Hon. A. A. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day, yesterday the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) asked
a question which I would like to answer
today. The question was: Now that the prov-
ince has launched legislation authorizing the
taking over of policing the municipalities, will
the province take steps to amend the legisla-
tion and guarantee that officers and police
presently in charge of enforcement be pro-
tected either by continuity of employment
or financially?
My answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the legis-
lation which provides that local law enforce-
ment personnel may be replaced by the
Ontario Provincial Police cannot at the same
time undertake to provide continuity of em-
ployment or financial security. I would point
out that the Ontario Provincial Police only
take over policing municipalities at the re-
quest of the municipality; it is a voluntary
proposal. If the municipality prefers to carry
on its own police supervision, the OPP do
not move in.
What we do, and I think I answered a
question to this effect in the House a very
few days ago, is make every endeavour to
provide as much notice as possible, after the
municipality has agreed to the policing by
the Ontario Provincial Police force, to inter-
view every member of the local force to see
if they can qualify on training and other
qualifications which are necessary to fit into
the provincial police force. We have had
considerable success although I must admit
that a great many of the personnel who have
perhaps been a number of years with the
local force, do not qualify. But we do what
we can to assist them in employment or in
continuity of employment, and we encourage
the municipalities to see that they are em-
ployed with considerable success.
JUNE 11, 1968
4245
The rest of that question, Mr. Speaker, the
second part was: What right has the Ontario
police commission to dispatch poUce to any
municipahty over the heads of local police
authorities?
The right is contained in The Police Act,
particularly section 50, subsection 1, and in
sections 4 and 5; where there is inadequate
policing, there is provision to have the polic-
ing done by the Ontario Provincial Police.
Under section 50, again, the provision is that
the provincial police will move in only on
request from the local council, in a resolu-
tion, or a resolution from the local board of
pohce commissioners. It must be passed by
way of resolution and then a request made
to the Attorney General or the local Crown
attorney by the head of the council after
resolution— or by the police commissioners—
and then we will move in to assist. In the
proposed legislation, which I am sure we will
discuss, what is intended there— and I think
perhaps the hon. member was a little con-
fused—was that in sudden situations of an
influx of people in a summer resort area or
some other area such as that, there would be
the power to assist without waiting on the
calling of a council and the passing of a
resolution.
Then there was another question by the
same member, the member for Grey-Bruce
yesterday, on June 7. The question was—
what recourse has the family of Patricia
Miller, who died of a massive overdose of a
local anaesthetic administered by Dr. Saul
Eisen, at Mount Sinai hospital on April 7,
1968? Second, what right does Dr. Samuel
Leslie have to refuse attending that patient
unless she is married?
1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very
disappointed in the way these questions were
presented because they raise innuendoes and
inferences which have no basis whatever in
fact. One newspaper report did use the ex-
pression "a massive overdose" of anaesthetic
but I am advised that the phrase that was
used in evidence at the inquest was "a mas-
sive dose" of anaesthetic. There was testi-
mony heard on that issue from experts that
the administration of that amount of anaes-
thetic was perhaps more than might have
been necessary, but it was not greater than
the amount that has been given in similar
cases without any ill effect to a patient. It
must also be remembered that the patient
lived for several days after the administration
of that anaesthetic. The rights of the family
are those of a civil nature and they can best
be considered through their consulting a legal
advisor of their own choice.
The second part of the question implies
that a physician refused to treat this young
girl. That suggestion or allegation is even
more offensive, Mr. Speaker, because it is not
true. The doctor in this case did attend the
girl and did treat her. However, as he was
going to be away at the critical time— this
was a case of childbirth— he arranged for the
girl to be admitted to the hospital as a staflF
patient and that meant that she could be
admitted and treated properly at the appro-
priate time of birth and with the best care
which the hospital could afford. I might say,
Mr. Speaker, that that young girl was treated
by the chief of anaesthesia from Mount Sinai
hospital and there is no doubt, therefore, that
she had the most competent and experienced
help available.
The member for Grey-Bruce asked a
further question on June 7. "What steps does
the government plan to institute in regard
to a gun control law, such as prohibiting
purchase by mail and making guns harder
to get?" The second part of the question,
"Would the government consider a 'week of
amnesty' for people to turn in illegally held
weapons without prosecution?"
I have to answer, Mr. Speaker, that the
control of firearms is a subject within the sole
judisdiction of the federal authorities. I would
point out that there was a bill prepared and
before the House at Ottawa, which was intro-
duced before Parliament was dissolved and
will have to be introduced when Parliament
convenes again. I do not know of any
authority which will enable the province to
move in this field. With respect to the matter
of amnesty, that certainly is a matter which
concerns the federal jurisdiction since it deals
with a criminal situation. We have no
authority to grant amnesty for crimes which
may have been committed.
And, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Grey-Bruce asked a further question on June
7: "How many cases of wire tapping were
carried out in Ontario by police authorities
last year?" Secondly, "What are the figures
of current number of wire tapping opera-
tions carried on monthly by police officials in
this province as of the date of June 7, 1968?*'
I would say, Mr. Speaker, I do not have
statistics on this. The police are not required
to furnish such statistics-if they have them—
to the Attorney General, and I have no
knowledge as to how many cases of wire
tapping may be carried on. I would like to
note, Mr. Speaker, that evidence obtained by
wire tapping has been held to be admissible
as evidence in our courts. There is no law
4246
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at the moment making it inadmissible or
making it wrong to get evidence in this way.
I think the legal situation is that a court may,
while it may be found admissible, a court
may take into account the way in which that
evidence was obtained— its weight or its
value as evidence.
I note further that in Mr. McRuer's report
on the inquiry into civil rights, he made some
comment on this subject. It will be foimd in
his second volume at page 938 and 939. This
is what the hon. Mr. McRuer said:
The question is one of balance and regu-
lation. Where law enforcement agencies
have reasonable ground to believe that
means of communication are to be used
for the advancement of crime, they should
be given means to secure power to inter-
cept messages.
And he went on to say:
The control over tlie exercise of such
power should undoubtedly be strict, but
nevertheless the power should exist.
The hon. member for Samia (Mr. Bullbrook)
asked a question on May 28, on which I
undertook to give an answer.
His question was: "Could the hon. Min-
ister advise the reasons of the removal of the
Samia detachment of the Ontario Provincial
Police from Samia to Petrolia, particularly
with a view to the following points?
Point one: (a) the volume of present traffic
in the Samia area and especially the loca-
tion of proposed Highway 402. (b) the popu-
lation concentration of the area, (c) the history
of the Ontario Provincial Police activity in
the Samia area.
Secondly, would the Minister advise as to
whether Ontario Provincial Police officials
were consulted in connection with the
removal of the detachment to Petrolia? Also
what their advice was in connection with such
removal. Would the Minister specify the
officer or commissioners who recommended
such removal?
My answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the
Ontario Provincial Police responsibility
regarding traffic does not apply within the
hmits of the city of Samia, The present loca-
tion of the Samia detachment does in fact
hamper the efforts of the police in getting
to their area of responsibility. The growth of
the city has come to include annexation of
portions of the township of Samia. It natur-
ally follows that as a municipahty grows, so
does the inaccessibility to the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police area of responsibility. In this
case, the distance from the detachment head-
quarters out to the area where the provincial
police are responsible is some seven miles.
Since Highway 402 is a controlled access
road, it is policed by the Ontario Provincial
Police up to the point where it becomes a
federal property and forms the approach to
the Blue Water international bridge. Cur-
rently, Highway 402 is only some two and
a half miles in length. The proposed exten-
sion will follow, of course, in this area paral-
lehng and slightly north of Highway 7,
eventually terminating at London. This can
be adequately patrolled by the zone system
from the new Petrolia location.
Second part of the question: It is evidently
apparent that the major population concentra-
tion occurs in the immediate Sarnia area
which is not the area with which the Ontario
Provincial Police are concerned. The central
geographic location of Petrolia with con-
centration of personnel there will give ade-
quate response to the duties in what is
designed as a form of zone policing.
Then further, at the time the Samia de-
tachment was first estabhshed, the boundaries
of the city of Sarnia were much different
than they are today. As early as 1961, the
authorities of the county of Lambton sug-
gested more adequate policing could be made
iFrom a central location in the county. The
Ontario Provincial Police organization, in the
county of Lambton, has been a matter of
controversy for several years. But because
of leasing commitments, relocation has been
delayed until the spring of last year when
an approach was made to Treasury board
to provide new accommodation at a central
location in PetroHa.
And I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the
Ontario Provincial Police were certainly con-
sulted in the matter. It was upon the advice
and recommendation of the commissioner of
the Ontario Provincial Police that this new
location and the new facilities are now being
provided.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 20th order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
in rising to present the estimates of The
Department of Energy and Resources Man-
JUNE 11, 1968
4247
agement for the fiscal year 1968-69, I propose
to review briefly, for the hon. members of
this Legislature, the main programmes being
carried forward by my department and to
highlight some of the recent developments
afiFecting these programmes.
In tlie past year, there have been significant
developments in the exploitation of the petro-
leum resources of the province. In early 1967,
the oil and gas rights to one milhon acres of
the Hudson Bay - James Bay lowlands were
leased for geological exploration. Activity so
far has been confined to geophysical studies
but I expect that at least one test well will
be drilled next winter.
In southern Ontario, attention has been
focussed on Lake Erie, where drilling has
occurred with limited success since 1913.
Last year, for the first time, all the available
oil and gas rights, some three million acres,
were leased from the Crown. Six new gas
pools were discovered in the lake which will
add appreciably to Ontario's ultimate recov-
erable reserves of natural gas.
In summary, a total of 156 wells were
drilled in Ontario in 1967 and of these 59
were completed as gas producers and six as
oil producers. In addition to the six new gas
pools discovered in Lake Erie, seven similar
discoveries were made on land.
The dynamics of growth and change in
energy, as in all other sectors of the economy,
demand a continuing review of our pro-
grammes and responsibilities. In the area of
the safe use of energy fuels, we have been
concentrating for some years on the prepara-
tion of new, and the updating of existing,
codes of practice for the various fuels. While
this work must, and will, continue we are
now turning to the need to up-grade the
qualifications of our fuel inspectors.
A new programme has been started to
accomplish this aim and includes additional
training in propane storage and handling;
natural gas, propane and fuel oil utilization
and appliance approvals; natural gas and fuel
oil transmission and distribution; gasoline
and fuel oil storage, handling and transporta-
tion.
It is my hope that tliis programme will
increase our effectiveness in the field of safety
in the use of energy fuels without increasing
the number of staff involved.
It is my hope that this programme will
increase our effectiveness in the field of
safety in the use of energy fuels without
increasing the number of staflF involved.
The Ontario energy board continued its
work in the regulation of the gas industry,
and during the year held 82 hearings. These
included such matters as fixing rates and
charges, approval to construct transmission
pipelines, pooling gas and oil interests, desig-
nating gas storage areas and other related
matters.
Some of the highlights of the board's work
in the past year included:
Approval of an east-west hne of the Con-
sumers' Gas Co., partly 30 inches in dia-
meter and partly 28 inches, immediately to
the north of Metropolitan Toronto, designed
to meet increased demands for gas in this
developing area.
Approval of a 24-inch line of Union Gas
Co. between its Dawn 156 gas storage pool
and its Dawn township compressor station,
in order to obtain maximum deliverability
from the storage pool.
Approval of a 20 inch line extending 17
miles south from the Dawn township com-
pressor station, being the first stage of a
looping of the existing 16 inch pipeline from
Dawn township to the city of Windsor to
meet increased demands for gas; and approval
of an 84 mile 8 inch gas transmission line,
previously authorized as a 6 inch line, by
Twin City Gas Company from Vermilion Bay
to Bruce Lake.
Of the 964 organized municipalities in
Ontario, there are now 509, containing all but
a small part of the population of the province,
served by gas. Of these, the city of Sault
Ste. Marie is the only one presently served
by manufactured gas. The gas distribution
system of Sault Ste. Marie was acquired last
year by Northern and Central Gas Company
and it is expected that this system will be
converted to natural gas by the end of 1968,
with appropriate rate reductions, when natural
gas is made available at this point by Trans-
Canada Pipe Lines Limited on completion of
the Great Lakes project.
In southwestern Ontario, improvements to
existing underground storage areas and dis-
coveries of new potential storage pools,
together with the forecast availability of
supplies of natural gas from western Ontario
and the United States, gives us every reason
for optimism in our supply position for the
next few years.
Looking now at the total energy picture, I
am able to report to you that there was a
significant increase in total energy demand
last year, in spite of tight supplies of both
4248
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
crude oil and natural gas from western
Canada.
Total petroleum products sales were about
144 million barrels, an increase of about 5
per cent over 1966. Production from Ontario
refineries increased by .5 per cent, whereas
products from other provinces and the United
States increased approximately 14 and 16
per cent respectively.
The fact that only a very slight increase in
production in Ontario occurred was a result
of insufficient pipeHne capacity to provide for
delivery of adequate quantities of crude oil to
supply the demand for refined products. Con-
sequently, imports of refined products rose
sharply. The position is expected to improve
greatly in 1968 with the completion of
increased pipeline and refinery capacity now
under construction.
Similarly, the relatively unchanged natural
gas receipts from western Canada during most
of last year necessitated continued increases
in imports from the United States. The first
phase of the new Great Lakes Transmission
Company line was completed in the third
quarter of 1967 and initial deliveries of
gas, from the Michigan storage fields, com-
menced. With the completion of the Great
Lakes project, at the end of the present year,
substantially increased supplies of western
Canada gas will be available to Ontario users.
As additional supplies of natural gas begin
to move into southern Ontario, more gas
from the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will become
available to better serve the requirements of
northern Ontario. Further additional supplies
are assured for the future with the ultimate
looping of the existing northern Ontario line
of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, construction of
which will commence in 1970 as a result of
the conditional approval of the Great Lakes
route by the national energy board.
A detailed route for the loop or second
northern Ontario line has not yet been
approved and when this matter is reviewed
by the national energy board, I anticipate that
the government of Ontario will wish to place
before the board, its views as to which route
will best serve the ambitions and priorities
of the province for the development of its
northern area. Hon. members will recall that
we did draw the attention of the board to
the importance of making available adequate
natural gas supplies to the great Algoma area
when the Great Lakes application was being
considered.
At that time, while we were able to stress
that primary natural resource development is
of the greatest importance, and that this type
of development generally requires large
amounts of cheap energy, we found that we
were lacking detailed information concern-
ing specific industrial potential in specific
areas. As a result, and to be prepared for
the future hearings, I have initiated a study
of the energy needs of northern Ontario, so
that a realistic assessment of future proposals
will be possible. This study is being con-
ducted by the Ontario research foundation in
close liaison with my departmental staff and
is expected to be completed by early 1969.
Another development of natural gas in
northern Ontario, which may be of interest
to hon. members, is the construction of a
liquefied natural gas plant presently being
built by the Northern and Central Gas Com-
pany at Hagar, 40 miles east of Sudbury.
This plant provides a storage capacity
equivalent to 600 million cubic feet of natural
gas and its main purpose is to provide for
peak shaving. Another possibility, however,
is providing a source of liquefied natural gas
which can be transported by road or rail to
isolated natural gas distribution systems
throughout northern Ontario. An overall
assessment of energy supply and needs in
northern Ontario will provide a basis on
which to judge the economic feasibility of
such a role for liquefied natural gas.
To summarize energy requirements in
Ontario, the total usage of natural gas in
1967 was about 280 billion cubic feet, an
increase of roughly 15 per cent over 1966.
There was no change in the demand for coal,
estimated at a total of 16 million tons. In-
creasing consumption of coal by Ontario
Hydro has tended to offset lost markets in
other consuming sectors of the province. The
demand for electricity in 1967 increased about
6.5 per cent over 1966, reaching a total of
approximately 57 billion kilowatt hours.
Ontario Hydro provided for over 90 per cent
of this total.
The joint programme of construction of the
Pickering nuclear generating station is con-
tinuing and the estimates include an amount
of $9,650,000 which represents the province's
share of the estimated costs for the next year.
I have also included in the estimates an
amount of $750,000 to continue the rural
electrification programme which has been of
such benefit in many areas of the province,
and especially northern Ontario.
In the field of water management, we are
continuing our programmes through the con-
servation authorities and through the water
resources commission. Dealing first with
the conservation authorities, I would like to
JUNE 11, 1968
4249
report to you the progress made in imple-
menting the recommendations of the select
committee on conservation authorities.
Before doing so, however, I would like to
take this opportunity of paying tribute to the
chairman, the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr,
D. Evans) and his hard working committee
for the outstanding job they have done in
preparing this most comprehensive report. In
all, 113 briefs were received and the com-
mittee held 99 hearings, which provides evi-
dence of tlie very widespread interest with
which the work of the conservation authori-
ties is viewed by the people of Ontario.
Since the report was presented, the staflF of
my department has not been idle and a com-
plete revision of The Conservation Authori-
ties Act has been passed during the present
session. The revisions incorporate many of
the 127 recommendations made by the com-
mittee, others being matters of government
policy, departmental procedure and author-
ity regulations and practices. These latter
recommendations are being put into practice
in collaboration with the conservation authori-
ties. By the end of this session, I believe
that the great majority of these recommenda-
tions will have been instituted and this fact
alone pays tribute to the value of the work
of the select committee.
During the past year, the federal govern-
ment has agreed to participate, under The
Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act,
in the Halton region water control plan and
contribute 37.5 per cent of the total cost
of $2,386,000. Construction of this project
is now underway.
The Grand River conservation authority has
submitted a brief on a comprehensive water
control programme and discussions with Ot-
tawa are still proceeding as to how this pro-
gramme may qualify for federal assistance of
a similar nature.
Two other conservation authorities, the
Upper Thames and the Metropolitan Toronto
region, have active projects under this pro-
gramme. The latter has concentrated its
efforts towards land acquisition for dam sites,
in the face of skyrocketing land values,
whereas the Upper Thames authority has
been able to forge ahead with a wide-ranging
construction programme. Under this pro-
gramme, the Wildwood dam was oflBcially
opened on June 15, 1967, the Stratford proj-
ect on October 24, 1967, and I am advised
that the authority is planning an oflBcial open-
ing ceremony for the Gordon Pittock dam this
spring.
Under the ARDA programme, the Ausable
conservation authority is proceeding with
the construction of the Parkhill dam and
reservoir and I anticipate that the facihty
will be in service a year from now. "
Also under the ARDA agreement is the
small reservoir programme, which has proven
so successful. Last year, 19 dams were com-
pleted, 14 are under construction and 34 are
in the planning stage.
The programme, in collaboration with The
Department of Agriculture and Food, for
assisting farmers to play their part in a water
conservation programme by constructing farm
ponds, has continued actively. The pro-
gramme, too, receives assistance from federal
ARDA funds and last year, close to 500 ponds
were built at a total cost of nearly $500,000.
The river gauging programme which is
financed jointly by the federal government,
the provincial government and the conserva-
tion authorities, is continuing to expand and
improve, and in critical locations, telemark
recorders have been installed which transmit
flood data direct to a central office in each
case. The recent floods on the Lower Thames
and Sydenham Rivers emphasize the need for
vigilance and for the means of predicting, in
advance, the degree of severity of flooding.
Using available data, the staff of the con-
servation authorities branch of the depart-
ment were able to predict flood levels at
Thamesville, Chatham, Dresden and Wallace-
burg, two days before the floods arrived and,
as a result, all possible precautions were
taken in time to minimize loss. During the
emergency period, as in previous years, a
flood control headquarters was operated on
a continuous basis.
Conservation authority parks continue to
provide those day-use facilities which are so
much in demand by dwellers in our urban
centres. Over two million people visited these
areas in 1967 and there is no doubt the de-
mend for such facilities continues to increase.
Another benefit of these conservation areas is
in the outdoors education of children and
especially city children. Many authorities are
providing instructional facilities now and I
hope that this programme will be expanded
in the future in collaboration with The
Department of Education.
Our junior conservationist award pro-
gramme was again well supported last year.
Eighteen students sponsored by a number
of conservation organizations were enrolled
and participated for six weeks in the field
in actual conservation works being under-
taken by the authorities.
During the year, interest in forming new
authorities was shown in four watershed areas
4250
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and departmental staff have provided infor-
mation and support in the preparatory work
leading to the formation of new conservation
authorities. Two of the four, namely, Missis-
sippi and the lower Trent, are now in opera-
tion as our newest authorities.
A vital factor in the economic development
of any community is the availability of ade-
quate water supplies. With the increasing
water use which is taking place throughout
the province today, there is a corresponding
increase in the volume of wastewater which
must be treated before being discharged to
die receiving stream. The provision of water
supplies and the control of pollution con-
tinue, therefore, to form the basic objectives
of tlie Ontario water resources commission in
its responsibility for water management in
the province.
This programme has been greatly acceler-
ated during the past year as more and more
projects are undertaken under the system of
provincial financing which was introduced
in 1965. A year ago, I was able to report
that some 125 provincially-financed water and
sewage projects had been initiated. As of
December 31, 1967, this figure had increased
to 184 at an estimated value of $120 million.
In addition to this major development in
provincially-financed facilities, the construc-
tion of water supply and sewage treatment
facilities undertaken by the earlier methods
of financing continues unabated. This includes
those projects undertaken by municipalities
independently, as well as those undertaken
by municipalities in agreement with the
Ontario water resources commission, either
on an individual or area basis. The value of
such facilities undertaken in the past ten
years has now exceeded the $1.25 billion
mark. An estimated $157 million of this
amount is being spent on projects undertaken
on the basis of provincial-municipal agree-
ment, involving the construction of some 397
water supply and sewage treatment facilities
as of the end of last year.
In short, water supply and sewage treat-
ment facilities are being undertaken through-
out the length and breadth of this province
—as far north as the town of Moosonce near
James Bay and the town of Red Lake near
the Manitoba border. The importance of this
programme in furthering the development of
the province cannot be over-emphasized.
I might add that in any municipality where
sewage treatment works are contemplated,
(>very effort is made to get the views of the
local residents and to keep them informed of
developments. The commission holds public
hearings for this purpose and during the past
year, 48 of these hearings were held. In addi-
tion, a total of 84 meetings took place
between Ontario water resources commission
staff and municipal councils on pollution
control programmes.
Emphasis continues to be placed upon the
carrying out of regional studies pertaining to
water supply and sewage treatment needs.
A major scheme involving five municipahties
in the southern portion of Peel county is
being worked out at the present time and
further regional schemes are being developed
elsewhere in tlie province.
Altogether, 15 regional water studies and
three regional sewage studies have been
initiated to date. In carrying out these
studies, careful consideration is given to
anticipated population growth, extensive data
are gathered concerning available surface
and ground water resources, existing water
supply and pollution control facilities are
carefully evaluated and a determination is
made of the future requirements of the area
in order tliat its orderly development may
be ensured.
A major study of the Ottawa River basin
is to commence this year in co-operation
with the Quebec water board. Interim reports
will be issued from time to time, and will
include descriptions of existing water quality
conditions and any planned major alterations
by industries or municipahties which would
affect the water quality of the river. The
final report will set forth the complete find-
ings of this river-basin investigation, includ-
ing recommendations for future river uses
and the limitations to be placed on waste-
water sources.
The water quality survey of the Great
Lakes undertaken in 1966, in co-operation
witli departments of the federal government
and agencies of the United States govern-
ment, under the reference of the international
joint commission, will culminate in a com-
prehensive report being presented to the
international joint commission. Consistent
witli our responsibility for the effective
development of pollution control measures
throughout the province, we will continue to
give close attention to the reduction of pollu-
tion loads coming into the Great Lakes sys-
tem, from the various watersheds which drain
into it. As part of this work, we will continue
to maintain a surveillance programme, includ-
ing the use of aircraft patrols, to guard
against the unnecessary loss or dumping of
waste materials which may adversely affect
the quality of these waters.
JUNE 11, 1968
4251
Pollution caused by industrial wastes con-
tinues to receive close attention. Increasing
numbers of industries have installed, or are
in the process of installing, waste treatment
works within their plants, or arrangements
have been made for the treatment of such
wastes in mimicipal treatment facilities. A
total of 65 certificates for industrial waste
control facilities were issued to industries
during 1967, involving the expenditure of
almost $11 million.
Of the 1,800 wet process industries under
active surveillance in the government's pro-
gramme of industrial waste control, about
300 can be said to have inadequate treatment
at the present time. In some cases, charges
have had to be laid under section 27 of
The Ontario Water Resources Commission
Act. While many of these industries face
problems related to poor locations, antiquated
sewage systems, and technical and economic
considerations of such a degree that pollution
control programmes cannot be immediatey
executed, our policy requires that suitable
timetables be established for the reduction of
waste loads to acceptable levels. In cases
where new industries are to be established,
standards are applied so that waste treatment
and control measures are adequate at the
very outset.
In the northern Ontario water resources
survey being carried out in co-operation with
the federal government, progress is being
made in the collection of hydrological and
geological data in the drainage basins under
study. Twenty-four streamflow gauging sta-
tions were operated co-operatively with the
federal government during 1967. This survey
will have to be carried on for a considerable
period of time yet in order that a compre-
hensive picture may be obtaned of the water
resources of this vast region, both with respect
to their quality and their quantity. When
this data has been accumulated, the govern-
ment will be enabled to formulate, more
adequately, long-range plans for the develop-
ment of the province and particularly of this
northern area.
Under authority of the Act, the commis-
sion administers a water-taking permit system
where such taking exceeds 10,000 gallons per
day. During 1967, 525 such permits were
Issued; 375 were for irrigation, 38 were for
municipal supply purposes, 55 were for indus-
trial purposes, five were for commercial pur-
poses and 52 were for recreational purposes.
Seventy-four ground-water and surface-water
interference problems were also investigated.
The regular laboratory analysis work of
the commission has been augmented during
the past two years by the large number of
samples submitted in connection with the
Great Lakes survey. Separate laboratories are
operated for this purpose both in Toronto
and in London. Research into nutrient re-
moval has made considerable advances during
the past year and further work is to be
carried out in this area.
The decentralization of some of the com-
mission's field activities is now being imple-
mented. A regional office was established last
September in the city of Kingston and the
possibility of opening one in the city of Lon-
don, to operate in conjunction with the
London laboratory, is being investigated.
Accommodation is being sought at the pres-
ent time for a new regional office at the
Lakehead to be opened this summer. Other
areas of the province are being considered
for the establishing of additional regional
offices. With the importance of immediate
attention being given to problems as they
arise, the availability of services at the local
level is taking on a new degree of importance.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my sin-
cere appreciation and thanks, not only to the
hon. members of this Legislature, but to all
departments of government as well, for their
co-operation, and to the members of the
several commissions for which I report to
the Legislature, the Ontario energy board,
and the members of my immediate sta£F for
their loyalty and support.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, this is the first occasion that I
have had the pleasure of rising as the official
critic of our party concerning The Depart-
ment of Energy and Resources Management.
I might recount some of the hon. Minister's
remarks concerning the select committee on
conservation authorities which you and I had
the pleasure of serving on.
Possibly on behalf of that committee I
would accept the Minister's thanks for our
work. In discussing the activities of that
committee with other members who have
served on other committees, it was the
unanimous opinion that it was one of the
best select committees of the province. I will
assure you, sir, that I enjoyed serving the
province for those two hot summers, for
many long hours each day.
We enjoyed ourselves, and I think a great
deal of the entliusiasm that is related to our
committee is, in fact, a reflection of those
4252
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who serve in the various areas of our prov-
ince on the conservation authorities them-
selves. I was very interested in the hon.
Minister's opening remarks where he indicated
that certain geophysical work was being
conducted on Hudson and James Bays, and
that possibly one well is going to be drilled
this season in that area.
I would appreciate it if, on the first vote,
the Minister could comment further on this
matter as to whether the jurisdictional dis-
putes have been settled with both the federal
and the Quebec governments in this regard.
I was also pleased to hear from the hon.
Minister that more natural gas was to be
available in the northern part of our prov-
ince, and that he and his department were
initiating an energy need study for the north.
I was somewhat intrigued, too, regarding
the comments concerning liquefied natural
gas, and the possible potentials that they have
in the outlying regions of our province.
I am going to attempt to stay within the
20-minute time limit suggested for these de-
bates. I feel that I can do this because we
have discussed a number of the details of
this department in the recent enactment of
the conservation bill— a pollution debate that
occurred here a week or so ago— and, of
course, the opportunities that we have had in
the committee and examining the affairs of
Ontario Hydro.
But I must underline the importance of
this department. Personally, I feel that this
particular department is equally and possibly
more important than The Department of
Education with its tremendous budget.
It is very very important for the future of
the people of our province. And this I must
underline.
I would like to discuss first of all some of
the energy policies of this government— poli-
cies that affect the cost and distribution of
gasoline, oil and natural gas, and the dangers
of pollution.
Here is the first suggestion that I would
like to put to this government, which has the
responsibility of looking after the affairs of
a large province, that fronts on four of the
Great Lakes.
These bodies of fresh water contribute so
much to the economy, the recreation and
basic necessities of everyday life. I feel that
we should have a policy respecting oil and
gasoline tankers that ply our Great Lakes.
Naturally, this policy must be incorporated
with our neighbouring jurisdictions.
The reason I suggest this is as most hon.
members will recall. Two oil tankers broke
up in the Atlantic Ocean in storms this past
spring, with very very dire results to water-
front areas in the locations of the accidents.
There is the same danger with more dire
possible consequences on our Great Lakes
system. Our Great Lakes, those of you who
follow history, have a real history of ship
disasters and, further, the Great Lakes do
not have the tidal action of oceans for dis-
persing oil slicks.
Since these two accidents this spring, I
have had dreams, or premonitions, of a
loaded tanker floundering on Lake Huron,
above Sarnia, with an ensuing oil slick
slowly moving down the St. Clair River,
through Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, and
into Lake Erie and the balance of the St.
Lawrence system.
Think of the havoc that would be wrought
to the water systems, the industries based on
the need of clean fresh water, to the fish and
wildlife of the seaway system. There would
be utter chaos for millions of people who are
residents of this area. I point out that this is
just a possible danger, but one that we can-
not afford to overlook. In this regard I would
like to make two proposals.
One, an immediate programme of a standby
base of trained personnel and equipment, sol-
vents and chemicals to combat such an emer-
gency should it ever arise; I would hope that
it would not. Secondly, I feel that this prov-
ince should have a long-range programme to
provide the transportation of gas and oil to
the north via pipelines.
It is my understanding that tankers going
up to the Soo and the Lakehead are reason-
ably economical; possibly we cannot transport
fuel and bulk any cheaper. Most of the fuel
is transported through Lake Huron and Lake
Superior to the major points for further dis-
tribution.
This, of course, is done over land in our
northern hinterland that is sparsely populated.
The higher cost of gasoline in the north has
certainly been drawn to the attention of the
House. This is not only a burden to the
residents of the north, but a possible deterrent
to further industrial development of the
north, as well as a deterrent to the tourist
industry on which tlie north relies so heavily.
I feel that this department should initiate
feasibility studies regarding such pipelines,
weighing the cost of such pipehnes not only
in relation to the economy in the north but
more so in relation to the danger of pollu-
tion in the Great Lakes and the resulting
JUNE 11, 1968
4253
chaos to our greatest natural resource of the
Great Lakes water system.
Further, most members of this House, as
well as myself, are opposed to the extension
of drilling for gas and oil in our Great Lakes.
That is why I made the comment of Hudson
Bay and James Bay. It is entering into a
new era, but it is on our ocean waterways.
I realize that all the Canadian land under
Lake Erie has been leased since 1913 with
drilling for production of natural gas over a 3
million acre-area as the Minister announced
today.
Further, I realize the creation of extreme
safeguards and the technological advances to
eliminate possible pollution of our waters
where this drilling is concerned.
Further, according to press articles, I
understand that the state of Ohio has de-
veloped a set of standards or conditions under
which exploration will be permitted in Lake
Erie; approximately 35,000 acres are up for
lease. I would appreciate having some assur-
ance from this Minister that the regulations
of the sovereign state of Ohio are least as
stringent as those of Ontario.
Further, I would like to know if there is
any pressure from Michigan to allow drilling
on the other Great Lakes, such as Huron and
Superior. Most important, I would like your
reaffirmation of this government's position
in not allowing an extension of drilling for
gas and oil on our Great Lakes other than
Lake Erie.
There are a couple of other policy com-
ments I would like to make concerning the
energy branch.
First, I feel that the abandoned well
plugging programme should be done at no
cost to the property owner, instead of, I
believe, the approximate $300 fee as is the
case now. I suggest this because the prop-
erty owner of today is not necessarily the
owner who received the benefit from this
well. Over the many years of history in our
natural gas industry, the province has re-
ceived a royalty from these wells; and further,
the current regulations demand that operators
set aside funds for the eventual plugging of
the abandoned wells.
The second point I would like to make is
concerning the inspection of gas appliances.
I do not believe that these regulations have
been changed in the past few years. I be-
lieve the inspection should be done by
inspectors right within the Minister's own
department, rather than having a man as-
signed as the representative of this depart-
ment on the staff of the gas company. I think
we have debated this fully in the past few
years concerning the abuses that it possibly
could lead to in regard to salesmen, and
various aspects in this regard.
Turning to matters relating to conserva-
tion, there is another matter relating to Lake
Erie and that is regarding the dredges of
Ohio registry which operate under The De-
partment of Mines' permits. They are taking
aggregate sand and gravel from the bottom
of Lake Erie.
I believe there are still a few licences for
taking sand and gravel along the north shore
of Lake Erie. Personally, I am opposed to
this taking of aggregate from our Lake Erie
and other Great Lakes. This is a natural
resource. It is very important for fish spawn-
ing beds and I have had representation made
to me by many commercial fishermen in this
regard.
Aggregate is certainly necessary for build-
ing beaches. Taking this from the lake, I
feel, furthers erosion on the shoreline, plus
the fact that these huge machines working out
in the lake are possibly contributing to pollu-
tion.
I feel the Minister should take a look at
this activity and make a policy decision in
relation to the removal of this natural re-
source for a few thousand dollars and weigh
this against the problem and total ecology of
Lake Erie, the ecology about which we hear
so much.
It is my understanding that the govern-
ment of Ontario accepts little or no responsi-
bility on international waters. This leads me
to the problem of erosion along the Great
Lakes and tributaries, the many rivers and
streams. There are problems such as the
Scarborough bluffs, erosion in the Niagara
peninsula and down in my own county of
Essex, plus erosion along our rivers and
streams. There is loss of very valuable land
in many instances. There is a loss of tax
revenue, but most important this eroded soil
contributes significantly to the pollution of
our lakes.
Information that I have gleaned from the
Royal Bank letters on conservation that I
try to read quite avidly when they come to
my attention show that in 1942, in flood
stage on the West Humber, 2,400 tons of
sediment per hour flowed downstream; further
that soil drift, one acre to a surface depth
of one inch, is equivalent to the addition of
700 pounds of nitrogen, 155 pounds of phos-
phorus and 5,380 pounds of potash. These
are significant facts in the enrichment of our
waterways.
4254
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is a problem of conservation that our
authorities are taking some remedial action.
But there is this area concerning shore line
erosion, it is still a gray area of jurisdiction
between the federal authorities and the prov-
ince and little, or nothing, is being done in
this regard.
I recall hearing the Minister of Tourism
and Information (Mr. Auld) suggesting that
they were looking into the operation of the
Trent water system. Certainly, during our
conservation hearings, we had representation
concerning the levels of the lakes in that
area, and the handling of the whole water
system.
I would suggest that, possibly, it might be
a good exchange for this government, with
the federal government, to take over the
responsibility of this total system and give
the federal government jurisdiction regarding
shore line erosion along our Great Lakes.
I think that we would have the dollar
benefit in the total regard. The reason I point
this out is that I regret that this government
has not acted on the recommendation of the
1950 select committee on conservation that
dealt with this very matter, when they sug-
gested that the role should be defined clearly
with the federal government, concerning ero-
sion along our Great Lakes.
There is one other matter in regard to
erosion, and possibly one of your technical
staflF could bring me up to date on this out-
side the House. It is something that has
bothered me in watching the operation of
dredges and suction machines in our many
harbours. It seems that they load up the
sand and gravel from our harbours onto a
barge and take it out into tlie centre of the
Great Lakes and dump it. I wonder if it
would not be more feasible to put this under
a pressure hose and try and build up beaches
or where there is erosion occurring in the
immediate area of such harbours.
Now in relation to conservation, I think,
probably, this topic has been pretty well
covered in the debate concerning the new
bill. I regret that in that bill, this province
did not accept the principle of undertaking
resource management on private lands. I feel
that, often, this type of work is continuous
with the authority work, and it would be a
tremendous saving of capital expenditure,
in this regard, by having the remedial works
done on these lands without having to
acquire them. I am sure that the individual
property owners, in many instances, would
help finance the cost of this work, and many
would undertake the work themselves if they
were given the proper technical advice. I
feel that if this government is really inter-
ested in total conservation measures, it would
adopt this particular principle.
Further, I am somewhat sorry that the
province did not adopt the principle that the
conservation authority be the clearing house
or supreme authority, to be advised of all
drainage undertakings. Well this is farm field
drainage, ditching, municipal drains, drain-
ing of swamps. In many cases, I believe,
these undertakings are made for specific
gain, without considering the long term or
side effects of such action. I believe that the
conservation authorities themselves should
have more power in this regard.
Probably one of the areas where the Min-
ister's budget could be beefed up is in rela-
tion to conservation education. I believe
there is some $94,000 being expended on this
area.
Our committee enjoyed visiting the Albion
Hills school and the two other schools that
were operating in the province. I think we
are relatively unanimous that this type of
institution should be afforded the residents
of the other areas of our province. We should
teach our children conservation practices and
how not to contribute to pollution. To teach
them an appreciation of natiure through the
films and folders that are available to the
schools. In this regard I would again turn
to the Royal Bank letters on conserving Can-
ada's resouces. I have a few quotes which
are quite apt for this particular topic, and I
quote:
The meaning of conservation, say ecolo-
gists firmly, is not preserving everything
but working to keep things in balance.
Personal conscience— says one writer— is the
beginning of conservation. Our hope is
education. It is a problem for legislators
who can take a long view, who should
not just be looking to the next election or
the next balance sheet but should be look-
ing at the future of mankind— mankind in
Ontario in this case. Any wrongs which
nature made or nature commits she has
centuries to repair but we, whose days are
short, must walk warily, thus we become
the victims of the wasteland we make.
Conservation is a way of life for all people.
Nature will give us the broad view that
develops mental fitness and emotional
stability.
I tliink this underlines the importance of con-
servation education.
JUNE 11, 1968
4255
Now, some of my colleagues will be deal-
ing with the specifics of the Ontario water
resources commission, and I think I merely
need to underline, that pollution is the num-
ber one problem confronting our province
and, possibly, all of North America. I feel
that this province should take dramatic steps
to assist industry in our communities in com-
bating this very serious problem.
I feel that, in conjunction with the federal
government, we should eliminate all sales
taxes on equipment going into this battle
against pollution. Municipal taxes on lands
where industry is going to build pollution
control centres should be eliminated. Fast
write-oflFs on this equipment should be avail-
able. I think that this has been underlined
in the House before, and will be later in the
debates.
One thing that has bothered me as a mem-
ber is the slowness in procedure in project
development. Do we need more staflF in that
department to speed up procedures? In recent
weeks, I have had discussions where I believe
the department is moving into a break-even
period in financing of up to 10 years instead
of the old five year theory which, in fact,
is going to assist our municipalities. I feel that
this is good. It should be underlined and
encouraged.
In relation to Ontario Hydro, I think the
comments of my leader (Mr. Nixon) should
be taken to heart by Hydro. We should not
restrict our thinking to the nuclear plants
that are being designed by Atomic Energy
of Canada; that we should look elsewhere,
and see what the potentials are, and what
the benefits can be.
In conclusion I would simply like to say
that this department has moved in the right
direction over the past few years, but it needs
to move faster and give more attractive
stimulus to our municipalities and industries,
in this unending battle against pollution.
Mr. W. Ferrfer (Cochrane South): Mr.
Chairman, The Department of Energy and
Resources Management has, under its juris-
diction, many of the activities which can
be of great value in promoting the develop-
ment of the northern part of our province,
if proper policies are adopted. The avail-
ability of cheap energy to help in the extract-
ing and processing of our natural resources,
an abundance of clean, unpolluted water,
and favourable transportation rates are all
essential ingredients in the northern econ-
omy. It is, therefore, important that this
department, and its Minister who has the
responsibility for these areas, be aware of
our problems, and be willing to co-operate
with us to improve tlie opportunities for
growth and expansion that come our way.
As a northern member it is my privilege
to be the lead off spokesman for our party on
this department.
The Ontario northland transportation com-
mission, which comprises the Ontario north-
land railway, Star transfer and Ontario
northland communications, not only serves
the residents of northeastern Ontario and
northwestern Quebec, but also has a signifi-
cant role to play in our existence, growth and
development. This commission had a net
operating profit in 1967 of $270,093, as
compared with a deficit of $290,359 in 1966.
According to the May 30, 1968 Toronto
Globe and Mail, profits were shown by On-
tario northland communications and sub-
sidiary Star Transfer Limited, helping to ease
a deficit in operations of the Ontario north-
land railway. Further, it is interesting to
note tliat railway earnings are expected to
increase as shipments continue from the new
Ecstall mine of New York-based Texas Gulf
Sulphur Company Inc., near Timmins, and
as the Sherman mine at Timagami, owned by
Dominion Foundries and Steel Limited of
Hamilton, begins production. The amount of
ore being shipped out by Texas Gulf is in
such large quantities that the railway business
is booming. It makes one wonder if this
government is more interested in reaping rail-
way profits than it is in seeing a smelter built
in the Porcupine area to process these ores
which certainly are more than adequate to
warrant a zinc smelter.
With the ONTC now showing a profit, one
would imagine that there would be satis-
faction with the present freight rate structure.
Recently in the Timmins daily press, G. W.
Walkey, general manager of Kam-Kotia Mines
Limited, expressed concern that if the ONR
goes ahead with its proposed increase in
freight rates for copper concentrates the
mining company will have to curtail its
development activities. He said:
The eflFect it will have on this operation
is that we will have to reconsider our de-
cision to proceed with the development of
the Jameland mines. The increase will
also have serious effects on Kam-Kotia
operations.
I do not believe this increase is in the
common interest of the whole area and it
is going to have a detrimental effect on the
whole area by reducing the number of jobs.
4256
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He said if the company stopped its Jameland
development it would mean that there would
be 150 fewer jobs in the area.
At its meeting on May 14, the Timmins
council endorsed Mr. Walkey's position.
Mayor Evans said:
What is needed for the growth of the
north is a well-advertised campaign by the
ONR that freight rates will not prove a
stumbling block to industry. This imbalance
of opportunity must be corrected, but un-
fortunately when we are fighting for our
existence in a low wage area, we have this
additional handicap. Freight rate increases
spell real hardship for all who live here.
It appears clear, Mr. Chairman, that when-
ever and wherever Texas Gulf builds their
smelter, it will be one to process zinc and
not copper. Therefore, the smaller copper
producers are dependent on favourable freight
rates to ship out their concentrates for pro-
cessing. In order for these smaller mines to
continue operation and make modest expan-
sion where possible, it is important that
freight rates for copper concentrates not be
raised. Indeed, marginal mines could be
forced to close by such extra costs as in-
creased freight rates will entail.
The statement of the New Liskeard Speaker
of January 30, 1964, quoted by the hon.
member for York South on April 20, 1964,
and recorded on page 2233 of Hansard, is
being borne out once again to the detriment
of the north. It reads as follows:
Over the years it is becoming increasingly
evident that there is a double interpretation of the
term "development railway". Businessmen in the
north interpret this to mean that the railway was
built to give the north an even break with the south
so that our manufacured articles could compete and
that our necessities would cost no more than they
do in other parts of the province, but for the com-
mission, the development tag means the development
of the railway is a successful and dividend paying
business, built with high freight rates, paid by the
north.
Since the ONR deficit is declining and even
has the prospect of making a profit this year,
I fail to see where an increase in freight rates
is warranted or justified, especially as far as
small and marginal mining operations are
concerned. The northeastern part of Ontario
must not be hindered in its development by
the ONR but must be assisted. I therefore
call upon this government to see that the
decision to make this freight rate increase
is reversed and to see that a new policy is
formulated that is beneficial and of assistance
to the citizens of our comer of the province.
In this regard, I hope that the ONR will
give consideration to a reduction in incoming
freight rates on gasoline and petroleum
products. On page 2252 of the 1965 Hansard,
the Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement, in reply to a question stated:
Negotiations are under way between the major oil
companies and the railway for adjustment in petro-
leum products rates.
In answer to a question by the hon. mem-
ber for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight) of March
28, 1968, as reported on page 1344 of
Hansard, concerning the possibihty of trans-
porting gas and related products, in a way
that would equalize the cost factor for north-
eastern Ontario residents with other parts of
the province, the hon. Minister said:
Mr. Chairman, there is very little movement of
oil or gas products by rail today. As you know gas
and oil move by pipeline and tank truck. We have
very little to do with transporting any gasolines or
oils on the Ontario northland railway.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the month of April
of this year, this ONR which according to the
Minister has very little to do with transporting
any gasoline or oils, only brought in 44 cars
of gasoline to Timmins. It would appear that
the Minister did not do a very good job in
his negotiations in 1965 with the oil com-
panies because now he tries to skirt around
the problem by giving misleading information
in reply to a justifiable question on the matter.
There is another aspect of the ONR that
deserves comment. During the last couple of
years, working conditions on the ONR deterio-
rated, discontent grew, and morale reached
an all-time low. Grievances were ignored and
senior management was unsympathetic to the
workers' legitimate concerns; employees com-
plained about unsafe track conditions in some
places, and things got so bad that all the
employees booked off sick last September in
the middle of the election campaign. This
action dramatized their discontent, and forced
management to make certain concessions—
probably at the prodding of the government
—who did not want an embarrassing situation
to exist in the middle of an election.
At any rate, working conditions have im-
proved. Senior management now handles
grievances in a reasonable length of time.
Union suggestions get much more considera-
tion than before. As far as the track condi-
tion is concerned, the CPR was commissioned
to do a survey of such, and reported that
generally the road and track bed was sound.
Even so, one wonders why it is now neces-
sary for three work trains to be out fixing
the track and road bed this year— something
that has not taken place for a few years.
Also, why was the speed limit on the
Timmins-Porquis route 10-miles-per-hour be-
JUNE 11, 1968
4257
low the limit for other sections long after the
spring break-up? In this situation, the union
and the men are to be commended for their
backbone in action. The government is to be
condemned for allowing such anti-union man-
agement to disregard their employees to the
degree that they did.
I want to turn to another matter. This is
the apphcation by Union Gas Company of
Canada Limited in Chatham to import gas
purchased from Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
Company of Kansas City, Missouri.
The hearings have been adjourned to next
Monday, June 17, 1968. There is still time
for the Ontario government to intervene on
behalf of the citizens of this province, and
the north in particular. They could make
application for an extension of the deadline
for submissions. My colleague, the hon. mem-
ber for Thunder Bay ( Mr. Stokes ) , has inter-
vened in his personal capacity in a letter to
the hon. Jean Luc Pepin, federal Minister of
Mines, Energy and Resources, dated April
12, 1968.
The application should be opposed on the
grounds that filling a substantial portion of
eastern Canada's gas needs with imported
US gas has these disadvantages— incidentally.
Union Gas proposes to step up current
imports of 15.5 bcf annually to 60.5 bof
within a seven-year period.
First the price and supply will be subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States regu-
latory agency, which will act in the best
interests of the United States citizens.
Second, it will cost Canada an estimated
$400 million in foreign exchange over the
period of 20 years of the contract. Third, it
will tie the Canadian gas market in with
an American company and accentuate the
trend to the continental economy over which
Canadians have but little control.
Fourth, any additional pipeline construc-
tion necessitated by the contract vdll provide
jobs and economic activity in the United
States instead of in Canada, and particularly
in Ontario. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines estimates
that loss of this market will reduce its capital
outlay by $60 million, of which $35 million
would have been spent in northern Ontario.
Fifth, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines estimates
the prices charged will constitute a cost to
consumers of at least $30 milHon more over
the 20 years than they would pay to Trans-
Canada if it supphed Union Gas customers.
These two estimates by Trans-Canada Pipe
Lines should be checked out by the Ontario
government which has the research facihties
to do it.
Sixth, it will reduce the volume of ga.s
which could be brought to eastern Canada
through a second northern gas pipeline,
thereby increasing the cost of the second
line and delaying its construction.
The New Democratic Party had pointed
out on several occasions that the second
northern pipeline is absolutely essential to
service all the northern communities which
do not yet have natural gas due to lack of
adequate supply. They include Rainy River,
Fort Frances, Atikokan, Schreiber, Terrace
Bay, Marathon, Heron Bay, Manitouwadge,
White River, and Wawa. We propose that
the pipeline be routed through Nipigon, Ter-
race Bay, Schreiber, Marathon, Wawa, Sault
Ste. Marie and Sudbury.
We note that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines
states in its 1967 annual report that it built
only 19 miles of looped line in northern
Ontario and Manitoba in 1967 and has no
plans for further looping in 1968. In view
of the fact that its agreement with the govern-
ment of Canada does not compel it to start
looping the northern hne until 1970, and
delays until well after 1966 attainment of
the target of moving 65 per cent of eastern
gas needs through the northern gas line, we
think that the Ontario government should
consider construction of a publicly-owned
second pipeline along the route proposed, and
that it should do this immediately. Otherwise
the development of secondary industry and
processing plants for our national resources
will be delayed indefinitely and northern
stagnation will continue.
The dereliction of duty by the Ontario gov-
ernment in failing to put its research resources
to work on the figures presented a year ago
when the issue of building a second pipe-
line through the United States was argued
is now coming to light.
The application by the US company.
Northern Natural Gas Company, to halt the
construction of pipelines through the US
by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines alleges that the
actual contract cost of laying the pipe ex-
ceeded the estimate submitted to the original
hearing by 92 per cent, an increase of $34
million in costs. Trans-Canada's president,
Mr. James Kerr, is quoted in the Globe and
Mail of January 4, 1968, as saying in reply,
"Increased costs are general in the economy,"
If the increased costs had been anticipated
and taken into account in the calculation it
is possible that the northern Ontario route
4258
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
might have been shown to l>e no more expen-
sive, especially when you allow for tlie $5.5
million in extra costs which Trans-Canada
incurred during the delays resulting from the
US hearings on its pipeline through the US.
The company reports in its 1967 annual
report that this amount was incurred when it
had to purchase gas from other sources to
meet at least the Canadian need until it got
the US line in operation.
This government failed to protect tlie in-
terests of Ontario residents by sitting on the
sidelines during the original hearings on the
southern versus tlie northern route one year
ago. It is continuing to sell out the north by
not intervening against the application of
Union Gas Company; and it is nullifying the
avowed policy of ending regional disparities
by failing to see that adequate supplies of
natural gas are made available for northern
industry. It is also depriving the northern
homeowners of the benefits of competition in
heating fuels.
Another aspect of this department's activi-
ties that deserves attention is that of gas
pipeline safety. I think this department should
get the regulations they are considering de-
clared before very much more delay. This
problem of pipeline safety has drawn con-
siderable attention, especially since Presi-
dent Lyndon B. Johnson in his consumer
message to Congress on February 16, 1967,
stated the following:
The safe transmission and distribution of
natural gas is essential to all of us. The
natural gas industry is among the most
safety-conscious in the nation, but natural
gas is inherently dangerous when it is being
transmitted. It travels through pipelines at
enormous pressure, it is highly inflammable.
When it burns it can reach temperatures as
high as 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.
In March, 1965, a tragic pipeline failure
near Narchitoches, Louisiana, killed 17 per-
sons; the recent blaze in Jamaica, New
York, dramatically underscored how seri-
ous a gas pipeline failure can be.
Pipelines age and as more and more of
the system lies under areas of high popu-
lation density, the hazards of pipeline
failure and explosion increase. I recom-
mend The Natural Gas Line Safety Act of
1967.
So concludes President Johnson.
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, we in Ontario
have not had natural gas explosions in which
there have been serious losses of life, but
we have had explosions of such a nature as to
cause us real concern nonetheless.
In 1961 there were two explosions on
Trans-Canada Pipe Line's 30-inch northern
line; in May of that year a blast at North
Bay injured nine persons and started several
brush fires. Anotlier break three miles north
of Gravenhurst in July damaged a one-mile
section of the line and about a dozen houses,
injured several persons and started a brief
fire.
More recently on November 20, 1967,
there was an explosion on the main natural
gas line near Huntsville. The Globe and Mail
of November 21, 1967, described the event
as follows:
Flames shot more tlian 100 ft. into the
air after an explosion ripped the Trans-
Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. main natural gas
line near here yesterday. One house was
damaged and two barns were destroyed in
the blaze. The gas fire burned for about
an hour and a half after the explosion and
"lit up the whole town with a huge, steady
bluish-white ball of flame", an OPP con-
stable said. The explosion rocked Hunts-
ville at about 5:30 p.m., shook bmldings
and sent some residents fleeing in panic.
The explosion left a crater about 100 ft.
long, 20 ft. wide and 15 ft. deep. It was
surrounded by a large burned-out patch of
mud about 400 ft. across. About 1,200 ft.
from the pipeline, fire destroyed two barns
and the property of Ronald Langford. A
large block of earth or rock hurled by the
blast crashed through the roof and kitchen
ceiling of Mr. Langford's home about a
quarter of a mile from the pipeUne. A
large section of 30-inch pipe, about 30 ft.
long, ploughed into the earth 500 ft. from
the explosion centre. At least 15 homes
near the pipeline were evacuated. As gas in
the remaining section of the line burned
off, the huge flame gradually subsided
about one and a half hours after the
explosion.
This explosion could have had very disastrous
results with serious loss of life. As luck would
have it, this did not take place. I am inter-
ested in finding out from the Minister the
findings of his department's investigation as
to the cause of that blast. The question arises
that even though the number of explosions
has been low, could, in fact, tliese explosions
have been avoided with more stringent safety
inspections by the transmission line company?
What kind of regular safety measures are
followed by this company? Do they have to
walk the line at least once a year to inspect
the operation or what inspection is required
by this government?
JUNE 11, 1968
We cannot afford to leave anything to
chance in this kind of operation. Legislation
must be introduced to force gas line com-
panies to make periodic checks of their mains.
But of even more crucial importance is the
aspect of pipeline safety as it relates to
distribution to the various consumers in the
cities and towns of this province. In Metro
this past winter a serious explosion occurred
on January 8 when the home of Fred Dixon
in Etobicoke blew up. Mr. Dixon, his wife
and two children escaped unhurt though the
house was demolished.
Then on January 31 the Rosedale home
of William Nicks, president of the Bank of
Nova Scotia, was partly blown up. The
explosion came when James Whitton, a
chauffeur, lit a cigarette in the service
quarters as he went to open a window after
smeHing what he thought was sewer gas.
Mr. Whitton received bums and cuts and
was hospitalized as a result. It is reported
in the Toronto Daily Star of February 2,
1968:
The explosion did estimated damage of
$95,000 to the Nicks home itself, another
$10,000 damage to its contents and
another $2,350 damage was done to houses
around the residence, about $350 damage
to a car parked nearby.
In the February 19 Telegarm, Oka Jones,
president of Consumers Gas, said the cause
of the explosion was a hairline break in a
six-inch gas main. According to my informa-
tion, a week or so after this explosion, gas
company employees were up in the same area
fixing another break in the old cast-iron pipe.
It makes one wonder in just what shape the
pipe system is on many of these old gas pipe
lines. It is my understanding that on a lot
of the older cast-iron pipelines there is a
real danger of deterioration and corrosion
due to the process of electrolysis. Robert
Tibbs, business manager for gasworkers local
5-6, oil, chemical and atomic workers inter-
national union, is reported in the St. Louis
Post Dispatch of November 15, 1967:
Underground pipe systems serve as con-
ductors for electric current running
through the ground. Where these currents
leave the pipe, ions of the metal are
carried away in an electrolytic process, but
over the years can eat away sections of
pipe. There was no protection against this
in the early 1950's. Now, before they are
laid, the pipes receive a cathodic protective
coating to avoid this diflBculty.
One wonders just how real this problem of
electrolysis is in our older cast-iron gas pipe-
lines and how great a danger this poses to
our community.
In his testimony to the House of Repre-
sentatives committee hearing concerning
natural gas pipeline safety on February 28,
1968, Robert Tibbs made these pertinent
observations concerning gas pipeline safety.
Speaking of the Laclede Gas Company of
St. Louis he said:
Laclede admitted they lose two billion
cubic feet of gas each year. This loss is less
than most comparable gas distribution
companies. Laclede admitted that they
have a considerable backlog of known
leaks.
In his statement to the senate commerce
committee a year earlier, Tibbs said:
No gas industry spokesman will deny
the existence of an enormous backlog of
known leaks on every gas distribution sys-
tem in the country.
He also stated that rimiours circulating in
Washington, and reportedly originating in
New York, had it that cast-iron mains cannot
stand the strains involved in street repair.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt if the situation is
much different here in Ontario as far as gas
loss is concerned. I think there is, no doubt,
a great deal of gas loss through these leaks.
In fact, I am led to believe that there may
be a system that classifies gas leaks in prac-
tice here in Ontario. Bad ones are repaired
immediately; others as soon as possible, while
others are left and checked periodically to
see if they are not increasing. When it is
convenient they are eventually repaired.
The question, of course, that calls for real
consideration is this one: What is being done
to eliminate these leaks? Have we adequate
safety legislation on our books to require the
danger to be eliminated or greatly lessened?
According to Tibbs, it is extremely possible
that effective, meaningful, pipeline testing
and corroborating leak reports with existing
information of the pipelines' original installa-
tion dates and the pipeline material originally
used, would reveal a pattern of leak develop-
ment, so that sound preventive maintenance
could be developed, not the massive replace-
ment touted by the industry. As an aid to
gasoline safety in the distribution of such to
the consumer, I believe the following addi-
tional safety regulations should be adopted
by this department.
One: All gas utility companies of Ontario
shall report all existing leak surveys to The
4260
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Department of Energy and Resources Man-
agement, as well as submit a duplicate report
of all future leak surveys within 30 days after
completion of such surveys.
Second: All gas utility companies in Ontario
shall submit their written report containing
the number of their gas services and miles of
steel main which are not properly coded and
cathodically protected.
Third: All gas utility companies operating
in Ontario shall submit their written report to
the department of a monthly compilation of
all gas leaks reported to them from any
source. This report must include the result
of the utilities' investigation relative to the
cause of such leak and the corrective
measures taken.
Fourth: All gas leaks reported to or located
by a gas utility company operating in Ontario
must be eliminated within 90 days of their
receipt of the initial leak report. If in the
event gas pipeline leakage results in gas
collecting in any confined space— that is,
manholes, sewers, catchbasins, basements, and
so on— upon receiving a report that such con-
dition exists, the gas utihty must forthwith
initiate immediate and continuous efforts to
locate and eliminate such leak.
Fifth: All gas utility companies operating
in Ontario must inspect all houses as well as
businesses and industrial establishments once
a year.
We cannot afTord to take chances with a
potentially dangerous product by which the
lives of the general public and the gas com-
pany employees could be jeopardized. We
must insist on even more stringent safety
measures to make a safe industry that much
more safe.
Mr. Chairman, there are other things that
could be said about this department but my
colleagues and myself shall deal with these
as the individual estimates are considered.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I shall
deal with the remarks from the hon. member
for Essex South. I think perhaps one of his
first questions was regarding the jurisdiction
dispute between the federal and provincial
government in James and Hudson Bays. I
might say that I was not talking about off-
shore drilling in my remarks. I referred to
ex-ploration and drilling on land. Perhaps
there will be offshore drilling and I would
think there would be a practical solution
worked out with the federal government— at
least for exploration offshore.
Mr. Paterson: Is there a problem with the
province of Quebec in this regard— the bound-
aries set?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry I cannot answer that. I knov/ there
has been a dispute but I doubt if there are
any boundaries set by the Ontario government
or any decision reached with the federal gov-
ernment.
In regard to oil tankers in the Great Lakes,
I might say first that this comes under the
jurisdiction of the federal government and the
international joint commission. I understand
that the discussions are continuing on these
matters between the federal water pollution
control agency and the federal water pollution
control agency in Washington.
I would think that as long as we have the
Great Lakes here and the key transportation
that they offer for delivering many items,
there will be oil moving by our Great Lakes.
I doubt if we, in Ontario, will ever have any
jurisdiction over that.
I do not know whether you referred to our
drilling offshore in Lake Erie. I might say
that in Ontario we have carried out full-scale
tests of new chemicals for disbursing oil
spills. This is in the drilling rigs in Lake Erie
and all this equipment will be carried on
board all drilling rigs from now on, I under-
stand the chemicals are quite effective.
You also asked a question regarding Ameri-
can policy of drilling in the Great Lakes and
I am advised that all the states have been
considering drilling in their portion of Lake
Erie. Michigan is opposed but only has a
very small acreage. Ohio is deferring action
at the moment. As far as we know. New York
and Pennsylvania are proposing to go ahead
with exploration drilling.
Now in regard to the dredging in the Great
Lakes and again— I think you were referring
to dredging where they were taking out
gravel— that would come under the juris-
diction of Mines. I might say from the pollu-
tion standpoint, that OWRC is studying all
dredging operations on the Great Lakes this
season and any resulting pollution from
dredging and disposal of dredging material
will be reported.
You also mentioned education in conserva-
tion authorities. I might add that the $95,000
—in vote 605 refers to grants to conservation
authorities and in vote 601 we have included
$35,000 for conservation films and $4,500 for
a junior conservation programme.
Thus, the total for all the information in
education would be about $134,000. I think
JUNE 11, 1968
4261
perhaps you had a few questions and if I
have missed answers that I know, I will be
very glad to try and answer you as we go
through the estimates vote by vote.
You spoke of erosion and I think you mean
erosion within the Great Lakes. Of course,
that comes under the jurisdiction of the fed-
eral govenmient. As you know, although we
do some erosion work through conservation
authorities, the work has been very shght.
You also mentioned that the jurisdiction of
water should come under the issuing of drain-
age permits and that should come under our
department. At the present time, I would like
to advise the House, that we have inter-
department committees working very closely
together in all departments concerned with
drainage and with the supply of water. Before
any grant is paid, on a drainage scheme in
the province of Ontario, it must be cleared
with the departments that are concerned with
keeping our water tables as they are.
The hon. member for Cochrane South
spoke regarding the Ontario northland rail-
way and communications system. Of course,
he seems to be concerned because through
efiBcient management, we were able to get out
of the red last year and get into the black. In
any business that I have been in or any busi-
ness that anyone I know has been connected
with, they think it is a great day when they
can get out of the red and at least try to pay
some of the money back that has been
loaned to them over the many years that they
have been operating.
We are concerned and we do not want it
said— nor can it be said— that the Ontario
northland railway freight rates are any
higher or as high as any other railroad in the
province of Ontario.
I vidll say this, and I have said it many
times, that we will keep our rates lower con-
sidering the mileage, than either one of
the other two railroads in the province— and
this we have done. If you live in some other
parts of Ontario— and we do not always talk
about northern Ontario, we have an eastern
Ontario and a southern Ontario and a west-
em Ontario, and a southwestern Ontario— if
you would compare freight rates and reloca-
tion rates to what you people enjoy in that
area, then you could see where people down
here, where it is not an Ontario-owned rail-
road, have something to complain about.
Now you are asking us and you referred to
Kam-Kotia mines. Sometimes I fail to under-
stand you people because I do not think that
you are too friendly with the big mining
companies, are you? I never understood this.
Mr. Ferrier: Answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am answering the
question! Here you are asking us to raise
money from the residents in the province of
Ontario to subsidize mining companies
operating in northern Ontario.
Mr. Ferrier: Asking for money?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, you are doing
that. We are not making money on our rail
operation in northern Ontario. And if you
would take the freight off the two iron mines,
and Texas Gulf and Kam-Kotia out of our
year's business, you would find that we would
be in the hole. How many dollars was it last
year? Some $600,000 to $1 million. Now are
you asking us to lower their rate to subsidize
them some more so they may pay more in
taxes to Ottawa?
Now let me talk to you about rates on this
particular one. Our normal rate, when we
started with this company, was $4 a ton, and
if we were to charge the rate that we should
be charging today it would be $3.50 a ton;
that is the regular rate. We were down as low
as $2.55 a ton, and now we raised it to $2.81
a ton and they are complaining about high
freight rates. Surely you fellows in the Oppo-
sition do not seek to raise money from the
province of Ontario to subsidize mining com-
panies—large mining companies with large
profits— so that they might have a lower
freight rate?
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): We
are raising money across the province.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: All right, if we lower
our freight for this company what are you
going to do with Texas Gulf, what are you
going to do with all the rest of them?
Now you fellows are not consistent; you
never were; you do not figure out things.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, we figure them out!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You did not figure that
one out too well if you want us to subsidize
mining companies in northern Ontario.
Now let us face-
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): But they had a
quarter of a million for Honeywelll
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This year we will be
drawing more freight from the mines than we
have ever moved in the history of the Ontario
northland railway. And we are hoping this
year that we come up with more profit than
has ever been made on the Ontario northland
railway. Now I hope you people out there
4262
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
will not complain this year when you see us
making a profit and ask us to subsidize these
large mining companies, who are doing fairly
well in my estimation.
The hon. member also spoke about the
problem we had last fall while the election
was on. Of course to me it was unfortunate
it happened then, I would say that it was
settled because the union representing the
employees ordered them back to work; but
it took a while, as you know.
I do not know whether it was a politically
sponsored walk-out or not? Nevertheless it
happened.
The hon. member referred to—
Mr. MacDonald: This is innuendo; the kind
deplored by the Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: He stated that this
year we started to update the trackage on
the Ontario northland railway.
I would just like to tell hon. members
that during the past five years general up-
grading on the roadbed has been our policy.
New rail has been laid. We have already
laid 83.2 miles of new, 115-pound rail— that
is the heaviest rail— to take care of our new
ore trains. We have laid 8.4 miles of 90-
pound rail, replacing the old 80-pound on
our sidings and on our spur lines. We put
ballast, rock ballast, on 86.1 miles of the
Ontario northland railway, and gravel ballast
on 28.5 miles.
The programme has been going on for
the past five years, and we are doing about
the same mileage this year. Yet the hon.
member refers to this as the first time we
have had three work trains out on the On-
tario northland railway. Now my dear man-
Mr. Ferrier: How many did you have last
year?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We had just as many
and we upgraded just as many miles of
track last year; and this has been going on
for five years. Before making statements
like that in the House, why do you not get
the truth? It is not hard to get. The chairman
is here or you can get it from North Bay.
Anyone would have told you this pro-
gramme has been going on.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They
do not give you a report in North Bay.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: All you have to do is
look in the estimates and you will see what
was going on.
Mr. Martel: They will not give you a
report.
Mr. Pilkey: All he is doing is covering up
his tracks.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am not covering up
my tracks, this is the truth. If you think I
am covering up my tracks come on up with
me and I will show you. We are not
ashamed of what we are doing up there.
Mr. Pilkey: I cannot afford it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You can afford it be-
cause we will give you a pass. I will take
you up with me.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Take him in the private car.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Dealing with the
problem of accidents on our gas lines—
the Trans-Canada line and those on the gas
lines within the province of Ontario: First
let me say that we all, I think, realize that
when we deal with gasoline and oils that
we deal with very dangerous materials. I
think they are materials we realize we must
have in the province if we are going to have
the energy we need for our expansion. So
we must live with these things, but we must
be as rigid as we can in enforcing the
regulations.
As far as Ontario is concerned we have
had a detailed pipeline code since 1959.
There have been three failures on the Trans-
Canada line in the past 11 years. That
is on over 2,000 miles of pipeline, so that
is not too bad.
But I might say that that line comes under
federal regulations. All the other lines within
the province come under our regulations,
but not Trans-Canada where they are mov-
ing gas from one province to the other.
Now we think our record has been pretty
good in the province of Ontario in the past
three or four years. In fact, it never was
very bad, but I think it is very good right
now. I do not think we will ever reach
the point where at some time we will not
have leaks; and of course if we have a leak
it can lead to an explosion.
All the gas distributing companies in the
province have men working continually on
these lines, inspecting them. Things can hap-
pen, especially where construction work is
going on and something happens to disrupt
the pipeline; or you might get a leak and if
it is not reported it can cause an explosion;
but I would say that although you are never
JUNE 11, 1968
4263
happy until you have this solved 100 per
cent, I do not think we can hope to solve
it 100 per cent as long as we are moving
the dangerous materials that we do move,
natural gas and our other gas and oil
products.
I think we have done a fairly good job
in this province.
Gentlemen, there were other things said,
about the application of Union Gas that is
being heard before the national energy
board now, the application to import more
gas from the United States. This matter is
still before the national energy board, so I
do not think I will discuss it at this time
any more than to say that when they start
sitting again we will have representation
from the province of Ontario looking after
our interests as far as the pipeline to north-
em Ontario is concerned. But we do want
to make sure we have an ample supply of
gas for the energy needed in this province.
Of course it will be up to the national
energy board to decide whether they can
import this quantity of gas or not.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 601. The member
for Nipissing.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman,
the Minister made some remarks with regard
to the Ontario northland railway, and I would
just like to point out to him that I think that
the member for Cochrane South was asking
that the rates be not increased; and by not
increasing the rates when the railway is show-
ing a profit, I do not think he would be sub-
sidizing any private industries.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I should
point out to the committee, to the member
for Nipissing and to the Minister, that actu-
ally nothing that I can see in this particular
department estimate, covers the northland
railway transportation. On the other hand in
supplementary estimates we discussed the
Ontario northland railway quite extensively,
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the pro-
cedure is, that the ONR has been listed as a
final item in the consideration of these esti-
mates, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we had
a supplementary estimate before the House
and it was debated some time ago— March 28
—and I think, at that time, it was understood
that that was to be the debate in the House
of the estimates for the Ontario northland
railway. Now in my general remarks then.
there had been something said by the critic
and I was not worried about that, that was
quite all right, I think had either critic at
that time wanted to mention the railroad, I
was not too concerned about it.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, for the last
two years, it has been discussed under this
estimate, under the first vote if you look
back in the estimates of last year and the
year before. And next year there will be no
place to discuss it, if you follow that pro-
cedure, because there will be no supplemen-
tary estimates to cover the loss of the rail-
road for 1967, because there was no loss.
Where are you going to put it next year if
you do not put it in this vote this year?
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman is in the
position that we are dealing with estimates
and there is absolutely nothing in this esti-
mate for the ONR. There are several pages
of debate in Hansard starting at page 1339
covering all of these phases of the Ontario
northland railway. Now I just simply put it
to the committee, do we repeat this again?
It is not in the estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Chainnan may
argue that it is not in the estimates, but we
have had a procedure for years including,
for example, the workmen's compensation
board which comes under The Department of
Labour— such agencies are considered as the
final item in that estimates. We reached it
late one night and it has been postponed to
another occasion, but the procedure of having
agencies which fall under a certain depart-
ment considered as the final item in that esti-
mates has been one that, I concede, has not
been honoured fully all the time, but has
grown up increasingly in recent years. I
think that is the point that hon. members are
making. I think it is possible that they may
have something new to raise, not a rehash of
what was debated in March.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
the members know that if they want to ques-
tion the Ontario northland railway, that it
can be brought before the committee on
commissions, and this has happened every
other year, prior to the estimates hitting the
House.
Mr. R. S. Smith: We have asked for them
this year but we have not got them yet.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I cannot help
that. I do not control the committee. In fact,
I am sure they will come before the com-
mittee when they get a date, and I might
say that the chairman and I are here today.
4264
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These are the only people we have from the
Ontario northland railway. I know very Httle
about it. We have no oflBcials here from
head office.
Mr, Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I may make
a comment on the discussion at this time.
The hon. member for York South is just a
little off base in his parallel with the work-
men's compenastion board, because I think
a discussion of this type ended a few weeks
ago with the Premier agreeing to put tlie
workmen's compensation board on the order
paper for a discussion of its report— as an
alternative to discussing it in these estimates.
Surely what we want to discuss, today, is
not the detail of its operation, but policies
having to do with the Minister's responsi-
bility of reporting to the House for the On-
tario northland railway. And it seems, that
under the first vote, we could very well con-
tinue the procedure of discussing policy
matters, if you would care to allow it as
being in order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I want to make it quite
clear that I do not want to restrict proper
debate on this, but I pointed out, simply as
a matter of information, that there has been
seven pages of discussion and debate.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, if I might
address myself to that. I recall participating
in that debate, and we were restricted to
debating on the supplementary estimates. I
tried to raise the question of the number of
accidents, and so forth, and I believe the
reply, at that time, was to bring this up under
the Minister's total estimates. And I would
plead with you, to allow my associate to con-
tinue with a few new remarks in this regard.
Mr. Chairman: Is the Minister prepared to
entertain further discussions on the Ontario
northland railway aspect of the— I cannot say
of the estimates because it simply is not in
the estimates?
Mr. Nixon: Of his responsibility then, per-
haps you could say.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: All right. If you want
to question me on my responsibility, that is
fine, but I cannot answer detailed questions
on the ONR, with all the officials in North
Bay.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman was simply
doing his duty in pointing out that the com-
mission members are in a different place.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
presume, then, we can discuss the remarks
that the Minister made a few minutes ago,
and he indicated, in those remarks, I think,
that he would expect that the profits show»
by the Ontario northland railway and the
expected profits tliis year, which I under-
stand there is hope will be in the neighbour-
hood of $1 million, more or less, should be
brought back into the provincial government,
to pay for the advances that have been made
to the Ontario northland railway over the last
number of years. Now, I maintain that the
profits are being made from the natural
resource of northern Ontario — the mining
companies that are using the road to ship
the pellets from Timagami and the concen-
trates from Texas Gulf— and I think that the
profits from the Ontario northland railway
should be put back into northern Ontario.
Under the Act that was passed in the
1950s, to set up the Ontario northland trans-
portation commission, there is a section
which permits the railroad to set up a devel-
opment officer and to get into the area of pro-
moting development for northern Ontario.
Now, I think, if the Minister and this gov-
ernment are serious about calling this a
development road in northern Ontario, that
the first step should be taken and that a
development officer should be hired to work
with the northeastern Ontario development
association, plus the other municipalities in
the north; and to expand the economy, as
well as to bring in new industry and per-
haps to increase the activity and productivity
of our natural resources.
Now, I would state that I am firmly
opposed to this Minister indicating that the
profits of the Ontario northland railway are
going to go into the general revenue of this
province. I would ask him to guarantee us
that this is not the case.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first, let
me say that I was referring to the Ontario
northland railway and where their profits
were going to go, but I said that any business
that I was connected with, I was always
happy the day that we started making a profit
so we could pay off some of our debts. Now,
since the day of the first operation of the
Ontario northland railway, a lot of things
have happened in this government, but you
get moneys other ways. We have, you say, a
development officer. Why do we need a
development officer of the Ontario northland
railway?
Mr. R. S. Smith: You just go up there and
look at it, and see.
JUNE 11, 1968
4265
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I know all about it.
I am up there quite often and I talk to him
quite often. We have many people working
on the ONR, but I do not think that is
our role to play. I think our role is trans-
portation and communications. We have a
highway. Every department knows about
northern Ontario. We have moneys going up
tliere all the time. So, if they make a million
dollars and it comes back to the Treasurer,
and the Treasurer spends $5 million back in
northern Ontario, I do not think it should be
for the railroad to build northern Ontario. I
think that is some other department of gov-
ernment. I think you people are all business-
men enough to know that you like to see
something run economically and profitably—
do you not? You can throw money away any
place. You are not happy if our people up
there throw 2 or 3 million dollars away and
nobody gets any benefit. Would you like
that? I do not think so.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Is the development up
in the north throwing money away? Is that
what you are trying to say?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, no, but we have
other departments that look after develop-
ment. We give you, in the railroad's role
in transportation-communication today, the
things that will develop northern Ontario.
Immediately a mine talks about opening up,
tliey get in touch with the Ontario northland
railway. They want to know the rates— can
you get us cars, can you build us a spur? This
has happened twice in the last three years,
and they were ready when that mine was
ready to go. Is that helping northern Ontario?
We did not say no. They give them a good
rate. They bought new cars, and put down
new spurs. This is all ready when the mine
starts production. Thus in that area, I think
that the Ontario northland railway has helped
development.
Then we have other departments of gov-
ernment that will develop the other areas.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, apparently
the direction of the Ontario northland railway
had just been changed by the Minister. No
longer is it to be considered part of the
development of northern Ontario.
I would like to ask the Minister if he
means that these profits should go to pay off
the current debts of the railroad? That is, the
money that has been spent for the new cars
in the last eight or ten months. I think these
amoimted to almost $2 million. Does he mean
that the profit now should go to pay off those
loans that have been made by the banks?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Here I read from the
commission Act, clause 37, which I have
never read before because we have never
had to deal with profits.
37(1): The revenues received by the com-
mission shall be applied to the payment
of all costs, liabilities, obHgations and
expenditures properly incurred or made,
and all surpluses shall be paid into the
consohdated revenue fund at such time
and in such amounts that the Lieutenant-
Governor in council may direct.
And that is—
Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, as the
Lieutenant-Governor in council may direct?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We would not leave
$5 million sitting up there drawing no inter-
est if we could use it down here to save this.
Mr. R. S. Smith: But since the Act also
allows you to form a development section
within the company, then the moneys that
would be spent on that would be taken into
the profit and loss of the railroad. If the
moneys that are to accrue as profit are spent
in that way, they would not have to come
back into the general revenues of the prov-
ince. All you have to do is to read the rest
of the Act, if you have not read it, and you
will see that you can put the two together
and in that way, you can put the moneys
back into the Ontario northland railway.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not think that
your leader, or the leaders of the other
parties or any other member here, would want
the ONR to get into development, as you
suggest.
Mr. MacDonald: Speak for yourself— we do!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What type of develop-
ment?
Mr. MacDonald: Development of the north
—economic development.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I know, but what type
of development? Do you want us to start
building roads?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I know that I am not.
But that was profitable too, and you have not
got too much to blow about in anything you
have ever done.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
will permit me to make a comment. He has
indicated that he does not believe that any-
one else in the House would support the
4266
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
position taken by the member for Nipissing.
I might tell you that we support him com-
pletely.
Surely the Minister, as an ardent free enter-
priser, would realize the only reason that the
government is in the business of railroading
is to provide a service that free enterprise
could not provide in the past, and should
really not be able to provide now if the gov-
ernment were taking the proper approach in-
sofar as the development of the north.
The argument— as far as the Minister gives
it— that the government should not be subsi-
dizing these large mining corporations is a
good one on the face of it. But when we
look at the rest of the facilities and resources
in northeastern Ontario that have not been
tapped, that is where the vision of the Min-
ister—or lack of it— is important.
It is in that particular area, where this
railroad and the direction of the railroad,
which must come from the Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor in council to this Minister, that the
development part comes in. Surely, if you
sit back and wait for someone to ask you to
build a spur and not use the resources of a
major railroad for the development of north-
eastern Ontario, you are not living up to the
responsibility that is inherent in the fact that
this is owned by the people of Ontario. They
expect it to be administered for the develop-
ment of that part of the province.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that somebody else is getting mixed up here.
I said develop railroad transportation or com-
munications. That part I agree with, and if
we can develop railroads— we have developed
transport companies, we have developed bus
lines, our communications system is good—
now we have reached that point, are we to
take the profit from that and reduce rates to
wealthy mining companies? Is this what you
would like?
Mr. Nixon: You are responsible for the
rate structure. You can reduce that rate as
you see fit, but should we reduce it to give
a better rate to a mining company that is
paying large taxes?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There is nothing wrong
with that. We have a railroad there and
when that day comes, we will be working at
the lignite. But I think your member meant
that we should develop some other things in
northern Ontario. Maybe roads; I do not
know what he was talking about.
Mr. Nixon: He was talking about com-
munity facilities.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You do not want this
ONR to get into the mining, do you?
Mr. Nixon: You should have development
officers, and you could do all sorts of things
tlirough your development branch for the
communities.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We are, as far as
transportation and communications are con-
cerned. This we plan on. There has got to
to some other department in government that
will look after the other areas of development.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 601, the member for
Cochrane South.
Mr. Ferrier: I would hke to make a couple
of observations here. I would not like the
hon. Minister to get the idea that I am pro-
moting the large mining interest of this prov-
ince. I must say that Mr. Walkey of this
particular mine, threw me off his property
during the election campaign. But I am con-
cerned about the riding of Cochrane South
and the economic development of that riding
and the 150 jobs that may be done away with
because of the policy of this railway, or jeo-
pardized because these freight rates are to be
raised, I am justifiably concerned. I might
just say, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: May I ask a question?
What company said that there would be re-
duction of 150 employees?
Mr. Ferrier: This was the Kam-Kotia min-
ing company. They are in the process of
developing another mine in conjunction with
the one that they have now called the Jame-
land mine.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They are doing that
now, are they not?
Mr. Ferrier: Yes, they are doing it now.
If this development is curtailed and these jobs
are not there, the area is going to continue
to just drift and perhaps stagnate. Perhaps
the railway would not be doing its job of
subsidizing, but I imagine that if things were
to continue in that area as tlie present trend
suggests, the amount of money coming out
of The Department of Social and Family
Services to that part of the province would
continue to increase. You would lose far more
if you raised them than if you left them as
they are.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not quote the figures here, but I think that
before you follow this too far, you would find
out what the increase means in actual dollars
to Kam-Kotia— the moneys that they had in
JUNE 11, 1968
4267
profits last year— and you can get that from
the report. They are developing the mine
next door, at the present time. I think that
when you get all these figures, that the state-
ments that your are quoting from the manager
of Kam-Kotia will not stand up under day-
light.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 601?
Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a couple of other
questions for the Minister in regards to the
ONR. Meetings of the commission are all
held in camera, and, apparently, the minutes
of the meetings are not available to the
members of the Legislature. Is this correct?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not answer that because the question has
never been posed to me before. I get the
minutes all the time, and I have been with
the commission.
Mr. R. S. Smith: The question has been
put to you because I have had a request for
a return on the order paper for two months.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, that could be
so, but I am telling you now, that the ques-
tion has never been posed; that all the
members get minutes of commission meetings.
Mr. R. S. Smith: I am not saying all mem-
bers.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Do you think that they
are entitled?
Mr. R. S. Smith: Can we see them on re-
quest?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I will have to
find this out.
Mr. Nixon: Can we see them on request?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I am not talking
to the Chairman, right now. You were ques-
tioning me on my role. Now, let me say
this. Anytime that I have been up with the
commission-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We have met with
many people, and we did not meet in camera.
We have met with many people along the
railroad, discussing different things. Now, I
do not think that if we are discussing freight
rates, we are going to let that out in the
minutes until agreement is reached. And I
would doubt that it would be expected.
Mr. R. S. Smith: For two months now, I
have been waiting for an answer to my
motion for return on tlie order paper. Now,
you have had two months to find out. Either
you are going to show us the minutes or not.
You say that you have never heard of it
before and, yet, it has been on the order
paper for two months, you know. Where
have you been? Did you not notice it?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The particular minutes,
but not to furnish minutes to all the members
of the House.
Mr. R. S. Smith: No, but I asked for a copy
of the minutes of the meetings for the year
1967. Apparently, the Niagara parks commis-
sion has indicated that if members go down
to Niagara Falls, they can go in and be shown
all the minutes of the meetings. The chair-
man of that commission has indicated that.
Now does this policy apply to all commissions
within the government, or does it not?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I caimot answer for
all the commissions in the government, but
I would think that any time the member
wants to look at any particular year's minutes
of the Ontario northland railway and would
go with the chairman or with the general
manager at North Bay, he could see those
minutes— unless it was minutes negotiating
some rates that we did not want to release
to the pubhc at that particular time.
Mr. R. S. Smith: The policy is then, if I
ask the chairman of the railroad to see the
minutes, that I can see the minutes?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: In the North Bay
office, providing it is not a minute that is
dealing with negotiations that were going
on at that particular time.
Mr. R. S. Smith: That is fair enough.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, I have two questions I would like
to ask the Minister. One is, could we have
an explanation, sir, of your association with
the Canadian standards association, and the
grants you make to them? And the second
one is on the grant to the University of
Toronto re Great Lakes institute.
I recall reading in the paper, some t\vo
weeks ago, where one of the large transport
companies had donated a boat to the Univer-
sity of Toronto for research on the Great
Lakes. Would part of this grant go towards
the buying of that boat, or the upkeep of the
expenses of that boat?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The first one I think
was grants to the Canadian standards associa-
tion, the $2,000. That is for work they are
4268
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
performing on the energy side, or the energy if the Minister would be able to explain the
end of it. reasons for this increase?
Mr. Worton: Is that approval of equipment
that is used for gas, electricity, and so on?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Gas and propane
standards, yes.
Mr. Worton: For the $2,000, Mr. Chair-
man, what liaison does the Minister have
with them? Does he have some say in what
the standards are or is he consulted as to
the standards?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, we are consulted
as to standards and our engineers work with
them in working this out. And the member's
other question was the grant to Great Lakes
institute?
Mr. Worton: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This is for general
administration in their total operation and
post-graduate studies in hydrology.
Mr. Worton: In other words, Mr. Chair-
man, I was reading this article where, I
think it was. Direct Winters transport had
given one of their vehicles for research.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Right.
Mr. Worton: And evidently it was quite a
valuable asset; then it was disposed of for
a very small amount of money. I am won-
dering if part of this grant went towards
repayment of that or the losses that were
incurred in that?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): I would
like to go back to the ONR for a minute,
Mr. Chairman, and the passenger service.
Over the last year as so there have been
some drastic cutbacks in passenger service—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
think if we are talking of passenger service,
that is not my policy, that is the policy of
the commission and should be discussed with
them.
Mr. Jackson: I beheve it is the policy of
the railroad—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is not set by the
Minister, I have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, in connection
with vote 601 there is a sizeable increase in
the amount to be voted this year. I wonder
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There are some other
items in other votes in previous years that
have been moved to this vote 601. This
year, the amount of money in the 1968-69
estimates related to the item that required
$14,000 in last year's estimates, is in fact
only $15,500. The following items were
either gathered from other votes and added
to the main office under the new information
and public relations section or were new
items necessitated by the addition of a pho-
tographer to this staff. And the items that
were added are: conservation authorities
branch, publication and reports, $80,400;
photography and art supplies, $3,100; movie
production— that is a new movie on con-
servation — $35,000; darkroom equipment,
$4,000; commercial art work, $5,000; ex-
hibits and displays, $15,500; and junior con-
servationist programme, $4,500, to give you
the total.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
might prefer to discuss the matter of pro-
vincial-federal co-operation in the areas in
which he is responsible under individual
votes. On the other hand, it has been stated
several times that the important responsi-
bility of pollution is very much a shared one.
We find in the first vote a grant to the Great
Lakes institute and in other votes there are
other funds available for pollution control
and pollution investigation. Just a few days
ago, the government of Canada opened a
relatively large and expensive survey facifity,
I believe at Burlington, and I think it is es-
sential that the funds we vote as well as
the funds voted by the Parliament of Canada
be co-ordinated in the best interest of all
of us taxpayers. The Minister is aware of
the fact that these funds are now assuming
fairly large proportions although many
people beheve they are still by no means
large enough.
I wonder if the Minister would comment
on how these efforts at research and prac-
tical pollution abatement are co-ordinated
between the two levels of goverrmient?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I un-
derstand that the vote of $130,000 to the
University of Toronto re Great Lakes insti-
tute, although they do some research, was
largely for the training for graduate studente.
But they are doing work on the Great Lakes
in conjunction with the Ontario water re-
JUNE 11, 1968
4269
sources commission, and I think perhaps with
the IJC as well.
Mr. Nixon: Now there is another vote
further over, under 606, called Great Lakes
water quality research. Is that an independ-
ent body entirely and who spends that fund?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That comes under On-
tario water resources commission.
Mr. Nixon: Right. Then dealing with the
Minister's responsibility to co-operate with
the government of Canada— and I well under-
stand that this has to be a two-way street,
otherwise the thing will break down entirely
—I understand further that there have been
considerable negotiations with the govern-
ment of Canada trying to involve them more
fully in the work of the conservation authori-
ties and also with the recreational aspects of
this government, some of which are repre-
sented by the Department of Tourism and
Information. Now, the Minister was some-
what critical of what the government of Can-
ada had or had not done in this regard and
believe me, I want to know the facts from
this end, from the government's aspect about
this matter, without dealing specifically with
the problems of the Grand Valley conserva-
tion authority. How does the Minister ap-
proach the government of Canada or how
does the government of Canada approach
the government of Ontario in co-operation,
particularly in these fairly important proj-
ects in conservation and recreation and anti-
pollution measures so tliat neither one side
nor the other can hold up important works?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say the officials of the conservation branch
and the OWRC are constantly meeting with
the officials of the federal government on
difiPerent projects. I think our concern in con-
servation has been that the federal govern-
ment did not want to pay grants on any
recreational land. They would pay on flood
plain lands but they wanted to stop there
and then it was either the responsibility of
the conservation authority of the provincial
government or a cost sharing. Now, of course
you know at the present time with an elec-
tion on, there is no way that we can discuss
these matters with Ottawa, although they
were under discussion prior to the convention
being called. Then right after that, of course,
there was a federal election called.
Mr. Nixon: On this point, I can see the
Minister's problem in discussing it at the
highest level, with the Minister responsible
for the pollution measures, but surely the
discussions among the civil servants and the
represented OWRC should be able to go on
unhindered.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They are continuing at
the present time but we want to discuss
with, and at, the Ministers' level a pro-
gramme that we can follow along for the
next five to ten years in order to develop our
conservation recreational land. We are going
to try, and I hope, when government is
formed, that we have some success along the
line. We are going to work at it, at least.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I hope you have, and—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: And perhaps, maybe
you would go down and help us someday.
Mr. Nixon: Well I trust the same govern-
ment is going to be back in there again and
I will do what I can.
But the Minister knows my views on this,
that while I may be able to talk with some
of the Liberals down there, the Minister is
the man who must talk with the government
If he cannot find his way through that prob-
lem—and it is difiicult the other way as
well— then we really have a problem. Because
to allow the solution to be put off by what
is the worst kind bureaucracy— that at the
highest level— is simply inadmissible. I do
not know where the blame should lie. I
presume that a little bit lies with both camps.
The people are not going to stand for that,
and if there is blame to be laid, let it go
where it should.
Now, there are some very far reaching
solutions that have to be arrived at in the
near future, and one of them has to do with
whether the government of Canada is going
to accept any responsibility, at all, for these
inland waterways that are waiting for devel-
opment. We have heard this Minister, and
many other people not associated with poli-
tics at all or directly with this government,
complaining that the government of Canada
is holding up the development on the Grand
River and, specifically, in the upper Grand.
Now I do not want to get into too much
of an argument, but I mean the upper Grand
programme, not the one for recreation in the
lower Grand, but surely, it would be possible
for somebody to read the federal statute—
whether it be officials in Ontario and/or
officials in Ottawa— and say this is either
possible or it is not. And, if it is not possible,
then it is the responsibility of this govern-
ment to co-operate with the municipalities
4270
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and the conservation authorities, to go ahead
and do what we can afford ourselves. Perhaps
we can negotiate a better federal statute.
1 would hope so. But, if the statute does not
permit them to take part in this, then I wish
we would stop trying to lay the blame else-
where.
I am not, for a moment, saying that the
federal statute is perfect. I think there are
serious shortcomings in it and, until such time
as the laws change, then, surely, we have got
to accept our responsibilities with the muni-
cipalities and do what we can afford to do;
and I think we can be doing much more.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I might say, Mr.
Chairman, that, personally, I have no problem
getting along with the Minister, but I think
he knows that they have been planning to
introduce a new federal water Act for the
past two years.
Now, until we can get a look at the Act
or until it is introduced, it is pretty difficult
for us, as a provincial government, to tell a
municipality what is going to be in it. And I
think you would agree with me, that perhaps
they had their problems in the last two years,
many problems, and they just never got
around to introducing this Act. So I hope that
after June 25 when a new government is
formed, that there will be an Act introduced,
and then we know what programmes we can
develop with our municipalities.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is so, Mr. Chairman,
to some extent, no doubt. There have been
predictions of a Canada Water Resources
Act, but there has been legislation for some
time. Federal funds have been made available
for projects of national importance. How they
decide that, I do not know, but surely there
are criteria in the present statute that permit
the people in authority to decide what is a
project of national importance, in which fed-
eral funds can be used. Evidently, there has
been a great delay in the work in the prov-
ince of Ontario, with the approval from this
Minister having been given but the abihty to
go ahead wdth the project hinging on a deci-
sion from Ottawa that is not available under
present statutes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think many of the agreements that we have
now, the federal government are letting ter-
minate, in the hopes that when the new Act
comes in, we will start a new agreement. Of
course, we, in Ontario, are far ahead of some
of the other provinces in pollution and in con-
servation. I might say we are the only prov-
ince that has a conservation Act. So, they do
deal directly with the government in—
Mr. Nixon: In spite of that, probably
this province has more pollution than any
other province.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, we have more
industry.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, all right. Well now, there
is one other point in this first vote, which I
think has to do with policy, that I want to
raise. It does have to do with the sharing of
responsibility for public works, and I do not
mean Public Works as represented by the
hon. Minister of Pubhc Works (Mr. Con-
nell ) , but projects which are going to improve
recreational facihties. If the government of
Canada has a fixed pohcy position, that they
are not going to participate in recreationd
facilities, and that they believe that this is
a provincial responsibility, then I think we
have to move on this more effectively. I
think of the area in the lower Grand. If you
want to say this is parochial you can, but
actually it is all in the constituency of the
hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. Here
is a broad stretch of river which, with the
involvement of $10 million of public funds
from some source, can be made a useful
recreational centre. This must be coupled
with pollution abatement. That is another
problem and a huge problem, but this is
something that can be developed in the lower
part of the province; the western part of the
province, which the Minister was saying is
not getting its share in comparison widi some
other parts of the province, and this is a
project that can be taken on by some Minis-
ter.
I submit that it is the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management that can give the
lead in this. Maybe it is Tourism and Infor-
mation, maybe it is Lands and Forests, but I
think the more reasonable approach would be
through this department. There is always the
thought that, since commercial boats once
used the lower Grand, perhaps we can
inveigle the government of Canada into pay-
ing half, or three-quarters or 20 per cent, or
some share. But as long as there is this
thought that taxpayers' funds from some
other source are going to be available, it will
hold up the whole thing.
I hope, very sincerely, that some Minister
—and I believe it can be this Minister and
this department— can move forward in the
near future, when pohtical difiBculties are set
aside— and I sincerely trust and hope Aat
they vnW be— and when policy decisions can
JUNE 11, 1968
4271
clear the way. If tliey cannot be cleared, then
Ontario should move ahead. I do not believe
we can put off our responsibility— which is
apparent— in order to wait for someone else
to come along.
Votes 601 and 602 agreed to.
On vote 603.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on the energy
l)ranch. The Minister was talking in his open-
ing remarks about the availability of natural
gas; and I can well remember his comments
a year ago in which he said that there would
be no shortage during the last winter; and I
believe the results indicated that he was cor-
rect at that time.
There has been considerable argument
about the looping of the northern pipeline,
and the Minister realizes that this is in the
plans now, as a result of decision taken by the
national energy board, I understand. But
does he feel that in the immediate future-
let us say the next five years— before that
looped northern line is going to be in service,
we can be sure that the industry of northern
Ontario is going to have the— I was going to
use the word unlimited, I believe it should be
—unlimited availability of natural gas energy?
We have seen a tremendous surge in the eco-
nomic growth of many parts of Canada as
natural gas was made available, but, I wonder
what kind of statistical assurances and predic-
tions we can have, at this time, that our in-
dustry, and the growth of the industry is going
to be provided with this source of energy and
fuel.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member heard me say, in my opening
remarks, that there was a study being con-
ducted by our department in northern
Ontario, at the present time. I do not think
we could answer his question fully until that
study is completed, and we expect that in
approximately a year from now.
I think also a lot will hinge, or depend, on
the decision on the Union's application to
import gas from the United States, in com-
parison to building the other line in northern
Ontario. I think that decision would have to
be made first. And I believe, and of course
it is a guess before the study is finished, that
if we get that amount of gas, then it will
leave more gas for northern Ontario, to be
served by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines on the
existing Trans-Canada pipehnes.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I understand that if we
have the Great Lakes loop, the south loop will
relieve the northern line of providing the gas
for southern Ontario, so that it can be used
in the north to a greater extent.
During the next five years, or until the
northern loop is in operation, will the amount
of natural gas that we import— I do not mean
what we just transport through the United
States but what we import from the United
States— increase significantly?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, of course, I
would think that that depends on the decision
that is now before the national energy board.
I think they are importing, at the present
time, all they are allowed to import, that is,
during the peak months in the winter time.
Whatever decision is made will govern
whether they will import more, or whether
the gas coming through or the loop will have
to begin sooner.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, in his intro-
ductory remarks, the Minister made mention
of liquefied natural gas, and if there is prob-
ably going to be some real use for this in the
future. He mentioned some place, I believe
east of Sudbury, where a storage basin, or
such, was now located. I wonder if the
Minister could inform us where this liquefied
natural gas comes from, and what province
or what part?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It comes from western
Canada.
Mr. Ferrier: Does it come through the
pipeline or by—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, it is coming
through the pipeline at the present time, in
liquid.
Mr. Ferrier: It comes through the pipeline
as a liquid?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Oh, as a gas, then
liquefies.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 603?
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I suppose oil
comes under this vote, does it?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes.
Mr. Spence: In the Rodney area in Elgin
county there is an oil field where they use
water flooding. The oil company refused to
buy only a certain amount of the oil. I under-
stand there is something in this oil, the com-
pany says. Does your department do any
research on this?
4272
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No.
Mr. Spence: And there are no other com-
panies that will process this oil except
Imperial Oil?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say we have met with the officials of Imperial
Oil and the company that was producing this
well in the fields. We have met with them—
each on one occasion. I understand that
Imperial Oil are taking a part of their pro-
duction and that perhaps Shell Oil now has
negotiated to take some of their production.
I believe they could sell it all to another
company, but at a reduced price to what they
are getting from Imperial Oil. I do not know
whether or not it has all been settled. I
understand a large quantity of the production
is being taken at the present time.
Mr. Spence: Very glad to hear that. An-
other question, I would like to ask in regard
to plugging the gas wells. How many gas
wells has the department plugged if the lessor
goes broke or is unable to find gas or in
case when gas has quit producing?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, on
properties where the company has moved out,
the property is sold, and then a well is dis-
covered by the new owner, we will plug that.
There is no charge to the owner. But we do
try to collect from a company who for some
reason has an unproductive well. We do
try to get money for plugging that well for
him before he moves out— or if it should be
the present land owner that owned the well,
we would try to hold them responsible for
plugging.
Mr. Paterson: On this same topic, Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the Minister has the
details close at hand regarding the number of
abandoned wells that were plugged in the
Niagara peninsula during the past year, 1967?
Also, how many are plugged in the Essex-
Kent area, and the Lambton area? There are
three distinct regions, and I wonder if he
can further indicate what the programme is
for this current year and how many operators
there are in the province that have equip-
ment capable of doing this work? Further,
now difficult is it to procure these operators?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, last
year we plugged 9 wells in Essex, Haldimand
14, Norfolk 6, Welland 37, Lambton 1, for a
total of 67. Total cost was $125,561.29, for
an average cost per well of $1,875.
Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister have any
comment on this year's programme? I know
they were anticipating doing a number of
abandoned wells in my particular riding, and
I believe, on talking to the inspector in the
area, they were unable to secure an operator
with equipment to come down into that are*
and do these wells.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we are
asking in the vote here for $100,000 which
we feel will be ample for the next year. We
are not trying to plug all the wells, we are
trying to plug those that would be a threat
or are polluting our streams or something.
However, if we know a well is not giving any
problem, we are not trying to force anyone to
plug it at the present time. We feel $100,000
will take care of the wells that we need to
plug this coming year.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, may I follow this up? Perhaps by
this method of financing the plugging of these
wells, are you not subsidizing the large gas
companies for such purposes as storage sheds.
I am speaking of the Sherkston area. I know
many cases of persons who have been
charged for plugging wells off and have paid
a portion— yet the wells did not belong to
them. They bought the property and they
were charged for this. In fact, I had them
come on my property. They said to plug
this well off was going to cost me $900. I
said no, I do not own the well and never
did, and this is not my responsibility. The
point I do raise is this; The reason that they
were plugging the wells off in that area— I am
quite sure— is that they were using this as a
storage shed area for the large gas companies
and perhaps in future years to export this
gas to the United States. Now is this not so?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry I cannot answer that question. Do I
understand that you paid for plugging these
wells?
Mr. Haggerty: No. I was requested to pay.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: By whom?
Mr. Haggerty: By whom? By Mr. Laramie
from Dunnville, the representative from your
department, I think. He works through Mr.
Brittain. I have a letter at home on file.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: These were not wells
—you did not drill these wells yourself?
Mr. Haggerty: No, I did not drill these
wells, but they requested me to pay for them.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: And was that recently?
What year?
JUNE 11, 1968
4273
Mr. Haggerty: This was about three years
ago.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, our policies have
changed in the past three years as far as
plugging wells is concerned.
Mr. Haggerty: Would you say last year?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes.
Mr. Haggerty: I think I know of a case
where a person did pay a portion.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, it changed last
year. You were not the owner of the prop-
erty at the time the well was drilled?
Mr. Haggerty: That is right, but I own the
property.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: But did you own it at
the time the well was drilled?
Mr. Haggerty: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Did you own it at the
time the well was drilled?
Mr. Haggerty: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Did you get some roy-
alties?
Mr. Haggerty: No, I did not. It was a dry
well and was plugged twice, yet they came
back and plugged it again.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think you have a par-
ticular case here. I would be very happy to
discuss this with you if you would like to
come to my oflBce anytime; I wish you would
bring the correspondence you had with our
department, as I would like to—
Mr. Haggerty: I have a list of correspon-
dence from your department on similar mat-
ters, but I rise again. I think there is a
conference today and tomorrow at Niagara
Falls on pollution. I notice in an article in
the Buffalo Evening News where the people
on the Niagara peninsula, on the American
side, are concerned by the conservation de-
partment's dumping of toxic waste, chemicals,
and other pollutants into porous rock strata
such as the white and red medina, called
deep-well injection. It has been discovered
by Americans that in northern Michigan
state—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if we could hold this until we get onto
the OWRC vote. We are deahng with
energy at the present time.
Mr. Haggerty: Are you not dealing with
Ae plugging of wells, too?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You were talking about
industrial waste, I thought.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, I have talked about the
white and red medina.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, but I thought we
had finished. I thought you were talking
about the conference on pollution.
Mr. Haggerty: This is what they are using
in the United States. They are using previous
gas wells for injection of this pollutant. It
has been discovered by the Americans, that
in northern Michigan state, salt water has
been forced to the surface because of brine
injection across the border in Canada. In
western New York, the underground dis-
posal of whey at a cheese plant resulted in
pollution of water wells. Has your depart-
m.ent approved of this type of disposal method
in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would think that the
question of the hon. member for Welland
South that I just answered, where we are
forcing water in the ground to force the oil
out— you mentioned whey as well, did you—
Mr. Haggerty: I think that they discovered
this does create pollution, this method of
injection of pollutants into the old gas wells
and so on. All I am questioning here is if
you approve of such a method in Ontario?
Are there any gas wells at the present time
used as dry wells for this method?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, I understand that
we do approve of refineries injecting their
wastes into the ground.
Mr. Paterson: On the same vote, I have
two or three more questions— go ahead, I will
wait.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I have
heard of tlie problem on the American side
where they have dry wells and have put
pollution into the ground. Now you are allow-
ing it in Ontario also. Do your people think
that this will eventually pollute the grounds
around that area, including the water wells?
Surely they must? In the Welland area you
plugged 17 wells last year. In certain dry
wells such as those of the member of
Welland South, they can take their disposal,
their sewage, and their oil from refineries,
and dump this into these dry wells. Appar-
ently you allow that to be done in certain
areas. I am asking the question: Would that
not eventually pollute those areas also where
they have a lot of wells? Most of the folks
in the country do have a water well. They
4274
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
do not have the city water. I wonder if your
people looked into this matter? Because it
looks hke it could eventually be a serious
problem.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We do all them to do
this in certain areas. Now, these holes must
be 2,000 feet below the wells, or they are
very deep holes. They could not take any
hole and just plunk their waste in it. These
must be approved, and only in certain areas.
Mr. Bukator: Just across the border from
us— and I do not think that that border
makes that much difference— apparently they
have polluted some of the ground in that
area. You are quite sure that this is not
happening in Ontario? That is the point that
I am trying to make.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It has happened in
some parts of Ontario. For example, in the
Port Huron area several wells started to flow
mineral water to the surface in the summer
of 1967. Sub-surface disposal in the Samia
area, and the subsequent increase in reservoir
pressures, were suspected as the direct or
indirect cause of this problem. A complete
study of sub-surface disposal is presently
being undertaken, and all disposal operations
are being monitored. Volumes of injected
fluids, primarily at the Imperial Oil Limited
refinery are being progessively reduced to
remove the possibility of disposed chemical
eflfluence returning to the surface through
unplugged wells. All sub-surface disposal
applications are reviewed jointly by the
petroleum resources section at OWRC.
Mr. Bukator: You are keeping on top of
this?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes!
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Chairman, if I could
go over this again? Perhaps you could pollute
the water wells in the area too? After all, the
water comes up through seams in the rock.
Are you not going to create a larger problem
here? Some areas do not have city water or
treated water, and they have to depend upon
wells. I know that in my area especially there
are a number of sulphur wells.
Mr. Faterson: I would like to put a ques-
tion to the Minister in relation to the sub-
mission of the Ontario petroleum institute
and to the hon. Minister. In subsection 4,
where the industry points out that there has
been a period of continued decline in drilling
for gas and oil in Ontario, they point out
that there were 75 licensed drilling rigs in
Ontario two years ago. At the same date
one year ago, it was down to 22 active
in drilling. They put in a request that the
gas industry, or where they are drilling, be
declared a designated area so that there
would be the benefit of tax incentives. I
wonder if any action was taken in this regard
by the department or by the federal govern-
ment? Or do you not recall this particular
submission?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry I do not.
What was the question?
Mr. Paterson: Has the Minister considered
any tax incentives to keep the companies
drilling for gas and oil in business? They
seem to feel that they are in a period of
serious decline.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No.
Mr. Paterson: Could the Minister indicate'
to me how many wells will be drilled in
Lake Erie in 1968? Is there any advanced
figure on what these companies anticipate
doing?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am told that they
expect about the same number as was drilled
last year, and we would not have any accu-
rate figure as to how many would be
drilled. It would depend on the well, and if—
Mr. Paterson: Last winter I recall reading
in the area press, that one well became
damaged or un-capped out in Lake Erie.
There was an account of the tug going
to bring divers out to it through the ice pack,
and so forth. It was a matter of four or five
days both ways. I wonder if there was any
evidence of serious pollution as a result of
the escaping gas?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There would be no
pollution from gas. Was that in Lake Erie or
Lake St. Clair?
Mr. Paterson: To the best of my knowledge
it was Lake Erie.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We know nothing
about a well in Lake Erie, but in Lake St.
Clair we do.
Mr. Paterson: I have the clipping. It was
Lake Erie. One further question for the Min-
ister in relation to the talks on amalgamation
between the Union Gas and Consumers Gas.
I believe that there are discussions under
JUNE 11, 1968
4275
way in this regard? I felt, as a consumer of
Union Gas, that we had a very preferred
area in southewestem Ontario in regard to
rates, and uninterrupted service. I wonder
if the Minister and his department are look-
ing into this proposed amalgamation and if
he, in fact, could guarantee the people in the
Essex-Kent district the same rate as is now
being charged by Union Gas, as compared to
the higher rate of Consumers Gas?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we
have heard rumours although we do not
know if they are still negotiating a merger or
not. If a merger did come about, then rates
would be set by the Ontario energy board.
Mr. Paterson: Yes. I wanted to ask a ques-
tion in relation to the provincial institutes of
trades in regard to gas fitters. Does that
come under this vote or under the next
vote? I am wondering how many students
are being graduated in this particular source?
Is it being used for instruction of the per-
sonnel of the department?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It comes under this
vote. What was the question?
Mr. Paterson: How many students are
taking advantage of this course in the prov-
ince, or how many are being graduated each
year?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I might say
that that does not come under our depart-
ment. We licence the actual fitters under our
department but that would have nothing to
do with us. You are talking about students
that are going to one of the provincial in-
stitutes?
Mr. Paterson: Yes. I would hke—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That would have
nothing to do with our department at all.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 603.
The member for Welland South.
Mr. Haggerty: In leasing of the gas fields
in Lake Erie, are they assessed by local
municipalities for tax purposes? If not, why
not?
Hon. Mr. Simonett. Good question.
Mr. Haggerty: The reason I raise the ques-
tion is when diey are out trying to get the
oil and gas and mineral storage agreement
and leases, I understand that these storage
sheds are not assessable. They are not as-
sessed for tax purposes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sure I cannot
answer that but I would doubt it very much.
I would doubt that they are assessed.
Mr. Haggerty: Do you not agree that they
should be assessed for tax purposes?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I might say it would
be very hard to get your local assessor down
there. You have to measure— to see what is
going on. Maybe the cost would be more
than the assessment would bring in taxes
to the municipality. Of course, that would
not be our poHcy— it would not come under
this department whether they should be as-
sessed or not.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, did I under-
stand the Minister to say that gas fitters'
licences were issued under this vote?
The reason I raise this is form 309, the
gas fitters' licence. Many of the men working
in the industry are concerned that the quah-
fications to get this licence are far too easy.
Anybody can take the book that is given, I
think it is a B166 code book, and they can
read through this book and memorize a cer-
tain number of facts and write an examina-
tion. They get an idea of what the questions
are going to be and they can pass this.
The gas companies are running schools for
their salesmen and high school teachers are
getting this licence and so on. Those who are
working in the industry are very concerned
that there should be some practical experi-
ence, some period of practical experience
that goes along with the written examination.
They should have a year or six months, or
something like this, actually working in the
gas industry so that they know more than
just what they can memorize out of a book.
They also feel that after a certain time
they should be periodically retested to get
this licence. I wonder if the Minister's de-
partment has considered making this practi-
cal period obligatory in getting this form 309,
and if they have considered that they should
be retested from time to time.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say any experience that I have had person-
ally was just opposite to that of the hon.
member. I have had many people complain
we have been too tough and we will not give
the hcences out very easily. But we do agree
with you and we are working on it at the
4276
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
present time, that is, they should be re-
tested and beginners, perhaps, should serve
some time before they get a licence.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 603. The member for
Essex South.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I have one
further question of the Minister.
In reading back through the debates over
the past three or four years I noticed com-
ments concerning the application of oil dis-
tributors who wish to distribute their fuel
from a central tank into a subdivision.
I wonder, have any or many of these ap-
plications been made to the department and
what is the department's policy in this
regard?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised that there are about a dozen at the
present time. This is a distribution system
by pipe through a subdivision. We will en-
tertain applications; of course, they have to
be checked out.
Mr. Paterson: One further thought. I be-
lieve that fuel safety comes under this
Minister's department?
I am wondering, does the department it-
self give any training to drivers of gasoline
tank trucks, or is this up to the individual
company itself?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No. That would be up
to the company and The Department of
Transport.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oxford.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the Minister about the
quality of gas that the gas companies put
into the hues. What type of a deterrent or
fine is assessed on a company if they do not
put the right quality of gas through their
line? I have a complaint at the moment
relative to a sulphur that has entered the
line and it has not been there before. I
understand that there are purifiers but con-
sumers in this particular area are very upset
about the situation. I wondered what they
can do— what does the inspector do after he
finds that is happening?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is natural gas?
Mr. Innes: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand that there
is nothing in our Act that would affect this
matter but we are prepared to have the
board investigate and report back to
this matter.
us on
Mr. Innes: Yes, I understand that. What
happens is that they open up an old sulphur
well; they will close it o£F for a while and
then there will be an accumulation of gas
come back into the well again. They say,
"We will tap into it and use a htde more
again rather than bringing the pure gas from
the Tilbury field." So what I want to know
is if they do it once, is there any deterrent
on the part of government that they will not
open it up again? Apparently, there is not
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No. I think that in
order to protect themselves they should at
that time install filters.
Mr. Innes: They should do what?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Install filters. It would
filter out the foreign matter.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 603. The member for
Welland South.
Mr. Haggerty: Has your department been
responsible for plugging the well, owned in
1967 by Foreign Explorations Limited, To-
ronto, Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
understand they have been ordered to plug
some wells but we have not plugged any
for them.
Mr. Haggerty: You mean they have been
ordered and have not done it yet?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand we have
made several orders and they have plugged
some, but I do not know particularly what
you are talking about right now. We would
have to check that out. I could not—
Mr. Haggerty: Who is paying the cost
for this?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The company.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 603; the member for
Welhngton South.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, in regard to
fuel safety, in the past two weeks I have had
representation made to me from some of the
small garage owners which handle gasoline.
They are suggesting that your department
should print the forms that require a dip-
stick type of measure for the gasoline tanks.
This may not be a large item to the Min-
ister but it is an ever-increasing cost to the
small operator. You know what difficulties
they are having. They have brought it to
JUNE 11, 1968
4277
my attention that this is merely a checking
system for your staflF and they feel that these
forms should be put out by you people for
them to fill out and given to your inspectors
when they come around.
Tlie other thing they brought to my atten-
tion was this handling of gasoline for some
of the summer cottages. As you know, you
have to have a special type of can for them
to obtain gasohne and yet many of the camp-
ing stores that furnish oil and gas for stoves
put out a can which does not meet the
standards that you ask for in your specifica-
tions. When they come to have them re-
filled they cannot do it according to law.
They have mentioned they felt this law
should be advertised more to take the respon-
sibilty of policing it o£F the gasoline operator.
Very often he will turn down a man who
will go down the road and some other fellow
who is not, maybe, as honest as the other
individual wiU fill up the can. They feel
this part of the Act should be spelled out
more in the papers during the coming camp-
ing season so they are not put in the
position of having to refuse people for not
having the proper type of container. I think
there is justification in their complaint that
the people who sell the supplies put out a
can with a fluid, and yet they cannot by law
refill them. But they can be sold from any
department store or any camping supply store.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: First, let me say, on
the forms— we do not say what form they
must use, they can use any form. I think
most of them, if they would get in touch
with the distributor, can get the forms sup-
plied. I do not think there is any problem
there. This happens to be one of the busi-
nesses I am in and we have had forms
supphed by the gas company for 30 years.
On the disposable can, you can buy
naphtha gas and some other gases in these
cans, but they cannot be refilled again.
Mr. Worton: It does not say that on the
cans.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think they are just
plain, with the trade name of the product.
Is that right?
Mr. Worton: It says it is highly dangerous
hut it does not say tiiat it cannot be refilled.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is right, that can
be thrown away. I do not know— and again
this is a business I am very closely asso-
ciated with— and we ran into trouble because
we are in a tourist area as well— but I think
it is the biggest boom that happened to our
business. We are selling more cans now—
we have lots of them there— from a half-
gallon up to a five. And we say, "Sorry, we
cannot fill your can but there is one right
in there." It is better than the gasoline
business.
Mr. Worton: I think perhaps the Minister is
stretching the point a little bit. I do not think
people are that generous when they come
and buy a gallon of gas that they want to
pay $3 or $4 for a can.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They do not have to.
Mr. Worton: Ah, but they do. I do not
think it is properly clear as to what the can
is. You put out specifications on a blue paper
as to what can they can use, but they bring
a can that they picked up at a store, take it,
fill their stove up, and then take it to the
gasoline operator and say, "Fill it up". It
seems to me that if you can sell something out
of a department store, we should at least be
consistent and be able to use it again or
make them sell it in a proper container to
start with.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
these people can get the same product they
sell at the service stations. You can get the
same product in a can and sell it to a service
station.
Mr. Worton: At three times the price.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, but we will not
allow you to refill it because it is a throw-
away can.
Mr. Worton: Three times the price, too,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not think this
should be debated here.
Mr. Worton: The Minister is a business
man and he knows these little things are
afiFecting the small operator today. He is
getting fed up and he says: "What is the
use of me keeping on in this business, I am
getting tired of using forms to provide the
government with more money."
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
the member would not ask us at this time to
go back to using any can or bottle for
gasoline? Would he like us to do that?
Mr. Worton: No, I do not, but I tell you
there are still some who are getting away
with it. I think you people should spell it
out better. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, for
4278
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
getting carried away with tliat, I wish to
withdraw.
Mr. Bukator: I know the point my colleague
is driving at and maybe others have had the
same experience that I have had. I did
purchase a red one-gallon can from a hard-
ware store and the spout has a top on it.
You can lift it up and put it back into the
can and reverse it to use it as a spout. Now,
I felt I was doing the right thing. I bought
the can, took it to the gasoline station where
I do business and he said, "I'm sorry, that
can does not meet the regulations, I can't
fill it." So I have had the experience this
gentleman is talking about. Now, I do not
know how many others have had the same
experience, but it struck me as rather odd.
It was not that expensive, but I bought a
gallon can for the purpose of filling it up
with gas to put in my lawnmower. The
attendant was living up to the letter of the
law and he said, "That can does not meet
the requirements, I can't fill it for you."
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It was not an appro\'ed
can.
Mr. Bukator: Well, it was approved as far
as I was concerned.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, but it was not
stamped "approved".
Mr. Bukator: No, I do not know what v/as
on it, it was a gallon can and I bought it in
a hardware store. I went down to the gas
station and they could not fill it. I do not
know why they can sell that can if it does
not meet the legal requirements.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bukator: But is it not odd— I wanted to
do what was right— I needed a can and it had
a fancy spout that you could reverse and put
into the can and then put another top on it.
I drove down to the gas station and he said,
"It doesn't meet the necessary requirements,
I can't fill it for you." A few weeks later-
yes, I found a gas company that sold some
gas, another fellow at another gas station-
finally they decided they had to relax the law
a little bit, that this can would be all right.
I am still using it, but it took a few months.
I should not be talking about breaking laws,
but I did not think I did v;hen I bought a can
that was on sale. I felt I was perfectly within
my rights to do so and I still have the same
can. It is a one-gallon tin can painted red
with this spout that I spoke of. In the first
instance, the gas attendant would not fill it
for me because he said it did not meet the
requirements. Now, is there some kind of
special can? I would say— oflF the record
through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister—
if he has one of those gallon jobs, bring it
along and I will buy it if it has a spring on
it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I might say I agree
with the members, it is a problem sometimes.
I doubt if they would want to go back to
using bottles or any old can. There is a
regulation can today and you can buy half-
gallon, gallon, two gallons, five gallons— and
it is marked "regulation". Of course, I think
perhaps two or three years ago, when they
first came out with cans, some manufacturers
or some distributors said it was painted red
with "gasoline" on it but that would be an
approved can— but they were not all
approved.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, a couple of days ago lightning hit a
natural gas installation near Gait and this
resulted in an explosion and fire. Could the
Minister advise if this was an unusual occur-
rence and not bound to happen again with
possibly disastrous results?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would think it would
be a very unusual occurrence but I am sure
I could not say it would not happen again.
It is one of those things that would not
happen very often because most pipelines
are grounded and that would usually dispose
of the lightning.
Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, does the
Minister's department have any regulations
which would cause the gas companies to pro-
vide protection for their installations from
lightning?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I doubt that we would
have regulations, but again, installations
where a pipe goes into the ground seems to
me that that would be a ground. I do not
know what part of the line— was it the line
it hit or what?
Mr. Makarchuk: I think it was a surface
installation that was hit and this resulted in
an explosion and fire.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Oh, it was not a pres-
sure station that was hit?
Mr. Makarchuk: I am not sure.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There was a pressure
station hit by lightning and it is under
investigation at the present time.
JUNE 11, 1968
4279
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, one of the
things that has been missing from this
particular vote so far has been the appeals by
the farmers of Dawn township for justice in
the provision of adequate payment for the
gas storage that is used by some of the major
gas companies. I would like to ask the Min-
ister what progress has been made in satisfy-
ing these complaints. Normally, the group
representing the farmers has been very regu-
lar in tlieir attendance here just before the
Minister's estimates— so we would be up to
date on the latest development— but since
they have not come down this year we can
assume perhaps their situation has been
improved somewhat. The Minister would be
in a position to report on that, surely?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that good progress has been made. I
think there are negotiations going on in
some areas yet but things are much better
than they were a year ago, I believe, on
both sides. There has been co-operation with
the companies and with the farmers and I
think things are progressing now.
Mr. Nixon: They have been negotiating
for 20 years and there has not been any
progress,
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, finally we got
them together and things are going very
well.
Mr. Nixon: I am glad to hear that.
Vote 603 agreed to.
On vote 604:
Mr. Ferrier: I would like to know some-
thing about the energy board hearings. Are
these open to the public and if a company
decides that they want to increase their
rates for gas to the consumers, do they give
the opportunity to all interested parties to
present briefs and make their representations,
or is the decision to allow them to increase
or not increase just done by the board itself
without hearing representations?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, all
hearings, are open to the public. As far as
rate-setting is concerned, their plants are esti-
mated and that has to be approved prior to
them setting any rate. Then we allow them
a return on their money. But they cannot
change their rates without a hearing and
it is quite a long process to go through before
there can be a change in the rate structure.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 604, the member-
Mr. Ferrier: Consumers Gas, I under-
stand, sells cheaper in the Niagara peninsula
than it does in Toronto. I wonder if the Min-
ister could inform us why there is this
difference in the price.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised it is an old company that was
bought out by Consumers. Everytliing was
paid for and it is local gas so their rates
would be lower than on the new hues that
are coming in from western Canada.
Mr. Makarchuk: Could you give some indi-
cation what returns you are allowing the
companies on their money when they are
setting the rates?
Hion. Mr. Simonett: Seven and a half to 8
per cent.
Mr. Makarchuk: This is on total invest-
ment that the company has?
Vote 604 agreed to.
On vote 605:
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, on vote 605,
I have two very brief questions, one is in
relation to item 8, the farm pond subsidies.
Basically, this work in the province is being
done under the aegis of The Department of
Agriculture and Food and the local agricul-
tural representative, specifically in my own
county when I do not have a conservative
authority.
I wondered, in the county where there is both
an agricultural representative, and a conserva-
tion authority, are the conservation authorities
themselves advising people who are putting
in farm ponds of the extra benefits that can
be accrued through a farm pond otlier than
just simply an irrigation pond, and so forth?
Is that work continuing in these areas?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Do I understand your
question— are you asking if the conservation
authorities build farm ponds?
Mr. Paterson: No, I realize that this does
not come under them.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Right.
Mr. Paterson: But when it did come under
the conservation authorities themselves, the
conservation officers would often advise the
farmer on fish management in the pond and
other assets. In my own area of Essex county,
where we do not have a conservation author-
ity, the agricultural representatives are strictly
advising our farmers on an irrigation pond,
as such, or a water-holding pond, and we do
4280
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not receive that benefit. I just wanted the
assurance that possibly the conservation
people are still going a little bit beyond a
mere water-holding concept.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The answer is yes. I
might say that this was one of the reasons,
perhaps, that we put this programme under
agriculture representatives so we could get
full coverage all over Ontario. And then I
understand it will come within the conserva-
tion area.
Mr. Paterson: Yes, A second question in
relation to The Parks Assistance Act. I think
this is a wonderful Act, based on my ovm
experience in my own community. The
moneys spent in tiie local park have really
developed this as an asset to the community
and area. I wonder how many municipalities
applied last year for moneys under the terms
of this Act.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I wonder— perhaps
there are some more questions while we are
looking that up. I think we have it here
some place if we have not all lost our books.
Mr. Nixon: If you want to answer that
question in a few minutes, there are one or
two points I want to raise on the conserva-
tion authorities branch. When we were dis-
cussing the bill the Minister said that the
department was considering, or the govem-
men was considering, a change in the grant
structure with what is usually referred to as
a sliding-scale grant that would give poor
municipalities and poorer conservation auth-
orities a chance to go ahead with some of
the more important projects that they could
not undertake under the grants the way they
are presently fashioned.
I think the one thing that was put very
strongly to the committee was that some of
the major dams and facilities relating to con-
servation were to be found in the parts of
the province where the municipalities could
not afford their share of the development.
While the plans were there and the conser-
vation report— I should not say the plans but
the recommendations were there and the
conservation report— as far as the authorities
could see in the future under the grants sys-
tem that presently pertained and still applies,
they could not undertake these works. Their
recommendation was that the grants system
ought to have a sliding scale that would
allow the people of the province, the tax-
payers of the province in general, to pay a
larger share of these major works that were
located away from the population centres.
The justification, of course, is that the
benefits of conservation would be appreciated
by the citizens in a much broader area than
just the conservation authority itself. The
Minister said that this was under some dis-
cussion. First, I would like to know if the
vote under 605 contains funds that could be
apphed to a more generous application of
provincial funds in certain projects, particu-
larly in those areas tiiat we do not have access
to as large an assessment themselves. Maybe
I will let the Minister just comment on that
now,
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, this
programme, I might say, of finding grants
up to 75 per cent will commence January of
next year.
Mr. Nixon: In 1969? Well, that is-
Hon. Mr. Simonett: In 1969, So that it
will go with their calendar year, the conser-
vation authorities' calendar year. We have
no money being voted on today as there will
be only a part of the year which will be
dealt witli by Treasury board,
Mr. Nixon: So if there are any approvals
under the new grant programme it will be
dealt with probably in supplementary esti-
mates?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I doubt if there would
be much spent before another year anyway.
Mr. Nixon: Would this 75 per cent maxi-
mum grant, which is already available— as I
understand it— for projects approved under
the small watershed head, be expanded from
that into other projects, depending on the
location, rather than the type of project?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This applies to admin-
istration and, of course, this would be based
on the assessment in the municipalities and
the moneys that they are spending for con-
servation.
Mr. Nixon: Right. I would like to refer a
bit more to these grants. As I understand
them, basically, the province of Ontario pays
half of approved costs, and the municipalities
gather half themselves. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Fifty-fifty, yes.
Mr. Nixon: Now there are exceptions
having to do with small watersheds, and
other exceptions that will becoming in
within a year. But some projects, as many
as possible, are participated in by the gov-
ernment of Canada, And if they were to
approve federal participation, it would then
JUNE 11, 1968
4281
be 37.5 federal, 37.5 provincial, 25 municipal,
which seems to be a nice programme indeed.
In the Minister's experience, what type of
programmes do get federal approval? We
have had some federal approvals.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Flood control, small
reservoir programme, and that is about it as
far as the 37.5-37.5-
Mr. Nixon: They do take part in the
small reservoirs that permits us to pick up
75 per cent of the cost? The programme on
the upper Grand— and this time it is in the
constituency of the Chairman, is it not— some
of it anyway— and perhaps one other riding
north of that again— so that I am not accused
of talking about projects in Brant, because
the Grand River conservation authority does
not undertake, for obvious reasons pertaining
to the river, a good number of programmes.
As I understand it there is a programme in
the upper reaches of the Grand, which is a
very expensive programme involving large
dams. Are there two main dams required?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Five.
Mr. Nixon: But there are two that they
are prepared to go ahead with in the near
future. Is that not so?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, two.
Mr. Nixon: This is provincial approval but
is that provincial approval at the 37.5 level,
so that it cannot go unless the federal people
come in, or is that the 50-50 approval that
could permit the construction to commence?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is at 37.5 at the
present time.
Mr. Nixon: In other words, there is not
approval in the broadest sense— you are pre-
pared to pay 37.5 per cent but you are not
prepared to say you will pay 50 just now.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I doubt, Mr. Chairman,
if the authority itself would want to pay 50.
I think they would have to get two govern-
ments cost sharing their 25 before they
would proceed.
Mr. Nixon: And the municipalities felt
they could only pay 25 per cent, the approval
is still pending?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Right, at the 20-52.
Mr. Nixon: What is holding it up? Is it
the statute, or is it something else?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I cannot answer what
is holding it up. If I knew perhaps we could
do something about it, but I think there are
some worries with the federal people. I
believe there was some pollution and they
wondered what area or what percentage of
this was going to be used for pollution abate-
ment. I think these are matters that are lK*ing
straightened out at present.
Mr. Nixon: You know the chairman of the
conservation autliority has made two or three
statements that have been widely reported.
The Minister has referred to it previously in
the House under circumstances on both sides
that were not so conducive to getting at the
facts. As I understand it, the federal statute
simply will not permit funds to be used if
the works that are to be approved are not
economically viable.
It is their view that pollution control is not
the responsibility of a conservation authority
and is not achieved by simply having water to
flush the pollution down the river. Pollution
control is achieved by putting in sewage dis-
posal facilities— and as I understand it— a
federal statute does not provide funds to
replace sewage disposal facilities.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What are you going to
do with the effluent facilities?
Mr. Nixon: The effluent is not pollutant in
the normal sense, although the Minister knows
that there are other views on this. We are
talking about the raw sewage and the need
for dams so that there will be a sufficient flow
of water to keep the river flushed out. Tliis is
apparently a responsibility that the federal
government is not keen to accept. As a matter
of fact, I understand that they do not believe
it is permitted by the federal statute.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that the hon. member, and perhaps our
department, think alike on this— and you sold
me on the idea. We are trying to sell it to
the effluent facilities plants. It is not a pollut-
ant, but it still has to go through a river flush
and be disposed. I think this is perhaps the
problem we are having with the federal gov-
ernment at the present time, and of course, as
I said before, we have not been able to meet
with them in the last three months. Time is
getting close, so we hope we can solve the
problem.
Mr. Nixon: It seems to me that the people
who are representing the experts in the
department should be able to go to Ottawa or
have the Ottawa people come here and sit
down and say: " Look, does your statute per-
mit this or not?" If they say no, then it is
4282
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
obviously a provincial and municipal responsi-
bility. If you are going to wait, and continue
to wait— and if the Minister feels that this
requires an election to solve this— I hope he
is right.
But if you are going to continue to wait on
some political development that may or may
not occur, then I think that we are going to
lose some of the advantage of the plan that
we have. Meanwhile the people in these areas
—and I assume that the people in the Grand
Valley are not the only ones that are going
to suffer— will see the effects of not having
the developments they should have.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we will
all admit that regardless of what government
gets in— and I think, too, during this election
campaign there has been a debate on pollu-
tion—and I say these things, and again I think
you will have to agree vdth me, that at this
level we will have to meet with the new
Minister and try and iron out something—
and I think perhaps we can— regardless of the
government. There has been a lot said about
pollution during the election campaign, and
many people have been out and there is just
nobody to talk to— you can understand that.
Because last October, or September, when an
election was on in Ontario, the Ministers were
not around these buildings too much to ham-
mer out a policy.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is right, but we have
been financing conservation efforts and new
dams for a long time on a 50-50 basis. This
has gone on for many of those great years
of stability in the early 60s when there are
always people in Ottawa that you can go
down and talk to. It has been so since 1963
up until the present when there has not
always been political turmoil. Is it the Minis-
ter's thought that the federal government is
going to involve itself to the extent of 37.5
per cent in most of the projects that would
be approved by this branch of the de-
partment?
make a statement that would be in Hansard
about a government that is not even elected
—one that I have not talked to yet. I would
hope you would wait until we at least meet
to discuss our problem in the hopes that we
could solve them.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to clearly understand these grants. I xmder-
stand that the federal government contributes
37.5 per cent and the the provincial gov-
ernment contributes 37.5 per cent and also
the municipalities 25 per cent. Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The authorities-
Mr. Spence: Authorities. If I understand
it correctly. How does ARDA get mixed up
into these conservation authorities? We hear
in certain parts of the province of Ontario
that ARDA is spending too much on con-
servation authorities. I would like to know
where ARDA works in this. Does it work
in southern Ontario? In what parts of the
province is ARDA used?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we
have certain areas where even with the 75
per cent that the two governments share in
the cost and the authority 25 per cent, they
cannot proceed with the project. There are
several areas in Ontario, and through deal-
ing with ARDA if we can get the project
as an ARDA development then this could
vary in the different areas. At the present
time it would be 45-45 and 10 for the au-
thority and municipalities.
Mr. Spence: Under ARDA?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, if it is approved
by both governments.
Mr. Chairman: I think that perhaps the
hon. members will permit, it being 6 o'clock,
the chaur will resume at 8 o'clock.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I do The House adjourned at 6:00 of the clock
not think it is a fair question to ask me to p.m.
No. 115
ONTARIO
ilcgtglature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
Estimates, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Mr. Simonett, continued 4285
Motion to adjourn, Mr. MacNaughton, agreed to 4322
4285
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
On vote 605:
Mr. W. Ferrier ( Cochrane South ) : I am
not sure whether it is proper to bring what
I want to talk about up here, under vote 605
or under vote 607.
An hon. member: Well, do not bring it
up then!
Mr. Ferrier: I am going to bring it up
anyway. It concerns one of the lakes just
outside of Timmins called Gilhes Lake. This
area was made a good deal smaller by the
Hollinger mine over the years, and now that
the Hollinger mine is shutting down there is
the real danger that this lake will flood be-
cause the water from this lake was pumped
through the concentrating plant of Hollinger
into Pearl Lake which is a little distance
away. Now that the Hollinger is shut down,
the problem of flooding arises.
The hon. Minister when in Timmins sug-
gested that the conservation authority should
look into this, and see if they could find a
solution as to who was responsible for the
pumping of this water, and no report has
heen made as yet. If the responsibility lies
with the conservation authority, it vdll mean
that this province and the municipality will
be completely responsible for it and the
company will have no obligation. I am
wondering if a decision has been reached
and if the Minister feels that it is justified
that the pubhc purse should pick up the tab
of the pumping of this water from Gillies
Lake to Pearl Lake in the future years?
Hon, J. R, Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Some time
earlier this year, when I was in Timmins
meeting with the municipal council and mem-
bers of the conservation authority, this matter
was brought to my attention. I asked him
at that time to put something in writing— so
Tuesday, June 11, 1968
that we might deal with it here-and 1 might
say at this time that I have heard nothing
from Timmins at all regarding this matter.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Chairman, on vote 605, I wonder if the Min-
ister can tell us something about the general
poHcy of the expropriation as far as the con-
servation authorities are concerned? I note
that my friend the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) is here and I know that he has
more than a passing interest in the matter of
expropriation, but I have cause to question
at some length the actions of various author-
ities insofar as conservation proceedings are
concerned.
It was of some little help, and I underline
the word httle, when The Expropriation Pro-
cedures Act was amended and when it was
determined that, prior to a conservation
authority having the right to expropriate,
there had to be the opportunity for a public
hearing before the county court judge or
the dictrict court judge.
But it is more than passing strange— I am
sorry that my friend from Renfrew South
(Mr. Yakabuski) is not here to object to my
phrases— but it is more than passing strange
to see some of the procedures that some of
the conservation authorities are using so far
as expropriation is concerned.
A particular authority that I am very con-
cerned about is the Junction Creek authority
in Sudbury who were interested in certain
lands to build a dam in the vicinity of Sud-
bury, just north of the city limits there. Some
considerable months before, they had taken
the land, they published a notice in the
Sudbury paper stating, or giving warning,
apparently under the authority of The Con-
servation Authorities Act— that is the way that
the advertising was headed— to all persons
who may be interested, and they listed 12
or 15 parcels of land described in the land
titles office in the area: "Do not deal with
these pieces of land because the conservation
authority is about to expropriate them."
I would like to get the Minister's view on
this unusual kind of action by a body that
gets its authority from this Legislature. This
action, to my mind, constitutes certainly a
4286
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
slander on title and lays ground for a sub-
stantial claim for damages because, well
over a year in advance of any eHective b>'law
being passed, they had published a notice in
the local paper saying to anyone who might
be interested, to the general public, do not
deal with this land because we are thinking
of expropriating. This advertisement appeared
over their signature and under the apparent
authority of The Expropriation Procedures
Act.
Now I would like to hear from the Minister
what his view is of this kind of action and
perhaps the Attorney General could assist
him in expressing his view because I know
full well that when this matter finally comes
to a hearing, insofar as values are concerned,
there is going to be a substantial claim for
damages against, at least, the authority and
probably against the government for damages.
Because they hurt the title, they hurt the
ownership of these people to their property,
well in advance of the time they had any
legal right to do so.
One would have thought, Mr. Chairman,
that of all bodies that deal with public lands
or have a right to expropriate, that the con-
servation authority, under the watchful eye
of this very careful Minister, would observe
the letter of the law most meticulously. So I
would like to hear the Minister's view in
connection with these matters.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first let
me say that I do not administer The Expro-
priation Procedures Act. It comes under The
Department of the Attorney General,
Now I would think that the same would
apply to all conservation authorities. When
a project is anticipated, of course, you must
have a survey. This must follow and as soon
as the surveyors go in on certain properties,
whether it be highway, conserv^ation authority
or what it is, then I think you smear the
type of land. I do not think the hon. mem-
ber disagrees with me. Now I understand
the case you are talking about right now.
This perhaps has happened. No doubt it has.
Mr. Singer: Oh, it did.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Fine, but this is all
right. How else would you do it? There is
no other way to do it. This case is going or
has gone before the judge for his ruling.
Now I do not know whether a decision has
been made or not and my advisors here
cannot tell me but, nevertheless, it has fol-
lowed the procedure as set down by The
Expropriation Procedures Act.
Now I tliink you would agree with me that
regardless of what project you want to move
ahead in the province of Ontario or in the
world, before you can move, you must have
some engineering, you must do certain things
that would, in my opinion, put a smear on
the title.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am disap-
pointed in the response of this Minister. I
would really think that he should take advice,
either from his own legal advisors or from
the Attorney General. In part he has been
quite correct. The matter is finally going to
be determined by His Honour Judge Cooper,
who is the district judge of the district of
Sudbury.
I am advised he is about to make an order
and the order, at this point and by agree-
ment, is not going to be contested. But if
my friend the Minister would take advice
either from his own legal advisor or more
hopefully, from the Attorney General, he
would, I am sure, be assured very quickly
that unless and until the appropriate judge
made his order, no one had a right to pub-
lish an advertisement in the newspaper that
indicated that the title to that land was
clouded in any way.
In other words, what was done, and I say
it without any qualms whatsoever, was a
thoroughly illegal and improper act, at least
a year in advance of the time that that
authority had any legal position to act in this
manner.
I am not suggesting that they should not
have done surveys in advance. I am not sug-
gesting that they should not have engineer-
ing reports in advance. But I am suggesting
that when they had the cheek to publish
in the newspaper, at the expense of the
authority, which gets it money from public
sources, the illegal notice advising the own-
ers of that particular piece of property— and
there were a dozen pieces of property men-
tioned in that particular advertisement— that
they no longer had a right to deal with it
because the property might be expropriated
in the future, that the act was impropeir
and illegal. No Minister of the Crown has
any right to stand up here and say anything
other than it was absolutely wrong.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, we come to the point
with some of these Ministers, that when
there has been a mistake made by an ema-
nation of this government, that at least one
Minister is going to have the courage to
get up and say, "I am sorry. Somebody madp
a mistake." Well, now here it is, there w«l
JUNE 11, 1968
4287
a mistake made. The advertisement is avail-
able. The advertisement is illegal, improper,
has no basis in fact or in law. All I can
get out of the Minister is, "Surely nobody
is going to complain about it." Well, I am
complaining about it and it is going to be
complained about in court, and it is going
to be complained about when the amount
of the compensation for the land is deter-
mined, because, rest assured, Mr. Chairman,
because of those illegal actions, somebody
is going to have to compensate those citizens
who are improperly and unlawfully treated,
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, may I
say this. It was through no action of the
Minister or anybody in my department, that
an ad appeared in the paper. In fact, this is
the first I knew about an ad appearing, and
I deal with people in Sudbury day to day;
sometimes I see two or three delegations a
week. I have never heard this before.
Now, if there are people up there who
are disgruntled, and perhaps they are-I am
not denying that fact— at least I would have
liked to have heard about it, prior to it com-
ing to the House. Evidently, this has been
going on for some time.
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: All right, surely there
is somebody in Sudbury who had access to
people in my department, or to myself, and
I have been in Sudbury three times within
the last six months. I have never heard of
it before. But I want to remind you of this,
that conservation authorities are bodies-
autonomous bodies— unto themselves; we do
not tell them what to do, so surely you are
not going to blame that on my department,
or me, as Minister, when it happened out-
side our control and we had nothing to do
with it, nor knew anything about it.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is
the usual poor excuse that comes forward
from Cabinet Ministers whenever they are
caught out in error. How much is it— 50 or
75 per cent? Seventy-five per cent of the
provincial money that goes to this authority,
75 per cent of the money that is collected
on behalf of the people of Ontario, goes to
carry out these illegal actions. The matter
has been enough of a local issue. It has
been talked about in the papers sufficiently
well, but the Minister sits in a very un-
fortunate position when he stands up and
says, "Nobody bothered to tell me." That
is a bunch of nonsense. I am sugesting, Mr.
Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I might say that-
Mr. Singer: All right, will you just wait
until 1 finish and then you can talk. I am
suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it is the
responsibility of this Minister to inquire about
what goes on in these conservation authorities;
to ascertain whether they are acting legally
or illegally; whether they constitute them-
selves as httle dictatorships or not; and when
they act obviously in an illegal way. I am
not going to do a chpping service for the
Minister and send him chppings out of the
Sudbury papers, that is not my business, that
is his business to be on top of his department.
And I think it is high time that the respon-
sible Minister concerned himself about those
bodies that get substantial sums of money
from his department.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult, of course, to
express any opinions which the hon. member
for Downsview seems to want without having
the facts exactly before one. He says, and I
do not doubt, that some notice of intention
to expropriate was pubhshed; he says it says
certain things in rather general language.
Mr. Singer: I will give my friend a copy
of it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, it would be nice
to have it and I have premised my remarks
with the fact that I have not got the terms
in which the notice was published. Now The
Expropriation Procedures Act does provide, as
my friend knows, requires, in fact, under
section 5, subsection 1, the publication of a
notice of expropriation— that is one of the
procedures in The Expropriation Procedures
Act— and, of course, the purpose of that.
The notice is set out, the form is set forth in
the schedules to that Act, form 1. That is the
first thing, the intention, the purpose, the
reasoning behind it. That is to let people
know that their land is likely to be expro-
priated, that some expropriating authority
wants it.
Now I would think that the public would
be glad; apparently there is a reason for this,
not only would the owner of the land have
notice that his land is going to be taken and
that if he has uses for it, or purposes in mind,
that they are going to be modified or frus-
trated, or set aside by the taking of that land
by an expropriating authority.
And I certainly would think that the pub-
lic, any member of the public thinking of
purchasing that land or acquiring it for his
purposes, would be glad to know that there is
4288
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not much use of buying that particular acre-
age because if he starts to develop it, that
programme is going to be destroyed, taken
away from him by expropriation.
So, first of all, I would say that Mr.
McRuer, in his report, which I have before
me, speaks and recommends a further, more
ample notice, with a greater length of time.
Then he proposes a further, more ample
inquiry than we have in our amendment of
last year. I agree with his recommendation,
and in our consideration of the legislation,
which we have in tow now, I think those
recommendations will receive most thorough
consideration, and I hope we will be able to
accomplish them. But, for the hon. member
simply to say that this notice was outside the
notice in the Act-
Mr. Singer: Absolutely.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, perhaps it was—
Mr. Singer; By the admission of the author-
ity's sohcitor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps it was. That
does not necessarily in my view make it— I
was going to say make it illegal. I do not
know whether there is a prohibition really
against a body saying, "We are proposing to
expropriate these lands and we think it
might be wise not to make plans to deal with
it". I doubt if that is an illegal act. It may be
beyond what an expropriating authority
should do; perhaps they are wdse just to stick
with the very strict lettering and wording of
the form in the Act.
I am not going to pass an opinion on what
the hon. member says is going to be a case
before the courts, but I would think that the
court, if that action comes before it, will say,
"Well, was this done?" First of all, they prob-
ably will weigh the intention to avoid people
getting into deals which will disappoint them,
when the land they buy today is taken away
tomorrow, and perhaps the court will weigh
whether any damage was suffered by any-
body.
I would think that the owner, when he
comes to have that land evaluated, assessed,
negotiated if necessary, and arbitrated if
necessary, will find that the value of the
land will not be varied insofar as he is con-
cerned by the fact that it is stated that it is
going to be expropriated. The value is either
the value at the time the notice is published,
or it is the value of the land at the time it is
taken, and if the land moves up in value for
various reasons or due circumstances, I do
not think that value will be diminished by
publication of the notice. To my mind it is
altogether possible that that owner, when he
gets before the final adjudication, it may be
the expropriating authority itself, will be
satisfied by its decision as to value.
First of all, he may be satisfied by the ex-
propriating authority that such-and-such a
value is a reasonable, fair and proper value.
If it goes to negotiation and arbitration, I
would think that these factors would be taken
into account. I cannot at the moment see that
the publication of a notice in wider terms
than are required by the Act is first of all a
wrongful thing. Perhaps it was an unwise
thing.
I cannot see, second, that that will neces-
sarily affect the judgment of the expropriating
authority in reaching a value, or will affect
the court's judgment in determining the final
value, whether that owner held it or whether
it had been sold three or four times. I think
whatever body will adjudicate finally upon
this matter will be able to reach an evalu-
ation which will be related to the value of
that land either today, tomorrow or when
it is finally taken.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
surprised really at the Attorney General, who
should be the defender of the rights of the
people of Ontario, rather than the partisan
politician that he appears to be tonight. I
am surprised, I am shocked— and I am also
surprised and shocked at his views on the
law about real estate. He will remember, and
I am convinced in my own mind he was
absolutely wrong about the indefeasibility
provisions in The Ontario Housing Corpor-
ation Act, where we alleged— and in not much
confidence, Mr. Chairman, I now can say
there are several lawyer members of the
Conservative Party who agreed with us in
private but did not get up in the House and
say it— that we were absolutely correct in
saying that once a cloud was put on the title,
it was a cloud on the title no matter how
much explanation the Attorney General put
to it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not disagree wiA
that.
Mr. Singer: Now the same principle applies
here. It did when that bill went through the
House.
Hon. Wishart: I have never said that a
cloud on the title was not a cloud on the
title.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right. That was the
way the bill was pummelled through the
JUNE 11, 1968
4289
House and there is no other word for it.
Now, the same thing is being done here.
Here the Attorney General says it might
have been unwise to pubhsh, before an ex-
propriation bylaw was passed or before there
was authority to pass a bylaw, a notice in
the paper that said— and I say, Mr. Chairman,
in keeping with my reputation as a member
of this House and as a solicitor, the notice
says: "Do not deal with this land because we
are going to take it". This is a cloud on the
title and it destroys an individual's right to
deal with his own land.
And it was done well over a year in ad-
vance of the legal authority so to do. And
to try and explain how a government body,
chaired by a government appointee, a Mr.
Caswell, whose politics in Sudbury are well
known, can act in this manner so detrimental
to the rights of individual citizens who do
no know how to fight him until they have to
come to Toronto and hire Toronto solicitors
because they feel the cards are stacked against
them. Mr. Chairman, to try and explain this
away and say it is reasonable and it is logical
just passes all understanding that I have.
The next battle will be fought at a difiFer-
ent level, Mr. Chairman, but I am surprised
that the chief law ofiBcer of the Crown would
say that under the circumstances I have
related and subject to checking he wants to
see the notice. I will get a copy of the notice
for him. I have it— this is a defensible matter.
I would think, Mr. Chairman, that ema-
nations of the Crown— and the conservation
authorities are emanations of the Crown-
should lean over backwards in being fair to
individuals who own property and whose
property might be taken away from them.
In this case, I suggest it was not only un-
fair, it was onerous. It was a wielding of
superior authority by a government appointed
body, apparently in the name of statutory
authority. But it was not, and I would think
that there should be substantial embarrass-
ment on the government benches when this
kind of a fact is brought before this House.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I think
I might be permitted surely to take from the
remarks of the hon. member for Downsview
at least those words which he tried to put in
my mouth. He gets up and says, "The Attor-
ney General stands up and says it is reason-
able and logical". I never used such language
in my remaks a few moments ago. I did not
say it was reasonable. I did not say it was
logical. I did not say it was defensible. I
did not say it was not unfair. I did not say
it was not onerous. All I said was that it
would not necessarily aflfect the value of the
land when it comes to be adjudicated upon.
I think perhaps the court will say, or the
arbitration board or the expropriating authori-
ties will say, "You went beyond the provisions
of the Act". How serious that may be, I leave
to that body to weigh. But I say that they
can well determine the value of that land at
the date of publication of notice; the value
of it today; or the value it might have to-
morrow or the day it is taken. I did not say
this was a logical thing to do. I did not say
it was even defensible. I did not say it was
not unfair. It may be onerous but I did not
use those words at all.
All I am saying is that there is a purpose
and a reason behind the provisions in The
Expropriation Procedures Act which generally
requires notice of intention to expropriate to
be published at the time a plan is filed. The
purpose behind that is to warn the public of
this purpose; to warn the owner that any-
thing he may do would be frustrated by the
taking of that land.
This point I wish firmly to make. I did
not say that this was not a cloud on the
title. It does, in a sense, constitute a cloud
if the language is as my hon. friend said,
"do not deal with this land." Those are the
words he uses. Then I presume the notice
was perhaps couched in a little more legal
terms than that, or in definite civil terms.
But if it said that it would be a cloud on
title and I do not say it was not. All I say is
that in weighing the effect of this expropriat-
ing authority placing that type of cloud on
title, they went beyond what they should
have done. But I say the owner can be
compensated adequately for that error and I
trust that will be done.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared
to accept what the Attorney General says at
face value; if I put words in his mouth it was
done unintentionally. But I think there should
be concern in the mind of the Attorney
General when it is brought to his attention,
or the attention of this Minister, that a con-
servation authority has acted very improperly;
to bring to heel the people who were respon-
sible for this. Granted there may well be a
remedy and that remedy will be asserted at
the proper time and the proper place but it
is unfortunate-
Mr. J. E. BuUbrook (Samia): There may be.
Mr. Singer: It may be asserted, and
whether the courts will agree or not it is
unfortunate that the individuals who are
4290
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
afiFected have to be put into the position of
asserting, perhaps to the highest courts of
this land, this kind of a claim because they
are put in this unfortunate position by the
improper actions of an emanation of this
government.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I think the general case that the
hon, member for Downs view is making is a
valid one. I have the impression, as a layman
—and I do not want to get into the legal
technicalities— that he has perhaps weakened
his case by driving it too far in this specific
instance.
I suspect that it was not an illegal act. It
is just another of these improper acts and
whether or not that kind of a notice, being
published in the paper, which might well
depress the value of the land, is technically a
cloud on the title, as a layman I would not
say. But the thing that worries me, to come
back to the initial thrust of his argument, is
that this was the Minister's responsibility.
Here we have a real problem because we
set up conservation authorities and they are
supposed to be autonomous. The law should
be clear enough to guide their acts so that
they do not get into trouble as they do. This
is what disturbs me about the conservation
authorities in the expropriation of land. I
think the Minister acknowledges that this is
a continuing problem and he has got a re-
vised Expropriation Procedures Act in the
mill, which we may not see until the next
session.
The thing that disturbs me is the conserva-
tion authorities which, I would hope, would
be as sensitive to the public interest and to
the public reactions as almost any body,
because the implementation of their objec-
tives requires pubHc support. And yet, I
must say with regard to conservation author-
ities bodies, for which I have the greatest
of admiration and support for their objectives,
that there are few bodies that have been
more insensitive to the public feelings. So
much so, that the government last year came
in with something that theoretically I do not
agree with, but I voted for it. Namely, the
proposition that conservation authorities
should have to justify when they want to
expropriate by going before a county court
judge.
Quite frankly, from what I have seen of
county court judges, sometimes their judg-
ment on whether land is needed is not
necessarily the right judgment. I do not think
they are the appropriate people to come to
what is in effect a political decision. But con-
servation authorities in the instance of the
upper Thames conservation authority, the
Old Humbsr Valley conservation authority,
have been so incredibly insensitive and have
been willing to bulldoze forward in terms of
achieving their objectives, to ride roughshod
over the rights of individuals, and even the
convenience of individuals, that something
had to be done.
The government acted a year or so ago.
Conceivably after a little time, when the
situation settles down, we can revert to what
would theoretically be a sounder approach.
But my hope at the moment would be that
we will get an Expropriation Procedures Act
that would have all of the built-in protections
to the little person v/ho is going to have his
land expropriated. So that you would not
have to be appealing to the Minister, in
effect, to encroach upon the autonomy of the
conservation authority; that the law and the
rules and the procedures would be so clear
to the conservation authority that we would
get closer to the end of our trouble. So this
is only one of an endless series of unfortunate
cases which we have had with conservation
authorities. My hope would be that it will be
cleared up when the Attorney General brings
in his new Act.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland.
Mr. E. P. Momingstar (Welland): Mr.
Chairman, I would hke to make a few
comments on vote 605. I am pleased to
note that while the total estimated expendi-
tures this year for the department have
been reduced by some $33 million from
last year's budget figures, the funds in this
vote have been increased by about $270,000.
All members are aware that the Niagara
peninsula is steeped in history and that this
fact coupled with the attraction of Niagara
Falls makes the area one of Canada's great-
est tourist attractions. I suppose that some-
thing like 15 million visitors come to this
area each year and more and more of them
are using the facilities which have been
provided by the Niagara peninsula conserva-
tion authority.
This authority now controls over 950
square miles, while the land owned by
the authority totals roughly 2,000 acres. The
population within the authority's area of re-
sponsibility numbers about 350,000.
In my own riding, we are fortunate in
having the St. Johns conservation area in
JUNE 11, 1968
4291
Xhorold township, consisting of a total of
78 acres. About $20,000 have been spent by
the authority since the original purchase of
land in 1933. The property, which is vir-
tually unspoiled, embraces practically the
whole watershed and contains the source
springs of the St. Johns, a tributary of
the Twelve Mile Creek. A dam has been
built which has created a three-acre pond
and this pond is stocked with rainbow trout
by The Department of Lands and Forests.
This area, which has been completely
fenced, is also a botanist's paradise. This is
only one example, Mr. Chairman, of the ex-
cellent work which is being carried out by
the Niagara peninsula conservation authority.
In fact, apart from the 3,000 acres of
superb parkland developed by the Niagara
parks commission, the only parks of a
regional nature in the counties of Lincoln
and Welland are the conservation areas pro-
vided by this authority. The municipalities,
with one or two exceptions, have, unfor-
tunately, provided little or no recreational
space either for the residents or tourists.
In Wainfleet township, the Long Beach
conservation area maintains 2,200 feet of
excellent sandy beach with camp sites, park-
ing lots, 600 picnic tables, a scout camp
area, demonstration woodlot and so on. In the
last seven years the number of people using
these facilities has increased from 48,000 in
1960 to 99,000 in 1967.
Apart from the Long Beach area, however,
public access to the shores of Lake Erie is
very, very limited indeed. I know the gov-
ernment is fully aware of this situation and
I am hopeful that greater public access will
be made available in the future. Ball's Falls
is another very picturesque park and picnic
area on Twenty Mile Creek above Jordan
in Louth township.
During 1967 many thousands more visited
this area in addition to about 5,000 area
■school children who were conducted through
the pioneer cabins, grist mill, the lime
kiln, nature trails and other features of this
beautiful and historic site.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this
opportimity to commend the members of the
Niagara peninsula conservation authority and
the local authorities for the splendid work
they have accomplished to date and to assure
them of my continued support.
At the same time, it is quite clear that
while great progress has been made to
date we are still very short of parkland in
the area. This is especially the case when
one considers the large immbers of tourists
who visit the area each year and the tourist
potential of the future years.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we in the
Niagara peninsula are delighted with this
government's plans for the preservation and
development of the Niagara escarpment and
especially with the more recent recommen-
dations for the construction of the 47-mile
scenic drive to link Queenston and Hamilton.
I sincerely hope that the government will
move as quickly as possible to implement
the recommendations of the Mayo commis-
sion for the Niagara region. I know that the
government will receive the most enthusi-
astic support from all residents of the area
and from the members of the Niagara
peninsula conservation authority.
Thank you very much.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : Mr. Chairman, I do not want to
accuse the hon. member for Welland of fili-
bustering, and it is always great to hear his
contributions to these debates.
Interjections by hon. members.
An hon. member: Ask him why he resigned
from the Niagara parks commission.
Mr. Nixon: And I thought that perhaps in
the course of his remarks, he was going to
tell us why he resigned from the Niagara
parks commission. But we may have to wait
for a further estimate to get that information,
until his speech writer gets down to brass
tacks on that particular problem. I wonder,
Mr. Chairman, if we could recall to the
Minister's mind a comment that was made
by the Attorney General, and the member
for York South and the member for Downs-
view about the amendments to the expropria-
tion procedures statute two years ago, which
allowed citizens the recourse of the courts
to challenge the right of a conservation
authority to undertake expropriation pro-
cedures.
There was some considerable debate about
that two years ago, as I recall, and we on
this side had some doubts as to whether a
political decision entered into by the respon-
sible Minister should be appealed to the
courts. However, the statute was carried, as
the Minister is aware, and we have since had
the first reference to the courts. I believe that
it was Judge McCombs in Hamilton who
ruled that even though the Minister has
given his approval, and had been reviewed by
4292
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Ontario municipal board, which had given
its approval, that the conservation authority
in Hamilton had not in fact justified their
need for certain lands associated with the
project that they wished to undertake.
Tliis, of course, is the first instance were
the procedures that were written into the
bill two years ago have come before the
courts for refusal, and in fact the Minister's
decision was overruled. I beheve that it is a
serious responsibility tliat the Minister has in
reviewing the projects that are put before him
by the conservation authorities to look into
the matter very carefully and if, in his view,
die conservation authority has not properly
put the programme before the ratepayers and
land holders concerned, that it should be his
responsibility so to do.
In this particular case, involving the Hamil-
ton conservation authority, the Minister, I
suppose, decided that everything was in
order and gave his approval, following the
review of the Ontario municipal board. But
his honour Judge McCombs did not uphold
the Minister's decision.
The Minister says that there were other
instances of this. I would like to hear them
and to know what procedures the conservation
branch of the department is undertaking so
that these judicial reversals of the programmes
and plans of the conservation authorities are
not going to be too numerous. Surely the
responsibility for the political decision is the
Minister's and it is surprising that more than
one of them had been reversed.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first
let me say that the first case which came
before the judge was in Kingston, before
Judge Campbell, in the Napanee conservation
authority. They were upheld in that case.
Mr. Nixon: This was the first case of
reversal.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That was the first case,
yes. Now again, when a project is con-
ceived by the conservation authority, this is
what they would like to do in a particular
area, of course. At this time there has been
no land purchase, or expropriation— and we
go into many areas where we do not have to
expropriate. It is very easy to go in and pur-
chase the land.
Then you go into otlier areas, such as
happened in the area that you just spoke
about. There were farms there and the
farmers were concerned and they were able
to prove to the judge that their case and
cause was stronger than the conservation
authority's.
Now I am not the judge of that. I think
that this-
Mr. Nixon: In fact you are the judge. You
make tlie political decision. You automatically
give your approval.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Only that we go ahead
with the project, providing that everything
else is in order. That is the limitation that I
have.
Then we must put through the expropria-
tion procedures. If they turn out in favour of
the conservation authority, then we proceed.
If they do not, then we have to take another
look at it and see if we can comply with the
wishes of the people in the area and still come
up with a project.
I do not make any decision on purchasing
any particular land. I make a decision on an
overall project that would be good, and I do
not know, sitting in my office, if all these
people want to sell. I would not have the
slightest way of knowing, because nobody has
contacted any of the landowners at this
time.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the conservation authority
felt that they had a case that justified the
use of The Expropriation Procedures Act.
The Minister gave his approval to the project,
which involved tlie use of The Expropriation
Procedures Act, which includes a reference
to the judge.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No I do not.
Mr. Nixon: It includes a reference to the
judge. Now, Judge McCombs found that the
conservation authority had not estabhshed a
case for the need of the land and yet pre-
viously the Minister had gjven his approval
to the conservation authority's need for the
land. How do you justify this decision?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I said
that we gave approval of the overall project,
provided that they could purchase the land.
For all I knew they could go out and deal
witli all these landowners without even going
to expropriation.
They did not have to come to me for per-
mission to expropriate. They had to go to the
judge first and then, if that is approved, then
they come back to us for advanced purposes.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, but inherent in decisions
made by the conservation authorities is the
right given them by their own statute to
expropriate land. I feel that the Minister's
JUNE 11, 1968
4SI93
decision in this regard is the important politi-
cal decision. In other words, the representa-
tives of the people, in their exercising their
responsible decision, have decided that the
programme can proceed.
Now, of course, the Minister has been
re^'ersed by Judge McCombs. Is there the
option on the part of the Minister or the con-
servation authority to appeal the judge's de-
cision and, if so, are they considering such
an appeal?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It will be the conser-
vation authority's option if they want to
appeal his decision. I do not know whether
I am to consider it or not.
Mr. Nixon: You have got to be fairly
close to it. You provide the funds. You are
not sitting in your office all alone. You have
some very competent assistants who are ad-
vising you at the table now, and they are
backed up by a platoon of competent assist-
ants, many of whom, surely, travel out to
talk to the conservation authorities from
time to time.
I think this Minister's responsibility is very
evident— not to dictate decisions, but to give
the sort of advice which will lead to success-
ful programmes and the implementation of
these programmes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I hope
this would be a decision that is made by the
autonomous body if they want to appeal a
decision. I would hope that nobody in my
department is going to go out there and
persuade them to appeal or not to appeal.
I do not know whether this is going to
happen or not, but I hope it does not. As
far as I am concerned, I have not discussed
this with anyone in the Hamilton region
conservation authority. I read it in the paper.
I know it happened; nobody has mentioned
to me, outside of hearing of it here or—
Mr. Nixon: It ought to be of passing inter-
est to the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I never. But I
am not interested in taking somebody's land,
if it is needed worse for some other purpose
and this was so ruled by a judge.
Mr. Singer: Oh, Mr. Chairman, we get into
the very thing that we complained about
when this statute was brought before the
House. The government is placed in the
anomalous position of having made a politi-
cal decision and tlien having it overruled by
the courts. The Minister has to be interested
in whether or not the courts agree with
them.
It is in the wrong place to be^n with.
We urged upon government at that time
that you do not slough off this responsibility
on the judges, who are not aware of this
from day to day; who have not the independ-
ent facilities to investigate; who have not
the staffs available to use to go out and see.
We said that the ultimate decision should
be the Minister's decision— a political decision
on which he will rise or fall.
Now the Minister wants the best of both
worlds. The conservation authority in their
wisdom, or lack of it, says, "We want such
and such a plan in the Hamilton area." The
Minister's people look at it and say, "That
is fine, we put our stamp of approval on it."
And somewhere there is a document that
has the Minister's signature on it, saying
okay.
The Minister cannot surely take shelter
under an umbrella by saying, "I am not
sure whether we should expropriate the land
or negotiate for it." The Minister has said
this is a good scheme. The judge has slapped
the Minister in the face when he says,
no, it is not. Somewhere along the line, Mr.
Chairman, surely we must have a govern-
ment that will stop sloughing its pohtical
responsibility on to the courts. That is exactly
what this government is doing, and that is
exactly what this Minister is doing.
If the judge disagrees with the Minister,
either the judge is wrong or he is making
a political decision, and the Minister has no
right to put him into that position. We are
not talking about values. We are talking
about wisdom. The Minister's seal of ap-
proval is on the wisdom of that decision.
The judge says, "The Minister has got holes
in his head; I reverse his decision," and the
government is placed in the unfortimate posi-
tion of being overuled by a judicial decision.
The government is in the unfortunate and
anomalous position that they were bound to
get into when they placed the final authority
in the courts rather than in the pohticians.
The Minister makes decisions from day to
day on which he rises or falls in a pohtical
sense. He hopes he makes decisions that
are politically sound and that the people who
he makes them in favour of or against are
not going to be antagonized against him
and reflect their displeasure at a future
election.
But what happens here? We have a con-
servation authority that makes a decision.
4294
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Minister puts his stamp of approval on
it and then he says, "Well, gee whiz, it is not
my fault. The judge says it was a bad deci-
sion. We cannot help what judges do, we
do not want to interfere with the courts."
I say, Mr. Chairman, this is a complete
avoidance of political responsibility, and this
government continues to play this merry little
game that is now beginning to catch up with
them. Either they should have the political
courage to go ahead, or they should abandon
their present position in trying to say: We are
a responsible government in the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I recognize the At-
torney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Downsview seems to have a
penchant for what I would call mis-stating,
if I may use that term.
Mr. Singer: You may use any term you
want and I will not be offended.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I can demonstrate it
as well. The decision of the Minister was not
reversed by the judge. That is what the hon.
member said.
Mr. Singer: The decision, as regards its
wisdom, certainly was.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The Minister sees a
scheme proposed by a conservation authority,
in this case the Hamilton conservation
authority. A good scheme, let us say, for a
reservoir, a dam, or a recreation area; I do
not know what it was. The Minister looks at
it and passes a decision that the project
designed and proposed by this conservation
authority is a good proposition, a good pro-
gramme, and he says, "I approve— you may
go forward with that insofar as my depart-
ment is concerned; it is approved."
All the judge has to do is to decide if the
total area proposed is required or if the con-
servation authority is in a sense too ex-
pansive, perhaps too greedy in taking a
certain area. He passes only on the question
of necessity of the property to be taken. He
is not denying the scheme, he is not over-
ruling the Minister. He is not saying this is
not a good conservation programme. He says
instead of requiring, let us say, 400 acres for
the flooding you only need to go to a certain
line and that will be adequate, and he passes
on the necessary-
Mr. Nixon: The judge threw out the whole
scheme.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps he did, then
the whole thing was unnecessary.
Mr. Singer: Well, there is the whole point.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: But the judge, I do not
think, did throw it all entirely out. I think
he only modified the scheme. I do not really
accept that he ruled it out entirely as I
understand the fact. The judge said: Yott
do not need all this particular land you are
looking for in this scheme.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say a
word further. I cannot debate legislation
which is not before the House, but I think I
would like to say that I would not argue
strongly against the view that the question
of the necessity or the desirability of any
conservation programme or anything of that
nature where an expropriation authority is in-
volved should be decided by tlie Minister.
I would not argue strongly against the view
tliat that is a political decision.
Mr. Singer: Hear, hear! He did before.
Hon, Mr. Wishart: That is not to say that
I am forecasting a view which I will put
forward in legislation. I note that Mr. Mc-
Ruer takes that view, and I think there is
merit in the view that he has put forward.
So, in these estimates, while we have to
debate a situation we find in our statute
today, I might say that we do not need to
argue too strongly against the view that these
decisions on hospitals by the Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), perhaps; education
perhaps by the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis) —
Mr. Singer: That is what we said when yon
brought in your bill two years ago.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And I recall saying this,
and I was not able to agree with you at
that time.
Mr. Singer: Well, maybe we make progress
very slowly.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You did not change my
views.
Mr. Singer: Somebody did.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No.
Mr. Singer: Mr. McRuer did.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No. You do not get the
point.
Mr. Singer: Well I guess not, I am dull.
JUNE 11, 1968
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I say I will not argue
too strongly against your views tonight.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonaJd: Mr. Chairman, if the
judge threw out the whole project, as far as
I am concerned this is proof that when we
bring in the new Expropriation Procedures
Act we should review that section which
takes it to the county court judge. Because,
quite frankly, the judge has no blessed busi-
ness to be meddling in the basic decision as
to whether there should be a conservation
authority or a dam.
I think the main problem which I want
to illustrate— and I thought in the earlier part
of the Attorney General's remarks that he
had clarified the comments that I wanted to
make— can be seen in the Gordon Pittock dam
that was built in Oxford county.
Mr. Singer: Gordon who?
Mr. MacDonald: Gordon Pittock.
Mr. Singer: Oh, yes, I remember that one.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is a case, if I
may interject where too much land was being
taken.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, let me make my
speech.
Mr Singer: That cost you one seat— he is
not here any more.
Mr. MacDonald: What I was trying to say
is that the Attorney General was almost mak-
ing my speech for me. My recollection is that
the authority changed the boundaries con-
siderably, at least once, if not twice. In
other words they just had poor engineering.
Whatever the reason, they put on a plan of
expropriation and later, having caused all of
the uncertainty among the property owners,
they then changed it. But, Mr. Chairman,
that is only part of the story.
I know of one instance of a farmer whose
whole farm was going to be bought, and he
went out and bought an alternative farm.
Then the authority came back and said, "But
we only need half your farm, the half with-
out the buildings, and you can try to sur-
vive on the other half." There is another
case which still goes on, namely, where they
M(ere going to expropriate a whole farm and
then decided that they would only take part
of it, but each spring the water comes up
and floods the land.
The responsibility has been left to that
farmer to sue the authority every year to
get damages. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is an
inexcusable imposition on an individual, that
he should have part of his farm expropriated
and be left with the responsibility to sue
the authority for any damage that might
come from flooding each spring on the re-
mainder of his land. It is this kind of situa-
tion in which there was poor engineering,
or not a clear definition of what land is
required.
In my view— since the Minister is con-
templating revisions to the bill— this is not a
decision which should be made by a county
court judge, even the decision as to the
amount of land. In the first instance it
should be made by the conservation author-
ity, and it should be reviewed thoroughly by
the Minister's staff. In other words, it is a
political decision, by political bodies, the
emanation of the Crown here, the conserva-
tion authority, and the Minister's staff. They
decide, and they decide with some definitive-
ness with regard to what land is required,
so that you do not make mistakes, so you
do not create the kind of inconvenience and
unnecessary hardship on the part of the
people who are involved.
I would hope that the Minister would so
amend his Act that we can get back to a
sounder basis. Although I must add that I
still am persuaded that reference to county
court was necessary, for the time being to
cope with the rash of actions by conservation
authorities— insensitive actions by conserva-
tion authorities, to get protection somewhere.
And if we could not get protection in The
Conservation Act, we had to get it in the
comrt. I regretted it then, I regret it now.
Mr. Nixon: But you voted for it.
Mr. MacDonald: I know I voted for it;
I said that— because it became necessary be-
cause of the action of conservation authori-
ties. But I repeat, if the leader of the Opposi-
tion is correct that this whole thing was
thrown out, then it certainly underlines my
regret and I hope that the Minister can come
in with a better Act.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that the whole project was not thrown
out; there was a large acreage of land bought
in a part of this area and perhaps with some
revision, there still could be a project pro-
ceed there although not on as large a scale as
was anticipated when it went before the
judge.
4296
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I assume that
the conservation authority was able to pur-
chase some of the land without resort to
expropriation proceedings. And I am glad
that tlie Opposition is united in this regard
so that when the changes in The Expropria-
tion Procedures Act come before us some-
time in 1968, we will be able to perhaps
come up with a better bill than we have.
But, my point is this, Mr. Chairman, that the
Minister has a very strong responsibility, a
political responsibility which, for a short
time, at least, has been transferred to the
courts, but in reading briefly from the clip-
ping that refers to this matter, it says:
Judge McCombs criticized the authority
for failing to inform concerned residents
of the detailed plans for the project.
Now, surely that is the Minister's responsi-
bihty to see that the authority under his
jurisdiction, that gets the funds from the
vote that we are asked to approve tonight,
or a similar one a year ago, sees that all of
tliese procedures are lived up to the letter.
And that the citizens of Ontario who are
paying these bills, and who are subject to
The Expropriation Procedures Act have all
of tlie rights that are coming to them as far as
information pertaining to the decisions taken
by the expropriating authority is concerned
The judge then said that the authority had
not proven the lands were necessary to the
project. I cannot see how the Minister could
approve a project or a scheme if the author-
ity could not prove that the lands were
needed.
Mr. Singer: Hear, hear!
Mr. Nixon: Now, surely if he is allowing
himself to be put in a position of simply
rubber-stamping the decisions that are taken
by the authority when he is meeting at least
50 per cent of the costs, and 75 per cent of
a good number of these projects, then he is
shirking his responsibilities. I think it is a
serious matter, particularly when he is calling
upon us to vote an additional $2.5 million
for his operation in the coming year.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
we have gone over this enough times now
and I think I have explained my role in it.
I said it before, and I say it now that I
approve an overall project, certainly I would
approve it-
it?
Mr. Nixon: Do you do more than look at
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I look at a map, and
note this would be an ideal project if we
could get a dam here. I do not know who
owns the property behind it. But then, I am
Mr. Nixon: You have more responsibility
than that.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: To be an ideal project,
this was the place to put it— right there. As
far as the cost of building the project— the
overall scheme— we would have had a larger
lake; we would have had more recreational
area. But I went up and looked at it six
montlis ago, after expropriation proceedings
had started, and I could see that we were
dismpting a couple of farmers. But I did not—
Mr. Nixon: Even though you have given
your prior approval?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Just on a project. I
never gave, nor do I give, approval to expro-
priate. This is done by the conservation
authority themselves and it is moved ahead
from there.
Mr. Nixon: The Act that you administer
gives expropriation authority.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, it does not— that
is under The Department of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, you cannot
have the chicken coming before the egg.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, which came first,
the chicken or the egg?
Mr. Singer: The Minister has a function
to perform, and if the Minister looks at plans
and he says, "This is fine— if this is a good
project, that is going to go ahead". And the
Minister can smirk all he wants; the best
thing this Minister does is smirk.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I get that from looking
at you!
Mr. Singer: The Minister looks at a plan
and says "This is a good project, and the lake
should be as big as it is represented on these
plans." Then the plan should go ahead. The
Minister must know; it must have intruded
even to his mind, tliat if he approves of a
certain set of plans, that you need as much
land as is shown on that plan to let that
project get ahead. What the Minister has, in
fact, said to us tonight, Mr. Chairman, is
that the judge was wrong.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, I did not.
JUNE 11, 1968
4297
Mr. Singer: Now, this places the govern-
ment in an impossible position; by their own
statute it goes to a judge. If the judge re-
verses the Minister, the Minister stands up
and says, "I really had nothing to do with it,
because it could have been all right, and we
had half the land or two-thirds of the land."
It is about time that the Minister began to
understand what his function is and I, as a
Minister, would resent very much having a
political decision, for which I am responsible,
being reversed by the courts when I have
made it politically, as is my responsibility.
And, if this Minister, unfortunately, has
not enough sense to understand the respon-
sibihty given to him by the statutes, and he
says that the judge can reverse them, and he
says there is no insult, there is no inter-
ference with his authority, then, Mr. Chair-
man, it is unfortunate that this Minister does
not understand what his job is.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I was kind
of hoping now that I would have made my
bit to say before supper. I was going to
develop a good case here but mine now is a
very small project compared to what has
happened since 8 o'clock. And yet I would
like to defend my good friend from Welland
who got the biggest hand in this House that
I have heard anybody get for a week, re-
garding some of the projects that the con-
servation authority of the Niagara peninsula
have actually brought into existence.
I know not whether the conservation
authority first meets with your people or not,
before they buy. But in some cases they
have purchased properties and have de-
veloped some pretty nice parks. The con-
servation authority of the Niagara peninsula,
headed up by Francis Goldring, the man that
I have the greatest respect for— except his
pohtics— other than that, he is a fine man and
is doing a good job in that area for many
municipalities. The problem that exists in
the Niagara peninsula, and that goes along
Lake Erie, along the Niagara River to Lake
Ontario and almost to Hamilton, so it takes
in quite a large area, is that some of the
municipalities make their per capita contribu-
tion and in so doing do not get a little project
some place closer to home.
We have heard of many projects by the
member for Welland, Mr. Chairman, and
quite good, too, but down in the southern
part of the county, I have argued for the
Black Creek project since I have been here
-1959.
Since that time, some of the property was
purchased along the Black Creek area so I
now find I must have been right or they
would not have bought that 100 acres at
Stevensville. They are considering a dam in
that area to dam up the section of land that
used to be dammed up when they originally
had a grist mill there, so apparently it has
been a natural spot for that type of con-
struction.
Now, I would like to ask of this Minister,
since fresh water will not be brought from
Lake Erie to that area but it wall come as
nature provides and then spill over after the
lake is filled, are there many of this type of
dam in the province that are doing a good
job for that area? And I am talking about
only where you have the run-oflF water into
a pond or a lake. Do you have some of these
in existence in the province and are they
doing the job they were meant to do?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, I understand we
have several and they are doing a good job.
Mr. Bukator: I am glad the Minister said
they are doing a good job because recently
you purchased some land, in Lincoln county,
where my friend from St. Catharines (Mr.
R. M. Johnston) comes from, and the hon.
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch). The
Niagara peninsula conservation authority, in
the quarterly comments for 1968 said:
Clearing at the Virgil reservoir in
Niagara township is now complete. Our
men have been working at it most of the
winter, the authority is now starting to
store water in the reservoir for summer
use, for spraying and irrigation.
What I am trying to ask the Minister through
you, Mr. Chairman, is if the reservoir and
dam are going to do as good a job as others
are doing? We are also considering one, at
least you have provided the money to buy
100 acres, in Bertie township, and there has
been some criticism of that project. I know
not whether the Minister received any com-
plaints from Fort Erie, but the deputy reeve
of that town has taken a strong stand against
the project in Bertie township.
I live closer to diat project than people of
Fort Erie do, actually. Stevensville is halfway
between two points, or not quite. What I am
trying to say is that if the influence of one
man, the deputy reeve or the reeve of Fort
Erie, one Clare Berger, can stop a project of
a type that I am talking about— that we have
tried to bring into existence since 1959— then
I believe the Minister, with his experts,
should take a good look at this and not stop
the project. I do not think the tail should
wag the dog.
4298
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I know that the Minister does not want to
walk ahead of an authority. He feels that the
decision should be made by the conservation
authority of that area. And yet I believe that
if someone from the department takes a look
and believes, as I do, that this dam ought to
be built— the land has been purchased— I am
sure the money will be there. The Minister's
experts should be on the job. I want to put
that on the record because I know when one
does object to anything, even in this House,
whether it be founded on fact or not, the
very fact that he objects for some unknown
reason, means that he gets the press and
sometimes his picture along with his com-
ments. It has a tendency to get some of the
people of the area to believe that he could
be right.
I do not believe this project, Mr, Chair-
man, should be stopped. It is a step in the
right direction and I would like, again, to
say to the Minister and his people that he
should take a good look and get that dam
started immediately.
Having cleared that one point, I want to
speak now of Black Creek at Stevensville, or
just beyond to the south of Stevensville, in
Bertie township. The 100 acres was purchased,
the man moved out of his house, and the
dam ought to be built immediately, in my
opinion, so that they can get the benefit of it
in another season. It has been long coming
—since 1959.
The new canal is being built, the Welland
ship canal, from Port Colborne to Welland.
I have mentioned this before, but I think
this is a good place to think of a project to
extend this type of thinking into the future.
When the canal was moved to the east it cut
off a large supply of Lyons Creek at that
point, so that water will spill into the canal.
I have asked the St. Lawrence seaway auth-
ority to take a good look at that, and if they
are going to cut the water off at the canal,
they ought to provide sufficient water to
Lyons Creek, to the village of Chippawa,
and into the hydro canal to compensate, or to
replace, what they have taken from them.
I know the department must have a direct
liaison with Ottawa, and, if they do, I think
they should take a good look at this, because
I understand— from the legal minds that I
have talked to— that there are riparian rights
and water cannot be cut off. There are sev-
eral farms along the way. All that is required
M a type of spillway, such as you have at St.
Catharines, to spill the water over the dam
into the creek and provide fresh water into
an area that is stagnant many months of the
year. That is my second project.
The third one, and the Minister was there;
involves the golf course of 144 acres just
above the falls. I know that the conservation
authorities may not purchase, but I would
hke to keep this on the record. This nine-
hole golf course, with the lovely piece of
land that could be maintained as a park,
should be bought by someone, and, if need
be, turned over to the parks commission.
They need the land for parking, they need
it for more parks in that area.
The fourth one you have heard so often
that I suppose you have memorized it your-
selves. I speak of Erie beach, just above Fort
Erie. We have had the department people
there, many of the Ministers, too. They felt
it was too much money to pay— about $200,-
000-for 3,300 feet of lakeshore on Lake Erie
that used to be an old amusement park. The
paths, the sidewalks and the big trees are
tliere yet. This could be made into a fine
park. I say to the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
that I am not thinking of the present gener-
ation. We who have a few more years on
our shoulders than we care to admit may not
get the benefit of this, but our children ought
to and their children after them.
These lands could be bought now and
bought cheaply. I give this to you for what
it is worth. I hope I have better luck with
the Erie beach and the old Oaks golf club
near the falls than I have in past years. These
lands are available to you, and they ought to
be purchased while you are considering more
parks for the province of Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, does the Min-
ister want to comment on that? I have one
other comment I would like to make.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to say that we have not heard anything
adverse against the Bertie township project;
Perhaps, if there is some opposition to it;
people might be working with the conserva-
tion authority and the opposition is within
the area at this point. I think, perhaps, we
could check that. We have heard from no
one opposing it, rejecting it, or any part of it.
Now, as far as the new Welland canal is
concerned, I think there is a tentative plan
being shown to government officials at the
present time. No decision can be made yet
because it is still under development. But I
would think as soon as it reaches a point ki
development, a decision will be made, and
there will be some Minister in this govern-
ment responsible for getting this property
JUNE 11, 1968
4299
for a park and looking after one of the
problems that is of considerable importance
to the hon. member.
I doubt if the other two projects would
come under the conservation authority. But,
nevertheless, the member has put them on
Hansard. They will be looked at when we
talk about parks in that area, and we hear
quite a bit about parks in that area. We are
concerned about it, not only for the conser-
vation authority, but I happen to sit on the
parks integration board and I hear a great
deal about parks in your area. In fact, I have
been with you at two or three of these places.
I am sympathetic and, again, they will come
up for consideration, no doubt, at some time
and we will know of your views.
Mr. Bukator: Just to complete the project
involving the 144 acres that you visited with
many of the members of the parks commis-
sion and some of the members of the parks
integration board.
This property, I realize, may not be pur-
chased by your people. But, I thought that
with the knowledge of it you have, the parks
commission at that time would have pur-
chased the property. I am sorry Mr. Allan
is not here, the chairman of the commission,
because I think he feels possibly as I do.
I would like his comments. If it can be
bought, I know the man who owns the
property has maintained it for this purpose.
Many of the cars that jam up the Horse-
shoe Falls area could park in that area just
as they do across the river at Goat Island.
They have parking areas and they have
people carriers, I guess they call them, such
as you have at the Toronto exhibition. You
could take the congestion away from Horse-
tiioe Falls and have a large parking area.
Regardless of who have ears to hear, Ihope
fliey can hear of what I speak, because it
ought to be purchased.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there is one
matter of some concern. By coincidence it
refers to the Hamilton conservation authority
once again— that the Minister must be aware
of and perhaps his good offices can be used
to improve the situation as it is presently
developing.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Gomme), has a plan to build
a large controlled access highway through
lands that have been earmarked for conser-
vation purposes west of Hamilton— actually
west of Dundas— in the large valley ruiming
up from the end of the lake.
TJiese lands are ideally suited to conserva-
tion purposes. They are not developed at the
present time. They are nothing other than
pasture lands and I believe many acres are
owned by other than farming interests; they
are designed for conservation purposes.
The Hamilton conservation authority is
one of the larger, wealthier ones. I believe,
in the near future, it would have within its
capacity the ability to take over these lands
for one of the finest parks in the province,
that would serve, in the very near proximity,
the large numbers of people living in the
Hamilton district. It is considered opinion
by those people in the area particularly con-
cerned with conservation matters— I refer
particularly to the chairman of the authority,
whom the Minister may know, that—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: A Liberal candidate!
Mr. Nixon: Yes, that is right. I expect he
will be successful and he will be able to
carry the cause of conservation to Ottawa.
So the Minister will have at least one friend
down there.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It could happen.
Mr. Nixon: I would say to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that the encroachment of highways into
that particular area would be a serious matter
indeed.
I hope that the Minister is in close enough
touch with the needs of conservation to
take up the cause with the Minister of
Highways and, perhaps, the Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell), who happens to
be the representative for the area, so that
we can see that the lands for conservation
are not going to be lost— that their values
are not going to be decreased, that they are
not going to be divided by a controlled
access highway, which I understand, can be
relocated a few miles away from it. So that
the area is not going to be decreased in
value for conservation purposes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first
let me assure the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion that we, on this side of the House, work
very closely together and that this matter
has been under consideration for some
months.
Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately neither of those
Ministers are here.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We meet quite often
and this has been under discussion.
4300
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I understand that there has been a plan
submitted to the people in the Hamilton area.
I believe tliere have been some ideas brought
forward— that if they moved it in particular
areas, we might get to a point where we
could keep everyone fairly happy. I think as
soon as Highways can come up with another
plan— if this is happening and we can get
general accord in the area— tlien we will look
at it from the conservation end of it.
But I might say, tlie chairman of the
Hamilton conservation authority at this time
is a very busy man. He does not want to
come in here and talk to me about this par-
ticular problem because he has got a very
heavy job on his hands right now.
Mr. Nixon: But you are aware of his views.
In a recent speech tlie chairman of the
Grand River conservation authority made the
statement that there should be a long-term
management study of the water resources in
the Grand River valley, in order to have some
meaningful control over this thing. He sug-
gested that this be started as soon as possible.
Would the Minister advise us as to whether
any plans are under way to get this study
going, and if so, when?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes. I understand that
tliere is a study now by H. G. Acres and
Company, although they have not reported as
yet. There will be a complete study of the
area— and Associates, I should say,
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, would the Minister inform the
member of what is the municipahty share of
assessment, of cost, on a per capita base, of
Metro Toronto conservation authorities, the
Upper Thames conservation authority and the
Grand River conservation authority.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: To answer this question
we would have to get the information, because
we do not have it with us.
They are on a shding scale and each one is
different. Of course, as you know, each
project would be different as it affects certain
municipalities where you are in multiple
municipahties. But I would be very happy to
get it for the member, if he would like me to.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, just one brief question. Simcoe county
forest; does this come under this vote?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Which?
Mr. Shulman: Simcoe county forest. Is that
a part of your—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, that is The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo Nortli): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister.
In all the municipalities of one conservation
authority, the assessment is agreed by the
members of tlie authority and it is tlie same
in each municipality in that area. Is that cor-
rect?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, not necessarily.
Mr. Good: Not necessarily.
I would like to make reference to the
fact that it would appear that in areas where
there is a large population, there is ample
money to do a tremendous job in conservation
and especially water control. I think this is
very relevant in that the need is not related
to the money available. In areas where there
are large populations, we notice by your book
here, that although the area, for instance, of
Metropolitan Toronto, has less than four per
cent of the total area under conservation
authorities, they were able to apply and
receive more than half of the money spent
by the government on conservation. Whereas
other areas relate pretty well equal to the
amount of area that they have.
I feel that municipalities should have a
better way of raising their money, because,
in effect, every programme has to be insti-
gated by the authority. The authority can-
not do anything, regardless of the provincial-
federal help, unless the municipalities within
the authority region can raise the money to
start the project.
There must be a better way than that
used now, where the authority has to beg
and plead and wine and dine tiie councillors
and the trustees of the municipality, in order
to get grants for the authority. I notice the
select committee on conservation in 1967
recommended that a sliding scale of grants
be developed, based on the financial ability
of each conservation authority to carry out
an effective programme.
Has the Minister any comments to make
on this, so that areas where there are larger
areas to be dealt with will have suflBcient
funds made available to them, to deal with
them and not the present method where
areas of large population and maybe a small
rivershed or a small watershed seem to have
more money available to them?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I do
not know whether the hon. member was here
JUNE 11, 1968
4301
this afternoon or not, but this matter was
tlioroughly discussed then.
The ARDA project, the sliding scale that
we are introducing January 1 and, of course,
as you know now on reservoirs there is a
75-25 split. This has happened in the past
two years. It used to be a 50-50 split on
large reservoirs, but we moved that two
years ago, I believe— three years ago.
We are going to introduce a sliding scale
beginning January 1 next year. Of course,
we have those authorities where the assess-
ment is very low and which have very little
population that might be put forward. If we
can get it approved through ARDA, then this
could be on a sliding scale up to 90 per cent
-90 and 10. That would be 45 per cent
provincial, 45 per cent federal and 10 per
cent to the authority.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister indicated, just
now and previously, that the federal govern-
ment is involved in the financing at least of
some of the projects that are carried out by
the conservation authorities.
Is that money in addition to what we are
voting here tonight? Or will there be a
credit to the consolidated revenue fund to
balance a part of the sum that we are voting
here tonight?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There will be a credit
to the consolidated fund.
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister tell me
approximately what that credit would be? I
might say, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister
wants to send this information to me at some
other time— but I really believe—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think that it would
be approximately $4 million, providing that
the projects move ahead as quickly as we
anticipated.
Mr. Nixon: Right, 1 was just going to say
that that is not an unduly large amount, but
it is important since in this year we are
going to be renegotiating, under the chair-
manship of the Premier (Mr. Robarts), and
with the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) certainly in attendance and taking
part in the discussion. We are going to be
renegotiating our fiscal agreements with the
government of Canada and that it is really
quite helpful if, in the various departments,
we are able to find from the Minister, as we
have from this Minister and others, just
what share large or small, the government of
Canada has in the responsibilities at the pro-
vincial level.
There is a great deal of feeling that we are
clue for a large scale reapportionment of each
responsibilities, and it is useful for us on this
side to know where we are at the present.
Vote 605 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if, instead of dealing with vote 606, we
could move to vote 608, which is capital
expenditures under The Conservation Author-
ities Act, while I have my people here in
front of me?
On vote 608:
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister could tell me if there is any money
in that vote for Mountjoy township? There
is the problem of flooding along the banks of
the Mattagami River, and there has been talk
of moving some of the low lying homes to
another part of the township. Is any plan
underway to do this, or any money in this
vote for this purpose?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised that there is a project on the east side
between Timmins and Tisdale township but
there is no project on the Mountjoy, which
is the west side of the river. Is that right?
Vote 608 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Vote 611 next, if you
please, Mr. Chairman.
On vote 611:
Mr. Nixon: I would like the Minister to
explain how this differs from vote 608? Would
these votes not come imder the conservation
authorities branch?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, this is the water
management programme which is a small
reservoir progranmie. Some would be within
conservation authorities, some are outside of
conservation authorities.
Mr. Nixon: Then some of these funds would
be spent in those areas which do not have
conservation authorities, and would the fed-
eral share be channeled through ARDA in
this case?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, I am advised that
ARDA shares half of the cost of the overall
project.
Mr. Nixon: There will be a credit then of
$1.5 million in this vote from the federal
sources?
Vote 611 agreed to.
4302
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On vote 606:
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman,
it was just last week that we had a general
debate on pollution, but there were some
things that were mentioned that I would like
to expand on in regard to the water pollution.
It is just over two years now since the Min-
ister made the announcement in the Legis-
lature that by 1970 industrial water pollution
would be under control in the province, and
he has now less than two years in which to
effect that goal. It is becoming more appar-
ent all the time that he is not going to make
it. By his own admission today there are
still 300 industries in the province tliat have
not effected any type of pollution control,
and there are many hundreds of others who
as yet have only installed primary treatments
and the secondary treatments are still forth-
coming.
Some companies are within the pulp and
paper industry, who were the first to receive
the government's notice of intention to allow
them to continue polluting only for a certain
length of time. And in early 1965, I think,
the OWRC gave notice to this group of indus-
tries that by the end of that year they would
have to have provided plans for primary and
secondary treatment for the OWRC for
approval.
The industry itself requires some assistance
in order that they may go ahead with the
programmes, but on the other hand the OWRC
and the government must stand behind the
regulation of the Act. I feel that of late they
have been rather slow in pressing charges on
the many industries in the province who are
still polluting and who have not, in fact, pro-
vided any intention that they will install the
proper facilities.
Under the timetable provided by the
OWRC to the pulp and paper industry, two
and a half years have passed since the plans
for the facilities should have been at least
submitted to the OWRC. About ten days ago
in the Legislature the member for Sudbury
asked the Minister a question in regard to the
Ontario Minnesota Paper of Kenora. I presume
that in early 1965 they received the same
indication of the OWRC to act under the
provisions of the OWRC Act if they did not
provide the plans for the primary and second-
ary treatment. Apparently they did not pro-
vide these plans to the OWRC and on January
11 there was a charge laid against this com-
pany. Only then did they decide to do some-
thing about it. And what they did was to
come to the Minister and explain to him that
they had now received a consultant's report,
even though the company had obviously
flouted the law, and had operated illegally,
polluting the Winnipeg River for a period of
two years since receiving the notice of OWRC
intention.
The Minister had the charges withheld. It
then took three months for them to provide
to the OWRC, on April 15, the programme
that they proposed to institute in the next two
years. Their plans were two and one half
years late, and they were still given a three-
month grace period before they finally did
provide plans. There are numerous things
that arise from this. The first is that if the
government does not intend to have the law
enforced with unco-operative industries, what
respect will industry have for the law, and
for that matter what respect will anybody in
the province have for the OWRC?
Secondly, what special status does this
company have with the Minister that they
can exert such influence that a charge that
has been laid can be withheld. This company
depends on the natural resources of our
province and it should be one of the first to
be made to live up to the laws as set out by
the OWRC. There is a third qualification to
this incident and that is, what effect has this
had on the staff of the OWRC? They go
ahead and give the company every oppor-
tunity to provide these plans and were after
them continually in the two-year period, and
they decide that a charge should be laid.
Where does this leave your civil servants, if
the Minister turns around and withholds the
charge?
Besides this question of enforcement of the
regulations under the OWRC, the government
must make other provisions for industry, such
as the removal of the sales tax at the provin-
cial level and with the co-operation of the
federal level; remove the sales tax there so
that pollution-control installations may be
more easily acquired by them.
Loans to smaller industry on the basis of a
reasonable interest rate should be provided
for approved installations. FaciHties and staff
within the OWRC should be expanded to
provide more technical and research advice to
industry in the complex treatment of in-
dustrial waste. Co-operation with the federal
government and the other provinces through
the conference of resource Ministers to pro-
vide uniform regulations to control industrial
pollution across Canada should be made so
that industry cannot look to certain areas
where regulations are lax and use that as an
incentive to be drawn into that area.
I also have some comments to make, Mr.
Chairman, on municipal pollution control.
JUNE II, 1968
4303
Over the past 10 or 11 years since the
OWRC came into being, the many municipah-
ties in the province spent milhons of dollars
to provide sewage-disposal units and plants,
usually with the technical advice of the
OWRC but usually at tlie expense of the
municipality, whether by debenture issue or
on a user basis or under a contract to buy the
services from the OWRC. The planning
in many municipalities was shortsighted, or
technically wrong, and now these same facili-
ties that have been put into service within
this past 11 years are not operating properly,
or are far overtaxed because of the poor
prognosis in growth in certain areas.
Most of the older municipalities face large
expenditures in the area of separation of
storm and sanitary sewers, since in many of
them the storm and sanitary sewers both run
into the same treatment plant. Newer areas
still require trunk sewers and treatment plants
to correct planning mistakes made over the
past 20 years. The housing shortage will not
be alleviated to any great extent without
extensive new provisions of water and sewage
treatment facilities.
To correct these problems, and build for
the future, the Ontario water resources
commission, with funds provided by this
government, must give more incentive to
municipalities in the form of grants, to go
ahead with the required works. The province
has not provided any incentive as far as
grants are concerned but the federal govern-
ment has provided grants to municipalities
right across our whole province.
I think this goes back to some of the
remarks that were made earlier here tonight
where the province has indicated, or the
Minister seems to have, the idea that things
fliat are not done, we can just push it over
to the federal government. And we heai* this
about every second day in this Legislature.
Some 150 municipalities in Ontario have
taken advantage of this federal grant to pro-
vide trunk sewers and treatment facilities,
whereas this government has not accepted its
responsibilities in this matter.
I think that in the past six years there have
been over 400 loans made to municipalities
within our province for a total amount of
$156 or $158 miUion and 25 per cent of that
loan has been forgiveable if the project was
completed within a certain time limit. Most
of the municipalities have had no problems
completing within the time limit set by the
government.
The second great problem that the muni-
cipalities have in providing facilities is the
amount of time it takes for a municipality to
gain approval from the OWRC and secondly
from the Ontario municipal board. Many civic
officials across the province have become
more than incensed when dealing with the
OWRC. The need for establishment of a
facility may exist for up to three or four years
before actual construction begins because of
these administrative problems. The adminis-
trative procedures must be brought into this
century and technical manpower facilities
must be expanded to deal with the problems
in an efficient and expeditious manner.
I do not believe there is a member sitting
in the Legislature who has not experienced
this kind of problem with some municipality
in his area. There are many of us who have
had to go to the OWRC to try to get their
co-operation with the municipality that is
providing a facility. If we look through
almost any newspaper in the province we see
clippings from municipal people who are
communicating their frustrations with the
OWRC. I had one picked out here that I
was going to quote from and the headline
said "The Waterloo South Member Critical
of OWRC", but since he is not in the chair
I will-
Mr. Singer: He is close by.
Mr. Nixon: He needs all the help he can
get.
Mr. R. S. Smith: I was sure the Chairman
would recognize the remarks so I will quote
the last line:
This has not been done and I cannot
defend the OWRC for their lack of com-
munication.
And previous to that it goes on about the
problems they had in Hespeler. I think, then,
that a new method of dealing with municipal
applications through the OWRC must be set
up and an increase in the amount of technical
staff that is available should be provided so
that these projects can go ahead within a reas-
onable time. I would like to also mention-
Mr. Nixon: Here comes the Chairman,
maybe he would like to hear it after all.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Oh, I will send it to him
after.
An hon. member: Read it againi
Mr. R. S. Smith: No, I will just send it
down to him so it will remind him of what
we were discussing. I would like to make
some remarks, Mr. Chairman, in regard to
4304
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the water supply in the province. Over the
past number of years we, in the Opposition,
have been urging this government to move
forward in the formation of a complete and
comprehensive plan for a grid system of
water supply that would be set up, similar
to Ontario Hydro, to provide water at tlie
wholesale level for distribution by muni-
cipalities.
I can remember Mr. Oliver, the former
member for Grey South, who proposed this
plan to the Minister some three or four years
ago, and since that time every year we have
brought this to his attention. The ground
water levels in the province are diminishing
and in many parts of Ontario there is abso-
lutely no hope that it will supply our future
needs as it has done in the past, especially
in the southwestern area of the province.
We now see the government making surveys
across practically all of southwestern Ontario
and I think the Minister indicated this after-
noon that there are now 13 surveys in the
course of study. No proper and necessary
overall survey has been taken of the whole
area, however, to formulate a comprehensive
plan which will service the whole province
in an eflBcient manner. Piecemeal planning
will cost more in the long run and provide
exorbitant cost to the consumer, with greater
discrepancies from one municipality to the
other.
The London pipeline took nine years to
complete from the time the need was fore-
seen until it actually became operational.
The pipeline to service Talbotville, and pre-
sumably St. Thomas, indicates the problems
of needed provisions of service to industry.
The citizens of St. Thomas, because of the
division of cost made by the OWRC were
being asked to subsidize industry and cer-
tainly they responded in a negative way and
the hassle has been going on for over two
years. Unless there has been some decision
within the last few weeks, I believe that the
OWRC and the city of St. Thomas are still
at odds and no method has been found by
which the OWRC can bring the city to
accepting the water from the pipeline.
A new approach must be taken, with
regional government as the basis, or at least
specific regions being established, for the
supply of both water and treatment facilities.
Financing must be done by the province and
the sale of services to municipalities must
be based on an equitable charge across the
region, if not a whole section of the province.
Present facilities of municipalities should not
be completely scrapped but system of credits
should be worked out by which provisions
can be made to a municipality for the service^
it can use as well as the service provided by
the pipeline. The cost of oversizing of pipe-
lines for future use should be absorbed by
the province until that pipeline is used to
that full capacity, and then it should be
recouped when the volume of the use of the
pipeline grows.
The period of payment for the installation
should be extended so that the present users
are not overcharged because of short term
amortization of the debt. Water is a material
resource of our province, belonging to all our
people, and all are entitled to it at an
equitable cost, just as electrical power from
Hydro generators is provided. Some consider-
ation should be given to those areas of the
province who can supply water in abundance,
just as Hydro pays a user charge now in the
form of water rentals.
But the direction for such planning can
only come from one place, and that is the
government through the OWRC. After the
experience which the government has had
with both the London and St. Thomas pipe-
lines, it should finally realize the need for
comprehensive planning on a regional basis,
and should finally Accept its responsibility to
take over as the wholesaler of water in the
province over the next two decades.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first
the hon. member referred to a statement I
made some time ago, and I would advise him
that I have two years to go to 1970. So please
do not condemn me yet, because two years
is a long time with all the progranunes we
have underway right now.
He spoke about designing plants, and that
some of our plants that we or the OWRC had
designed 10, 12 or 14 years ago, were now
outdated or too small to take care of the
population in some of these areas.
I might say that, I think, is one of the
biggest problems that OWRC deal with when
they deal with a municipality on a sewage
plant or water works to take care of a city,
and to build enough oversize that we can at
least take care of them for the next ten years.
This is a pretty difiBcult thing to do to sell to
a municipality something they do not need
today, because it costs money.
And I think perhaps that what holds up
many of our projects is the difference of
opinion between the engineers of OWRC as
to what a certain town or city should ha\'e
20 years from today, and what they feel they
would like to pay for it at tlie present time.
JUNE 11, 1968
4305
Of course, OWRC like to build some over-
sizing in all their projects, and I think we
would all agree that this is a good idea. In
fact, if we would think big enough we would
perhaps build more oversizing.
In our water pipelines today, where there
is oversizing built in, such as the St. Thomas
pipeline, as you mentioned, the government
does carry it until such time as this oversize
is needed in the area.
But we have had a problem— our OWRC
has a problem with St. Thomas. I think we
have water— lots of water— to give St. Thomas
at a price I would think was reasonable. But,
for some reason, negotiations have been stall-
ing, moving around from pillar to post, but
might say-
Mr. Bullbrook: Could you elaborate on the
reasons, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, I will not at this
time, because we are still negotiating. I do
not know myself.
Mr. Singer: I think the mayor of St.
Thomas has some views.
Mr. Nixon: A very reasonable man.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, the mayor of St.
Thomas may be. If he would only come in
and sit down and discuss things on a reason-
able basis. I think we could have settled this
maybe 18 months ago, and it would not even
be a problem.
Mr. Singer: Most reasonable fellow.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I do not know
him. Maybe I got in late on the negotiations,
but I have had a lot of trouble right there
recently— on that one.
But, nevertheless, we have water there
and we can solve their problems. It is there.
We do not have to worry about them going
short of water, although at the present time
there are some developers in the area who
would like to move ahead with some projects,
and there will have to be more water.
Mr. Nixon: That is the blackmail you are
employing to make them agree!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, I would not say it
is blackmail.
Mr. Nixon: No, I suppose it could be
called something else.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You, as tlie leader of
tlie Opposition, or anyone in Opposition,
agree that if we are going to clean up pollu-
tion, we have got to have some rigid lines.
Mr. Nixon: You either do it your way, or
you cannot build any house.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No. No, that is not it
at all. Now, take in my own area, there are
many developers' projects that have been
held up for three years, just because there
are no works in at all. I do not blame
OWRC for this, or the municipal board. Now,
that is not right.
Mr. Bullbrook: There are no what, please?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There is no water—
tliere are no sewage works in at the present
time, and not enough water to take care of
the new developments which they would like
to build just outside the city of Kingston in
some of the smaller townships. I happen to
represent that area, and I do not blame the
municipal board or the OWRC for holding
these projects up until such time as they can
be assured that they will not have pollution
and they will not have water shortage.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Where are they going to
go?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I think we have
a proposition now— or this government has—
whereby we wiU build the works in a munici-
pality with 25,000 or less people.
Mr. Nixon: What will the cost be?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We vvdll look at a
region. This has happened. Kingston town-
ship have put in sewage and water within the
last five years, or maybe six years. Never-
theless, they put it in when they had nothing,
a few years ago. Pittsburgh township, which
is on the other side of Kingston, at the pres-
ent is looking at a project that we hope will
remove that restriction. Then I could go
across tlie province of Ontario.
Mr. R. S. Smith: What took so long?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What took so long? It
was because the municipahties wanted no
part of this— many of them up until just a few
years ago.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Even since two or three
years ago?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Not necessarily, if the
municipality is serious. And I understand
that there is a new routine for keeping munic-
ipalities informed of the status of projects.
This has just been initiated and is working
well. Water sewage apphcations take about
four weeks for OWRC approval. Now, I do
not think this is unreasonable. We have got
4306
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to go to the OMB after that. That is when
the municipahties come in, in good faith. We
want to go ahead, and we are ready to go
now in about four weeks for approval of a
project.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, will the Minis-
ter pennit a question on what he is referring
to at this time?
I think he is well aware of the fact that
what frightens the municipalities oif is the
high cost that they must impose on tlieir tax-
payers. They are in a position where they
cannot accept anything other than the tliird
alternative that the OWRC presents, and
that is that the OWRC builds the facility,
and the users pay for it through their tax
bills over, I believe, a 40-year period.
Now, as I understand it, this normally adds
something hke $200 to a tax bill for sewage,
and sometimes as much as $200 to the tax
bill for water. If the taxes are already, on a
normal dwelling, something like $175 to $200
—you can see that the municipality is very
loath to enter into an agreement. That is
why I say that the Minister, and his col-
leagues, in a sense, blackmail these munici-
palities because they say either add these
costs to your own tax responsibilities or we
will simply cut off all expansion and you will
simply sit there without any approvals for
subdivision or even severance.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
again I do not think you would call that
blackmail.
Mr. Nixon: Well, it is Hobson's choice.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I know, but if
they do not put in these remedial works,
what happens to a municipahty?
Mr. Nixon: Well, is there not some more
equitable way to finance?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, we are financing
it and we give up to 40 years. You tell me
if there is a more equitable way to finance.
I would like to know about it, because the
OWRC would like to know about it.
An Hon. member: Original cost at 40 years.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Pardon.
Mr. Haggerty: They are paying about three
times as much.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, all right, we give
you up to 40 years.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I think that there are
other proposals, Mr. Chairman. One of them
is associated with the cost of amortizing it
over that period of time. I do not think that
we can neglect the possibility in the near
future of paying at least a part of this
financing, and it may very well be the interest
costs.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Do I have the £oor,
Mr, Chairman, to answer the question?
Mr. Chairman: You cannot answer it the
second time.
An Hon. member: They did!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: As I said, before I was
interrupted, it would take four weeks for an
approval providing everybody was willing to
sit down and negotiate.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): How lowg
does it take after that?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: On a project it would
take two and a half years from that time to
design and construct.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Two and a half years?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Two and a half to
three years to design and construct.
Mr. R. S. Smith: This is where the prob-
lem is.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not know whether
you were ever in the construction business or
not, whether you ever designed anything, but
you do not do it yesterday when you decide
today.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Half the time is wasted
between OWRC and the consultants.
An hon. member: And the OMB.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: If you think it is
wasted, I think that you lack experience in
building, I have had some experience, and
you do not take it oflF the shelf in June and
have it in operation in October.
Now, again, I am not sure whether or not
I answered all the questions the hon. member
for Nipissing posed, but I think I covered
most of them. I would say this, that if anyone
from the Opposition knows of a better way
to finance these projects, we would be very
willing to listen to them. We have to clean
up pollution. If we are going to allow these
developers to build, and all these things to
happen, then we might just as well forget
about pollution, because this is what would
happen.
JUNE 11, 1968
4307
Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if tiie Minister would comment on my remarks
in' regards to the charges that were laid
against the Ontario Minnesota Paper Com-
pany which were withheld?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I think I answered one of his colleagues on
that matter in a question before the Orders
today. The answer is in Hansard. I have not
changed my mind.
Mr. R. S. Smith: All you said was that
you did it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I did not. I spelled out
quite clearly why I acted in the manner in
which I did. This is in a Hansard of just a
couple of weeks ago.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Was this done in consul-
tation with the OWRC officials, or did you
do it yourself?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I con-
sult with all the people that work with me
and work for me before I do anything in my
department
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I wonder if the Minister could tell me how
many people are now employed in the
Ontario water resources commission, other
than the operators of the plants?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Seven hundred and
fifty-five.
Mr. Pilkey: Another question then.
How many agreements have been worked
owt with the municipalities in terms of these
sewage and water projects? Could you give
usf a breakdown on the agreements worked
out on the sewage and those that have been
worked out with water projects?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
I covered the number in my introductory
remarks tonight.
Mt. Pilkey: I missed it then.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This afternoon I should
say, not tonight. Now, you wanted a break-
down of the different projects?
Mr. Pilkey: The number of projects. The
number of agreements that have been entered
into.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think, a year ago, I
was able to report that some 125 provincially
financed water and sewage projects had been
initiated.
As of December 31, 1967, this figure had
increased to 184, at an estimated value of
$120 million.
Then I could go on with the total overall
projects of OWRC where we spent, since its
inception, $1^ billion.
Mr. Pilkey: Is the Minister, through the
Ontario water resources commission, insist-
ing that the industrial waste treatment is
equivalent to the treatment given to munic-
ipal waste? Are we getting on top of that
industrial waste? Why I ask the question, it
appears to me that we have obvious prob-
lems with municipal waste and sewage and
we need secondary treatment in that area.
But it appears to me that the real problem
with pollution comes from industrial waste
and the question I would like answered, to
the Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, is:
Is the industrial waste given the same type
of treatment as municipal waste and are we
insisting on that?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes. We demand the
same standards in treatment of industrial
waste. I might say that industrial waste is
more difficult to treat because you are deal-
ing with different types of wastes and there
are, I would think, researches going on
continually to cope with some of the waste,
especially from dairies, some of our pulp and
paper mills and some of our other industries.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, yesterday a specific problem was
handed to me by a municipality in my county
and I wish to take this up with the depart-
ment specifically. For the purposes of clari-
fication on some background, I would hke to
know from the Minister, what industries
specifically were notified that they must put
in industrial pollution control measures?
I wish to relate this to a small community
whose effluent is treated by a pond with the
effluent flowing through the normal sewage
system of that municipality. In that munic-
ipality is located an industry which con-
tributes substantially to the total amount of
effluent in that commvmity. Would such an
industry be required, imder your orders, to
put in their own sewage treatment plant?
The reason I ask this is, if the municipal-
ity should not proceed to enlarge this, they
cannot grow and yet they have no guarantee
4308
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that this industry will remain in the com-
munity. Thus, they might be saddled with a
tremendous expenditure if tliey did proceed
and the industry moved out.
I just wondered if such an industry would
be required to provide facilities of its own?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well that, Mr. Chair-
man, would be a very difficult question to
answer until I knew some more of what the
industry was and tlie area that it was in.
Are you talking about a canning industry?
Mr. Paterson: Specifically, yes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I think you and
I had better get together and discuss canning
industries more, because I have problems
down in my area too.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I thought the
Minister might be able to explain to us, the
lack of action that the water resources com-
mission has undertaken in the Metropolitan
Toronto area in relation to supplying sewage
facilities and water resources in order to
alleviate the housing shortage. I suppose no-
where else in Ontario, is the housing shortage
more aggravated than in the Metropolitan
Toronto area.
Land costs here are the highest anywhere
in North America and the availability of
serviced land is probably at the lowest. The
substantial reason, Mr. Chairman. It is that
the vacant pieces of land in this vicinity just
do not have available to them, either water
service or sewage service.
The first one, of course, that comes to mind
is one that we have talked about in this
Legislature for all the years that I have been
here, and that was talked about before I
came here, and that is the acreage at Malvern.
Now Malvern still stands vacant today,
still growing crops of weeds. There is a large
acreage within Metropolitan Toronto avail-
able for housing. It is government owned in
a partnership between the federal govern-
ment and the provincial government and the
only reason it has stood vacant for these 14
or more years is because the municipality,
the former township, now the borough of
Scarborough, has not had the financial
resources to develop it.
One would have thought, Mr. Chairman,
that this government, if it was anxious to
encourage housing and anxious to make avail-
able facilities for people to live at reasonable
cost, that, through its arm the Ontario water
resources commission, it would have made
available services to the Malvern community
so that there could be housing built in this
area.
There are otlier areas as well, in Chingua-
cousy township, which is just beyond the
borders of Metropolitan Toronto. The Min-
ister does not know where it is, but there are
some of his colleagues—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: But I do know where
it is.
Mr. Singer: You do know, well that is
good. All right, then let me tell you about—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You do not know
everything, you know.
Mr. Singer: Well, that is fine. I will tell
you where it is. I will show you on the map
or I can take you there. The 10,000 acres,
Mr. Chairman, that were assembled there by
the successor to Don Mills Development
Company Limited were assembled after they
completed their very successful development
in tlie Don Mills area and moved on. They
were experienced developers.
They were good developers and they moved
on to develop in similar style, a similar kind
of development which added so much to the
Metropolitan Toronto area. But they gave up
in disgust and the company that controlled
that 10,000 acres has sold its interest and
moved on somewhere else and a new com-
pany has it. That land, that 10,000 acres, is
assembled for housing, it stands idle, and,
apparently, it is going to stand idle for the
foreseeable future— again because of the in-
ability of anyone to supply water and sewage
services to it.
North of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Chair-
man, in the townships of Markham and
Vaughan, there is prime land immediately
north of Steeles Avenue, prime land just
screaming for development, but the munic-
ipalities of Vaughan and Markham just are
unable to do any developing or to bring serv-
ices to it because of the financial problem.
How high can municipal taxes go?
One would have thought, Mr. Chairman,
that a government that prides itself on being
in the forefront of everything that is good in
the world, would have extended itself to this
point— and I am sure my friend, the Min-
ister of Social and Welfare Services, would
agree with me about developing Metropolitan
Toronto. He and I are two of the very few
voices in this legislative chamber who talk
JUNE 11, 1968
4309
about the glories of Metropolitan Toronto in
wanting to be a big and better place.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): And we try to persuade
the member's colleagues.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right, we try to per-
suade. I am hoping that I can bring with
me the persuasive power of my friend the
Minister of Social and Welfare Services to
have some influence on his colleague in this
department so that we can get services to
these empty acreages and so that Markham
and Vaughan can be developed, at least in
their southern portions; so that Chinguacousy
can be developed where the land assembly
scheme has gone on; and so that Malvern
would not have had to wait for 14 years.
I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, from
the Minister, as to what plans, if any, the
Ontario water resources commission has to
make services available to these substantial
acreages of vacant land to help alleviate the
horrendous housing shortage that exists in the
Metropolitan Toronto area.
An hon. member: In Ontario!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, first I
might say that in the Malvern area, Ontario
housing corporation, I understand, were going
to develop that area, and at the present time
are working out an agreement with Metro
Toronto to put in the services. I do not know
where the member has been recently because
in Chinguacousy township in Peel county,
that area out there, a regional agreement was
signed some months ago. It is at OMB now
for their approval and it will solve all the
problems out there. Now, you see, we are
moving all the time to help.
Mr. Singer: When can you start building?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: When can you start
building? They are building now. You know,
if the member would call me once in a while,
I would keep him up to date as to what we
do.
Mr. Singer: I wish you would tell the
people of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We do not like to
brag on this side of the House, it comes out
sooner or later. We tell them every four
years and that is why we are here and you
are over there.
Mr. Singer: You are there by the greatest
mistake the people have ever made.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am here anyway and
you will never be here. As far as Vaughan
and Markham are concerned, if the hon.
member would just be quiet for maybe
another couple of months perhaps OWRC
would make the announcement, or if not I
will get in touch with him, so he will not
need to worry about that.
Mr. Singer: Why should these things be
kept secret?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Nothing is secret, we
do not like to brag on this side of the House.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a
pity that with the present shortage of hous-
ing we cannot get some concrete statement
from the Minister as to why the services are
not going to be made available so that land
can be developed to alleviate this housing
shortage. It is a disgrace! "^
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to make several comments in connection
with my impressions of the operation of the
Ontario water resources commission.
First I might say that my initial liaison
with the commission took place as a result
of my practice as a solicitor in October, 1964,
at which time a client of mine was dealing
with the municipality of the village of Point
Edward. They had entered into an agree-
ment with the Ontario water resources com-
mission providing, as I recall, the legislation
that the commission became the statutory
agent of the municipality in connection with
the provision of certain services within the
boundaries of the municipality.
Certain officials sitting here tonight with
the Minister, Mr. Chairman, have heard this
story before, but I shorten this by saying
that the bylaw was enacted permitting the
extension of certain services to my chent's
land in October, 1964, if I correctly recall
the year, and the services were installed in
May, 1966, approximately 18 months after-
wards. The point I make is this, that I do
say and I say it as respectfully as I can, that
there is undue delay at times, notwithstand-
ing the rationalization put forward by the
hon. Minister.
One recognizes that in the approach to
significant development in areas such as the
Sarnia area there has to be engineering feas-
ibility studies and matters of significance and
of great consequence and deliberations and
negotiations. And, Mr. Chairman, in August,
1966, the Ontario water resources commission
in its wisdom put forward to the city of
4310
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Sarnia and adjacent municipalities a plan for
the provision of water in that area and it
did not meet with the approval of the city
of Samia. The city of Sarnia took the posi-
tion that it could provide to itself— not only
to itself but certain of its neighbours— water
more cheaply and more efficiently than could
the Ontario water resources commission.
And when I was elected to this office, Mr.
Chairman, I felt this that I had a responsi-
bility not only in connection with the area
of Sarnia but I felt honestly, sir, that I had
super-imposed upon that an obhgation to the
people of the province of Ontario. And if it
was the responsibility of the Ontario water
resources commission, as I had read in the
maiden speech put forward some five years
ago in this House by my predecessor in this
office, to provide potable water to the people
of Ontario as inexpensively and expeditiously
as possible, then I felt that my obligation
was to go to the people of the Sarnia area
and say you must give up your parochial
attitude. You are fortunate geographically;
you happen to be on a large body of water
and you can provide of necessity water more
cheaply, perhaps, than can the Ontario water
resources commission to other municipalities
contemplated within the scheme of the
Ontario water resources commission.
This is the attitude I took, and notwith-
standing many meetings that we had, the
city of Samia felt itself that they could go
ahead and make provision to the majority of
the area contemplated by the Ontario water
resources commission and maintain thai
degree of the autonomy that they wished.
And this is most important, Mr. Chairman,
this question of autonomy, because it per-
vades the entire thesis of government, and
that is we keep taking away from the muni-
cipalities the right to make decisions at their
level within their own constituency and
boundary.
This is what they are so afraid of. My
client back in October, 1964, was purely a
small matter. The reason I brought up the
question is that the Ontario water resources
commission became the statutory agent of
the village of Point Edward and no longer
could my client or his solicitor or engineers
involved deal with the village of Point
Edward, but they must have dealt with the
Ontario water resources commission.
I recognize this commission, although it
is not in its infancy, is to some degree a
relatively new emanation of the Crown
and is building purposefully and relatively
efficiently, as I see it. But the problem that
I do see is this, that we do fail to recognize
at times the natural desire for people at the
municipal level to retain this degree of
autonomy.
Without dwelling too much on tliis par-
ticular problem, I feel there has been extreme
delay. It has been a two-way street, in
fairness to the OWRC.
The city of Sarnia undertook certain studies.
The latest information I have is that, as of
April, 1968, the city presented an additional
study by their engineers as requested, pur-
suant to a meeting that we had. But I sug-
gest to you that this is the important kernel
of what I am saying. You have a section of
the Act that gives your commission power to
designate an area. When they designate an
area tliey have the power to take over rather
the necessary capital assets of the munici-
pahty to provide and integrate with their
scheme. I say to you that this decision is a
most difficult one to make, but the only thing
of consequential issue that I take with the
commission is this: They are much too reti-
cent in making a decision. In my opinion,
from the deahngs that I have had, the OWRC
in connection with the city of Samia should
say one of two things.
They should either say, "Yes, city of Samia,
we will go along with the final proposal that
you made in April, 1968"; or they should say,
"No, we feel that it is in the best interest
of not only the city of Samia, but recognizing
our overall obligation, we feel that it is in
the best interest of the municipafities that the
OWRC scheme be implemented and carried
forward. So if we have to, we are going to
designate the area."
But I suggest this to you— let us get on
with it and designate the area if you have to.
I do not want to see you use those powers.
Our city and our very area is grinding to a
complete halt because they have no direction,
and this is one of the key things. You have
the township of Sarnia where you will not
get the approval of one plan. The com-
munity planning branch of The Department
of Municipal Affairs will not approve a plan
there now unless services are provided and
these cannot be provided until some decision
is made in this connection. So I exhort you,
Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, that
some decision be made in tliis connection.
I would like to speak for a moment on
another thing that has caused me concern.
It has come to my attention recently, and it
was touched upon by my colleague from
Nipissing and this is the question, in south-
western Ontario, of ground water levels.
JUNE 11, 1968
4311
It seems to me, and I happen to be deal-
ing with an individual problem, Mr. Chair-
man, at tlie present time, that investigation
of this problem within my layman knowledge
of the situation, shows that there are -prob-
lems in connection with the adequacy of
ground water levels in our area, and I am
somewhat afraid, Mr. Chairman, that an atti-
tude of concern is not being taken on the part
of some of the OWRC oflBcials of the area in
this connection.
I do not direct a question to the Minister,
Mr, Chairman, but I suggest that we record
right here and now that I am concerned in
tiiis connection, and perhaps some degree of
inspection on your part with respect to this
problem.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to answer the last question first. I might
say that ground water has been of great con-
cern to this government and all the depart-
ments, including the OWRC, that deal with
water. I think that if you will look back to
three or four years ago, when our ground
water and water levels were at their lowest,
tiiat is when we introduced the new pro-
grammes and increased grants to conservation
authorities for reservoirs and water holdings.
We increased grants to farm ponds and
started to build a pipeline into London. Since
that time there has been a pipeline in St,
Thomas in the Ford plant area, so you can
see that this government has been concerned
over a number of years. I think that we are
moving towards the solution in some parts
of western Ontario although there are other
parts that have to be dealt with as yet.
I was very happy to hear you say, sir, that
perhaps, with the powers that OWRC have
in their Act, we should hurry these things
along. I do not deal with the day-to-day
operation of OWRC, and they are very kind
gentlemen; they like to deviate and not use
the powers that they have in that Act, or at
least this is how I found them. In fact, in
one other area last fall, I think that I was
getting in about the same mood that you are
in now, to say that if you cannot reach agree-
ment, well let us use the powers and get this
thing finished, but something seemed to
happen right at that particular time. I would
be very interested to read your speech again
in Hansard, and I am sure that the repre-
sentatives both of the commission and OWRC
will hke copies of that as well.
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might make just one
comment, Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not
intend to convey, and nothing could be fur-
ther from my intention, that I look to the
commission to exercise these powers. I agree
with them that this is the last thing that
should be done and tlie last thing that we
want. But we just cannot go on ad infinitum,
there has to be a decision some time,
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I know that
the commission is in the process of contract
with Willoughby township, or at least they
are working out some problem with them
regarding water and sewers. Douglas Town,
which would be at the very southern portion
or southeast Willoughby township, has a
registered plan, and I am guessing, of about
600 lots, and not too long ago they would
not allow them to build any more.
This is the health unit of Welland county,
because of the type of land that is there. It
is a heavy clay. So they cannot build any
more septic tanks. The water that they get
is from Black Creek that I spoke of, and it
looks a great deal like coffee most of the year,
and they do drink that water most of the y^ar.
I am wondering if your experts are looking
at the possibihty of extending the water line
from the city of Niagara Falls, which pres-
ently feeds the village of Chippawa to its new
boundary which is butted up against Wil-
loughby township, and also from Niagara
Falls to Queenston Heights and from that
point, by gravity feed, to a pipehne to
Niagara-on-the-Lake.
They are providing water about 18 miles
from the city of Niagara Falls, and the pump
house or water works plant is in the city of
Chippawa, with exceptionally good intake.
They have no problems with too much algae,
and they have a good deep body of water
through which to get their supply. I am
wondering if your people have looked at the
possibility of extending the water line from
the village of Chippawa to Black Creek to
Douglas Town, which is about eight miles?
When I was the reeve of the village of
Chippawa, we brought a 12-inch pipe across
the Welland River to the new boundary of
the village, and going to the south, which we
thought was large enough at that time to
supply water to Willoughby township. We
were hoping that we, through the pipeline of
the village from Niagara Falls to Douglas
Town— in other words what I am saying is
that I do not see any reason for the water
resources commission to build a second water
plant. I think that the city of Niagara Falls
could supply the water through its plant
4312
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
because I think that the pipehnes are large
enough as they are to continue along the
river to Douglas Town.
I think that if they were to take a good
look at it, oflBcially the Mayo report indicated
that the day will come when Willoughby
township, the village of Chippawa, and
Niagara Falls will be one. I can see, and you
do not need too much imagination to see that
this will happen, and I would not think that
two water works plants in one city would be
necessary. Now, as I said, we have annexed
a large portion of Willoughby when I was
tlie reeve in 1955, and in 1957, we had on
registered plans to put in a larger water pipe
than was necessary for the village as we felt
that the day would come when we would
supply water up to river to Willoughby to
its southern boimdaries. I think that the pipes
are big enough now.
It was planning for the future and I see
no reason, and I would like the Minister's
experts to look at the possibility of extending
the water line from Chippawa and the Niagara
Falls system. I am glad you are all listening
to me, especially here. I was hoping that you
would let Niagara Falls provide the water
through the Chippawa line without building
a second plant. The sewage disposal plant
at Black Creek is necessary, but not another
water plant, I think.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, if I
might read a report that I have here on
Willoughby township. Consultants have been
retained to prepare and design reports for
the commission on the entire sewage require-
ments of the Douglas Town area of the town-
ship, and to prepare and design a report on
the Ontario water works requirements of the
Douglas Town and Schneider parts of the
township.
Proposals for the supply of water were
presented to the area municipality on a basis
of the preliminary report which has been
prepared by the consultants for the commis-
sion and some delay occurred as a result of
the time consumed by the municipality of
Fort Erie in dealing with the proposal.
Mr. Bukator: Of Fort Erie.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, the whole area.
Receipt of the above mentioned design report
is anticipated during September 1968, and
subsequent to satisfactory views of the report,
a proposal will be prepared for consideration
of the township. Now I understand from
officials of the OWRC that when this report
is received, they will look at the proposition
that you have just suggested, perhaps to see
if we could work it in before the whole-
Mr. Bukator: I meant to add a httle more
to what you already know. We thought that
a six-inch water pipe at Chippawa would be
large enough for the subdivision but we
developed a water area and put in a bigger
pipe taking it up to that boundary, believing
the day would come that we would supply
the water to Willoughby. And the pipes are
there— two 12-inch pipes across the new
bridge by the way. All that it would require
possibly would be a bigger pump in the
Niagara Falls pumphouse to connect onto our
pipe and extend on up into Willoughby.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, I understand
that in 1967, there were eight firms charged
with polluting the water and convicted. I
wonder if the Minister could give us the
names of those firms, the kind of business
they are in and inform us if the situations
they were convicted for have been cleaned
up?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, follow-
ing are the prosecutions and other litigations
in the year 1967 and to date, which have
been completed or have been commended
and not completed.
Canadian Canneries Limited, St. Catharines,
went to trial on January 24, 1967; pleaded
not guilty but they were convicted and fined
$100.
Canadian Canneries Limited, St. David's,
January 25, 1967; pleaded not guilty, con-
victed, $100 and part costs.
Culverhouse Canning, Culverhouse; pleaded
not guilty, convicted, $500 fine.
H. Corby Distillers, county of Hastings,
three counts; pleaded guilty on one count,
two counts withdrawn, fine $250 and $18
costs.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The
farmer on Manitoulin got $500.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Essex County Canners,
George Clayton Dresser, joint charge; Essex,
pleaded guilty, convicted, $100 and costs
jointly.
UEL Butter and Cheese Company of
Adolphustown Limited, R. R. Napanee;
pleaded guilty, convicted, $200 and costs.
Rothsay Concentrates, county of Welling-
ton; pleaded guilty, convicted, $50 and costs.
JUNE 11, 1968
4313
Industrial Tankers, Oakville; pleaded not
guilty, convicted and fined $300, but the case
is appealed.
Essex County Canners, Essex county, three
counts; pleaded guilty, convicted, $1,000 and
costs.
The Canadian National Railways-
Mr. Nixon: Get the little man.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Canadian National
Railways — that is the little man; pleaded
guilty, convicted, $1,000 and costs.
Canadian National Railways, July 4;
pleaded guilty, convicted, $500 and $91 costs.
S. J. Moore, known as Ontario Well Dig-
ging Company, Newmarket; pleaded not
guilty, convicted, fined $50 and $9 costs.
East Side Plating and East Side Stamping,
Windsor Bmnper Company, Windsor; pleaded
guilty, convicted, $250 and costs.
R. Dick, Bolton; pleaded guilty, convicted,
$10 and $5 costs.
Ontario Minnesota Paper; information laid
and the charge was withdrawn.
Tank Truck Transportation, Vaughan
township; pleaded not guilty, convicted, $100
and costs.
F. Margena; pleaded not guilty, convicted,
$20 and costs.
Parr Brothers, Oldcastle; pleaded not
guilty, convicted, $25 and costs.
There are four cases to be heard yet.
Mr. Fem'er: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
but I wonder if you could give us any assur-
ance that the charge that they were convicted
under has been cleared up or will this likely
persevere. Have you any idea— any comments
to make about that?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I would imagine they are cleaned up or if
not, there will be charges laid again. I think
you will notice there was one company there
charged twice and convicted both times. I
think they are cleaned up by now.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask through you, to the Minister
that we have in southwestern Ontario, and
I know other parts of the province of
Ontario, municipalities such as villages which
have made application for sewage systems.
Ontario water resources commission made a
survey and report. The costs are outrageous.
The average householder in that village is
unable to afford the costs, which I understand
would be at the rate of nearly $200 a year.
Now this village cannot afford building
this sewage system. What course is going to
be followed by the Ontario water resources
commission in cases where municipahties find
themselves in these conditions? I know this
village. We do know, Mr. Chairman, you are
not responsible. You cannot be blamed for
the high cost of this sewage and water.
I know there are other towns that have to
have water and sewage but to have taxes of
$200 a home for 30 years if Ontario water
resources commission builds the system, is
out of reach. What course is going to be
followed in cases where a village or a town
is in this condition?
Mr. Chairman, could the Minister tell us
how the cost has increased each year?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that costs have increased, there is no
doubt about that. Construction costs, labour,
interest, everything builds up now. Now to
answer your question what can these people
do— that is a very difficult question to answer.
In many areas, I do not know what they
are using now, maybe a septic tank and their
own water pump, or pumping from a well.
Maybe some of them are and some of them
are not. But I think if the average house-
holder would figure where he has his own
installation, septic tank or pumping his own
water, that $200 a year will not scare him.
He has had to buy his own equipment. He
has had to maintain it and he is a little bit
concerned all the time, a septic tank can
block up or a pump can stop and it is a
little diflBcult when this happens.
I do not know whether you hve under
these conditions or not but I do and to me,
and the home I live in, if I could get sewage
and water for $300 a year I would think it
was a bargain in comparison to operating my
own unit.
Now in some places the charge would run,
depending on the size of the town, from $200
to $400 in those areas where it is very difiB-
cult to get the sewers and water in. It could
be more expensive.
But to me, if you own a home, and I have
talked to many home owners, they tell me
if only they can get sewage and water— per-
haps they have spent $15,000 to $20,000 in
the home and it is no good to them until
they do get these services because you can-
not live on a polluted yard and you cannot
live without water. So most of the people I
have talked to, and many of them in the area
I represent, if they can get sewage and water
4314
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
anywhere in the vicinity up to $350 or $400,
they are quite satisfied to pay that in order
to get that service.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I might say
to the Minister that there are many of our
citizens in these towns and villages on set
incomes and I would expect, in some of these
villages, maybe a quarter are on pensions.
Their income is limited and the village, they
just say, and the experts say, cannot afford
the sewage system at $200 on the average
outlet.
Sit down?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Town.
Mr. Spence: Oh town; no, not town, I said
village.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland
South has the floor.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, what steps
if any have been taken by the Ontario water
resources to control pollution of the Great
Lakes by the large vessels and foreign ships
that use the St. Lawrence waterways and the
Great Lakes system. Are there any inspec-
tions being made on these vessels at the
present time for garbage control and sanitary
effluent control such as holding tanks?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we are
starting to repeat ourselves again. I think I
have answered this question twice in the last
ten days, but the Great Lakes is under the
IGC and federal jurisdiction. It does not
come under the OWRC or the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to read this letter on the record. It says:
Dear Mr. Haggerty: I, and a few other
citizens of Port Colbome, are very much
concerned about our pollution in the
Welland ship canal and in Lake Erie. On
two occasions last summer I and others
noticed a ship called the Portodac dump
sewage and waste from its sides. On
another occasion, I witnessed this same
ship dump a large amount of oil into the
weir. At the time we were fishing and it
was completely ruined because of this. We
reported it to the St. Lawrence seaway and
were told that we would have to have a
large amount of evidence and witnesses to
see this.
I, as a citizen, would like to see some-
thing done as soon as possible. Another
area also which is very much polluted is
Port Maitland. It is a great fishing area for
Canadians and Americans alike. Why
should we ruin our tourism because of this
pollution? It must be done now, before it
becomes too late. Let us clean up this
area — Lake Erie, the Welland Canal, the
Welland River and the Grand River. We
could pay whatever it will cost through our
taxes. Let us put our money to better use,
please.
Gary Michael
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that where an individual has actually seen
a ship polluting, of course, if they would like
to get in touch with the OWRC, or the.
department, collect, we will immediately go
out and inspect. If this is the case, we can
lay charges whether it be in the Great Lakes
or the Welland Canal, both of which are
under the federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I think per-
haps he would get the same run-around as he
received from the St. Lawrence seaway. It
would be the same thing — you must have
more evidence and more witnesses. We know
this is going on day after day.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We have no authority
to patrol though.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I was very
interested when the Minister outlined, in
reply to the hon. member for Cochrane South,
a list of those firms that had been prosecuted
and convicted and the results of those various
prosecutions. I wonder if the Minister could
tell us how many times applications have
been made by the Ontario water resources
commission to the Supreme Court of Ontario
for injunctions to restrain pollution from con-
tinuing? I am sure the Minister will remem-
ber when a private citizen did this, against
the KVP Company, and successfully obtained
an injunction from the Supreme Court of
Ontario that it seemed wise to the govern-
ment of the day to bring in a statute reversing
the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
But it would seem to me, sir, that if you
have continuing offences, the $50 fines, the
$100 fines, and even the $1,000 fines are little
more than licence fees. If you wanted to stop
the pollution effectively, from the sources that
you have mentioned, it will be a matter of
no great legal difficulty to bring before the
Supreme Court of Ontario a lawsuit in which
the water resources commission, or the proper
enforcement authority, asks for an injunction
JUNE 11, 1968
4315
restraining the continuance of that offence.
That is the way you will stop them if you
are really serious about it.
Can the Minister tell us how many law-
suits have been initiated wherein the water
resources commission or any other arm of
government has asked the Supreme Court of
Ontario for injunctions to restrain pollution?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand one. Now
the hon. member speaks about $50 and $100
fines. I think, being of a legal mind, he would
understand that OWRC have nothing at all
to do about assessing the penalty. The courts
do that, and if that is the way they see it, I
do not think there is anything we can do.
Mr. Singer: No, I quite agree. I am in
accord with the Minister. The Minister does
not fix the fines, nor does the OWRC, but I
am saying the Minister has at his command
a weapon which apparently has only been
used, or is about to be used, for the first
time. The effective way to stop this pollu-
tion is to bring an action before the Supreme
Court of Ontario. I would suspect, if you
have enough evidence to get a conviction in
magistrate's court, that you will probably
have enough evidence to get the grant of an
injunction in the Supreme Court. Then the
pollution must stop, or else the offender is in
contempt of court, and can then be appro-
priately punished. That is the way you will
stop them. You will not stop them with these
minor fines, whether you assess the amount
of the fine, or whether the magistrate does.
You will stop them if you get injunctions, and
I am disappointed that the injunction pro-
cedure apparently has only been used once.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 606; the member
for Essex South.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, mention was
made by the hon. Minister on two occasions
that Essex County Canners were fined in
varying amounts. I vividly recall the involve-
ment I had concerning this company on
behalf of the residents of that area and town-
ship in dealing with OWRC. At one point
I beheve I requested either verbally or in
writing that possibly the OWRC should con-
sider padlocking these premises and prohibit-
ing this particular company from continuing
in operation. I just wish I had been a little
more forceful in this particular instance,
when the occurrences occurred late last fall.
I just wonder specifically, in regards to
this one operator who is possibly operating
under that name or a new corporation name.
Will that firm be allowed to again operate
this year, possibly putting the growers of
tomato products in that area in jeopardy
again? Or have these pollution problems
been taken care of specifically at that plant?
I would appreciate some comment in this
regard.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
understand that Essex Canners have been
sold to another company. Is that right?
Mr. Paterson: Well, specifically, after all
the problems down there, and after suc-
cessfully doing some financial juggling and
getting the banks cleared, they had a proposal
in bankruptcy that cost the growers in my
area and other suppliers $200,000. If we had
just prevented this company from going into
operation in the fall, when we initiated the
action back in May, possibly we would have
saved the people this money. I realize that
this is not the fault of the OWRC, but I do
not want to see this happen again this year.
I do not want to see this plant continue in
operation, continue polluting one of the
major streams in the county, putting these
people in jeopardy again.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman. I take
it from the hon. member that he would like
to see OWRC investigate prior to this plant
operating this year, and that if they are going
to operate and have not taken care of the
pollution problem, that they be closed regard-
less of what happens to growers in the area.
Do I take that as right now? For my own
information. I imagine, if they are going to
operate, they no doubt have somebody grow-
ing their crops for them at the present time.
Mr. Paterson: Possibly so. But arrange-
ments can be made to dispose of this crop
elsewhere, if this plant has no intention of
living up to the request of the OWRC to
correct this pollution problem. In fact, this
fine of $1,000 is simply a licence to steal.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I doubt if we could give him an answer on
that tonight. I think we will have to look into
it, to see if they are thinking of operating
again this year, and perhaps I could discuss
it with the hon. member at that time.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. Ferrier: On the January 24, 1968,
information service bulletins, there was men-
tion made that the commission ask for closer
controls by oil pipeline firms, and mention
that a letter was sent out to the province's
4316
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
four oil pipeline companies to develop pro-
cedures which would prevent the loss of free
oil from storage depots, pumping stations,
and other facilities. I wonder, in this con-
nection, Mr. Chairman, if this is just a
friendly reminder that the OWRC sent out
to these four pipeline firms, or is this quite
a danger as far as pollution is concerned?
Is there quite a few problems concerned here
and is there going to be a pollution develop-
ment, or is this a reminder saying not to get
too careless?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I do
not know of the particular case that you are
talking to, but I imagine that it is the oil
pipeline where they are transmitting or re-
loading, or something of this nature, and
people can get careless. Is this the problem?
I understand that they had a break in the
line in one of these cases, and it spilled into
a water course. I can recall the south side
of Kingston last year, where the OWRC
made them clean, I do not know how much
oil off the ice, but evidently they had a spill
there. This is something that goes on con-
tinually and the OWRC are continually doing
surveillance work especially around where
these things might happen.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I believe that
when the estimates of any department come
before this House, this seems to be an open
season on the officials rather than the Min-
ister—and sometimes the Minister and the
ofiBcials. But I have before me a report. There
was a meeting in Niagara Falls, New York,
on January 16, 1968. I wanted to say that
Dr. Vance, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Haverly
among others, were there. I thought that
Mr. Haverly handled himself exceptionally
well at that time. His brief, of which I have
two copies, was very detailed and I think
a very factual and honest report. We did
tell our story as it is in Canada.
We told it to the international joint com-
mission. Now, our American friends also
submitted briefs and reports, and that is why
these particular facts were recorded about
one week ago in Hansard. I am not going
to go over them again, but I would like to
draw to your attention that the biggest
offenders are not the Canadian people, but
because of the many industries along the
border, they seem to have not done too much
to clean up the pollution. And yet, we were
told by most of the oflScials there that within
a few years most of it would be cleaned up.
The point that I would like to make and I
would like someone who knows exactly what
can be done to answer: How do we go about
it? The international joint commission has
also done a good job. I stood before them
in 1948 when they were getting these facts.
Now, they are all tabulated and the o£Fenders
are recorded and we know exactly how much
they are polluting the water. These are all
facts in reports that the international joint
commission and the OWRC also received.
They are all on the record.
Now, what I would like to find out from
the Minister is how do we go about, in a
peaceful way— we are not looking for an
argument with anyone— towards getting our
American friends to live up to their commit-
ments and clean up the situation that we
know exists now? Is there anything? Have
you done anything? Are you acquainted with
the problems? Are you working the problems
out? I would be happy to know what they
are. Have you any comments on that issue?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
first like to thank the hon. member for
Niagara Falls for his kind remarks of the
officials of OWRC. I might say that it is
very seldom that any civil servant or official
working for the government gets a kind word
once in a while and they do appreciate it. I
might say that the only way that we in
Ontario could deal with this, the United
States, is through the IJC. It is the body
with federal representatives from both the
United States and Canada that must be the
go-between the provinces and the States or
Canada and the United States.
Mr. Bukator: Well, just to clean up the
situation, we have representation on the com-
mission from the Canadian side appointed by
the federal government, and you also have
representation on the American side by the
federal government.
You also have the American corps of
engineers who are usually the ones that do
the work on the American side. In the OWRC
are the people who do the job here. Now,
apparently the IJC keep their thumb on the
pulse of this problem, but I am wondering
if they have the authority to order them to
complete the job? Is that in their terms of
reference?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
understand the IJC can order or bring pres-
sure to bear, and I think that the hon. mem-
ber recalls three years ago when we had
great headlines that they were going to spend
JUNE 11, 1968
4317
$1 billion in the United States to clean up
pollution. I think that it was quite prevalent.
If you will look back through Hansard, I think
that your colleagues at that time were telling
us about all the money that the United States
was going to spend to clean up, and that we
had better get hurrying over here because
we were not going to get caught up.
But evidently this did not happen. I under-
stand that pressures can be brought to bear
by IJC and perhaps by our federal govern-
ment, deahng with their federal government,
and I think that everybody is concerned about
this matter, whether it be on the American
side or on the Canadian side.
Mr. Bukator: I am trying here to find fault
with the provincial government, and I have
a perfect right to do that at this point. New
York state provides 85 per cent of the cost
of the sewage disposal plant from the federal
and state government. It costs any city
along the border just 15 per cent to build a
disposal plant. We have to bear the brunt of
it here, as you know, at the municipal level,
so that they not only have the money, they
have a larger grant; they do a bigger job of
polluting, and they ought to be persuaded by
someone to clean that up immediately.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber for Niagara Falls makes an excellent point
when he says what the other jurisdiction that
share some of the responsibility for the Great
Lakes pollution in Lake Ontario, is doing. I
was quite interested in his remarks about the
85 per cent assistance.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand that they
all sit around and wait, it does not come very
fast.
Mr. Nixon: They are not doing the job.
The Minister was somewhat critical of my
use of the term "blackmail" in the pressures
that he, through the OWRC exerts on munic-
ipalities that are not moving fast enough
towards providing proper sewage and water
facilities. The Minister certainly is aware of
the fact that if in the judgment of the OWRC,
these facilities are inadequate, then the Min-
ister's colleague in The Department of
Municipal Affairs instructs the community
planning branch that they will no longer
approve any plans for subdivisions in that
area.
I would like to ask the Minister two ques-
tions in that regard. What is the mechanics
through which the decision is made, trans-
ferred and accepted by The Department of
Municipal Affairs that, in effect, applies this
pressure; and secondly, while this is probably
a changing figure, can the Minister tell me
approximately how many municipalities are
on the list which originates with OWRC, and
which are not permitted to receive approval
for subdivision plans?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
think that when a plan is submitted to the
Ontario municipal board, I know that at that
time, before they would approve it, they
would have lo have approval from OWRC,
The Department of Health, The Department
of Education, The Department of Highways
and, of course, any one of these can turn
down an application.
Mr. Nixon: Could the Minister find out
from his advisors how many municipalities
are on the hst that OWRC will not approve
because of tlie inadequate water and sewage
facilities?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry we cannot give you that tonight, but we
can get it for you. It fluctuates as these
projects come in, and we have not got it with
us. I think that perhaps this was made up
some months ago and it has fluctuated a
great deal.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I would like that infor-
mation if the Minister would be able to
provide it, or I could ask it on the order
paper, because the point was raised by my
hon. friend from Kent that quite often the
bill amounts to something approaching $300
to $400 a year for both sewage and water
facilities. And while the Minister may know
a great number of people who are prepared
to pay that on top of $180 taxes for the whole
property and other services, and this is the
level of taxation in many of these municipal-
ities, I am sure he is sympathetic with the
feelings of the elected municipal officials who
are not prepared to double or triple taxes
for 40 years in order to provide a facility
that, perhaps, in their view, should be sup-
ported to a greater extent by the central
government.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is my view, too.
You said central government. I agree with
that and was thinking about federal govern-
ment.
Mr. Nixon: Well, you have been passing
the buck all night.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Brantford.
4318
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Mr. Chair-
man, the OWRC did a biological survey of
the Grand River and its tributaries, and in it,
it listed some of the firms that are polluting
or contributing to the pollution of the Grand,
and it mentioned that Uniroyal — 1966 —
in Elmira, Biltmore Hats, Park Chemicals,
Matthews- Wells Limited, Standard Brands
Limited, and Guelph are some of the firms
contributing or dumping industrial sewage
into the Grand. Could the Minister indicate
just what measures are being taken, or are
going to be taken to eliminate some of this
pollution?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say through you to the member that we deal
with all industries on the same basis we
would the municipality. Not any particular
one, but all of them.
I think, regarding most of our industries,
I would say all of them perhaps— and munic-
ipalities are also known— that we know the
problems that they have across Ontario at
the present time.
Mr. Makarchuk: Could the Minister indi-
cate, when, in one year, two years time, this
could be ehminated?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think it was two
years ago that I made a statement when the
estimates were up. The OWRC hope that
they would either have projects completed or
everything in a stage of completion by 1970.
Now I do not know whether they are going
to make that or not but we are heading
towards it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 606; the member for
Nipissing.
Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question in
regard to tlie Ottawa River pollution.
Last fall, prior to the middle of October,
the Prime Minister made an announcement
that in conjunction with the province of
Quebec there would be a survey done of the
whole Ottawa River. Could you tell me what
the cost is going to be of that survey, and
what proportion is being paid by the federal
government?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This is the study, I
think that perhaps we have made— we have
done a lot of our work, or the OWRC have,
on the Ontario side, and the Quebec govern-
ment completed some of their studies, or
started, at least. We pay for our portion and
I understand that Quebec government will
pay for their portion and I understand that
the annual cost to Ontario will be approxi-
mately $157,000 and to Quebec, $80,000.
Mr. R. S. Smith: For how long?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Three years.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Did the federal govern-
ment not make an offer to the provinces to
pay for a study to be made in the Ottawa
River, as a pilot project for—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, I think— and this
is a little vague— after the two provinces had
agreed to make these studies, I understand
that was a verbal offer made by the federal
government of up to— what was it, $1 million?
— $2 million to complete this study, it was
felt by the two provinces they continue with
their own study, because much of this work
is being done.
Mr. R. S. Smith: This offer was made
through the Canadian conference of resources
Ministers meeting last spring, and the—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It was never made in
writing.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Who is the representa-
tive now to the Canadian conference of
resources Ministers? The governmental Min-
ister who is on that conference?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The hon. Minister
behind you.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Previous to that it was
the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Why can
it never be the resource Minister?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I would think
that the Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.
Brunnelle) is the resource Minister; and Mr.
Spooner, I might say, was the Minister of
Lands and Forests when he was appointed to
that commission.
Mr. R. S. Smith: Primarily though, that
conference is dealing now with the pollution
problems across the country.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: With all problems.
Mr. R. S. Smith: But this has not been
their primary responsibility in the last year
or two. Would it not be better to have the
Minister responsible for that one? No, you
do not think it would be? Perhaps, if you
had been the representative you would have
realized the federal government had made
this offer— and I cannot understand why the
province does not take it— for the Ottawa
River.
JUNE 11, 1968
4319
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I might say, Mr. Chair-
man, as far as I know there has been no
offer on record made to the OWRC or to the
Ontario government.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 606; the member for
Windsor West.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr,
Chairman, while the storm is still with us and
the House has yet to adjourn, I want to raise
a problem affecting residents of South
Windsor, in the riding which I represent.
Recently they complained to the city
administration of lack of adequate mainte-
nance of the open ditch known as the Grand
Marais drain— or "Grand Mare's" drain, in
the jargon everyone in Windsor uses these
days— that the maintenance had not been
adequate since the city of Windsor took over
this part of the former township of Sandwich
West.
I want to ask the Minister if tlie Ontario
water resources commission has yet obtained
from its solicitors— as I believe its general
manager told me he would— an opinion as to
the commission's jurisdiction over the munic-
ipalities in the maintenance of these open
drainage ditches.
Grand Marais drain is a major run-off ditch
and carries off a lot of both residential and
industrial sewage into the Detroit River. The
residents in that area, in light of the recent
heavy rainfall we have had, and again today,
are concerned about the health hazards and
about the very likely threat of the flooding
of their basements. The only answer they
have had so far from the city administration
is go out and buy a sump pump.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Might I ask, is this
area within the city of Windsor?
Mr. Peacock: It is within the city.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: And they told their
residents to go out and buy a sump pump?
Is there any raw sewage in this drain?
Mr. Peacock: Yes, I believe there is, Mr.
Chairman. I want to know if the commission
has jurisdiction over the maintenance.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Has this part recently
been annexed by the—
Mr. Peacock: Yes, that is right. It was
annexed in January 1, 1966, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand that
people from OWRC have been down talking
to the city engineer there and trying to do
what they can, but I think they are waiting
for some advice from the solicitor before they
move in on this particular project.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I understand
the city does have plans for the construction
of proper facihties. But, in the meantime, I
am concerned to know if there are enforcible
standards that the commission can put before
municipalities like Windsor. I hope there are
very few of them where such primitive
sewage facilities still exist.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, one question. I
am wondering if the water resources com-
mission is making any studies regarding the
treatment of phenol in industrial waste. This
phenol goes right through newly-constructed
sewage treatment plants, I understand, with-
out any breakdown or treatment. This, of
course, creates pollution in the streams and
the result is dead fish miles below such treat-
ment plants. I understand some European
countries have had success with the treatment
of phenol as it is contained in industrial
waste. What progress is being made here?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand that
phenols are removed by secondary treatment,
and this is being done in the province.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am not going to
argue that point, but I wonder if the hon.
member would do this— I think it is quite a
technical point, you are bringing up now—
I wonder if you would speak to somebody in
OWRC about this particular matter?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 606. The member
for Sandwich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I do
not wish to take up the members' time, but
just to say I have written to the Minister
about drainage problems in Sandwich West
along the Maiden road, and in what used to
be called Roseland as Sandwich South, the
drain between Scofield and Ducharme— an
open drain.
These are very offensive to the people. I
was along the Maiden road on Sunday and
the stench is unbearable. I just wish to report
that we have problems there, and I hope that
you will give us some help on that.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I understand there is
a letter in the mail from the member now?
Good. As soon as we get it, we will take
immediate action.
4320
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I have in my hand the report of the inter-
national joint commission. United States and
Canada, on the pollution of Rainy River and
Lake-of-the-Woods for February, 1965.
In this report there are some 11 recom-
mendations and I would like to just ask the
Minister concerning recommendation No. 4:
"That industrial wastes should be utilized,
controlled or treated to comply as soon
as possible with the Rainy River quality
objectives."
It goes on further, but recommendation
No. 5 is: "That action should be taken to
minimize slime growth in the river by
controlling or reducing the discharge of
nutrients."
Can the Minister advise me what has been
done by the company, the O. & M. Company,
both in International Falls and Fort Frances
to control the discharge of industrial waste
into Rainy River?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am advised that
O. & M. at Fort Frances have a good pro-
gramme; that project will be cleaned up. On
the other side of the river, we cannot advise
as to what will happen there.
Mr. Nixon: What about nutrients else-
where?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to raise an-
other question at this time.
I asked the Minister earlier in the session
about legislation concerning pleasure craft
and the discharge of human excretion into
the lakes. I am not so much concerned about
the Great Lakes at this point, but the lakes
in northwestern Ontario, especially Rainy
Lake and Lake-of-the-Woods. Is tliere any
legislation now to prevent pleasure crafts
from discharging their human excretion into
these lakes?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We introduced legis-
lation but as you know— I think the member
was in the House— that we had to lay those
over until January of this year. The reason
for that is that we have very few places in
the province of Ontario which have pumping
stations to pump out these holding tanks.
Now, just as soon as we can, we intend to
meet the manufacturers and people who are
interested in boating and see if we can come
up with a programme where we have dump-
ing stations that will take care of all our
inland lakes before next spring.
Mr. T. P. Reid: In the meantime, do you
have any land of advertising programme to
suggest to people who own these kinds of
pleasure craft that they should not discharge
this kind of human waste into the lakes?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, there was a
pamphlet issued by OWRC, and I think it
had pretty good coverage across Ontario and
many of the states of the United States. At
the boat show, they were there.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we have
heard a great deal tonight and this afternoon
concerning pollution of the Great Lakes, but
I am concerned specifically tonight with
pollution of the lakes of northern and north-
western Ontario. Now, two weekends ago, I
had occasion to go on a fly-in trip to northern
Ontario and I was appalled at the garbage
that was left to pollute the natural lakes that
are supposedly hardly touched by human
beings in northwestern Ontario.
I was also appalled at the attitude of the
people, both Canadian and Americans, to the
pollution problem. Now, we have seen what
has happened in the last few years because
we have neglected this problem or we did
not realize it was a problem, and now it has
become a great problem the pollution of our
lakes and streams.
In northwestern Ontario, this has become
a great problem, not only of garbage pollu-
tion but also of human excrement, people
urinating and defecating into lakes or beside
lakes so that it drains into lakes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: How about the animals?
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Minister can shake his
head all he hkes, but I was up there two
weeks ago and I have seen people do this.
And this might seem to be a big joke; it was
probably a great joke a few years ago when
these industrial companies were polluting the
water and streams in southern Ontario. But
I say to the Minister that this is going to be,
in the not too distant future, a large problem
in the natural, untouched lakes of northern
and northwestern Ontario.
I would like to know what co-operation,
what advertising, what policies exist under
OWRC to prevent, to impress upon people
who are using these facilities in northern
Ontario that they should not throw their
garbage in the lakes, that they should not
pollute the lakes with human excrement and
so on and so forth. What, first of all, is the
policy of this government, and second, what
co-operation exists between OWRC, The
JUNE 11, 1968
4321
Department of Health, The Department of
Tourism, and The Department of Lands and
Forests in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, Mr, Chairman,
I might say that this problem the hon.
member speaks about is a very real problem.
How we educate our own people to keep
their garbage and many things away from the
lakes is a diflBcult question to answer. I know
I have a cottage on a lake and one of my
neighbours who has a cottage across the lake
four miles away thinks the place for his
garbage to go is in the middle of the lake.
If it is out of sight it does not bother anyone.
Now, how do you tell people? And these
people know better.
Mr. Nixon: Get the OWRC after him!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, last year the
OWRC did have a programme. I think you
saw the billboards, and there were pamphlets
out, "Keep Ontario lakes clean".
Mr. Nixon: There is a little calendar.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: And the calendar. A
lot of people surely could see this. But I do
not know whether it helped when they went
out on a fishing trip or not. I think their beer
bottles or empty bottles went into the lake
or near the lake; their garbage was left over
the same way, because they seem to forget
for some reason just because the lake is five
miles away from the nearest building that
it can not be polluted. And this happens. I
think it is a matter of education.
Now, as far as enforcement of the law is
concerned, I think that would come under
Lands and Forests. But I think all depart-
ments of this government are quite concerned
about this and anything that we can do or
anything that the public can do to stop this,
the better it will be for all of us.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, one furtlier
question. I asked a question earher in this
session of the Premier concerning the pos-
sible pollution of Shebandewan Lake, where
the International Nickel Company is going
to be processing, or setting up a plant to dig
nickel ore out of the ground. I would like
to know at this time what regulations the
OWRC will impose upon International Nickel
to insure that the Lake Shebandewan, in
which I have had occasion to fish and camp
upon, will not be polluted by their operations?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Is this a new devel-
opment?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, within the last few
months.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: In any new dt-velo-
ment, all plans have to be approved by
OWRC before they can proceed.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, I would like to pass
on, and this is certainly just hearsay, Mr.
Chairman, the fact that it has been said to
me by an American engineer, while looking
at this operation at Shebandewan said that
certainly this would never be allowed in the
United States. Now, I say to the Minister
that this is pure hearsay. I certainly want
confirmation that this very beautiful lake in
northwestern Ontario, just outside or within,
I believe, the purview of the member for
the Lakehead, will not be polluted. Can the
Minister give me just some general idea what
conditions are imposed upon these mining
companies that these lakes will not be
polluted?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
we can assure the hon. member that if this
is a new installation, he need not worry about
pollution from this mining company. Before
they start, or any time during the building,
they will have to bring it up to OWRC
standards and I am sure there are no new
installations I have heard of in the province
of Ontario that have not done this in the last
few years. That is, new plants or new mines
that are starting in operation.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Just one last question. It
may be a litde vague at this point, but how
do our regulations in this regard compare
with the American regulations? Are ours
more stringent; do we require more restric-
tions than our American counterpart?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think they are both
good, but I understand from some of my
officials that, perhaps, ours are better.
Mr. Nixon: Would the Minister say ours
are the best in the world?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves the com-
mittee of supply rise and report certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
4322
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will deal
with certain matters on the order paper and
then continue the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Energy and Resources Management,
and if time permits proceed with the esti-
mates of The Department of Trade and
Development.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:20 o'clock, p.m.
No. 116
ONTARIO
Hcgisdature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
Art Gallery of Ontario, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4325
Royal Ontario museum, bill respecting, Mr. Davis, first reading 4325
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, first reading 4325
Tabling report, committee on the aims and objectives of education in the schools of
Ontario, Mr. Davis 4326
Closing of the Ontario Hospital farm at Portsmouth, question to Mr. Dymond,
Mr. MacDonald 4328
G. M. Smith Transport Company, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Sargent 4329
New York plan of legal aid, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4330
Right of a patient to die superseding right of a physician to further life, question to Mr.
Dymond, Mr. Sargent 4330
Possible conflict of interest involving Inco and the town of Copper Cliff, question to
xMr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 4330
Police force used to investigate fatalities at Inco, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Martel 4330
Review of spot zoning regulations as a result of an OMB decision, question to Mr. Mc-
Keough, Mr. Breithaupt 4331
Statement by Dr. Glenn Sawyer, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Shulman 4331
Third readings 4338
Corporations Tax Act, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 4332
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr.
McKeough, second reading 4333
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading 4333
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 4333
Police Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 4333
Raising of money on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, bill to authorize, Mr.
MacNaughton, second reading 4344
Employment Standards Act, bill to amend, reported 4345
Wages Act, bill to amend, reported 4351
Industrial Safety Act, 1964, bill to amend, reported 4351
Ontario Human Rights Code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, reported 4351
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, bill intituled, reported 43!^
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, reported 4358
Financial Administration Act, bill to amend, reported 4353
Department of Revenue, bill to establish, reported 4353
Public Service Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend, reported 4353
Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, 1968, bill intituled, reported 435i
Estimates, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Mr. Simonett, continued 4351
Recess. 6 o'clock 438£
4325
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today, again, we have visit-
ors to the House. We welcome students from
the G. C. Huston public school, Southampton,
in the east gallery. In the west gallery, we
have students from Winona Drive senior pub-
lic school, and also with us we have ladies
from the Sharon women's institute in Sharon.
Later today the Thessalon senior public school
students will be joining us here. We welcome
them all here.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE ART GALLERY ACT OF
ONTARIO, 1966
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Art Gallery Act of Ontario, 1966.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just a very
brief explanation. There are two or three very
minor amendments. The main amendment is
to increase the number of appointees to the
board of trustees by two, and these appointees
shall be from the city of Toronto.
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act respecting The Royal On-
tario museum.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just a very
brief explanation: I think that among the very
significant developments now taking place in
our province one is the increasing interest on
the part of our people in our cultural and
educational organizations. If we are to re-
spond adequately to this interest and meet
the needs of our citizens in this regard, it
is obvious that we shall require institutions
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
which are alive and vital, and which are
governed and directed by people who are
conscious of their objectives, and fully de-
voted to their development.
The Royal Ontario Museum Act, 1968
establishes one of our foremost cultural enter-
prises as an institution under its own board
of trustees. This bill is the result of long and
careful discussions involving representatives
of the University of Toronto, the museum,
and the government.
With this new status, I am confident that
the ROM will not only continue the important
role that it has fulfilled for many years in
this province, but will build upon that strong
foundation to attain even greater and newer
achievements. The museum has, without ques-
tion, both benefited and matured in the last
two decades and more through its affiliation
with the University of Toronto.
It is clear, however, that consistent with
the steps taken for similar organizations, the
ROM deserves and requires the opportunity
for an independent course of action. The Act
now presented will provide that opportunity.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Did anybody
suggest knocking the "Royal" off?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act
to amend The Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the main
purpose of this bill is to make applicable to
Ontario incorporated companies the same
provisions that Bill 50— An Act to amend The
Securities Act, 1966— makes apphcable to
companies incorporated elsewhere. And in
addition, this bill confers on the Ontario
securities commission, with respect to insid-
ers of Ontario public companies, the same
powers of exemption that the commission
now has under The Securities Act, 1966 with
respect to insiders of non-Ontario public
companies.
4326
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The bill also removes the present ceiling
of 6 per cent per annum that a co-operative
corporation can pay by way of interest on
loans made to it by its shareholders or its
members.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day, it is my great pleasure to-
day to announce receipt of the report of the
provincial committee on aims and objectives
of education in the schools of Ontario. This
committee which was established by order-
in-council on June 10, 1965, was charged,
within the terms of reference set forth in
that order-in-council, to inquire into and
report upon the means whereby modem
education can meet the present and future
needs of children and society.
It has now completed its task, and has
presented its findings to me in a volume bear-
ing the title "Living and Learning". I am
also pleased to receive an abridged French
language edition of the report, and a volume
containing selected documents relating to the
study.
Since I have only just received this report,
I am not prepared to provide the detailed
reaction that such a comprehensive study
invites. However, the very nature of this
report invites immediate comment, as I am
sure you will agree when you peruse it.
Physically "Living and Learning" is a dis-
tinct departure from the traditional style of
such documents, assuming many of the char-
acteristics of modern communications media.
In this respect, the report is an apt reflection
of the modern mood in education.
Of greater significance is the mood of its
message. I am pleased to note that this report
expresses an overriding concern for equality
of educational opportunity for all individuals
in Ontario, a concern which, as you know, I
have regularly expressed, and a goal toward
which we have constantly worked. Needless
to say, the insights provided in this regard
by "Living and Learning" will be warmly
welcomed.
Noteworthy also, is the degree of sensiti-
vity directed toward the needs of children as
individual learners in a highly complex society
such as ours. This sensitivity is expressed in
a recommendation which offers, as a funda-
mental principle guiding education in Ontario:
The right of every individual to have
equal access to the learning experience
best suited to his needs, and the responsi-
bility of every school authority to provide
a child-centred learning continuum that
uscovery
invites learning by individual d
and inquiry.
The report embraces a wide spectrum of edu-
cation in Ontario, since, in the words of the
committee in its concluding statement:
While we were primarily concerned with
curriculum, we concluded early in our
operation that a curriculum cannot be for-
mulated in a vacimm. It must exist in an
educational system which permits it to
function in circumstances of freedom of
equality of opportunity for all. We deter-
mined, therefore, that the school system as
a whole was relevant to the subject of aims
and objectives.
In receiving this report and placing it before
the people of this province, I wish to com-
mend the members of the committee for their
diligence, their vision, and their achievement
of a common purpose. I can assure them that
this fine result of their work will receive care-
ful study and consideration.
I note with regret the passing of two of
their number during deliberations. Sister
Stanislaus died while attending a committee
conference in 1965. Mr. Max Parnall, the
former superintendent of the curriculum sec-
tion of The Department of Education and
departmental representative on the commit-
tee, died in April of this year. Mr. Pamall's
vision was an early force in the formation of
this committee, and his loss is real indeed.
In commending the committee for its work,
I wish to pay a special tribute to its chair-
manship. We were indeed fortunate in secur-
ing the services of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall
of the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Justice
Hall brought broad vision, ability, and experi-
ence to this committee, and I am certain that
his early service to education in the west, his
chairmanship of the recent Royal commis-
sion on health services, and his work as a
jurist are reflected in the pages of this report.
Mr. Lloyd Dennis was appointed co-chair-
man to this committee in 1966. Mr. Dermis
is well-known throughout this province for
his dedication to the cause of children and
their education, and I wish to commend him
for the contribution he has made to this
study.
Arriving as it does at the time of major j
changes in educational administration, and
during a period of widespread concern for
human betterment and nobility of individual
and cultural purpose, this report will, I hope,
be studied widely by all those who, directly
or indirectly, have an interest in the destiny
of education in Ontario.
JUNE 12, 1968
4327
To facilitate this examination, I wish to
announce the appointment of Mr. Dennis as
the interpreter of the report. Responsible
directly to the Minister of Education, Mr.
Dennis will be available during the coming
months to aid those who engage in studies
of the document. It is my earnest hope that
in this way the recommendations set forth in
the report can be assessed. It is also my hope
that this a-^sessment will be widespread, and
that it will offer guidelines for the possible
implementation of proposals emerging from
the study,
Mr. Speaker, I am having placed on every
member's desk, the copy of the report. I also
have available with me, and perhaps the
leader of the Opposition and the educational
critics opposite will breathe a sigh of rehef,
this heavier volume which is the research
and documentary material, it is not the report
itself but I am sure they will want to make
this prescribed summer reading in any event.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Shocking dis-
play of waste!
Hon. Mr. Davis: I also would like, Mr.
Speaker, to say to the members of the House
that we are very fortunate in having, I be-
lieve, almost the full committee with us on
this occasion. They are guests, Mr. Speaker,
of yours in the gallery on my right and I
wish, on this occasion, to pay a very sincere
tribute to this dedicated group of individuals
who, in my opinion, have provided a docu-
ment which will not only stimulate educa-
tional discussion but perhaps is one of the
best approaches to a total philosophy of edu-
cation that has been produced in any juris-
diction.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we, as a Legis-
lature, owe these people not only a debt of
gratitude but I wish to express to them on
behalf, particularly of the yotmg people of
this province, our sincere appreciation for
the work that they have contributed in the
preparation of this report.
I should also like to point out there are
some 258 recommendations-
Mr. Sopha: Is that the report?
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is the report.
Mr. Sopha: What is that other book?
Hon. Mr. Davis: This is the document that
will be placed in the various libraries. These
are the research papers, some of the briefs
and so on. So, as I say, perhaps the member
for Sudbury will read them this summer— I
do not know.
Mr. Sopha: This v/eekend.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the members
opposite, who take a very real interest in this,
there are some 258 recommendations and I
think they will not object too strenuously if
I suggest to them that all 258 will not be
implemented prior to the debates of The
Department of Education at the next session
of this Legislature.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit
me to join the Minister in expressing our
appreciation to the members of the commis-
sion gathered in your gallery for three years
of diligent labours on behalf of education
and the citizens of the province of Ontario.
I well remember when the commission was
set up three years ago. At one time we felt
its terms of reference were expanding about
as fast as it was accomplishing its work.
But they have now put before us a report
which is very attractive, at least, in its bind-
ing and we will peruse it with much interest.
The Minister has suggested that the com-
panion papers would be made available and
I would suggest that you send my copy to
the member for Sudbury and I will have him
peruse them on our behalf.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I would add the congratulations of
this group. Having only read the abridged
edition, I would say it may be one of the
most important documents that has ever been
tabled in this House in the cause of educa-
tion. It is an exciting document. It recognizes,
perhaps for the first time, that education
should be a free and open experience; it
allows for all those things which so many
of us have been talking about in this Legis-
lature—the free selection of courses, the end
of streams and grades, individual timetabling.
Many of these things have already begun
in a few of the more experimental schools
of the province. But this provides a thrust
which, I think, this government will have to
deal with over the next number of years. I
say it is a revolutionary document.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Over several years— many
years.
Mr. Pitman: Yes. May I just close, Mr.
Speaker, by suggesting that this will provide
a tremendous amount of activity in this
department for the next number of years.
4328
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
A number of these things we have suggested,
of course: that special education be taken
over; pre-school education and the oppor-
tunity for headstart programmes; the whole
role of education television as defined in this
programme. I think it is a revolutionary docu-
ment because it brings into question the
entire society in which we live; the end of
competitiveness; a recognition of freedom
and openness in our education system which
has to be reflected in our society.
The cost will be staggering, and I hope
that tlie Minister has already begun to look
to the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) and to the member for London
South (Mr. White) for solutions as to how
we can implement the 257th recommenda-
tion that education can no longer be based
on the property tax in this province.
Mr. Sargent: Mr, Speaker, I rise on a
matter of great public importance. The press
this morning carried the story that the
University Avenue subway is going to be
closed down part time. I would ask how
does the government explain the grants of
$20 million-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The member
must realize from his own experience in this
House, that in order to debate a matter of
great public importance it must be sub-
mitted to the Speaker in the morning of the
day, and approved for being placed on the
agenda for this day. Therefore, the member
is quite out of order, and I would ask that
he resume his seat.
Would the leader of the Opposition care to
ask the second part of his question to the
Minister of Education which was filed yester-
day; or is it taken care of by the Minister's
statement?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it might have
been significant yesterday, I do not believe
it is now.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): My
question is to the Minister of Health. When
the Ontario Hospital farm at Portsmouth was
liquidated, what was done with the pure-
bred Holstein herd and the farm machinery?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the Holstein herd will be sold at
auction in Kingston on June 27, I believe.
The farm machinery has been put to use
in other farming operations of the Ontario
Hospitals.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce
has a number of questions.
Mr. Sargent: My question last Friday to
the Attorney General was not answered, Mr.
Speaker. He was not here.
Now that the province has launched legis-
lation authorizing the taking over-
Mr. Speaker: May I just point out to the
member that in his absence yesterday, the
Attorney General read the answers to these
questions, and I presume that they will sub-
sequently appear in the printed Hansard. Am
I correct, Mr. Minister?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Is this on the OPP?
Mr. Sargent: What is the policy? Can he
not wait until I get back in the House?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
May I have the floor a minute?
I see that the member for Grey-Bruce
is more correct than the Attorney General
and Mr. Speaker because the questions are
still on my unasked list. They were presum-
ably telephoned to the Minister and he gave
his answer yesterday without Mr. Speaker
noticing that they were in the unasked list.
Therefore, I have no objection if the member
wishes now, for the purpose of having it in
Hansard, to place those questions. The
answers, of course, will be in Hansard the
day before the questions— which is what the
Opposition always wish to have. Here we
have an absolute example of it, so perhaps
the member would care to place his ques-
tion.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you. I have not heard
the answer yet, so I would like to hear it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sargent: First, now that the province
has launched legislation to authorize taking
over and policing municipalities, will the
province take steps to amend the legislation
to guarantee that officers and police presently
in charge of enforcement be protected either
by continuity of employment or financially?
And second, what right has the Ontario
police commission to despatch police to any
municipality over the heads of local authori-
ties?
JUNE 12, 1968
4329
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am not
certain whether the hon. member presented
the question before or not. I thought he had.
If that is so, I read the question yesterday, so
it is in Hansard. If he read it for the record,
I answered the question yesterday. I have the
Hansard with the answer here, I believe, so
that I do not think I shall read the answer
to these.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have
this clarified. I do not want to take advantage
of any hon. member's absence, but I think it
is proper, the question having been asked, to
present the answer to the House whether the
member happens to be here or not.
Mr. Speaker: I think that had been the
attitude of the House that the answers were
required as quickly as possible and if the
member in question was not there, his party
whip or someone else would make a note
of it for him and he would have it in
Hansard at a very early date. However, if the
House wishes to change that procedure I am
sure it is quite in order.
As a matter of fact, the members will
remember that the other day the Minister of
Trade and Development had some questions
and the questioners were absent. He asked if
the answer should be given and the spokes-
man, or someone on the other side of the
House, said "let us hear it now" and we had
those answers, so I think probably the best
way is to have the answers out as quickly
as possible.
The member for Grey-Bruce has some
further questions.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management was
not answered. Will the government advise
why we cannot have a public enquiry into
Hydro raising its rates to rural customers by
9.3 per cent?
Mr. Speaker: The member has already
asked that question.
Mr. Sargent: He did not answer it last
Friday.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade
and Development): It was answered Friday
morning.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister of
Transport. Why does the G. M. Smith Trans-
port Company continue to enjoy PCV licences
when it has over 40 convictions of law break-
ing and continues to break the laws as
recently as last week?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce is known to The
Department of Transport and appropriate
action has been taken. As a result of the
record of convictions against G. M. Smith
Limited, this licensee was called before the
Ontario highway transport board for review.
The review was held on December 20,
1967. As a result of that review, and in keep-
ing with the recommendation of the board,
on January 5, 1968, I suspended the public
commercial vehicle licence of that firm for a
period of 14 days. A few days after the
reinstateanent of the licence the licensee
was again charged with contravention of terms
of a special licence he had been issued with
conditions for moving an oversize load, and a
directive went out that any further special
licences to that firm were to be withheld.
The licensee and his lawyer appeared
before the registrar of motor vehicles after a
ferw days and it was then explained clearly
to him that, if there were further infractions
of the law, there would be no further alterna-
tive but to suspend that licence entirely.
In view of that record, the operation of
that firm is under constant surveillance.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, I understand
they are after an "X" licence. Are they going
to get it?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the member
would address the Minister through the chair
and ask if he would accept a supplementary
question.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, if that
application is made to the highway transport
board, I am sure the highway transport board
will have before it the record of this licensee.
Mr. Sargent: I understand he has a lot of
friends in the department.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: A question for the Provincial
Secretary. Will the Minister advise if and
when the election process will be modernized
by electronic voting machines in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I assume
that this would be a matter which could be
considered by the select committee on elec-
tion laws when the committee is constituted.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has the
floor.
4330
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in your ruling
insofar as the Minister answering the ques-
tion when I was not here, I have the right
to ask a supplementary question. Is that right,
sir?
Mr. Speaker: Should the member be in the
House when the question is answered, I
would say yes; but I would not say so if it
were the following day. The member can
always place another question the following
day.
Mr. Sargent: This is to the Attorney Gen-
eral, Mr. Speaker.
Is the government considering a pro-
gramme in Ontario, similar to that in New
York, where legal aid for the poor has been
set up in the form of 20 neighbourhood
offices, namely, the community action for
legal service, and where services are pro-
vided for the poor who have trouble with
their landlords, their wives, and the welfare
department?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, our legal
aid plan is far more comprehensive than any-
thing that the state of New York has devised,
or has in operation, not only the poor are
afforded advice and counsel, but our plan is
so devised that persons who are not poor
are assisted to the extent that their financial
status shall not be impaired to reduce their
standard of living. We go far beyond the
New York plan.
Mr. Speaker: Order! May I ask the children
in the gallery to go out quietly.
Sorry, Mr. Minister, will you please carry
on.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our plan is far more comprehensive than the
New York plan and assists persons, not only
in landlord and tenant cases, as the hon. mem-
ber says, and their wives— cases between
husbands and their wives— 'but all criminal and
all civil matters, including juvenile and family
court.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister advise when
Ontario will decide that the right of a patient
to die, in some cases, supersedes the right
of a physician to further life by operations
such as heart transplants?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I hope
the day never comes when any government
of Ontario will have to decide what are "the
rights of patients to die, because this right
supersedes the right of a physician to further
life by operations such as heart transplants".
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is the
Attorney General aware that police cruisers
used by the Copper Cliff police force were
purchased by Inco and transferred to the
town of Copper Cliff? Does the Attorney
General approve of this practice; and in the
Attorney General's opinion, does this not
establish conflict of interest whenever situa-
tions concerning Inco have to be investigated
by the Copper Cliff police?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would like a chance
to investigate the facts on which this question
is premised.
I would like to say this, however. My
understanding, at the present time, is that
Copper Cliff is a company town to the extent
that the property, the whole area property, is
owned by Inco.
On the question of conflict of interest, it
would seem to me that in certain police
activities this would not be involved. In the
question of fatalities, coroners' inquests, and
so on, I think that there perhaps is an area
of concern. It is of such concern that we
are looking into this, and I will be dealing
with that area on the question later.
Mr. Martel: I have another question for
the Attorney General.
Is the same force used to investigate
fatalities at Inco and act as security guards
at Inco? Was the same police force respon-
sible for laying charges against members of
local 6500 of the united steelworkers of
America, for instance, arising out of the 1966
strike and walkout, after Inco had signed an
agreement that there would be no prosecu-
tions, and many months after the incident
had taken place?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this ques-
tion really contains two questions— one per-
taining to matters of fatalities, which I re-
ferred to a few moments ago and which I am
pursuing, and the question of laying charges
for what apparently were illegal acts. I would
say that Inco and no other person or corpo-
ration would have any right to restrain any
law enforcement agency and I want to look
into that matter also. I would not want to
feel that the police enforcement agencies
would be restrained if there were unlawful
acts. The course of administration of justice
should require that they should be followed
through properly. I would not expect that
anyone should bind the police by an agree-
ment not to take action.
JUNE 12, 1968
4331
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister would entertain a supplementary
question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Martel: Would it not be though, that
in this case, Inco pohce are acting as town
police when it is convenient but as Inco
police when it is convenient— that after Inco
signed the contract saying that it will not
press charges, the Inco pohce then assumed
the guise of town police to lay charges? There
is a real conflict of interest here. This is the
whole point that I am trying to get at.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the ques-
tion and the point that the hon. member
makes. It is associated with his former ques-
tion, which I said I was going to look into
in order to get the facts correct, and then
I will give a proper answer.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I have a
question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
notice of which has been given. Would the
Minister order a review of spot zoning regu-
lations as a result of the decision of the
Ontario municipal board respecting the ap-
plication of CFGM broadcasting to amend
the official plan of the town of Mississauga?
Is the Minister prepared to recommend uni-
formity in the planning of the amended area
to eliminate the difficulty of developing the
area resulting from the municipal board's
decision?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. mem-
ber's question indicates, this refers to an
amendment to the official plan of the town of
Mississauga, initiated under section 14 (3) of
The Planning Act by a private party, narnely,
CFGM Broadcasting Limited, to redesignate
75 acres from an agricultural to an open-
space designation in order to permit the
erection of 11 towers and a small transmit-
ter building.
In August 1967, an application was made
by CFGM to the municipal council to amend
the zoning bylaw and the official plan then
in eflFect. Upon receipt, the appHcation was
submitted by the council to the planning
board for report and recommendation. The
amendment applied for was recommended by
the planning board but the council rejected
the application on February 26, 1968. As is
possible under the provisions of The Plan-
ning Act in these circumstances, the appli-
cant, CFGM, applied to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs to refer the official plan
issue to the municipal board and, at the same
time, requested the municipal board to con-
sider the amendment of the Toning bylaw.
The Minister, as requested, referred the
official plan issue to the Ontario municipal
board on March 11, 1968. Following notifi-
cation of all interested parties, a public hear-
ing was held before the Ontario municipal
board on April 16, 1968. The report of the
board on the hearing is dated May 22, 1968.
The board order on this matter has not yet
been issued. It is apparent from the board
report that the board agreed with the appli-
cant that the use of land proposed is appro-
priate. I have not ordered any review in
this matter. There is specific legislation
available in The Ontario Municipal Board Act
to permit persons not in agreement with the
board's order or decision to petition the
Lieutenant-Governor in council for a review.
It is difficult to be more specific with respect
to the question asked in that there are terms
used which are not readily clear as to mean-
ing—the terms "spot zoning regulation" and
"planning uniformity" are cases in point.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has a question for the Minister of University
Affairs.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
today was the last day of the tutorials given
by the Clerk of the House and on behalf of
all the members who took part in these very
fine tutorials, I would hke to express our
thanks for the very fine job which he did.
I have a question of the Minister of Uni-
versity Affairs. Does the Minister agree with
the statement by Dr. Glenn Sawyer, secretary
of the Ontario medical association, and editor
of the Ontario Medical Review, that:
Medical faculties should not have to be
on the constant search for funds for teach-
ing. Money should be supplied for that
purpose through The Department of Uni-
versity Affairs in sufficient amount to meet
the standard of medical education expected
by the citizens of this province"?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister
carries a very strong conviction that all facul-
ties and schools in our provincially-assisted
universities should and do receive adequate
support for the teaching programmes they
offer.
In regard to medicine, as the hon. mem-
ber knows, it is an extremely expensive area
of the university operation. Assistance is pro-
vided through the operating grants formula
with allowance for all undergraduate and
graduate students as well as interns and
4332
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
residents, as well as through extensive sup-
plementary grants for new or expanded pro-
grammes which are under way.
In addition, universities are compensated
by the Ontario hospital services commission
for administrative services performed by full-
time geographic staff in clinical teaching areas
to the extent of one half of salary to a maxi-
mum of $15,000 for each approved faculty
member.
In the light of the changing nature of medi-
cal education, as well as tlie rapid expansion
now taking place at all five universities which
have medical schools, it has been decided
that the whole question of support, includ-
ing appropriate weights within the operating
grants formula should be thoroughly re-
viewed. Towards this end, a special com-
mittee made up of representatives of the
committee on university affairs, the Ontario
council of health and the council of deans of
medicine of Ontario universities has been
established to study the question, and to
make recommendations prior to the 1969-70
fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 91, An Act to provide for the reduc-
tion of municipal taxes on residential
property.
Bill 121, An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act.
Bill 128, An Act to amend The Training
Schools Act, 1965.
Bill 129, The Department of Correctional
Service Act, 1968.
THE CORPORATIONS TAX ACT
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer) moves second reading of Bill 143,
An Act to amend The Corporations Tax Act.
Mr. R. F. Nix,on (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, just a comment and it
could very well, I suppose, have been
reserved until the House was in committee.
But there has been a feeling that Ontario
might very well adjust her corporation tax
requirements so they are more closely parallel
to information required at the federal level,
in this way cutting down staff requirements
and so on.
As I say, this could have taken the form
of a question in committee stage, but it is
a principle that I believe the government is
attempting to align their taxation machinery
with the other administration to cut out
costly and needless duplication and to make
the payments as simple as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if there is no other
member who wishes to speak to this, the
Minister can reply to the leader of the
Opposition or make a statement.
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, Mr.
Speaker, I tiiink on some occasions short
statements might well be given on first read-
ing. However, this involves the general prin-
ciple of the bill and may in general terms
explain what the hon. leader of the Opposi-
tion has in mind. The major amendments to
The Corporations Tax Act proposed in this
bill will give effect to those amendments
made in 1967 to the federal Income Tax Act
which would have application to corporations.
This is in accordance with the practice which'
has been followed for many years, with few.
exceptions, of keeping the calculations of
taxable income for the purpose of our Act on
the same basis as the calculation for the
federal Act, and is also in accordance with
the recommendation of the Ontario com-
mittee on taxation.
A number of other amendments are also
being proposed. Under our present Act, cer-
tain corporations incorporated outside of
Canada may own property in Ontario, obtain
revenue from it, and pay no tax on the
revenue to Ontario. The bill contains pro-
visions that if such corporation owns property
in Ontario, it will be deemed to have a
permanent establishment in Ontario and thus
be subject to all the taxing provisions of The
Corporations Tax Act.
In line with the recommendation contained
in the Ontario committee on taxation report,
the interest payable by a corporation on
overdue accounts has been set at a uniform
rate of 9 per cent per annum. I should point
out that under the present Act, the 9 per cent
rate is applicable on accounts which are
overdue for a two-month period. The cur-
rent rate of interest is 6 per cent on the
unpaid tax for the first two months and 9
per cent thereafter. In other words, this
amendment will make it 9 per cent all the
way.
In addition, we propose to increase the
credit interest payable to a corporation on
overpaid accounts from 3 per cent to 4 per
JUNE 12, 1968
4333
cent. If a corporation files a notice of objec-
tion to an assessment, and the Treasurer re-
assesses to allow the objection, credit interest
on any resulting overpayment in those cir-
cumstances will be increased from 6 per cent
to 7 per cent.
One further amendment was necessary and
that results from the transfer of the adminis-
tration of this Act to The Department of
Revenue.
Motion agreed to, second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 1961-1962
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal AflFairs) moves second reading of Bill
144, An Act to amend The Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System Act, 1961-
1962.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading
of Bill 145, An Act to amend The Munici-
pahty of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves second reading of Bill 146, An Act to
amend The Fire Departments Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE POLICE ACT
Hon. Mr. Wishart moves second reading of
Bill 147, An Act to amend The Police Act.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): This Act con-
tains a number of amendments that are not,
by any means, related to any common theme.
On the one hand, there are a number of
them that bring the collective bargaining pro-
cess in respect of policemen in line with the
procedure to be found in other parts, or in
the industrial community. One gets the
impression, of course, that the evolution in
regard to policemen has been very slow as
indeed it has been very grudging on the part
of the government.
The government has made concessions, I
say, in a very grudging fashion, to recognize
these people, sir, who cannot resort to the
ultimate weapon of sirike to obtain their
desired ends. The government has been re-
luctant to accord them even the rudimentary
things that are found in other labour relations
and whereas it makes some progress, it does
not go whole hog by any means and indeed,
imports some undesirable featiues from other
parts of the world of labour relations. I refer
to that section that provides for compulsory
arbitration of grievances.
I have said many times in this House, I
hope within hearing of the Attorney General—
in fact, I said it during The Department of
Labour estimates— that the system leaves a
great deal to be desired. Frequently, in mat-
ters of grievance, conditions of employment,
hours of work, safety conditions, the contracts
between the parties require a legal interpreta-
tion, and for all I know that may be more
the case with police contracts than it is with
some other type.
This much abused section, copied, I sup-
pose, from The Labour Relations Act, is only
capable of having afforded to it a legal inter-
pretation by the use of one of the prerogative
writs. If The Department of the Attorney
General, which is responsible for this Act,
is not more aware than any otlier sector how
cumbersome and difficult the use of the pre-
rogative writs are in obtaining the interpreta-
tion or of phraseology or obtaining compulsion
of performance, then one cannot hope that
any other part of the government will be
aware of that.
But I ask you to observe that section which
now becomes section 32, and the only way
that any appeal from a board of arbitration
can ever be got to the courts, as you know,
Mr. Speaker, is by way of the writ of
certiorari. It is quite a comment upon a
society in 1968, in the enlightened age, the
age of student revolt and the age of ultimate
understanding, since we all have the facts
before us and can form judgments and opi-
nions, that The Department of the Attorney
General of Ontario is still relying on legal
processes that began their development in the
age of the first Henry. And The Department
of the Attorney General, to put it conversely,
does not show any progressive attitude to
reform of the law.
4334
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In respect of that I merely sum up what
I have said by suggesting to the Attorney
General that between now and the final
passage of this bill, he might consider the
addition of a subsection there which would
say that in matters of law— at least, matters of
law that arise from arbitration proceedings-
there might be an appeal to the courts. In-
deed, there might be an appeal to that
separate bench of three judges that Mr.
McRuer has suggested in his report.
Who knows, but it might not come into
being. Would that The Department of Labour
would finally some day— oh, they will some
day, because there is a lag of about three or
four or five years in things around here. But
some day. The Department of Labour may
realize that this is a totally unsatisfacory pro-
cedure.
As I have said on many occasions in the
past, and it bears repeating, if you, Mr.
Speaker, suffer $80 damage to your fender
outside the Royal York hotel and there are 36
witnesses, 18 for you and 18 for the fender
malefactor, then you can occupy the time of
a division court judge for three days to deter-
mine whether you are going to pay your own
loss or you get the other person to pay the
$80.
But if you are interpreting a collective bar-
gaining agreement and the decision affects the
pay of 14,000 people in the bargaining unit-
it might nm into some hundreds of thousands
of dollars— then you cannot get to a court.
You cannot occupy the time of a single judge,
let alone get to tlie court of appeal on it.
The reason is in that section which has been
borrowed from The Labour Relations Act
and shows no denotation whatsover of a pro-
gressive attitude directed towards a more
rational handling of matters of this nature.
So, as a matter of principle, I say I am
very disappointed that The Department of
the Attorney General, of all departments, did
not make some change. If they are going to
borrow from The Department of Labour in
matters of law, one might expect them to
improve upon The Department of Labour.
When one looks at section 1 as a matter
of principle, and this is of major importance
to our party, one is reminded of the strident,
if somewhat crude, attitude of the Minister
of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) a few
weeks ago when he introduced a piece of
legislation and ascribed its genesis to the
member who, I think, comes from Halton
East (Mr. Snow).
We on this side would be entitled to say,
in looking at section 1, that we see some
recognition of—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order I know my friend would want
to be completely accurate; it was not legisla-
tion, it was a statement before the orders
of the day.
Mr. Sopha: All right; fine! I am glad to
be corrected.
All other aspects of my statement were
correct, I assume.
We are entitled in respect of section 1 to
remind you, Mr. Speaker, and anyone else
within hearing, that the diminution if not
the abolition of small police forces in this
province is long overdue. And very many
people reputable in the field of expert knowl-
edge in the matter have said that a police
force of under ten persons is unjustified in its
experience.
For many years I have advocated from
whatever place I have occupied in the House
that the provincial police should replace the
smaller municipal forces. In fact, I am willing
to say that I would go so far as to hold as
a matter of logic and a matter of practicality
and efficiency that only the major cities in
the province— that is, cities of upwards of
25,000 people or so— ought to have a muni-
cipal force. And the activities-
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): You are
speaking for yourself.
Mr. Sopha: All right, that is fine. I am
the member for Sudbury here. The activities
of the provincial police in that regard ought
to replace tliose smaller forces.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Just listen to what I have to
say and be better informed.
Mr. Sargent: He has been reading those
books again.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: To impress the Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts), Mr. Speaker, one reason
is that crime detection has become such a
matter of science, with the use of all kinds
of gadgetry and the employment of experts
and trained personnel, that only the provin-
cial police relying upon those devices and
the skills which they develop are capable
of giving the optimum type of police protec-
tion.
JUNE 12, 1968
4335
How many times one has seen that in the
investigation of some of the higher or, if you
like, the lower forms of crime; those types
of crime that need a scientific approach.
I am willing to say, in that regard, that I
have had opportunity to compare the effici-
ency of the two types of force, and I can say
without reservation, in this area as in many
others, the skills of the Ontario Provincial
Police far exceed the skills that you see
demonstrated by municipal police forces. I
would qualify that by saying that I know
nothing whatsoever of the skills of such
police forces as the large ones in Metro
Toronto and perhaps some of the bigger
cities— London, Hamilton and Ottawa. It may
well be that they are very competent. But
I have seen them at the local level, and really
it is as basic as this, Mr. Speaker, that when
crime is discovered that requires any kind of a
scientific approach to it at all, the local
forces are just not equipped to handle it.
Rather than wait for a request to go for-
ward to the provincial police, I have ad-
vocated here that there ought to be some
initiative exercised by the provincial police
itself to move into the area, in order that the
detection of the offenders may be facilitated.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know very well that
in the detection of crime it is very much
so that time is of the essence. The police
forces must move very quickly.
It is worthwhile to repeat that— as I have
said many times in this House, and cannot
be said too often— that we indeed are very
fortunate to have the excellent force that
comprises the Ontario Provincial Police. Not
only because of the attitude of the personnel.
One is impressed by the training, the dedica-
tion to their task, the eagerness with which
Aey perform it and, not the least, the cour-
tesy which they dispel to all who come
within their ambit. As a citizen of this prov-
ince, I can say without reservation, that I
would feel very well indeed if the ambit of
responsibility of the Ontario Provincial Police
were widened throughout the whole of the
province, subject only to the responsibihty
remaining with larger cities.
I can appreciate, and perhaps the Attorney
General would agree with me, that were
they to take over the policing of the larger
cities that force would, perhaps, become so
large that it would be, to all intents and
purposes, completely unwieldy. But I ask you
to remember this, Mr. Speaker, that there are
broad expanses in far reaches of this province
where you encounter police forces of one or
two people a priori, by observing the situa-
tion. You can form the conclusion, with a
minimum of knowledge about how these
diings work, that the citizenry would be far
better protected and more efficiently served
and the law would be paid greater respect,
if the provincial police had the responsibility
of policing such areas. Particularly is that
true in northern Ontario. I conclude my
remarks by saying that I look forward to the
day when these small forces will ultimately
disappear.
I recall, and I want to remind the Attorney
General, that two or three years ago, we
were discussing this matter in this House. It
came to our attention that in the area down
around on the way to my friend from Niagara
Falls riding there, county of Lincoln— I forget
the name of the place, around Vineland or
somewhere— there is a little community,
Jordan. Within an area of 10 miles six dif-
ferent police forces had responsibility, which,
of course, is a situation which is totally un-
justified and cannot help but lead to not
only conflict between them, but of wasted
effort, and a consequent loss of efficiency.
So section 1 (b) as it stands, Mr. Speaker,
and if the Minister of Municipal Affairs will
permit, is a move in the right direction and
consistent with the stands that my friend
from Downsview and I have taken in this
House over many years. I merely wish to
say to the Attorney General, through you,
that I hope that in future years it will go
forward, so that we obtain the optimum of
police protection by according to the Ontario
Provincial Police, with their best resources of
skills and knowledge, the responsibility of
policing most of this province.
Now no doubt, having made those argu-
ments, which I commend to the House, and
to you, Mr. Speaker, for their logic and
rationality, and opening them up to argu-
ment and, beyond question, if my friend from
Grey-Bruce has anything to say to confute
the propositions that I have made in sup-
port of that standard principle, the House
will accord him the same patience and listen-
ing that it has accorded me.
Mr. Sargent: It seems our whole lives and
everything we do, insofar as law, is con-
trolled by lawyers and those versed in the
law. I think that, somewhere along the line,
some of us who are not so smart— who are
not knowledgeable of these day to day deal-
ings with the police forces and with the
courts— that we sometimes wonder what the
future holds for us. This bill, Mr. Speaker—
on this first section here, insofar as the taking
over of local forces— I would like to say for
4336
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
my part, Mr. Speaker, that some day, maybe
not in our time— we will look back and think
that individual police forces controlled and
run by the autonomy would have been the
true democracy. We have the possibility of
a police state being set up by whoever is in
control at Queen's Park; it could happen.
I suggest that in your thinking, somewhere
along the line, that we have in charge of the
police commission not appointed people, but
elected people. That is not now the case. We
have the supreme force at the top. The police
commission is controlled by appointed people,
so we have all the makings of a police state
and just further down the line here of
Queen's Park controlling police administra-
tion all across the province. As my friend
from Sudbury says, only the bigger cities
would have their own police forces.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
about the RCMP in Ottawa?
Mr. Sargent: That is another league, I am
not very knowledgeable about that either.
I have the right to question and I think
it is time that someone looked out for law
enforcement on behalf of the people in
municipalities. Where we have direction com-
ing from one source, a set of laws set out
by those in high places, controlling the lives
of our people, it is something to think about.
I just lay that word of caution— that we
temper this by putting safety at the top, by
putting in control at OPP commission level,
at the top here, elected people who can be
responsible to the people of this province
and not to the machine in Queen's Park.
Saying that, I would like to tell the Min-
ister again: in the event that the bill might
pass here— it looks like it will— we are going
to have the taking over of police forces in
smaller municipalities where they need help.
But it goes one step further than that, Mr.
Speaker. It says that the police commission
has the right to despatch police to any muni-
cipality over the heads of local authorities-
it does not say that in this section, but some-
where in the bill it says that. I would like
to know, in the event of your taking over a
force, Mr. Minister, are you going to protect
the people to continue their pay or give them
continuity of employment?
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak? The member for
Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): I have always had
nothing but the greatest respect for the
Attorney General of this province, but I am
afraid here that my faith in him has been a
little shattered by the fact that I think he
has been guilty of a breach of faith in an
undertaking he made to the senior officers
association of the police force of the muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto. For many
years the officers of this association have been
after him to amend this Act in order to permit
them to set up a separate bargaining unit.
At the present time, the police association
bargains for all of the police department, I
think, with the exception of the chief and
deputy chief.
Eighteen senior oflBcers resigned from the
bargaining unit to try to force the hands of
this government. Four years ago this govern-
ment promised the senior ofiBcers of the muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Toronto that they
would give consideration to their request.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Did the hon. member
say four years ago?
Mr. Ben: I understand it was four years
ago. If the Attorney General will correct me
I will stand corrected. He was the one—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I was just asking for
information.
Mr. Ben: At any rate, the senior oflScers
have been in conversation and discussion of
this matter with the Attorney General. Repre-
sentation was made to them that the Attorney
General acquiesced in their request and it
would only stand to reason that he would.
As section 4— and I am not trying to deal
specifically with section 4 here, but only on
its principle— reads: "anybody except the
police chief, or any deputy chief of police,
are in a bargaining unit."
We find among the police themselves, in
this particular instance in the city of Toronto,
that the person who does the bargaining is a
first class constable. He is bargaining to
determine what salary, and what other
benefits, are going to flow to people like staff
superintendents, inspectors, staff inspectors,
and also the sergeants. Now, I do not think
that is fair in this day and age. You talk
about representation. Everybody is entitled
to be represented by a union of his choice.
Here you have actually thrown management
in with the employees. It is like the bargain-
ing unit determining what salary is going to
be paid to the vice-president of a company.
I think that is grossly unfair, and I say
again that the Minister has been in breach of
an undertaking that the police felt they had
received from him. A draft that they had
JUNE 12, 1968
4337
seen— the
Speaker,
shown to
prepared
a clause
separate
Attorney
can give
information given me today, Mr.
was the original draft that was
the senior officers association, and
by the Attorney General— contained
that set up the senior officers as a
bargaining unit. Now, I saw the
General shake his head. Perhaps he
answers to that.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any further member
who wishes to speak before the Attorney
General closes the debate? The Minister has
the floor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
I might deal with the questions raised by the
hon. members in reverse order.
The hon. member for Humber used the
words that the Attorney General, he thought,
was guilty of a breach of faith. I am not
going to take that with any umbrage, but I
certainly would deny it immediately. There
has been no undertaking of any sort, such as
he mentioned given— that the legislation con-
tained in this bill would have any provision
for the establishment of a separate associa-
tion to include senior police officers associated
with any force.
I well recall the bill four years ago which
was then before the House, and which I had
the privilege of conducting through the Legis-
lature. It had no reference to this matter
whatsoever. I did not have the opportunity
to consider the discussions on the provisions
contained in that bill. Three years ago there
was no such provision suggested. I think
there were discussions of this move that had
been put forward by certain of may I say the
larger police forces, particularly in Metro-
politan Toronto, Hamilton, and some others.
I think it was discussed, but I believe, and I
am quite certain of this, that the discussions
were too late for us to consider placing
amendments to The Police Act three years
ago.
Two years ago, yes, we did have a very
serious consideration of this provision. We
studied it in conjunction with the association
of municipal police governing authorities.
We studied it with the police association. At
that time there was a great divergence of
opinion— the police governing authorities were
in favour of the idea and the police associa-
tion was largely against it. The reasons for
our weighing it at that time, and coming
down on the side of not including it, were
that if you break the membership of an asso-
ciation into two, then you have to bargain
with two diflFerent groups. You would bargain
with your senior officers association, and you
would bargain with the other ranks, as it
were, of the men— constables. You would
duplicate disputes, certainly you would dupli-
cate your bargaining and your consultations,
your references to conditions of work, pay,
vacations, disciplines, and so on. All that
would be duplicated, and we felt that we
were not prepared to accept that last year.
We have discussed it in the interim since
then, and I will say to the hon. member
that in the first draft of the legislation which
we were using as we approached this final
draft— which has been introduced into the
House— we attempted to frame a section
which would cover permitting, on a permis-
sive basis in any police force, the formation
of another association for what might be
called— what the police governing authorities
like to consider— the management side, the
officers' side, as opposed to the ranks. I am
not sure that there are not many things to
be said in favour of that, but there are cer-
tainly some things to be said against it.
Again, you have the duplication. Again, in
smaller places you have perhaps a force of
15 to 30 men. You break it into two associa-
tions, it is not feasible or practical.
In Metro Toronto, I am aware that the
hon. member recounted that the senior offi-
cers have quiedy and publicly announced
that they have a separate association. I
understand that the board of commissioners
of Metro Toronto deal with them separately,
although strictly, imder The Metropolitan
Toronto Act, they are a part of the force.
Whether or not diey bargain with the other
men is a matter which has been causing con-
siderable trouble and grief and dissension in
that force, and I know that they have very
strong feelings.
We have talked with the chiefs of many
police forces, and with the municipal police
governing authorities who have urged us very
strongly to get a section, such as we had
originally contemplated, into this bill. But,
for reasons both good and sufficient, I think,
and certainly in the opinion of the govern-
ment, this was not included this year. Let
me make this clear. There was never any
undertaking given, and there has been no
breach of faith in any sense of the word.
They may have hoped, and had high hopes
that they would accomplish the objective this
year. But I think that at least another year
is needed if it is a matter of education and
sentiment to reach that stage. Now let me
say this. The hon. member used the words
"senior officers resigned from the force"-I
think that he was referring to the Metro
force— resigned from the association to force
4338
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the hand of tliis government. Well, if they
did it for that purpose, that was the least
effective step that they could have taken. If
there is anything tliat could put my back up
—myself personally— it would be someone who
takes an action to force my hand to do some-
thing with which I am not in agreement as
to its being sensible, right and proper. I do
not think, in fairness to these officers, that
they felt that the action would force the
hand of this government. If they did, I
would be glad that the government did not
succumb to that type of pressure.
Mr. Ben: I would like to ask a few ques-
tions. This first draft that you spoke of,
which contained a clause trying to cover
this situation, was this clause shown to or
discussed with—
Mr. Speaker: Order, may I just point out
to the member that it is custom in the usage
of the House that the Minister's statement
concludes the debate. In the past we have
given members the opportunity to ask ques-
tions to elucidate matters which have been
raised, or were not answered by the Min-
ister. If the Minister has no objection, I
think that the question which the member
has just placed falls into tliat category, and
I would rule it in order.
Mr. Ben: I will abide by your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: May I hear the question?
Mr. Ben: The Minister has stated that
there are valid reasons for having taken the
action that they did. Would he please state
those reasons?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the first question
is the proper one in the custom of the House,
and the second is not— although if the Min-
ister wishes to refer to it, it will be in order
with me. The Minister will perhaps answer
the question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
The first question, I would say to the hon.
member, it is our policy not to display a
piece of legislation to anyone outside of the
House before the members have had a chance
to see it. Therefore, it is introduced first.
Now, when this bill was introduced, it was
shown to counsel for the Ontario police
association, that is the members of the forces,
and of course, I think that the government
tries to be as impartial and to make the
information as widespread as possible.
This is quite proper and we like to have
reaction, suggestion, discussion or criticism,
so that as the bill is discussed in the House
on second reading or in committee, we can
take into account these discussions. But I
think that what the hon. member is referring
to is this, and this is the way that we have
approached this legislation: We have been
discussing it, and I was going to refer to it
in my remarks to the hon. member for Sud-
bury. The discussions which lead to the
legislation that you see before you in this
bill, have gone on for months, since last
year, with the police association, the police
governing bodies, with the Ontario police
commission and with the eminent counsel
who represent the police association— on many
occasions, in my office here in this building,
and with all of them present at the same
time.
In considering the section which the hon,
member is disappointed not to find in this
bill, I think that I would be frank to say to
him that in considering that matter, we
framed the language among ourselves, as
workmen trying to draft legislation, and we
discussed it as to whether it would be
reasonable and would cover the situation,
and if there were any objections to this.
In our wisdom, as a final decision, we
abandoned it so that there was a considerable
awareness that we were trying to achieve the
provision which would permit the two associ-
ations, the senior and others, but there was
no undertaking that we were going to finally
achieve it or that the language that we
drafted would cover it, or that it would
not cause disturbances and dissensions that
would make it unwise.
Now to come to the reasons. I indicated
one of the main ones was that there would
be two bodies— for police boards and com-
missioners—to deal with in bargaining. You
would have then a division, as it were, within
the ranks - although the police governing
authorities say that this is proper and that
there should be one elevated body of officers
and the men. Many of the small forces, and
even some of the police governing bodies,
said, "We cannot really assess or evaluate
whether this is wise or not".
The thing is being studied. We had the
police association present its case in these
discussions with the police governing authori-
ties and with the police commission. We did
not undertake to do it. There were reasons of
doubt as to its efficacy, and to whether it
would improve, particularly in the middle-
sized or lesser forces, their efficiency. That
is why it was left out.
Now the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto in some respects is governed by the
JUNE 12, 1968
4339
provisions of The Police Act, and in others,
as you know, it has its own board of pohce
commissioners. My colleague, the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs, in the bill which is
before the House or which received second
reading I believe it was, has a provision in it
changing the composition of the police com-
mission for Metropolitan Toronto, and they
have an area, or latitude— and they are the
sole exception— which other municipalities do
not have in this respect.
In any event, I think that I have dwelt
long enough on that for good and suflBcient
reasons, I think, why this government did
not see fit to go to that step today. I have
already, since this bill was introduced, had
some vei-y sharp criticism handed to me
directly and personally by some very promi-
nent persons in police forces, and in the gov-
erning authorities of municipal police forces.
This is something that I have come to expect,
and to hve with, but we did not see fit to
produce it this year.
I must say that I had some sympathy for
the remarks of the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce, and I want to deal briefly if I may
with some of his comments. I should like to
point out first of all that there are wide pro-
visions now in The Police Act, which I think
are very justifiable, where the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police force may come in to assist
municipal police forces and to provide police
supervision and responsibility in the case of
inadequacy or lack. I would draw the atten-
tion of the House to section 4 of The Police
Act, which says, and I will not read it fully:
Where the commission finds a munici-
pality does not maintain a police force,
and is not provided with police forces, the
commission may request the commissioners
to secure the proper police in the munici-
pality.
That, sir, is where you have a breakdown—
where a municipality does not accept the
responsibility under section 2 of the Act
which makes every city and town responsible
for policing. And then, in section 5, where
there is a force but it is inadequate, or not
properly equipped, or not properly manned,
under a similar provision where the com-
mission finds an inadequate situation, it may
then direct the attention of the commissioner,
the provincial police to it and—
Mr. Sopha: Sort of like in the town of
which the Minister was mayor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I will come to that.
Mr. Sopha: The only town of which the
Minister was mayor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I only hved in one town
in Ontario, then I moved to a city.
Mr. Sopha: You were mayor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That was a city.
Mr. Sopha: Now that has happened there.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, it has happened
there. I do not know if that is really relevant
to this bill but perhaps I can touch on it.
Mr. Sopha: It is what the Minister has been
talking about.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, not really. I will
touch upon it though.
Mr. Sopha: The Attorney General really
splits hairs today.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: If I may continue with
my thoughts as I had them planned— section
50 of The Police Act, I think, is a section to
which attention might be drawn. That is, the
situation where the police move into a muni-
cipality; where there is an emergency or a
situation requiring assistance, not just a nor-
mal place; or where there is inadequate
policing or lack of the force. I would like to
refer to that section because we have occa-
sion, not frequently, but occasionally to use
it and it reads:
A board or council responsible for the
policing of a municipality or part thereof
may by resolution request the commissioner
of the OPP to furnish the assistance of the
Ontario Provincial Police in maintaining
law and order or, investigating any ofiFence
in the municipality and the commissioner
may, with the approval of the Ontario
police commission, provide such assistance
as he deems necessary.
Then, it goes on in subsection 2:
Where such assistance is provided in an
area for the pohce in which the board or
municipality is responsible, there is a
provision for who shall share the expense.
Mr. Sargent: Where has the Minister re-
quested it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would point out that
that section, to cover an emergency situation
in the whole or part of a municipality, can
only be invoked on a resolution of the board
of police commissioners, the committee of the
council or the council itself. It must come
4340
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
through in that manner, and where there is
an unruly situation, an unlawful assembly of
riot situations or something of that kind, then
we must request and there must be the
resolution of the board of police commis-
sioners or of the council or committee of
council which handles police aflFairs.
Curiously enough, I think that is a saving
measure but it entails delay. We had a situa-
tion in Ontario just four or five weeks ago
where a group of young persons with some
reputation for disorderliness— although I would
not want to condemn them out of hand-
were moving, and had indicated they were
moving in certain areas where there had
been difficulty before. And if you had to
convene the council of the town or the beach
area to which they were moving, and get
the county council together and get a request,
they would have been long gone.
They would have been there and the situa-
tion would have developed and they would
have been long gone from that area. The
police in that case, because it happened to
be a rural area for which they were respon-
sible, were able to keep track of the activities
of that particular group, and move in and
frustrate or circumvent their activity, what-
ever it may have been.
This section 1(b) is not designed, really,
to do what is in the mind of the hon. member
for Grey-Bruce. It is curious and I am almost
amused to say that when we drafted that
section it was purely and entirely intended
to cover a situation where a town or city
absorbed another large rural area by amalga-
mation or annexation and found itself sud-
denly with perhaps a township of six miles
square. It would have an additional 36 square
miles to police with a police force which
cannot passibly take care of it all without
great expansion and great expense.
One of the situations which was particu-
larly present in our mind was Whitby town
and Whitby township. The amalgamation of
those created a very new and a much enlarged
town of Whitby. So we had discussed it with
a delegation from the town of Whitby and
found ourselves powerless under the Act to
have the police continue to police the rural
area. So we said, "We will try to get a seo-
tion in our Act which will". And that is where
we used the words, "special circumstances".
You will note it says:
Where in special circumstances the muni-
cipal police force is not capable of provid-
ing adequate pohcing for any part of the
areas for which it is responsible, the
Attorney General may authorize the Ontario
Provincial Police force to police such part
for such period and on such terms as the
Attorney General prescribes.
It is really only designed to take over a
part situation and it is not designed, and I
hope will never be used, to move in and take
over a whole municipality. There is no
thought of that.
Insofar as we were able, we had given an
assurance to Whitby town and Whitby town-
ship that we would seek legislation to enable
us to phase out the responsibility by con-
tinuing the use of provincial police in some
part of the annexed or amalgamated area.
And what we have in mind is that we may
do it, perhaps over a three-year period. But
we had to have legislation to make this legal.
That is why it is designed. And the curious
thing is—
Mr. Sargent: No consultation with the local
council.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, but there was notice
and I am glad you mentioned that. In the
opinion of the police commissioner, it has
to be special circumstances within the opinion
of the commission. They have to be of the
opinion that the municipality is not capable.
The Attorney General may then authorize
for such part and for such period; it is a
temporary thing. It is intended that way, and
on such terms as the Attorney General pre-
scribes.
So first of all the Ontario police commis-
sion has to be convinced that this is necessary.
Then the Attorney General, as the Minister
of the Crown who has to be responsible,
makes the government responsible for that
action; and I think there is an ample and
reasonable safeguard here. But the curious
thing is, when I introduced this bill the
approaches I had from the press and from
some members was, "Oh, is this to meet the
dangerous situation, the emergency situation
such as the influx of a great many visitors
from some other area on a beach, or a motor-
cycle cavalcade of notorious behaviour." But
I-
Mr. Sopha: The Premier has a home at
Grand Bend?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Wasaga Beach, Grand
Bend, other areas. Some of these areas, you
know-
Mr. Sopha: You are more likely to use it
for a strike situation.
JUNE 12, 1968
4341
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Oh, no, no. It is depen-
dent on the opinion of the commissioners, as
I say. It had to then be approved by the
Attorney General. And I remind the hon.
member for Sudbury— there is one of the
duties, to see that law and order is main-
tained.
Mr. Sopha: Of course, and you will use it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know that I
would—
Mr. Sopha: The Minister would declare
the policy in the part in which the strike
occurred as being adequate.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not need that
section for that situation.
Mr. Sopha: It is a very badly drafted
section.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member
should have said that before.
Mr. Sopha: "Special circumstances" only
add a redundancy that leads to confusion.
Mr. Speaker: Order! When the member
for Sudbury was speaking he was given the
courtesy of having his speech completed
\vithout interruption. I would ask that he
give the same courtesy to the Minister.
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order. I become
responsible for l/117ths of the language that
emanates from this House. Therefore, I have
got to be as helpful as I can in the drafting
of the statutes to which I give my tacit con-
sent. Somebody might blame me in future
generations-
Mr. Speaker: Well, I might point out that-
Mr. Sopha: I want to correct the obscurant-
ism that is in this subsection.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is now
speaking on matters which should be dealt
with in committee and not on the principle of
the bill. The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I doubt, Mr. Speaker,
if that was really a point of order, but my
friend has often been able to get remarks
in under that guise. He did not say those
remarks in his first address.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I had not heard the
Minister.
An hon. member: But you had read the
statutes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am simply answering
points which have been raised by hon.
members.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no, the Minister is not
answering it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I come
now to the hon. member for Sudbury. His
first remarks were confined-
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, would the Min-
ister answer my question regarding protection
for police officers to be replaced?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, that is in Hansard
already.
Mr. Sargent: It is a modification of it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Is it not the same ques-
tion the member raised in his question
yesterday?
Mr. Sargent: It is supplementary.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Is it?
Mr. Sargent: I have not seen Hansard yet.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would say to the hon.
member that we cannot undertake— although
I suppose one could argue it is possible— that
the legislation could say, "If you take over
a force you must take steps to replace the
present force in some sort of employment."
I do not think that would be feasible legis-
lation, even though it were possible. The
government's policy which was announced
some two years ago with respect to the par-
ticularly small forces, the one-man forces,
was to move to have that responsibility taken
from those municipalities and assumed by the
Ontario Provincial Police. These are some
of the things that the hon. member for Sud-
bury raised in his remarks. Perhaps the same
response will cover his point as well.
We did that, however, on a purely volun-
tary basis. A letter was written saying:
We are prepared to assume this respon-
sibility if you wish, and we will do it on
your request through resolution of your
council. You should make provision to
provide employment for your present police
force either by giving him first of all ample
notice, seeing if you can use him as a
bylaw enforcement officer, because we will
not assume the enforcement of your local
municipal bylaws, and then we will en-
deavour if he can qualify at all, to take
him in and make him a member of the
Ontario Provincial Pohce force.
4342
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But we could give no firm undertaking on
that, as the hon. member will understand.
That was done in a very smooth and nice way,
with very little disturbance. Out of 46 muni-
cipalities I think one or two temporarily hesi-
tated and then they all came in. Since then,
in an expansion of that policy, we have moved
to two- and three-man forces, in some cases
to four-man forces and, in one or two cases,
where there were special circumstances, it
was a five-man force, one of which is Blind
River. Keewatin, Hearst, Cochrane—
Mr. Sopha: They are all Liberals in Hearst.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They want us.
An hon. member: Did the member say all
the Liberals were in Hearst?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We do not have any
politics in this at all. It is simply a case of
policing. In no case, not one single case, have
the provincial police ever moved in arbi-
trarily, or was it a matter of being sent in.
They came in at the request of the local muni-
cipalities only.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is right.
The mayor of Oshawa—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We have never gone in
by force, only on request, under section 50 of
the Act, in an emergency situation and, in
the other situation, by a letter saying, "If you
would like us to assist you." Or they may
come to us, perhaps, before we write them
and say, "For heaven's sake, help us, we can-
not afford it, we cannot get the men, our
budget is such that it is going to be a bur-
den beyond our ability to carry. Come in
and take over the policing,"
In the case of Blind River— I will use it as
an example because it was particularly men-
tioned—as hon, members know, the sole
industry of that town is being phased out; it
has given notice it is going to disappear from
that area. It is the mainstay industry of that
community, the only thing they have. They
have asked various departments of govern-
ment to see what could be done, such as
Tourism and Information, Lands and Forests,
and the Attorney General, in the policing
area.
We looked at it from our department and
said, "We think we could assist you. Your
budget is some $52,000 or $53,000 for polic-
ing; if it will help you in this situation and
help your people to bear the burden of
taxation, we think we can stretch a point and
move in."
We have a detachment actually in the town
—on the east edge of the town, on the way
to the constituency of the hon. member for
Sudbury, there is a detachment of the Ontario
Provincial Police. They were assisting to
some extent in any event and we agreed to
take over the town of Blind River,
Now, we did our best and this is the ans-
wer in Hansard, we did our best to absorb
the members of that force and every one of
them was given a thorough individual per-
sonal interview. They were not able to
qualify for the Ontario Provincial Police
force. Although I have the statistics of mem-
bers of municipal forces that have been ab-
sorbed—and there are quite a number in the
takeover so far, who have come into the On-
tario Provincial Police force— we were not—
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, this may
not be right, but to clarify this—
Mr. Speaker: The member will state his
point of order.
Mr. Sargent: I would just like to ask the
Attorney General to—
Mr. Speaker: Order! That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: No, the member has the right
to rise on a point of order but not to ask
a question.
Mr. Sargent: Insofar as not assuming the
complete complement of the police force, Mr.
Speaker, I think the approach-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is not
stating a point of order.
Mr. Sargent: The point of order is he is
not, respectfully, doing the takeover fairly
if you give-
Mr. Speaker: Order! That is not a point of
order.
Mr, Sargent: It is very important to the
people of Ontario-
Mr. Speaker: The member will state his
point of order and, if it is a point of order,
it will be dealt with.
Mr. Sargent: How can we discuss this if
you spoil the conversation back and forth?
Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to
the member that the rules and customs of
this House do not allow for a conversation
JUNE 12, 1968
4343
back and forth, as the member put it. The
member will address the Minister, and the
Minister the member, through the chair.
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I think I
was going to deal with a point which I be-
lieve die hon. member had in mind in any
event, so perhaps I will cover it in my further
remarks.
I would refer the hon. member to the
remarks I placed in Hansard— I am sorry he
was not here at the time; we might have had
a supplementary question then. However, I
would point tiiis out— in taking over a force,
a municipal force, I think what we might
consider doing, if this were wise or feasible,
would be to say to the municipality, "We'll
come in if you want us, but you assure us
that you have not neglected the welfare of
your present force."
To go further than that and say, "We will
take them all into the Ontario Provincial
PoUce force" is simply, I can say now, im-
possible. Because, by reason of age, back-
ground qualifications, education or training,
they would not, in many cases, as our ex-
perience shows, qualify. I think we have
learned that we can, perhaps, exert some
force, or some persuasion, upon the local
municipality to take care of that force.
On Bhnd River, incidentally, I answered a
question, I believe, in the House last week.
I believe three of the five members had ob-
tained employment, one did not appear anxi-
ous to get employment and the other, for
health reasons, could not take it. I think we
have a concern, I know we have a concern
that perhaps we did not exercise as much per-
suasion as we might have. I think henceforth
we will be able to do something in this
regard.
I would hke just very briefly to wind up
these remarks. The hon. member for Sudbury
spoke of the grudging approach to the bar-
gaining provisions in the Act; he thought
that we were approaching this very grudg-
ingly. I must confess I cannot follow him
when he says these procedures— if this is
what he said-go back to King Henry IV
or somebody. I just do not follow that.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister means he does
not understand.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I never knew that arbi-
tration was exercised in those days.
Mr. Sopha: Let us not be frivolous about
this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl If the member for
Sudbury has a point of order, he will state
it, otherwise he will give the floor to the
Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: The point is that the Attorney
General must not mislead, and I can put
this very briefly.
In respect of section 7, the people in your
department know the only appeal possible
from an award of a board of arbitration is by
the prerogative writs, that is the only way it
can get to the court, and I said that that is
hardly consistent witli this enhghtened age.
If we want to permit an appeal, let us say
so, on a point of law, and let us not resort to
those old archaic forms developed in the time
of Henry I. That is all I said.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the clari-
fication from the hon. member.
I would say, however, the point I was mak-
ing was that these provisions were not
reached grudgingly. They were reached in
free and open consultation with the police
association, with the governing bodies, with
the council of the police association, after
many discussions, and without any difficulty.
It is true that the police force cannot be a
union and cannot strike. It has an association
which is very strong, but is denied the right
to strike, and I think quite properly so, for
reasons of public safety. This is accepted.
There has been no difficulty in our bargain-
ing, at any stage with the pohce forces. These
provisions are openly arrived at by very
friendly and thorough discussion and consul-
tation.
The only change in section 7, which is
section 32 in the present Act, is that it
simply replaces the Attorney General by the
police commission. That is generally the
effect— it is only a question of interpretation,
or apphcation, or administration of the agree-
ment. It is not a great matter of primary
dispute between the parties. It is a question
of interpretation or administration, as the
section says. The application of the agree-
ment. This is not an earthshaking amendment,
and it was to give speed and finality to that
type of dispute or misunderstanding.
In the matter of regional government I
think that just one word further would suffice
to complete what I would have to say on that.
I can say I have indicated that the policy has
been to move from this very small force to
the larger one. I would point out that these
4344
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
things take time. They take additional per-
sonnel and, therefore, money. They take
facilities in police detachment headquarters,
and housing.
We have done the surveys in various parts
of Ontario. In southern Ontario, I think a
different problem exists than in northern
Ontario where it has been pointed out there
are small forces, perhaps within a radius of
10 or 15 miles. You may perhaps have half a
dozen small forces, whereas in northern
Ontario you have one small force, and then
50 miles away another.
So we can effect, I believe, and I am mov-
ing towards this in our studies and in our
programme, amalgamation of the forces in
southern Ontario which will make for more
efficient policing and which will, I think
save expense. But the problem in northern
Ontario is one of scattered small communities
many many miles apart as a rule, and this is
a case where you cannot achieve the amal-
gamation and a sharing of cost as you can in
a very thickly settled area.
Your only recourse, really, is to assist, I
suggest, by the assumption by the province
of policing responsibihty— to which end we
should move within our means as quickly as
possible. This, I beheve, we can look forward
to as being extended and expanded as time
goes by.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
RAISING OF MONEY ON THE CREDIT
OF THE CONSOLIDATED REVENUE
FUND
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves second
reading of Bill 149, An Act to authorize the
raising of money on the credit of the con-
solidated revenue fund.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of
principle here, since this gives borrowing
powers— I asked the Provincial Auditor last
week, or perhaps the week before, and I
wonder aloud as a matter of principle to the
Treasurer of the province, why is it that
since the province does not have sufficient
cash to pay the commitments that it encoun-
ters in the space of a year, and if it is forced
to borrow money to meet those commitments,
why, in the accounts of this province, cannot
one see a simple statement showing the
amount of money the province took in, its
income in a year, and the amount of money
the province spent in a year?
The difference ought to be— I am no
accountant— but the difference ought to be
that amount of money that tlie province is
forced to borrow. But try as one might, one
cannot find anywhere in the public accounts
of this province a statement showing, in
simplicity, for the inexpert, the uninitiated
in the field of accounting, a statement that
says tliat.
And it is a sorry commentary on bookkeep-
ing procedures that when one is trying to
find out, as I was last week, how much money
is owed, or the net deficit of this province.
Did you, Mr. Speaker, see Leslie Frost out in
the hustings there last week laying the infer-
ence—not like one red herring but a whole
ship load of them— that this province had had
a balanced budget under his suzerainty.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
come back to the bill.
Mr. Sopha: That is what he was saying in
Etobicoke last week, laying that inference.
Well, I am saying it is a funny thing in order
to find out how much we are behind in tota!
expenditures last year— the total receipts that
you have to— that one has to have the privi-
leged position of being a member of this
House in order to call the auditor and be the
beneficiary of his courtesy to assist you to
find out the state of affairs.
Now, we can do that because the Pro-
vincial Auditor is in a special relationship to
us— the 116 of us other than the Provincial
Treasurer, presumably the Provincial Treas-
urer knows. But the rest of the seven million
people in the province cannot call the Pro-
vincial Auditor and have made available to
them his graciousness and his expert knowl-
edge in order to be able to assist.
I really cannot understand, in this advanced
age, why tliere is not someone, or somewhere,
such a statement? In order to find out what
the deficit was in the last year for which
they reported, which was the end of March,
1967, the Provincial Auditor and I had to do
about four separate arithmetical calculations
and he had to impart to me special knowledge
that he had in the translation of terms used
in the public accounts.
And all I wanted to know— the single thing
I wanted to know— is: put capital and ordi-
nary expenditure together, for my purposes
lump them together— it is an arbitrary differ-
ence anyways— I was speaking of expenditure.
I wanted to know how much the govern-
ment spent for all purposes in that fiscal
year, and how much it took in. That is the
way of running the books in my office— let
JUNE 12, 1968
4345
me tell you— and I know it. My bookkeeper
can tell me at any particular time, and in
any other well operated business they are
able to tell you that, because other businesses
do not make that arbitrary distinction— that
fine, artistic, distinction that the government
of Ontario makes— about the capital that
comes into the ordinary account.
I am just telling you, Mr. Speaker, that
the Provincial Auditor had to translate terms
to me in that those public accounts, we had to
make four separate calculations in order to
come to that figure. Why? Should the public
of Ontario not know if the government of
Ontario is going in the red? Does it have to
be shrouded by obfuscation? It is almost as
if they hired a team of experts from Outer
Manchuria to help cloud it in confusion so
that you cannot tell.
Really when it is a matter of tax dollars
coming in or being spent, who does it mat-
ter to the taxpayer how the government
identifies the expenditure? The accountant
would be interested in that.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member will
come back to the bill. I have allowed him a
great deal of latitude.
Mr. Sopha: All right. This is the point.
This authorizes the Provincial Treasurer to
raise money on the credit of the consolidated
revenue fund, and my complaint, as a matter
of principle, is in the way that the accounts
of the province are presently prepared. You
are unable, in looking at them, without special
knowledge and making additional calculations
which really impose upon one, to tell how
much the government is in the red, and how
much the Provincial Treasurer has to borrow
under the statutory authority that he now
seeks from me. I would ask as a matter of
principle, and in relation to this bill, that
when all the public accounts are prepared that
a final statement be set out showing the total
amount that came in and total expenditures
for all purposes— from ordinary income or
capital expenditure— and the difference has
to be how much this Treasurer goes in the
hole year after year.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak to this? The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I do
not know whether the hon. member studied
the last abridged statement for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1967 or not?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I did.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well, it is all
there. It is impossible at the time of the
Budget to say accurately what the figures
will be, because the Budget figures are based
on eight months actual experience and the
rest of it has to be forecast information for
a period of four months, so that the Budget
can only be an estimate. But then, of course,
it is reconciled in terms of the abridged state-
ment later on.
I can say to the hon. member— and, I think,
in all fairness— that I am hopeful that the next
abridged statement will be written in some-
what simpler terms. Beyond that I cannot
make any further comments.
Really, all the statutes before the House
for consideration today on second reading
are to authorize the Provincial Treasurer to
borrow funds that are going to be required
from the capital market for the ensuing year.
It is a routine bill and it comes up annually
and the Legislature, of course, must give the
Treasurer the authority to provide for funds
from the capital market in this manner.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 9th order; the
House in the committee of the whole House;
Mr. A. E. Renter in the chair.
THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
House in committee on Bill 130, an Act to
amend The Employment Standards Act.
On section 1:
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Chairman, I move an amendment to section
1, clause, or subsection, b. The amendment
is to read as follows:
"Director" means the director of em-
ployment standards appointed for the
purposes of this Act.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: I believe that there is an
amendment to section 2?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, in section 2
I would move that, in clause b, that the
present clause be named number 2 (a), and
that a clause (b) be added:
A director of employment standards shall
be appointed for the purposes of this Act.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
4346
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On section 7:
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to move an amend-
ment to section 7. I move that subsection 1
be amended by striking out "48" in the sec-
ond line and inserting in lieu thereof, "40".
Mr. Chairman, the Act strikes me as an Act
to set standards for the unorganized workers
of Ontario. It is my considered opinion that
this Act should come at least close to some
of the agreements that have been won by
organized labour and for which they fought
so hard.
I think that if we were to look at most
of the agreements arrived at by industry and
labour that the 40-hour week is a standard
part of these agreements. There are about
2.8 million workers in Ontario. I understand,
Mr. Chairman, that about 2 million of them
are unorganized.
I think that the Minister, when he considers
tliis type of legislation, should at least try to
bring the legislation as close to the agree-
ments that have been arrived at by industry
and labour over the past 25 or 30 years. I
also notice that what this Act is, in effect,
doing in connecttion with the hours worked,
is merely to make law what is actually in
existence today.
There are many people working 48, 50,
or 60 hours, when the normal reasonable,
and healthful thing for the government to
do is to make 40 hours the normal work
week.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Timiskam-
ing.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to put the stand of our
party on record. We support the amendment
and we support it wholeheartedly. The Min-
ister in his statement when he introduced the
bill stated that it was partially to assure
modern working conditions to all employees
in the province. I would like to point out to
you, Mr. Chairman, that the 40-hour week
has become almost a standard in this country.
The Minister further pointed out that it
was to curb use of excessive overtime and
perhaps create additional employment oppor-
tunities. I believe that if we have the 40-
hour week in Ontario it can do nothing but
create more opportunities for employment.
In many areas of Ontario there are still
people working 60, 70 and as high as 80
hours a week. I am sure the Minister knows
this.
However, I believe that these are isolated
cases, that the employment norm in Ontario
at the moment is 40 hours. I believe the
sooner we move to that and the sooner this
Minister brings in legislation to make it law,
the sooner this country will see a drop in
imemployment in this province. Once again
I would like to put the stand of our party on
record— we intend to support this amendment.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, if I might speak to this amend-
ment, basically for the purpose of clarifica-
tion, in relation to subsection 2 on the
exemptions, which directly concern subsection
14 that we are coming to, and this is in rela-
tion to the food processing industry. Have
there been any changes in the regulations
that are going to affect those persons engaged
in the seasonal work in their fruit and vege-
table canning, their processing industries.
Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on
the amendment?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, in reference
to the amendment, I would like to say a few
words if I may. I think I made it very clear
in the beginning, in my statements, and other
remarks in reference to this matter that this
bill is to provide basic protection. It does not
attempt to negotiate all working conditions
for people, whether they be unionized ox
otherwise in the province. It is to establish a
set of working conditions and we have im-
proved them by reason of this bill.
As the amendanent stands, Mr. Chairman,
I would point out to the members that this
would place a maximum of 40 hours in the
work week; over and above that, other ar-
rangements would pertain. Union agreements
do not limit work to 40 hours or even 37.5
hours in a week. They normally provide for
overtime pay beyond these levels and quite
frequently people seek to work longer hours
and increase their pay.
I am also concerned that the economy of
the province perhaps could not withstand a
reduction to that point at this time, because
in many instances it would create a situation
in which people would have to cut down on
the number of employees. I am sure the
members will appreciate that when one brings
in legislation such as this, there are many
submissions on various points of view.
The hon. member for Timiskaming referred
to the matter that people are working sub-
stantial hours beyond 48. I realize they are
in some instances, but it is done on the basis
of permits and we attempt to control it iri
JUNE 12, 1968
4347
that way. So for these reasons, Mr. Chairman,
and without dealing at the moment with the
question raised by the hon. member for
Essex South, I would oppose the amendment.
In reference to his question of seasonable
employment, that would be dealt with under
the regulations and consideration given to
their particular problems in that regard.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that
there would still be many people employed
who would be working more than 40 hours
a week if the amendment were to succeed,
just as the Minister is aware that there will
be many people employed in the province
who will be working for more than 48 hours
a week if the bill stands as it is presently
put before us.
We on this side are concerned that the
bill does not provide the circumstances that
are in the best interest of the labour force.
We look at the material that was appended
to the hon. Provincial Treasurer's Budget this
year which does show warnings of an in-
creased level of unemployment in the imme-
diate future, particularly in the year that lies
ahead. And the passage of the amendment
would certainly be in the best interest of
moving towards full employment and main-
taining that very attractive position in the
province of Ontario. So I would ask the
Minister to give it very careful consideration,
that such changes in the future might even
get government support.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Timiska-
ming.
Mr. Jackson: I would just like to point out
to the Minister that when the unions go after
a 40-hour week, or time and a half for over-
time, it is not to enlarge the pay packet. It
has only one basic purpose and that is to
provide further employment by making it
economically sound for the company to hire
more employees rather than pay the time
and a half wages, and it is my opinion that
this will do the same thing.
It is not going to hurt the companies if
they have to, or if they choose to, hire
people to work the extra hours after the 40
hours. They will be paying them at straight
time rather than time and a half. So really, I
cannot see the Minister's argument where he
says that it might hurt some companies eco-
liomically.
Mr, Chairman: Any further debate on the
amendment?
Mr. J. Root (Wcllington-Dufferin): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make one or two
comments. If we are going to reduce the
work week to 40 hours, eight hours a day,
you are creating a very difficult situation for
the basic industry of agriculture. Quite
frankly I am surprised to hear the leader
of the Opposition go on record as favouring
a 40-hour week. I realize the NDP have no
rural members in their ranks and they might
go for that.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Where
were you last night when we were—
Mr. Root: What has that got to do with
it? Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. mem-
ber for York South would desist and listen?
I want to say this, that a 40-hour week with
an eight-hour day means that the farmers'
help would work five days a week. Now we
have not developed cows yet that would
stop milking Friday night and come back
on Monday morning. The hens will lay all
over the weekend and if the farmer did not
look after his livestock over the weekend you
would have the humane society breathing
down your neck.
Mr. Nixon: How are you going to accom-
modate the 48 hours without breaking the
law?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Root: Let me continue.
So you have a situation where you are
asking the farmer to bid in the same labour
pool where people have that protection.
Farmers are a group of people who work
hand in hand with the great architect of the
universe. We work with the weather, and if
you start work at seven in the morning your
eight hours are up at three in the afternoon.
And anyone who farms knows that is about
the time when the combine is working to
advantage, when you are harvesting. At that
time you start to pay time and a half, so
I am suggesting that the hon. members op-
posite who are supporting the idea of a 40-
hour week with an eight-hour working day,
completely forgot the basic industry of agri-
culture and I would hope that this amend-
ment would be unanimously defeated.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman,
the remarks of the member for Wellington-
Duff erin are completely erroneous; irrelevant,
my friend says, and perhaps he is right.
4348
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: You can tliink of a better word
than that.
Mr. Deans: I am sure I could but I would
hate to use them in here. To think for a
moment that we are going to hold back the
progress of society because of such a thing
as milking a cow on a Sunday is ridiculous.
What is required in this province is that we
upgrade the standards and provide more
leisure time and this is exactly what this bill
is doing. It is providing those people who,
at the present moment, do not have the bene-
fit of collective bargaining, the opportunity
to be with their families at some time during
the course of a week.
Now in the case of farmers, for the most
part, seasonal employment is not affected by
this bill, not aflFected in any way and, at the
present moment, they do not comply with the
bill as it is written and with the Act as it is
written. There is no reason to believe that
they would be forced to comply with this
Act when it was changed, because the director
—or whoever it is in charge— has tlie right, as
it says in the bill, to make whatever changes
are necessary and this would be taken care
of there. The member well knows it would
be taken care of there.
What I am interested in seeing is that those
people in the parts of this province who are
being paid a minimal wage and forced
to work 60 and 70 hours a week in order to
earn a decent living, are no longer forced
to do that. There are two ways to attack it
and we hope to attack them from both ways
in this House.
The first thing is to reduce the hours that
a person must work in this province in order
to earn a decent living, and the second is
to upgrade the minimum wage in order that
every person working in this province will
earn a decent living in a reasonable nimiber
of hours.
That is part of what this bill does. It pro-
vides for tlie hours and a subsequent bill, I
hope, very soon, will provide for a reasonable
minimum standard of wage. I think that the
amendment put forward by the member for
Dovercourt is an excellent amendment and
one that, had he not moved, I would have
moved myself.
As far as I am concerned, the time is long
past when we should recognize that people
should not be forced to work more than 40
hours in any one week in order to earn a
decent living, and they should not be forced
to work six days a week in order to make
ends meet. That is what is happening right
in this province today.
It is time this government woke up and
took a look around them and saw what is
happening to the people of this province. It
is getting impossible to earn a decent living
in this province. There are more and more
people who are going to finance companies.
There are more and more people going into
debt every day in this province.
The time has come for us to take a definite
stand in upgrading the standard of living of
the average person. We have upgraded the
standard of living of the judges, let us get
down to some of the average people in this
province, some of the ones who have not the
benefit of collective bargaining. Let us reduce
their hours to the same hours as any normal
people work.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: I just want to make one
brief comment. This bill, when it was intro-
duced, was typical of the kind of bill you
would expect to come from a Tory govern-
ment. This is a predominantly industrial prov-
ince and this province should be leading in
this field. That the govermnent should
profess to be doing something to protect the
interests of the unorganized and come, in the
year 1968, with a bill for a 48-hour week is
proof of just how far behind an industrial
province this government is in its thinking.
But if you wanted the thing nailed down, our
friend from Wellington-Dufferin certainly
nailed it down, because he revealed that at
least his aspect of the party is tied to the horse
and buggy. And he expects the rest of the
province— 75 to 80 per cent or approaching
that of an urbanized area— to be tied to the
horse and buggy along with him.
If he wants to push that kind of a line in
the province of Ontario, he will find out what
will happen in the next election.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of tlie
motion of the member for Dovercourt will
please say "aye"; those opposed will please
say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it.
Call in the members.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of the
motion of the member for Dovercourt will
please rise.
Those opposed will please rise.
JUNE 12, 1968
4349
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 30, the "nays" 53.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Section 7 will stand as part of the bill.
Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would move
an amendment to section 14 (1) and (2) as
follows:
That section 14 of Bill 130, The Employ-
ment Standards Act, 1968, be deleted and
replaced by a new section 14 as follows:
14 (1) Where an employee works for
an employer in excess of eight hours in any
day, or in excess of 40 hours in any week,
he shall be paid, for each hour or part
thereof, an amount not less than one and
one-half times his regular hourly rate.
(2) Every employee shall receive an
allowance of one day's pay for each statu-
tory holiday. Such employee, if he should
be required to work on a statutory holiday,
shall receive, in addition, a regular day's
pay.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth moves that section 14 of Bill 130, The
Employment Standards Act, 1968, be deleted
and replaced by a new section 14 as follows:
( 1 ) Where an employee works for an em-
ployer in excess of eight hours in any day
or in excess of 40 hours in any week, he
shall be paid, for each hour or part thereof,
an amount not less than one and one-half
times his regular hourly rate.
(2) Every employee shall receive an
allowance of one day's pay for each statu-
tory holiday. Such employee, if he should
be required to work on a statutory holiday,
shall receive, in addition, a regular day's
pay.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, recognizing that
the government did not see fit to reduce the
mandatory hours of work within reason in
this province, it seems only fitting that those
employees who are forced then to work in
excess of 40 hours should be paid overtime
for that portion in excess of 40 hours that
they are forced to work.
This amendment does just that. It ensures
that any employee who has to work 48 hours
will receive eight hours at time and one-half,
which is not unreasonable in this province. It
performs a function not at all unlike that
which would have been performed had you
changed section 7 to 40 hours. The norm in
this province for those people under a collec-
tive bargaining agreement is 40 hours.
It is not unreasonable to expect that a per-
son with a family should be able to devote
two days out of a week to being with his
family. Since the government feels this is
unreasonable, it is then not unreasonable that,
should he have to give up one of those days
when he should be with his children, that he
should be at least recompensed appropriately.
He should be receiving an amount that would,
in some way, provide him with the finances
that would enable his family to do the things
that he ought to be able to do with them
alone.
The amendment to section 2 of the bill re-
quires that every employee in this province
shall be paid one day's pay for the statutory
holidays that are laid out in the bill. That
is everyone, whether he works or whether he
does not work. It also states that any em-
ployee forced to work on a statutory holiday
should receive, in addition to this, one day's
pay— his normal day's earnings.
I think an enlightened society would agree
that if a person should have to work on a
statutory holiday, he should receive consider-
ably more than if he were able to sit at home.
And I think again there is no purjwse in giving
a statutory holiday if a person has to do
without a wage on that particular day.
So I would move that these sections be
agreed to and become part of this bill.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, as we look
reasonably at the section as it was brought
down by the government, it means that a
man, in order to earn overtime, has to either
work eight hours a day, six days a week, or
a little less than 10 hours a day, five days
a week.
I think, as the member for York South
mentioned in the discussion on the previous
section, that we are an industrialized prov-
ince. We must accept the fact that many men
work at long and tough jobs and that when
they have worked eight hours they are pretty
tired and, even for a health measure, my
friend's amendment should stand.
As I said before, on the amendment to the
previous section, this is in keeping with the
normal union agreements arrived at by collec-
tive bargaining between imion and manage-
ment. I think tliis Act, which is designed to
protect the unorganized workers in Ontario,
should allow for overtime for all hours over
40 hours and I would like to support the
amendment of the member for Wentworth.
4350
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, in rising to
speak to this section, I can only repeat most
of my argument on the previous sections.
Once again it comes to mind that the Min-
ister has said work conditions have wide ac-
ceptance in this province. I believe, and my
party believes, that the 40-hour week and
time and a half for anything over eight hours
in die day and 40 hours in the week has wide
acceptance— that it is almost the accepted
practice throughout industry. The Minister
has also stated that it will help people with
little or no bargaining power— people that do
not belong to unions.
We have the feeling that the Minister is
not really honest when he says this— that he
has no intention of helping these people. Be-
cause, in one breath he says that he is going
to help the little group that has no bargaining
power, and then he turns around and brings
through a bill that does just the opposite—
that really helps the employer that wants to
work the people more than the normal work
week.
I would like to point out again in this
House that the prime purpose, and the only
purpose, that was in the mind of the union
organization when it brought forth time and
one-half provisions for overtime and holidays,
was that the companies would find it more
economic to hire additional employees than
to pay the extra money.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that
it would be no hold-back to industry to grant
the 40-hour week. It is no hold-back to grant
the time and one-half provisions, and it would
definitely create employment in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane
South.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Chairman, I rise to support this amendment,
and I would like to point out that it has be-
come the practice of our society to have a
number of statutory holidays, and pretty well
the whole industrial and business community
grinds to a standstill on these days. I think
that the unorganized workers, those who need
legislative assistance, should also be entitled
to their pay for these holidays. They are the
ones who are often getting the lowest wages,
and to be penalized without a salary on a
hohday to me is extremely unjust. I feel that
this amendment that the hon. member for
Wentworth has proposed is extremely neces-
sary and called for.
It has been stated that this amendment is
to protect the unorganized workers, and after
hearing some of the thinking of this govem-
)nent that has led to this bill, all I can say is
that it should be a great incentive to the
unorganized workers to get organized.
Mr. Chairman: TJie Minister.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Chairman, in this sec-
tion there are two of the new provisions in
tliis bill. Namely, that there shall be paid to
employees time and one-half for work beyond
48 hours, and, secondly, that an employer
shall pay to an employee who works on the
liolidays set out in the bill time and one-half
for his hours of work. These provisions have
been brought in and are those which we feel
the particular industries that are most affected
can afford and support at the present time.
We are not opposed to, but in fact are in
favour of bettering conditions, and that is
just what this bill does. We are establishing
employment standards under it and that these
will be changed from time to time as cir-
cumstances permit. We want tliis bill to be
a benefit to the working force as well as
to the economy as a whole in this province.
To impose conditions wherein, for example,
we would pay a person for a holiday, plus
his regular pay, if he worked, would impose
a charge that industry, particularly in the
service field— and this is where most of the
impact comes— could not afford at this time.
We would find that, in many instances, they
would be cutting down on the number of
employees.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I feel
that we have gone as far as is possible and
economically wise at the present time— to
provide the best provisions we can not only
for labour but for the businesses that employ
them, and so that labourers will retain their
positions, and businesses will require the
maximum number of employees. For that
reason I would be opposed, and I would
hope the House would oppose, these
amendments.
Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might ask the
Minister on what does he base his opinion
that these industries cannot afford it?
Hjon. Mr. Bales: We have carried out 8
number of surveys. The industries are par-
ticularly in the retail trade, small stores
throughout the province, or in hotels, res-
taurants, and those areas wherein it is largely
people that work with not many skills. They
do a good job, but the margin of profit is
not very high, in some of those types of
institutions. And I am not talking about the
large department stores. I am talking about
the small retail firms, situated in the smaller
JUNE 12, 1968
4351
towns and villages throughout this whole
province. We have done a considerable num-
ber of surveys. They are not complete yet,
but we have been doing them, in reference
to the minimum wage field, and there are
preliminary surveys as well as more detailed
ones. We looked at it very carefully before
we brought in the legislation that is here
today.
Mr. MacDonald: You are perpetuating the
pockets of poverty.
Mr. Deans: Well, let me ask the Minister,
is it the practice of this government, then,
to base everything on the minimum? Is it to
be the practice that we are going to base all
of the standards on the very, very minimum
areas— as my leader says, "the pockets of
poverty"? What about all of the people wKo
reside and work in the Metropoliton Toronto
area, the Hamilton area, the Peterborough
and the Oshawa areas? These i>eople have to
make ends meet on the meagre allowances
that you people put forward as the minimum.
There is no point in making your judgment
on some place where it actually does not
really exist. Start dealing with the practice.
Start deahng with what is happening around
this province. Start thinking about the people
who are struggling from day to day.
Tliere is no point in giving a man a holi-
day if you are not going to pay him for it.
Absolutely no point at all. The average man
has as many payments every week as his pay
packet will enable him to pay. If he gets
$100, we find that it takes every dollar of
it to make ends meet. There is no point in
giving him Friday off if you will not pay
him for it, because he cannot aflFord it.
You are not giving him anything. For good-
ness sake, become modern. Waken up,
Reahze that people are entitled to a day off
with pay.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, could I add
a httle bit to this? I go back to the Httle or
no bargaining power statement of the Minis-
ter. His attitude, and this government's atti-
tude, is to wait for the unions to win it,
then bring in legislation after it has already
been won and say: Well, look what we have
—we have an enlightened Act, ten years
after it has already gone into effect, through
the unions.
Might I say, that if this is the fact, then
the people in Ontario should take a much
greater look at unionism and a much greater
look at this government.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of the
amendment, please say aye. Those opposed,
please say nay.
In my opinion the nays have it.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 130, as amended, reported.
THE WAGES ACT
House in committee on Bill 131, An Act to
amend The Wages Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 131 reported.
THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT, 1964
House in committee on Bill 132, An Act
to amend The Industrial Safety Act, 1964.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 132 reported.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE.
1961-1962
House in committee on Bill 133, An Act
to amend the Ontario human rights code,
1961-1962.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 133 reported.
THE PENSION BENEFITS ACT, 1965
House in committee on Bill 134, An Act
to amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1965.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 134 reported.
Clerk of the House: The honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor recommends tlie follow-
ing:
Resolved:
That an income tax shall be paid by
every individual who was resident in, or
had income earned, in Ontario, being 28
per cent of the tax payable under the In-
come Tax Act (Canada) in respect of the
1969 taxation year,
as provided in Bill 136, An Act to amend The
Income Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Resolution concurred in.
4352
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-1962
House in committee on Bill 136, An Act
to amend The Income Tax Act, 1961-1962.
On section 1:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial
Treasurer informed us on second reading that
this was simply to give the government of
Canada notice that in fact we wanted our 28
percentage points of the income tax revenues
that are payable under the federal statute.
The abatement of 28 per cent is arrived at
by agreement between the government of
Canada and the government of Ontario and,
as I understand it, this agreement runs out
in 1968.
I wonder if the Minister might indicate if
the 28 per cent that is enacted by this bill
could be amended before a full year comes
around, in order to take advantage of either
a more generous apportionment reached by
agreement with the government of Canada
or a unilateral decision taken by this govern-
ment, that we have to have more revenues
from the source?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think I explained
on second reading that at the January con-
ference of Finance Ministers, this matter was
raised with the then federal Minister of
Finance. Prior to the adjournment of the
meeting, it was agreed that there could be
another opportunity to pursue this matter if,
l^y agreement, it is determined there will be
a greater abatement or if the province elected
to levy and collect income tax above and
beyond the abated percentage.
It is against that possibility, I think, that
I suggested we would have another oppor-
tunity to do this in the fall session of the
House.
In any case, it has become practice, by
agreement with the federal authorities, that
we give notice in this maimer. At the mo-
ment—until we do have a conference and
until the agreement is changed, and hope-
fully, we will be able to persuade the federal
authorities to abate more than 28 per cent.
But in any case, at this particular point in
time, we are assured we will have another
opportunity to give further and amended
notice in time if time and circumstances
warrant.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, what is the
deadline for the present agreement? Does it
run out on the last day of 1968, or does it
just continue until some other arrangements
are arrived at?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman,
the last agreement was for two years. I am
not sure what the expiry date is, but it is
two years, ending probably at the end of the
calendar year, or the end of the fiscal year.
I am not sure which it is.
The present agreement is for only two
years.
Mr. Nixon: So you expect to be renegoti-
ating that agreement before the end of 1968?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Oh yes. It is very
essential. As a matter of fact, this also was
agreed to at the January conference. It was
recognized that there would be another con-
ference, with respect to either renewal of the
present agreement, or amendment to the
agreement, but there will have to be a
meeting between now and the end of the
year.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 136 reported.
Clerk of the House: The honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor recommends the follow-
ing:
Resolved:
That the Treasurer of Ontario, when he
deems it advisable for the sound and eflB-
cient management of public money or of
the public debt or of any sinking fund may,
from time to time and on such terms and
conditions as he may deem advisable, pur-
chase, acquire and hold,
( a ) securities issued by or guaranteed as
to principal and interest by Ontario, any
other province of Canada, Canada or the
United Kingdom; and
(b) securities issued by the United States
of America; and,
(c) securities issued or guaranteed by
the international bank for reconstruction
and development payable in Canadian or
United States currency; and,
(d) deposit receipts, deposit notes, cer-
tificates of deposits, acceptances and other
similar instruments issued or endorsed by
any charter bank to which The Bank Act
(Canada) applies,
and pay therefor out of the consolidated
revenue fund,
as provided in Bill 137, An Act to amend The
Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, is this a standard
resolution? I do not recall having that before
the House in previous years.
Resolution concurred in.
JUNE 12, 1968
4353
THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
House in committee on Bill 137, An Act to
amend The Financial Administration Act.
Sections 1 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 20:
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: With respect to
section 20, I move that section 47 of the Act
as re-enacted by section 20 of this bill be
struck out, and the following substituted
therefor:
Lieutenant-Governor in council may pro-
vide for the manner of executing securities
and coupons if any attached thereto and
may provide that any signature or signa-
tures upon the securities and coupons
attached thereto may be engraved, "litho-
graphed, printed or otherwise mechanically
reproduced".
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Pro-
vincial Treasurer could explain why it is
more useful to him that it not be laid down
that the Deputy Treasurer be the counter-
signing authority?
Hon. Mr. McNaughton: It is to provide for
flexibility, Mr. Chairman. The new amend-
ment provides that the Lieutenant-Governor
in council would decide the manner in which
the securities issued by the province will be
executed. That is for each issue. The order-
in-council will provide for who will sign the
securities.
The previous amendment required that the
Provincial Treasurer and either the Deputy
Provincial Treasurer or an oflBcer of The
Department of Treasury and Economics would
sign the securities. It was rather too precise.
There was not enough flexibihty in it. So
that in each instance, this will now be set out
in the authorizing order-in-council.
Mr. Nixon: Well, it seems to me that the
original bill had quite a bit of flexibihty in it.
Either the Deputy Provincial Treasurer or
such oflBcer of the department who might be
approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in
council. What more flexibility would you want
than would be included in that rather exten-
sive group?
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 137 reported.
Clerk of the House: The honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor recommends the follow-
ing:
Resolved:
That remissions of any tax, fee or penalty
granted under The Department of Revenue
Act, 1968, or any other Act of the Legis-
lature, may be paid out of the consolidated
revenue fund,
as provided in Bill 138, An Act to establish
The Department of Revenue.
Resolution concurred in.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
House in committee on Bill 138, An Act to
establish The Department of Revenue.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Nixon: Can the Provincial Treasurer
tell the House what sources of provincial in-
come would not come under the responsibihty
of this new department? I guess there are
some, like the revenues from transport?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man. At the moment the revenue that would
accrue from the sale of motor vehicle hcences
would not come under this department.
Frankly, that is the only principal one that
comes to mind at the moment. There are
probably a few others, but that would be the
principal area of revenue.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 138 reported.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, 1961-1962
House in committee on Bill 139, An Act to
amend The Public Service Act, 1961-1962.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 139 reported.
Clerk of the House: The honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor recommends the follow-
ing:
Resolved:
That the money required for the pur-
poses of The Ontario Labour-Management
Arbitration Commission Act, 1968, shall,
until the 31st day of March, 1969, be paid
out of the consolidated revenue fund,
as provided by Bill 142, The Ontario Labour-
Management Arbitration Commission Act,
1968.
Resolution concurred in.
4354
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
THE ONTARIO LABOUR-MANAGEMENT
ARBITRATION COMMISSION ACT, 1968
House in committee on Bill 142, The
Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration
Commission Act, 1968.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 142 reported.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton moves that the
committee of the whole House rise and report
certain resolutions, certain bills without
amendment and certain bills with certain
amendments and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report certain
resolutions, certain bills without amendment
and certain bills with amendments and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The 21st order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
On vote 606:
Mr. I. Deans ( Wentworth ) : Mr. Chairman,
under the Ontario water resources commission,
I would like to raise the matter of the Lake
Ontario shoreline bordering the tovraship of
Saltfleet and of the Hamilton Bay— two areas
that desperately need attention.
Each year we are plagued with the problem
that a person cannot get near the water for
the smell. I tliink that maybe it is time some-
thing was done to relieve this problem.
One of the things that might be done is
that we could begin by cleaning up the shore-
line. Last year, that area known as Confedera-
tion park in Hamilton was closed to the pub-
lic for swimming and it looks as if it is not
going to be any better this year. It may be,
but it does not look that way. The area of
the beach of Lake Ontairo bordering on
Saltfleet township has been, over the last
years, polluted with dead fish, and it takes
some time to get this cleared up.
They float in from the lake and I think
that we ought to find out why they are dying
to begin with and why they—
An hon. member: Old age!
Mr. Deans: Old age? I see, thank you very
much.
An hon. member: The biologist from the
bush!
Mr. Deans: I would suggest though that
part of the reason that the fish are dying is
because of the cesspool that is known as
Hamilton Bay. Maybe the Ontario water
resources commission ought to know and
start cleaning this terrible mess up.
How the people living on the beach strip
in Hamilton can live there is beyond me.
There are days when you drive across there
and the smell is intolerable. You cannot open
your windows, because you could not live in
the house if you did.
This is the responsibility of the water re-
sources commission, at least in part. I would
ask that the Minister instruct the commission
to go in there and do everything necessary,
regardless of cost at this time, to clean this
horrible mess up before it gets to the state
of Lake Erie, or you will not be able to do
anything with it.
We cannot afford to get to that point, and
the cost, when it reaches that position, will
be astronomical compared to the cost now.
Let me say that I recognize that it will cost
a lot at this time. We must take the step
now, regardless of cost, or we are going to
find ourselves in the position where this lake
will not only be unfit for swimming, it will
be unfit for drinking because you will not
be able to purify it.
I would ask that the Minister take steps in
that direction immediately.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
I understand that plans are under way in the
city of Hamilton to put in secondary treat-
ment plants in all the industries along there
and they all have programmes under way to
clean up their pollution. I understand the
problems of OWRC in that some of these
works have not even been completed, but
when they are it will relieve a lot of the
problems of the area.
Mr. Deans: If I might just ask the Minis-
ter. Quite a number of streams that run into
the lake, in that area, are not fit for human
use for a variety of reasons. I realize that the
JUNE 12, 1968
4355
OWRC have been looking into the problem
of Redhill creek, for example, trying to find
what can be done to assist it,
I think that the time has come when we
can no longer go along with the land fill pro-
gramme that we are using. This is what is
creating a lot of the pollution in the streams
that are running through that area, and per-
haps the OWRC ought to step on Hamilton's
toes a bit and get them to do something
about the dump situation on the mountain.
Since we are talking about water pollution,
I would hesitate to tell you that the air
pollution up there from the dump is pretty
bad too. Maybe we could clear two areas up
at once.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, last night there was some discus-
sion about the possibility of a grid system for
the supply of water; not so much a grid sys-
tem, but an integrated plant for provision of
sewage facilities in various parts of the prov-
ince. The Minister raised the question of
economics and I was wondering what studies
the commission has done to utilize the modern
steel pipe construction in wide use in the
United States, as I understand, rather than
the concrete type that we are using.
Steel construction can be laid much more
quickly; there is not nearly the same need to
worry about contours of land; you can put
higher volumes of water through very high
pressure lines; they give greater flexibility;
and your cost of pumping is in the order of
less than a cent per 1,000 gallons per mile.
Would the Minister give me any information
on what investigation the commission has
done on these more modern types of construc-
tion pipeline?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I under-
stand from the oflBcials here that they know
about it and it has been used in the city of
London, but they find that it is no less
expensive than the type that they were using
and, of course, they feel that they should
use the pipe that has been tested, and proven.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the reason that
I bring up this matter of the steel pipeline
is because of the greater flexibility that you
can get, sir, in the amount of water going
through. You can move pressures of up to
800 to 1,000 pounds per square inch and get
a much larger volume through a given size of
line. You can use a much less width, or dia-
meter pipe, about half the diameter for the
same amount of water possible, and the
speed of construction is much greater. They
can lay 30 or 40 miles in one day.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I under-
stand that steel pipe has to be protected
both inside and outside and it is felt-again,
I suppose that research is going on in this all
the time— that the pipe they are using is per-
haps the best method. I would think that
there will be research done on this by OWRC,
and if they can find that they can move more
water cheaper, I think that they would be
very interested in that.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I urge that
the commission investigate this as a means
of economically providing the province with
a provincial grid system for water supply-
more so than any other way— and at a much
earher date than possible under conventional
construction methods and materials.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Timiskam-
ing.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr, Chair-
man, I just have a brief question. The mem-
ber for Wentworth mentioned sanitary land
fill or dumps, 1 would like to ask the Min-
ister whether, before a small municipality or
township can establish a municipal dump, do
they have to have permission from the Ontario
water resources commission? 1 mention this
because, in my own area, several townships
have established dumps, and after a period of
time a lot of this turns to liquid and it is
showing up in lakes as far as 20 miles away.
I would like to know if there is a control
over this or if they have to have permission
from the OWRC before they establish them?
Or does the OWRC come in after the damage
is done in many cases?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, they
must get approval from The Department of
Health before they establish a dump for land-
fill.
Mr. Jackson: In the case of mine tailings,
several of the smaller mines are dumping
directly into lakes and the one in question
is Larder Lake. For many years, this lake
was a tourist attraction; it contained some of
the biggest lake trout and each year they
held a fishing derby. For the last five or six
years, they have been unable to catch a
decent amount out of this lake. All along one
side of the lake, which is fairly big, the trees
have died off, and it is because of the mine
4356
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tailings that are being dumped into this lake.
I brought this up once before and they told
me that the OWRC checked into this each
month or so to make sure it was not polluting
the lake. The pollution is obvious and I
cannot understand why the OWRC has not
stopped it. I cannot see any reason for it.
Just to the east of the lake there are many
pond holes and low spots in the land where
the tailings could be dumped without any
ill effect to the land.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, as I
understand it, tlie dumping of tailings in
Larder Lake is something that happened
many years ago, or at the beginning of the
mine. And am I right now that the Larder
Lake mine is closed?
Mr. Jackson: Kerr Addison mine, and they
are still dumping tailings into Larder Lake.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is under the control
of the Ontario water resources commission,
and all mines today are inspected and come
under the control of OWRC as far as dump-
ing tailings is concerned.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister would maybe, as a personal
favour, look into it and let me know why they
are still dumping tailings into it, and why
they are still polluting the lake.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes. I would be
pleased to.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I
should like to know what is the current
assessment of these sanitary land fills? Are
they now somewhat under a cloud, as the
member for Timiskaming hinted; are they
becoming the source of pollution themselves?
Or are they still considered a good measure
in all places?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
not say that it is a good measure in all
places. I think they have to be picked out
very carefully, and they must control the
seepage from these landfills, so that it does
not get into any streams.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I know of two
that are right on the borders of a lake and
are dumping right into the lake.
Mr. Chairman: Has the Minister any
comment?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Is that sanitary land-
fill, or is it a dump? What type of material
is it?
Mr. Jackson: It is a dump.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: This is contrary to
OWRC regulations and, if you will let us
know where it is, we would like to have a
look at that.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman,
I would not tell you some of the things about
this commission with such forcefulness if I
did not assure you first that it is only be-
cause I know so much about this commission
from personal experience with it.
The first thing that ought to be said about
it is that, in my decade in politics, this is the
most classic example of empire building that
is has ever been my misfortune to study.
There is no doubt in my mind at all, none
whatsoever, that this commission wants to
become the most gigantic water selling and
transmitting agency that there is in the world,
and it directs itself toward the advancement
of that empire.
In doing so it breaches a fundamental
principle of national justice, and that is that
this commission is a judge in its own cause.
It is both in the business of selling water,
construction of the works, and providing
water and sewage services. It also sets the
standards, not only for itself, but for every-
body else that is in the provision of that
essential public service. And I say, sir, that
that is a violation of a fundamental axiom.
I do not know whether it is a good analogy
or parallel or not, but one observes that in
the selling of liquor in this province, which
is a government monopoly, the sale of the
product, the standards, the restrictions and
the control of its sale and use are rigidly
separated and given to another body. And
the two functions are kept separate. I am
not protesting to you that that is a good
analogy, but it is illustrative. But, of course,
that principle is completely disobeyed in
respect to this commission. This commission
is in the business of selling water in a big
way, and—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I am not going to be
frivolous about it. I am drawing attention
to the analogy.
It is in the business of carrying away and
disposing of sewage in a big way. And being
JUNE 12, 1968
4357
in business, it is also the judge in respect of
the standards, the qualities, the restrictions,
and aU the rest of the indicia about it. In
that way, that to me, I protest to you,
violates a fundamental principle. In other
words, the commission cannot possibly be
disinterested and objective. And I was not
too concerned about that until it came home
to me, by way of a brush with this com-
mission, and I had an opportunity to observe
the way in which they work.
Apparently, in the field of pollution, their
attitude seems to be that where there is a
conflict between two contending parties as
to whether a body of water will be polluted,
then as far as the commission is concerned, it
is all right to pollute the body of water,
provided that the contending parties agree
that it be polluted.
To state it that way, of course, Mr. Chair-
man, removes any quality of objectivity about
the matter of pollution in those circumstances.
Gone is the question. Gone is the considera-
tion, independently and objectively, of
whether the body of water in the first place
ought to be permitted to be polluted.
Apparently, there is no consideration of
that at all. But this is purely the adversary
system, and if they hold a hearing, and those
who are immediately concerned about pollu-
tion of the body of water come to an agree-
ment, settle the matter so to speak, then as
far as the commission is concerned, acting in
its placid, judicial capacity, it judges for all
that— whatever label you put on it. They are
judges.
Now, the commission, acting as judges, take
the attitude that if the parties are content that
the body of water be polluted, then that is
fine with the commission. Of course, you will
see, Mr. Chairman, that the broad public
interest which would be referable to indepen-
dent assessment of that body of water, as to
whether in the interests of the public and
from the long-term point of view, pollution
of the body of water ought to be permitted,
has completely gone out the window. And
the commission walks away from such a list
as that feeling that it has accomplished its
purpose because it has achieved harmony
between the contending parties.
Well, I can say that the member for Well-
ington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) has been attending
my words, and he knows the precise example
of which I speak. I will tell the House another
startling thing. I have said, when I had my
place where my good friend from Niagara
Falls now sits, and I have said since I came
to this place in the House, that in respect of
an overall water policy of the government of
Ontario, there is evidence that there is an
almost total lack of liaison between the
departments who deal with water.
I have said, I do not think Hydro talks
to the water resources commission about
water. I do not think the water resources
commission talks to our conservation author-
ities—or I should say the branch of the Minis-
ter's department. I do not think any of them
talk to, or listen to The Department of Lands
and Forests.
In the precise example of which I speak,
with which the member for WelUngton-
Dufferin is familiar, sir, when the ques-
tion of whether that body ought to be
polluted came before the commission for ju-
dicial decision, one of the servants of the
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle)
was there. He said to the commission,
presumably on behalf of the Minister and
through the chain of command and the hier-
archy of that department— he spoke with the
approval of the Minister— he said to the com-
mission, "I hope you will not make the
order. We ask you not to make the order
to permit pollution of this lake."
And he gave reasons for that and, of
course, the reasons were very trenchant, were
very compelling, because that agent of the
Minister of Lands and Forests pointed out
the pollution of that body of water might
cause adverse effects on that major water-
shed of the eastern part of the province— the
Timiskaming-Ottawa system, and the pollu-
tion that was at hand and was being dealt
with by that judicial body could, without
stretching credulity or torturing logic, affect
in a very adverse way the Timiskaming-
Ottawa system.
I tell the Minister of Lands and Forests—
I do not think he is familiar with that case
-I report to him that, notwithstanding the
representations and the importunings made
by his agent on that day, the result is that as
far as the water resources commission is con-
cerned, the contending parties who left in
conflict that day, settled their differences be-
tween them, having agreed that the body of
water be polluted. Notwithstanding the rep-
resentations of The Department of Lands and
Forests, that body of water is going to be
polluted.
That begs the question, a very legitimate
one, to ask, in matters such as this, why is
there not communication between this Minis-
ter, the chairman of the commission and
either the Minister of Lands and Forests or
4358
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
someone in a very senior level in the depart-
ment? One must draw the irresistible infer-
ence that the word and the representation,
or the weight of The Department of Lands
and Forests in circumstances such as this is
not very great, and whatever cogent argu-
ments The Department of Lands and Forests
can bring to muster then, sir, are rather
shrugged off by the water resources com-
mission.
That is what happened in this case. The
Minister, if he wants to see whether I am
right or wrong, then let him just ask the
responsible people— with whom, presumably,
he is on very good terms— of the intercourse
of communications— to let him see the file
and have a look at it.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
case is it?
Mr. Sopha: This was the case of the pollu-
tion of Cobalt Lake by Agnico silver mines. I
inform my friend from York South that, not-
withstanding the arguments, and there were
many, made at an open hearing, against this,
the way the commission walked away from
this was that the parties had settled the
matter between them and it is all right with
us; subject to certain conditions. But my com-
plaint is that it lacks objectivity, that it
lacks the judicial aspect; it lacks weighing
tlie argument and coming to the correct de-
cision in the circumstances.
And in the field of pollution in this prov-
ince—this brings a smile; the record had bet-
ter show how hilarious the Minister thinks
all this is. I say that in the matter of pollu-
tion in this province one would hope that the
water resources commission, in exercising its
function by statute, would look at these prob-
lems from the point of view of what is in
the broad public interest. This is not litiga-
tion; it is not a court case. What we are deal-
ing with here is the ultimate effect on the
people who use those waters now and the
generations to come.
Whatever decision they came to, having
been bom and raised in Cobalt, and seen the
depredation to lakes, having been to Kirk-
land Lake and seen it there; having been to
Timmins and seen it there; having lived in
Sudbury and seen it there; then let me say
I must rather pessimistically form the con-
clusion that no matter the protestations made
today by mining companies, and especially
the smaller ones— no matter what exhibitions
of good faith they make about the care they
will take and the steps they will take, that
ultimately when those companies— and so
many of them have disappeared, gone into
the mists of yesterday in their corporate
form— tlien the damage is done. There is no
one in later years to turn to in order to
exact, at least in monetary terms, the rectifi-
cation that is required.
I predict that the decision having been
made by the commission to permit that lake
to be filled up— the member for Wellington-
Dufferin is going to get up and say that they
are going to leave four feet of water-
Mr. MacDonald: Activate the sludge.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, they are going to leave
four feet of water and that is going to be
his reply. Well, I will anticipate him a little
and tell him that no matter what protesta-
tions they make today, I have no doubt what-
soever that lake will become part of what
we call the slimes during my lifetime in
Cobalt. The same as the Buffalo slimes. The
same phenomenon will exist after that lake
is filled up, so I leave it to T,he Department
of Lands and Forests in the light of that deci-
sion. It made its representations about the
ultimate effect on Lake Timiskaming from
that condition, and The Department of Lands
and Forests will have to take the ultimate
responsibility of those tailings being carried
downstream into Mill Creek, and the effect
upon that great lake.
And let me say this to the Minister, that
in the very early stages of this whole business
I had the advantage of having a ride in one
of its aircraft and seeing the area where Mill
Creek empties into Lake Timiskaming. And
from the air one can observe these mill tail-
ings that have been carried down and already
have affected a wide part of the area where
that creek flows into the lake.
What is my plea? My plea is very simple
in this aspect, Mr. Chairman, that this com-
mission puts away for all time this attitude of
being the quasi-judicial body to effect settle-
ment between adversaries, and that it ap-
proaches its task with the highest qualities
of the judge, attended by objectivity and
shrouded with the public interest. The com-
mission's decision will then be determined
solely by that which is in the public interest
I want to turn to another matter and
remind the Minister that two years ago I
took the time of the House for an hour or
so to review the situation of water and sewer
services in the municipalities adjoining the
city of Sudbury. I pointed out at that time
that since the city of Sudbury had been built
upon rock, the natural expansion of that city
JUNE 12, 1968
4359
was into the area covered by soil, known as
the valley area— that is to say, the townships
of Blezard, Capreol, Hanmer, Rayside, Bal-
four, and Dowling. And I must say— the
Minister of Municipal Affairs would permit
me I know-
Mr. J. Root ( Wellington-Duff erin): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder if
the hon. member would permit me to make
a comment on what he had to say; you are
going into another subject.
Mr. Sopha: Tell me you are going to re-
verse your decision.
Mr. Root: I just wanted to point out that
at the hearing there was no evidence that any-
thing was put into the lake that was not
already in the lake. Tons of arsenic were
being taken out of the tailings that were in
the lake. The Department of Lands and
Forests were there and their comment was
they did not want to see any deterioration
of the waters. At the hearing a commitment
was made by the town of Cobalt to get their
raw, sanitary sewage out of the lake.
There was no agreement to pollute this
body of water; the tailings are presently in
the lake. They were being processed and
moved to another part of the lake.
There was nothing actually being put in
the lake that was not already there and tons
of arsenic were being taken out of the tailings
and the sanitary waste that was already pol-
luting the lake. It was agreed by the mayor
of the town that they would take steps to get
this out of the lake. TJie matter was not
shrugged off. I just wanted to make that
comment.
The hon. member did make a good presen-
tation at the hearing— we listened to the
statements of the groups who appeared before
us. They did not make the final decision on
how the waters of that lake are to be pro-
tected. The decisions are being made by the
industrial waste branch of the commission.
I just want to make that comment. I would
not want to read in Hansard that these deci-
sions are made by bodies other than by the
water resources commission.
Mr. Sopha: I want to say to my hon. friend
from Timiskaming, through you, that we can-
not convince the vice-chairman of the water
resources commission that the tailings are not
now in the lake— and I call for support from
the member who represents that constituency.
They are going to be put in, 700,000 tons of
them. And it is idle and nonsensical for the
vice-chairman to stand up and say to me
that the tailings are in the lake. He knows
\cry well what we are speaking of, that the
north portion of the lake is today empty of
the tailings and permission has been granted
or is going to be granted to this mining
company to put 700,000 tons of tailings in
that part of the lake.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, can I, with
your permission, just add to this? The mem-
ber for Sudbury has pointed out something
that is true, that the tailings that are going
into this lake are being moved from the out-
side of the lake, from what formerly was the
lake. But they are being moved back into
the section of the land that we call Cobalt
Lake and it is a scenic part of that area.
When this mine finishes we are going to
have just exactly what the member for Sud-
bury says, nothing but slime with a little bit
of water over it. At the moment we have
something that beautifies the town a little
bit.
An hon. member: Tory government.
Mr. Jackson: But when this finishes we
will have nothing but an eyesore for the rest
of time. I carmot help but agree with the
member for Sudbury, that the water resources
commission has abdicated its duty somewhere
along the line and just gave up and said, "Let
the mines do what they want," because that
is just exactly what is happening.
By the time this commission gets around to
stopping them from polluting the little lakes
around the area, the mine has closed up and
gone.
An hon. member: Certainly!
Mr. Jackson: I wall have to support the
member for Sudbury on this.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr, Chairman, I won-
der if I might ask the hon. member a ques-
tion. Would you Hke the mine closed?
Mr. Sopha: I would.
Mr. MacDonald: Red herring.
Mr. Jackson: The Minister is talking silly.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order 1 Order!
The member for Timiskaming has the floor
and a question was directed to him by the
Minister.
Has the Minister finished his question?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, I think so.
4360
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member for
Timiskaming will answer it now.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, through you
to tlie Minister. This mine does not have to
close down just because they have tailings to
move. There are many other areas where, with
a little pipeline, they could put these tailings.
It is nonsense to say that they have to
pollute a lake to stay in business; this just is
not true.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
not saying it is true. I have never discussed
this with OWRC, only I heard a week or so
ago that, if they could not do something with
this refuse from the tailings they are taking
out of the lake, that they were going to close
their mine. Now I do not know— that is why I
asked the question.
Mr. MacDonald: You get pushed around
too easily.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have not been pushed
around at all yet, but I have asked the ques-
tion of the member that represents the area—
if he would like the mine closed? If, that is,
they will not do something else with their
tailings.
Mr. MacDonald: But you are—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is a fair question.
I cannot see anything wrong with it.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a stupid question.
Hon. Mr, Simonett: You do not want to
answer it.
Mr. Jackson: As I have already stated,
there is—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Timiskam-
ing has the floor.
Mr. Jackson: —there is no need for the mine
to close and there is no need for the govern-
ment to take their word for it that they are
going to close.
If they would go up and take a look at it,
rather than sitting at a meeting and taking
their word for it— take a look at tiie real situa-
tion—they would know that there is no truth
in the mine's having to close because of the
fact that they have to move their tailings
another half mile or so. It is possible and it
should be done.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I asked him a ques-
tion-
Mr. Sopha: The member for Timiskaming
is perfectly right. Knowing the areas as I do,
I went to that hearing and suggested that the
commission require them to put the tailings in
Cart Lake. Cart Lake is as close to east as
Cobalt lake is to the north and I never heard,
at any time, a single argument of any cogency
from that mining company that Cart Lake was
unfeasible.
The first argument they gave was that Cart
Lake would drain into Peterson Lake and
would ultimately affect the watershed to the
east. I said by way of reply, "Build a dam at
the north end of Cart Lake". Cart Lake is
merely a depression; it is not in a drainage
pattern. It is so typical of the shield; there
are many depressions in the shield that can be
filled up. They just do not form part of any
dendritic— I think that is the right word-
drainage pattern. They are merely depressions.
I said to the commission, "Have them dam
that end of Cart Lake and fill it up". I have
no doubt that when they get that filled up
with their tailings they can find another to
put them in. They do not have to put it into
Cobalt Lake.
All right now. If this business of closing the
mine is going to come up, weighing the ulti-
mate effects— the possible adverse effects— on
the Timiskaming-Ottawa system to the east.
I want the record to show how many
employees would be affected— the member for
Wellington-Dufferin will bear me out— about
25 employees. That is the size of this opera-
tion.
If that subject is exhausted, I want to
return to the other that I raised. I was
reminding the Minister that two years ago I
made a speech here, in which I advocated the
study of the municipalities adjacent to the
city of Sudbury to assess the water and sew-
age needs. As I say, Mr. Chairman, as I
informed you, the reason for my interest is
that that is the logical area where expansion
of the city of Sudbury is going to take place.
I was very encouraged after I made that
speech that the water resources commission
charged, I think it was Kilborn— I look at my
friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Demers)— he
nods— it was the Kilborn firm, to make a
study. That firm took much too long to suit
me, but the commission did not keep in
touch with me about it, or did not inform me
how the study was going. From time to time
I ask my old buddy from Nickel Belt there
and he tells me what is happening. However,
eventually they reported.
My complaint is that this business has just
not gone ahead fast enough. If you will
permit, Mr. Chairman— you are in charge of
the relevancy of debate here— I want to point
JUNE 12, 1968
4361
out to you that, because of the tardiness of
this commission in this area and the provision
of water and sewage services, I want to show
you how those affect our broadcast in other
areas of government responsibihty and par-
ticularly, in the field of housing.
In those municipalities, those people who
want to build houses, which are so desperately
needed in the Sudbury area, are trapped in a
vicious circle from which they cannot escape.
On the one hand they are unable to get
CMHC loans, because of that policy that they
will not lend money where there is no sewage
and water services. They cannot build the
homes in order to increase the assessment, so
that they are able to pay for the provision of
sewage and water services. So you see, Mr.
Chairman, they get into a vicious circle from
which they cannot get out.
One of the major diflBculties— and my friend
from the Nickel Belt will appreciate this— is
the multiplicity of municipalities. There are
far too many municipalities in the valley
which comprises the riding of my friend from
Sudbury East (Mr. M artel) and my friend from
Nickel Belt. There ought to be some readjust-
ment of those municipalities, so that the
commission is deahng with fewer local gov-
ernments.
But, Mr. Chairman, the matter drags on.
It drags on and one does not see any initia-
tion of the work to provide the necessary
services to these people. Building is retarded.
The provision of homes for the expanding
population of our community is inhibited. In
the meanwhile, on a happier note, the mining
industry is expanding at a very high rate and
many more hundreds of jobs are being pro-
vided, as a result of that expansion, to people
who will need housing accommodation. So
really, Mr. Chairman, my protest is that it
goes back to my earlier assertion. This com-
mission has become too big.
I think that that description of it is neither
unfair nor inept. It has just too much to do,
to attend to the local needs of a community,
such as the example that I have cited. On
the other hand, a very persistent complaint
about their attitude is— and I have said this
to my friend from Wellington-Dufferin— they
walk into the city of Sudbury— I only know
what I read in the newspapers and what I
am told by the various civic officials. If a
member of the Opposition pleaded to hear
something at first hand from a government
body, then he would think that he was
afflicted with deafness, because there are
never any oral droppings that ever emanate
to a member of the Opposition. Well, he is
just not advantaged in hearing from a com-
mission what they intend to do.
To show you the high-handed attitude of
this commission, from time to time we have
been aware in the city of Sudbury that the
commission writes a letter and sends an
emissary up to the city and they say, "Look
here, you have to build a sewage treatment
plant at the cost of some $5 million." The
member for Wellington-Dufferin will correct
me, that is the figure that is bandied around
in the community. Of course, the city fathers
look at this emissary like he is something
from outer space and the natural question is:
Where do we get the money to do this? Where
do we get the money?
I maintain, and I will always maintain,
that at the point where we had the advantage
of having Mr. Desmarais on that commission,
until he decided to join his brother's empire
in Montreal, that we might have seen the
reality of a change in government policy,
whereby the consolidated revenue fund would
be charged with the capital cost of the pro-
vision of these very expensive sewage treat-
ment facilities. But, unfortunately, I forget
now— I think it is something like six or eight
cities in the province of Ontario— that have
not got these facilities, of which Sudbury is
one of the leading examples.
But that went out the window and we are
still polluting, by the disposal of raw sewage,
the watershed to the south and west of the
urea and the Penage Lake area, a very beau-
tiful recreation area. We advised against the
dumping of sewage into the Kelly Lake chain.
Now, there is just no way out and there will
not be any way out until the Prime Minister
of the province decides finally and ultimately
that mining companies should pay taxes like
the rest of us.
That is the political decision that has to be
made. If the mining companies ever started
to pay their fair share of taxation, rather than
enjoying the tax immunity that they do, these
things could be provided.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They
might move out.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, they might move out! So
the last subject that I wanted to deal with
per] laps I will leave. Are you taking these in
order, the various items, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with votes
606, 607 and 610, which are all part of the
water resources, so the debate has been rang-
ing on all of these things.
4362
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: I wanted to say something
about this northern Ontario water resources
survey, but I will reserve this for later.
Mr. Chairman:
East.
The member for Sudbury
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I was rather
interested when I hstened to the great num-
ber of fines tiiat went out to various com-
panies.
In an article written by a Mr. Greenslade
in 1967, one of the interesting parts was that
tiiere was a fanner fined for dumping cow
manure in a creek. He was fined $500. You
listen then to the companies that were fined
$200, and $18 and costs, and so on. The
comparison between tlie two is rather inter-
esting.
I would like to read a few excerpts from
this article dealing with the various areas of
water pollution in the Nickel Basin. This is
going to take some time, Mr. Chairman. Shall
I go on?
Mr. Chairman: The member may continue.
Mr. Martel: I am quoting:
Wildlife experts of The Department of
Lands and Forests say that all around Sud-
bury there are small lakes now barren
which once teemed with fish. Because of
pollution dropped from the air, game fish
can no longer survive.
And:
Conservation clubs, municipal govern-
ments, chambers of commerce and vari-
ous otlier groups have at one time or an-
otlier voiced their protests about the situ-
ation.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. What has this got to do with
air i)ollution?
Mr. Marteh No, I am talking about water
pollution, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member will please re-
frain from discussing air pollution.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, this is water
pollution. I just finished reading that there
are small lakes, now barren, which once
teemed with fish, and you wonder what type
of pollution I am talking about. They did
not die from swimming around in the air.
They were formerly swimming around in the
water and they no longer exist, and so I pre-
sume that I am talking about water pollution.
Mr. Chairman: I presume also that the
member is. Will he please continue?
Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
interesting part that I am getting to is that
we fine someone $500, and last year we fined
the public utilities of the CNR another $500.
We have got all kinds of laws in this country
that could fine some of the large industries
for pollution, and to my knowledge, in my
area, nobody outside of this poor farmer, and
the CNR, the pubhcly owned utility, have
been prosecuted for water pollution. A rather
interesting fact!
It being 6:00 o'clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
ERRATA
Page Column Line Change to read:
Thursday, May 16, 1968
3011 2 46 for the operation of schools. Eighty per
3012 1 8 introduced today will relieve the association
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
3511 2 36 writers, I have no researchers. I discovered
Monday, June 3, 1968
Contents 1 Presenting report, Province of Ontario Council
for the Arts, 1967-68, Mr. Davis 3763
3763 1 13 the report of the Province of Ontario Council
for the Arts for the year 1967-68.
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
3991 1 37 spring to the Minister's defence, when he
No. 117
ONTARIO
legislature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
Estimates, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Mr. Simonett, contimied 4365
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 4394
4365
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
On vote 606:
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
prior to recessing for dinner, the hon. member
for Sudbury and the hon. member for Timis-
kaming (Mr. Jackson) were discussing— and
conveyed to this House— that the OWRC were
part and parcel of helping Agnico Mines Ltd.
pollute Cobalt Lake. I might say at this
time that the hon. member for Sudbury was
the legal counsel for the town of Cobalt.
I asked before the dinner hour if these
people were interested in seeing this mine
close down, although it is a small operation
and reclaiming minerals that had been milled
once before and are now known as slag in
Cobalt Lake.
I think, if I recall correctly, the hon.
member for Sudbury said that they only em-
ployed 25 men, so it could not matter less.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I did not say
that at all!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You did not say it, but
that is what you implied. I would think that
25 men employed in Cobalt, or one or two
men, mean a lot to the economic stability of
that town. As I closed the question, there
was an uproar from the NDP saying that I
was drawing red herrings. I was not. I was
not in on the hearing but I had talked, some
three weeks ago, to a consultant of the min-
ing company. He advised me at the time that
if they had to pump their waste to, I think
the hon. member called it Cart Lake and I
think that this was right, the expenditures
and the cost of pumping would not allow
them to operate this mine. It would not be
economically possible to do so and they
would have to close down.
Mr. Sopha: So they said.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, that is what they
said, and I was concerned about that because
it was brought out on the floor of the House
Wednesday, June 12, 1968
and to my attention. I diought that everyone
was settled and satisfied. But when it was
brought here, I decided during the dinner
hour that I would get hold of the consultant
for the mining company and find out from
him just what he thought about it. I would
like to read some correspondence into the
record that perhaps will clear up this matter.
This is a letter addressed to the OWRC
by the solicitor of the mining company,
Schibley, Righton and McCutcheon, and he
said:
Gentlemen:
At the conclusion of the hearing at Co-
balt, the chairman of the commission
recommended that the interested parties
should confer together. We are pleased
to advise that a meeting has been convened
for the purpose by the mayor of Cobalt
on Monday, April 15.
Representatives of the townships of Cole-
man and Bucke, the town of Cobalt and the
tri-town planning board will be in attend-
ance. The aim of the meeting is to review
the supplementary submissions made by
Agnico Mines Liimted, and hopefully to
work out a plan which meets with the
acceptance of everyone and which will per-
mit the withdrawal of any objection to the
operations at Agnico, We shall, of course,
immediately advise the commission of any
developments at the pending meeting, and
should the commission wish to be repre-
sented thereat we are certain that everyone
would agree thereto.
The chairman, indicated that this type
of conference should be held prior to
April 30, 1968, and we are somewhat anxi-
ous that we be given a full opportunity to
complete these discussions.
That is signed by Schibley, Righton and
McCutcheon. A letter from Schibley, Righton
and McCutcheon to OWRC on April 16:
Gentlemen:
We wish to report that a meeting was
held at Cobalt on April 15, 1968, at which
there were in attendance the mayor of
Cobalt, the reeves of Bucke and Coleman
townships, the chairman of the tri-town
4366
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
planning board, four councillors of the
town of Cobalt, Mrs. E. Gordon, solicitor,
Mr. J. Blair of Kilbom Engineering Ltd.,
Mr. Kirk of Agnico Mines Ltd., and the
writer.
At this meeting the information set forth
in the supplementary report of Kilbom
Engineering Ltd., dated April 4, 1968, was
reviewed, and full explanation was given
of the steps to be taken to ensure that
Cobalt Lake would not be polluted by the
operations of Agnico Mines Ltd, and would
be left in a state acceptable to all inter-
ested parties.
During the course of the meeting, all
representatives-
Mr. Sopha: Except me and The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Have you finished?
During tlie course of the meeting, all
representatives of Agnico Mines Ltd.—
Mr. Sopha: Except The Department of
Lands and Forests, at least.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We heard that tliis
afternoon, and that is not right either.
During the course of the meeting, all
representatives of Agnico Mines Ltd.,
absented themselves to permit others to
consider their positions jointly in the hope
that a revised plan and undertaking might
permit them to register approval of the
tailings operation to the commission.
It was brought to our attention that the
change of location of the sewage outlets
would involve the town of Cobalt in con-
siderable cost, and we subsequently offered
a contribution of $5,000 toward such cost,
recognizing that the withdrawal of these
outfalls would benefit not only the town
but will advance the ambitions of the town-
ship, the planning board, and even the
plans of Agnico Mines Ltd.
On the other hand, it was indicated that
favourable consideration would be given
to an operation which would leave the
tailings covered with four feet of water.
We trust you will bring these develop-
ments to the attention of the commission.
You may expect to hear further from all
concerned in the immediate future.
Signed,
R. P. Schibley.
And on April 22, addressed to the Ontario
water resources commission from the tri-town
and area planning board:
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing copies of two motions
passed by the tri-town and area planning
board at our regular meeting of April 17,
1968.
The first motion, relative to the above
application, was passed with the under-
standing, first, that Agnico will take im-
mediate steps to wash present exposed
tailings from their previous operations into
the lake as outlined by counsel, Mr. Schib-
ley; second, that a minimum water cover
of four feet be maintained over all deposi-
tory tailings from this or any subsequent
operations, also as outlined by Mr. Schibley;
third, that tailings be deposited only in the
northern section of the lake, unless further
agreed; fourth, that in every phase of this
operation, the aims and ambitions of the
planning board to develop Cobalt, along
restorational hues, be given consideration
as recognized by Agnico and mentioned by
Mr. Schibley at the meeting of April 15,
1968. All the above subject, of course, to
any agreement entered into or approved
by the town of Cobalt, the townships of
Bucke and Coleman, with Agnico Mines
Limited.
The second motion refers to pollution of
Mill Creek by agencies other than Agnico.
Mr. Sopha: Sure, another mining company.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We were not talking
about this one this afternoon, though.
We realize you are aware of it, but we
wanted to be on record as opposed to this
pollution, and further recommended, first,
that these operations be requested to con-
sider steps to remedy this undesirable
situation. Second, that plans be imple-
mented to contain the pollution already
present in and along this watercourse.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge
the courtesy extended in inviting the plan-
ning board to participate in this problem
and to commend Agnico Mines Limited for
their considerate and co-operative attitude.
Sincerely,
W. S. Lavery,
Chairman of the tri-town and
area planning board.
I have the copy of those resolutions here, but
I do not think I will read them in the rec-
ords. I think that is proof enough.
And then a letter from Ontario water re-
sources commission on April 13 to Schibley,
Righton and McCutcheon.
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your recent letter of April
JUNE 12, 1968
4367
16, 1968, covering the discussions of the
meeting held at Cobalt on April, 1968.
Your letter was referred to the commission
with the result that the municipalities in
the tri-town and area planning board were
requested to submit their present views on
your client's application.
Based on written replies from the town of
Cobalt the townships of Bucke and Cole-
man and the tri-town and area planning
board and information gained from the
hearing on March 19, the commission fur-
ther reviewed and considered the apphca-
tion of Agnico Mines Ltd. for a discharge
of taihngs to the north section of Cobalt
Lake. Accordingly, the following resolution
was passed by the commission on April 25,
1968:
After the full report by Messrs. D. A.
Moody and J. H. Roote to the commission
under section 32 (a) 2 on a public hearing
held by Messrs. Moody and Roote in the
town of Cobalt on the 19th day of March,
1968, under section 32 (a) 1 of the Act, on
the application of Agnico Mines Ltd. for
approval to discharge spent tailings from
the company's silver reclaim mill to the
north section of Cobalt Lake, the same is
hereby approved subject to Agnico Mines
Ltd. submitting an addendum to applica-
tion No. lC-67 1, ahready on file with the
OWRC outlining:
1. The modifications the company will
make to the proposed method of introduc-
ing tailings to Cobalt, to ensure that the
control measures outlined to represent this,
at the townships of Bucke and Coleman and
the town of Cobalt, and the tri-town and
area planning board, at a meeting held on
April 15, 1968, in Cobalt, are implemented,
and
2. A suitable, over-all water pollution and
land rehabihtation programme that will en-
sure no deterioration of the quality of water
in Cobalt Lake, over the period of actual
operation of the company tailing mill and,
also, following cessation of this operation.
Such a programme should include reference
to water sampling and analysis: the method
of controlling the flow from Cobalt Lake;
the shorehne improvements of the lands
bordering on Cobalt Lake, which are pres-
ently under the direct control of Agnico
Mines Ltd.
It is therefore requested, that Agnico
Mines Ltd. submit to the commission, at
its earliest convenience, a written proposal
which will satisfy the above resolution of
the commission. If your client, or repre-
sentatives of Kilbom Engineering Ltd. de-
sire to meet with staflF, at the commission,
to discuss this further submission, we
would be pleased to arrange a mutually
convenient time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I tliink after what we
have heard this afternoon, that the OWRC
were wrong in this, I would think that tliey
are right. The people— elected representatives
in the area— asked for this, and I think they
can be assured, that after this operation is
completed, Cobalt Lake will be a better,
cleaner lake. This has been proven. And, of
course, we could read more in the records to
prove that.
Mr. Sopha: Well, two things are absolutely
clear. The necessary inferences, from what
the Minister said, are twofold. One, that if,
at any hearing of the board, there is an agree-
ment between elected representatives and the
company that desires to pollute the lake, then
the jurisdiction, or the interest in, of the
OWRC is at an end. That is the necessary
inference, and let the record declare that,
aside from The Department of Lands and
Forests that were there protesting against
this decision, there were several other inter-
ested citizens and bodies that asked the com-
mission not to permit this mining company to
fill up the lake. So when the day comes that
Cobalt Lake is converted into sUmes, as are
the Buffalo slimes which was formerly a lake,
then the people of Cobalt, aside from the
elected representatives whoever they might
be at that day, can put a placard on those
slimes and write on it, "Erected to the folly
of the OWRC".
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You will never see it.
Mr. Sopha: That will be the fitting monu-
ment. Now, the other necessary inference—
and the people of Ontario ought to know this
because out in the body politic there are a
good many people who have a good deal to
say about pollution— they ought to know that
it is clear, that the foundation of government
policy, in respect of pollution, is this— and I
think I state it fairly— that when it comes to
a violation of efficiency of commerce, then
commerce must have pre-eminence over
pollution. What else could be the basis of
the hurling of that interjection at the member
for Timiskaming: You should close the mine
down? So we must conclude that we can
have all kinds of idealistic thoughts about
control of pollution, and we could wish that
we would not have pollution, but when we
meet the hard world of reality— the choice
between commercial activity and pollution—
4368
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we will take the pollution every time, we
will suffer it. There is no other inference to
be drawn from that interjection.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You did not prove—
Mr. Sopha: We have to suffer. Now, Mr.
Coplice is a very intelHgent young fellow,
very qualified, but I fear that Agnico took
him here. I said to Mr. Coplice along the
way, "If we put it to them that they ought
to use Cart Lake, then you should put the
onus on them, let them have the onus. They
hired Kilbom, they had all the experts. Let
them show that Cart Lake is not feasible, or
some alternative site, instead of accepting the
word that it would make it economically
prohibitive." I refuse to believe it and in the
absence of proof in the form of documenta-
tion-as my friend, the member for York
South (Mr. MacDonald) likes to say— in the
absence of that I am unwilling to accept the
word. I am unwilling to allow them to fill up
that lake as they are going to do.
One final thing ought to be said to make
the matter complete. The attitude of OWRC
throughout this whole thing did not do them
credit. From the outset, the commission acted
like a cunning lawyer. I was lucky enough
to anticipate it. When we first raised the
matter with OWRC that Agnico was filling
up the lake, and at that time-indeed they
were filling up the lake, the south end of the
lake within a few hundred feet of the sewage
outlet— they had already piled up their tailings
above the water surface. When we acquainted
them with it, in a very cunning way OWRC
wrote back and adopted the maxim ex turpi
causa non oritur actio.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Oh!
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes. "Look who is talk-
ing," they said. They alluded in their letter
to the fact that the town of Cobalt was put-
ting raw sewage into the lake. In other
words, the reply was: You are complaining
about Agnico but you are putting raw sewage
in yourself. I thought that over, and when
we went down to the grand offices over at
College and Bay I anticipated that they
would raise it. I spoke to the council ahead
of time in an endeavour to outflank them, to
end-run them. Lo and behold, when we
complained about Agnico filling up the lake,
the OWRC said: "Well, what about your raw
sewage?" The mayor said to the commission:
"What do you want us to do? Do you want
us to build a sewage treatment plant? You
come in and assist us to do it and we will
be .glad to co-operate with you."
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I thought you sug-
gested that.
Mr. Sopha: Indeed I did. But, you see,
one had to have a great deal of curiosity
about the attitude. You are complaining about
a company polluting a lake and instead of
dealing with the issue you have raised, they
pull the old dirty hands doctrine, like a
cunning lawyer. They say by way of reply:
"Look who is talking, you are polluting the
lake yourself," Well, let me tell you, of the
recollections I can fetch up in my memory,
no marathon swims have been held in Cobalt
Lake and—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: If you were bom there.
Mr. Sopha: I was born there. Indeed I
was born there. I have an interest in that lake.
I have an interest in it. It adds something to
the town and I do not hke to see the water
resources commission coming in there and
letting somebody fill it up.
But that was the attitude. I outlined the
attitude at the beginning of this. I can only
conclude this. Surely, I acted for the town of
Cobalt. The town folded, it folded in the
face of this— and it boils down to tliis: Agnico
is giving tlie water resources commission a
snow job. They bought it and if tliey start to
put in the 700,000 tons of taiHngs, there is
no doubt in my mind to say to my friend from
Timiskaming, they are going to fill up that
lake and—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You have got him
liooked before—
Mr. Sopha: Well he represents those people.
He knows about the problem.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not think he
agrees with you, all the same.
Mr. Sopha: He knows the problem. But
the obligation on the Minister, I would think—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well I would be care-
ful-
Mr. Sopha: I would think, having felt him-
self in tlie invidious position tliat he has, that
his obligation is to allay the fears of tlie people
of Ontario. Put it this way— I think the people
of Ontario should know, as a result of what
the Minister has said in this House today,
they should know once and for all that pollu-
tion control has to give way to commerce.
Because where a people and their livelihood,
depend upon commerce, the strength of our
economy, our people, our system and every-
thing else depends upon our commercial
activity.
'■ JUNE 12, 1968
4369
The people of Ontario should know. Maybe
it would make for an economy of words about
pollution— make for an economy of words and
groanings and moanings among the body
politic. Maybe people will realize— once and
for all— that we have to accept pollution,
rather than in any way inhibit it. If the Minis-
ter will not inhibit a company employing 25
men, he is certainly not going to inhibit any
company employing more.
That is the story of our life. That is the
story of KVP where the court enforced the
law and this Legislature changed the law and
permitted the pollution. That is the story that
my friend from Sudbury East ( Mr. Martel ) is
now going to embark upon and I will not
anticipate him, save to make this comment
on the story of International Nickel, by way
of parenthesis. It must be seven or eight
years ago that this mighty commission came
into Sudbury and at great expense prepared
a very compendious report on the pollution of
the waters in the Sudbury area by Inter-
national Nickel. It has never brought that
company to the book in any way to add a
surcease to it. But, I remember a comment
by the chairman of OWRC at one time— well,
maybe it was the vice-chairman, I do not
want to be unfair about this— one of them.
They always travel together and if you meet
one, you meet the other. They made a com-
ment that it would cost a lot of money for
Inco to correct the pollution. Well, if you
are talking about costing a lot of money, I
do not know who has got more of the green
stuff than Inco to correct it. I always took
the position as a matter of principle— under-
line that, as a matter of principle— that this
American company came here to extract the
ore from ground that belongs to the people of
Ontario. One of the prices of extracting that
ore— one of the costs— is to do it as free of
pollution as is reasonably possible. That is
one of the costs.
The other cost is that they pay some muni-
cipal taxes. The only thing the Premier (Mr.
Robarts) of this province ever does about
municipal taxes is to put the member for
Nickel Belt (Mr. Demers) on another com-
mittee.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order, That is not
in order.
Mr. Sopha: Well when The Mining Act
came up you reviewed the whole mines taxa-
tion thing— can I not just make one comment?
But that principle has never got home to the
OWRC to this date. That commission is sub-
servient to commerce and in no event inter-
feres with commerce. Well the Minister can
read all that correspondence into tlie record
that he wants. I would hke to hear some let-
ters from The Department of Lands and
Forests; that question remains unanswered.
Remains unanswered, that a—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have not seen any.
Mr. Sopha: —that a senior official— maybe
he was not so senior, I even forget who he
was— he came from somewhere, I do not
know where. He had the uniform on, you
would think that he was Minister of Lands
and Forests, Mr. Chairman, generalissimo of
an army the way his people go around in
uniforms. We will send them all to Viet
Nam if Canada has a commitment over there.
But one of his officials came to the hearing
and put the position of the department. Now
it is quite obvious to me, I can tell by look-
ing at the face of the Minister of Lands and
Forests (Mr. Brunelle) that he never heard
anything about this—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Nobody else did either.
Mr. Sopha: There is a lot goes on that he
does not know in his department, but it
further underlines what I have always said.
Do we need more evidence? I have said it
many times in this House regarding the policy
toward water in this province, its use, its
possible pollution and its conservation, that
there is no liaison in that department at
all. None at all.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, of course, that
is what you say, you cannot prove it.
Mr. Sopha: No liaison, I have proved it. I
have demonstrated it in this example.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You have not even
proved that.
Mr. Sopha: Have not proved it? Does the
Minister question my word?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do.
Mr. Sopha: You are accusing me of an
untruth, are you?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, what have you
been doing all evening?
Mr. Sopha: Well, I asked Mr. Herridge if
it would be all right if one of his people was
appearing at the hearing. The date of the
hearing was March 19, and Mr. Herridge
said yes, they would be represented, so I
will have to get an affidavit from Mr. Her-
ridge and find out the name of the man.
4370
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But no one else here, Mr. Chairman, takes
the Minister seriously, not nearly as seriously
as he takes himself. And my word will be
accepted that there was a man there from
Lands and Forests.
Finally, just before I sit down, I want to
state that point again so that everyone within
my hearing will hear it: I do not see the
function of OWRC in relation to pollution
as being to effect settlements— that is not
what they are paid for, that is not what they
exist for, to eflfect settlements between con-
tending parties. They are paid to be objective
and to determine in respect of a body of
water what is in the interests of the body
politic as a whole, the public as a whole, and
they bring all the qualities of a judge to that
issue and tliat is the only issue there is be-
fore them, none other.
They must decide the issue before them
on that basis and not out of concern for the
contending adversaries at all, because were
it otherwise, then eventually every body of
water in tliis province would be polluted.
They are supposed to be the protectors of
the public interest, and when reasonable, to
prevent the waters from being polluted. So
we have lost the battle in this one, but the
people in the Cobalt-Haileybury area, other
than the council, will be aware of what was
at stake here and how those in the employ
of the public service failed us so dismally.
Mr. D. Jackson ( Timiskaming ) : Mr. Chair-
man, first of all, I would like to say I am
sorry that the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Gomme) is not here tonight because at a
recent planning board meeting in Cobalt,
they spoke of making Cobalt a tourist area,
and the hon. Minister was the guest speaker
that evening. One of the things said was
about the natural beauty of this area, and I
cannot see how the planning board could
possibly go along with what tliey are doing
to that lake, which is the only beauty spot
in Cobalt.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Is the member denying
they wrote that letter?
Mr. Jackson: I just cannot see why they
did.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I can show it to you.
Mr. Jackson: I cannot understand why they
did. This does not excuse the Minister's de-
partment, however. But let us go a little
further. He also said there were other sources
of pollution in this area. What is he doing
about these other sources of pollution? If
we go on into Lake Timiskaming right at the
moment— one of the greatest tourist attrac-
tions, one of the places in northern Ontario
where you used to be able to put a boat in
and get your catch of pickerel within three
hours at the very least— now you can fish
for three weeks and not get your catch.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You are not a very
good fisherman. I was up there last year-
Mr. Jackson: Tlie Minister has been very
lucky.
Not only this, but in Lake Timiskaming at
the moment there is a green growth in the
water and this has been mentioned, it must
have been mentioned, to the Ontario water
resources commission. The Minister must
know about it. What are they doing about
this? The only tiling I can see they are doing
is sitting back and agreeing with certain
elected oflBcials that he has not named, other
than the planning board.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I named all the muni-
cipal oflBcials in the area.
Mr. Jackson: I will have a talk with them
when I go back. Nevertheless, what is the
Minister doing about it? Is he going to just
sit back and say, "Well, they have agreed so
we are going to let them continue polluting
it." We are going to kill the tourist industry
because Agnico Mines wants to say in opera-
tion for the employment of 25 people, as the
member for Sudbury has pointed out; we
are going to put the tourist industry out of
business in Timiskaming. Is this what we
are going to do? Or are we going to tell
Agnico and a few others to get it cleaned up?
And then do what the planning board said
they were going to do, and what this govern-
ment tells us every day we should do in
the north— draw in the tourists. We cannot
do it unless this government takes firm steps
to clean up the lakes and get the fish back
into them and we will never do it with the
attitude that the Minister has shown here
today.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They
will do a study.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the hon. member, I would say this,
that OWRC and the government of this prov-
ince are going to keep 25 men employed in
Cobalt and we are going to clean up the
lake and it will be cleaner with this opera-
tion going on than it is at the present time.
Now, need I say more?
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes, you
should say more.
JUNE 12, 1968
4371
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I have three unrelated topics that
I want to discuss briefly.
The first one is that, having hstened to this
discussion about the situation in Cobalt Lake,
there are two or three rather overriding con-
siderations that seem to emerge from it. I
think we have to get one thing clear, that
the professed objective of this Minister and
the government is to clean up pollution.
If this is your professed objective, you
should not, in the course of relating this
whole incident, have indicated, unwittingly
perhaps, in your narrative, two or three occa-
sions in which you were trying to justify this
pollution because there was other pollution.
For example, at one point in the argument
you said—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order-
Mr. MacDonald: I have the floor, have I
not, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: A point of order?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: The hon. member for
Sudbury this afternoon said that the creek
was polluted through the operation of this
mine, and I was clearing up a point.
Mr. Sopha: I have no doubt about it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, you are saying it
again, but it is not from this mine.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if the
creek was polluted by areas other than
this mine and OWRC was told in a hearing,
it would seem to me that the interest of
OWRC and the Minister would not only be
the further pollution that might come from
here, but that they would zero in with
vigour on other sources of pollution—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Which we have done.
Mr. MacDonald: —and that they would not
use as an argument— I am accepting the word
from the hon. member for Sudbury now— that
OWRC would not be advancing an argu-
ment by saying, "but you are polluting the
lake." Surely nothing could be more relevant
than that tfie town of Cobalt is polluting
their lake. If the town of Cobalt is polluting
the lake, OWRC should have said, "Look,
these people are not going to pollute the lake
and, moreover, one split second after we are
finished with them we are going to get at
you because you are polluting the lake." Then
you would have given the impression that
you were really interested in achieving your
professed objective.
Let me make one other comment in this
connection. The Minister interjected com-
pletely irrelevantly and indicated his whole
attitude and the attitude of this government
—and in this I agree with the hon. member
for Sudbury— when he interjected this after-
noon, "Would you close the mine down?"
Let me say something to the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, would you?
Mr. MacDonald: Let me say something to
the Minister. If this government is really
intent on cleaning up pollution there may be
occasions when you will eliminate jobs.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Right.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. If you are intent
on cleaning up pollution and you are not
kidding the public, you are not presenting a
hypocritical front, you will make certain that
there is no pollution. There may be occa-
sions when you will have to say, "Fine, these
25 jobs go by the board, because we are not
going to continue to pollute our environment
in this province of Ontario." And if you do
not stick by that principle, then you are
really bowing to the contention the hon.
member for Sudbury put forward, that when
it is a clash between commerce and con-
tinued pollution, you are willing to let com-
merce go on even if the continued pollution
survives. Now, make up your mind; one way
or the other.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We have it made up
now.
Mr. MacDonald: It may be made up in
terms of principles, but the whole point that
we are making on this side of the House is
that in terms of the implementation of those
principles, when there is a conflict between
commerce and continued pollution, you per-
mit them to be breached time and time again.
And you permit them to be breached because
of the pressure from the vested interests who
try to make a profit out of reclaiming the
silver from the taiUngs in the lake or what-
ever it happens to be. You may be interested
in that but you should not be interested to the
extent of permitting them to continue the
pollution.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We can do two things.
We can clean up the pollution and employ
people.
Mr. MacDonald: If you can do both, fine,
but too often the pollution is continued under
the excuse that you must have the jobs. To
get up and read letters from lawyers saying
4372
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the mine is going to close down is
neither here nor there. It is an art, a trade
of lawyers, to threaten and cajole to achieve
by any means, the objectives of their clients.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not read any letter
from a lawyer into this.
Mr. MacDonald: That is the way that they
operate, and if you are going to be a patsy
for the pressuring of these lawyers then you
will never clean up pollution.
Hon. Mr. Simonett:
will be.
am not and I never
Mr. MacDonald: This Minister is a big
tough fellow but there is no bigger patsy
when it comes to this sort of thing. Let me
tell the Minister a story. I do not want to go
into the details of Sudbury because some of
my colleagues come from there, and they are
more knowledgeable. But I will tell the Min-
ister a story which has a very interesting
moral.
During the last election in Sudbury, a can-
vasser for the New Democratic Party at one
time was knocking on the door of a home—
and he did not know who lived in it— in a
certain suburban area of Sudbury. The man
opened the door and he happened to be a
man in the management of Inco, and when
the canvasser got talking with him, he dis-
covered that this man was voting NDP, and
he was taken aback. He said, "How do you
explain the fact that you are in management
of Inco and you are going to vote NDP?" The
man replied, "I will tell you why." He said,
"Until the NDP are elected here, the people
who sit in the board rooms of New York are
never going to clean up the pollution in Sud-
bury."
And as a matter of fact, I am on the hon.
member for Sudbury's side in terms of the
argument insofar as Inco goes that neither the
Tories nor the Liberals will clean it up, be-
cause they are both in the pocket of industry.
That was a good story and it had a moral,
too. And the people in Sudbury are catching
onto the moral.
My third unrelated item that I wanted to
get to is in the category of a Httle bit of pol-
lution added to the accumulation which is
forming in our environment.
May I start by asking the Minister a ques-
tion. I hear whisperings to the effect that
there may be a delay in the regulations for
coping with pollution enanating from boats
that did not have adequate equipment to cope
with waste disposal and therefore it was going
into the lakes. These regulations, the imple-
mentation of which has been put forward to
next January 1, may be postponed again. Is
there anything in that rumour? Or is the
decision now firm, that as of January 1 next,
all boats must have the necessary equipment?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that I have not heard the whisperings,
and I do not know where they are. Of course,
we did not say that they must all have hold-
ing tanks by January 1, 1969; we said by
July 1, 1971— when the regulations first came
out.
Mr. MacDonald: You said in July 1968.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry, we did not.
If you would read the regulations, we said
that all boats must have holding tanks by
July 1, 1971.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister looks like
a cat that has been eating the canary. He
thinks that he has beaten the Opposition
down!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You should hear the
whisperings out in the hall!
Mr. MacDonald: He must think that he is
playing marbles with the boys in the school
yard. You are in the big game now, and this
is important business that the Minister is
supposed to be looking after, not playing
little games. Smiling like he has just pulled
off a coup!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I can play your game
any time!
Mr. MacDonald: What was the regulation
that was to go into effect on July 1, 1968,
and that was postponed?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That all new boats
built after July 1, 1968, must have holding
tanks. Older boats could use macerator-
chlorinators till July 1, 1971. We are going
ahead with that regulation starting January
1, 1969.
Mr. MacDonald: It is on the record again;
what the Minister said is on the record.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It was on the record
two weeks ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, sure. The Minister
had this on the record two years ago— that
by 1970 all pollution in Ontario would be
cleaned up.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is not 1971 yet.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, you—
JUNE 12, 1968
4373
Hon. Mr. Simonett: And you said that you
were going to have 67 members in '67, and
where are they all?
Mr. MacDonald: There are few more ludi-
crous statements on record than the sugges-
tion that we would have pollution cleaned up
by 1970, and we will discover that. How-
ever, the general point that I wanted to make
with regard to this, Mr. Chairman, is that
we face a problem today in trying to get all
small pollutions cleaned up. The inevitable
and the natural argument is, "Why are you
picking on me when there is larger pollu-
tion?" I have had boat owners put this to
me and, as a matter of fact, it has some
validity. The amount of pollution that they
are going to make by comparison with a
regular flow of raw sewage into the same
lake, which is often the case, gives their case
validity.
I, for one, have taken the argument of say-
ing, "Look, we have reached the stage where
we have got to halt every contributing factor
to pollution, or we will become a victim of it.
We will never catch up to it." This is the
reason I am stressing this point with the
Minister, because on occasion the argument is
advanced by the hon. member tonight, and by
others on occasion, that the OWRC will bow
to it.
•' Or you get to the point where you start
charging a company Uke O and M up in
northwestern Ontario. Then, when they come
up with a very belated plan, you withdraw
the charges. If you have got to the point that
you have to charge them, fine them. And then
you say you mean business. You should not
be persuaded to withdraw charges just
because they have offered a plan!
I can tell you of a place in northern
Ontario— I am not going to mention names—
but it illustrates the point that I want to
make. I am not certain as to the authenticity
of the exact detail of it. I can tell you of a
place in the north where the water has been
polluted by a big wood industry for years; in
1965, the OWRC said to them "This must be
cleaned up." Twelve months later they pre-
sented a plan for cleaning it up. Twelve
months after that the OWRC said "Your plan
is not satisfactory." So the net achievement
of coming to grips with pollution over a
24-month period was the exchange of two
letters.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Is that right? Are you
sure of that?
Mr. MacDonald: This is the kind of thing
that has gone on.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Are you sure of this
specific instance?
Mr. MacDonald: This is the kind of thing
that this Minister has got to quit doing if he
wants to achieve his own objective so that
he will not be awfully red-faced by 1970.
The ramifications of it, Mr. Chairman, arc
going to be a little difficult to cope with.
I was interested in attending that very
useful conference that your department held
on pollution at the Inn on the Park.
I happened to be sitting at a table where
there were farmers, predominantly, and it
was interesting to see the problem faced by
those farmers. There were some farmers on
the Grand River who used to have their farms
up on the banks of the river. Everybody in
the community envied them because they had
a magnificent drainage system. They never
had their yards bogged down in wet because
all the water, sewage and everything, went
down into the river. They were in a magnifi-
cent position, but unfortunately now they
face the fact of accumulating pollution that
they, down through the years, have been
contributing to.
If they are to halt the pollution of the
Grand River they have got to stop it, and it
may cost them thousands of dollars to get an
alternative drainage system in. Maybe this
was not the way to make political friends—
but I argued with these farmers that if they
wanted industry to stop pollution, they had
got to stop. The fact that you are contributing
only a little cannot be used as an excuse to
justify industry contributing a great deal.
Everyone has got to cut it out. Otherwise
our environment is going to be fouled increas-
ingly and we will never be able to get on top
of the problem.
I think that that is the essential lesson of
the discussion that we have been having here
in relation to specific details. If we do not
live up to and enforce it we will never solve
the problem. Quite frankly, I do not think
that this Minister ever will, but I will give
him a chance.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Give me two more
years.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): If I
may, I would like to continue where I left
oft this afternoon when the House adjourned.
I was interested to hear the Minister go after
my colleague from Timiskaming with respect
to closing down of industry. This article I
have was written in 1967 and it deals with
International Nickel, and KVP, and the CNR
4374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and the article quotes here what would hap-
pen if they were forced to control the pollu-
tion. Asked why the authorities' answers had
always been the same, the reply was the
control of pollution is an expensive operation
and such action could increase production
costs to an extent where industries might have
to either close or curtail the number of
employees.
I am just wondering if the Minister is
really saying that he tliinks Inco would
curtail its production in the Sudbury area,
or if the CNR is going to move if the pollu-
tion of the Vermillion River is cleared up or
if McLellan Mine, which I understand, and
I will read and quote "is polluting Lake
Wahnapitae already" or if the Brovra Paper
Company will move. Does the Minister think
that any of these four industries are going to
move if they are forced to clean up pollu-
tion? I have my doubts.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say as for the first three I had no thoughts
at all that they might close. They have pro-
grammes now which will satisfy OWRC and
they will be cleaned up by 1971.
I think you mentioned Brown Paper. I
do not know. That could go, I understand,
but I do not know But I understand there
may be an area in there that if they were
crowded too hard at the present time they
could close their operations.
Mr. MacDonald: So you are going to let
them pollute.
Mr. Martel: They have been crowding the
government for quite some time, Mr. Minis-
ter, back to about 1946, I believe. They have
been crowding the government with this—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They are not crowd-
ing-
Mr. Martel: —cudgel which they hold over
the heads of Canadian governments, or pro-
vincial governments, that if you slap them
too hard they are going to move out. And
this says that all companies have to do in
Ontario, in Canada as a whole, is threaten
that they are going to move out, and every-
thing stops.
Let us go on and reveal this pollution.
There is one area I have brought up since
I came into the House to at least three dif-
ferent Ministers and certainly I have never
received an adequate answer. I have gone
over to the OWRC with this problem. Again
I am talking about the problem on Highway
17 in the Copper Cliff area. I would ask this
Minister how much he really thinks it would
cost. How much would it cost to finally
culvert in that creek, which has cost 11 lives
and 168 accidents in the last seven years?
And does this government really intend to
do anything about it? The member for Sud-
bury has spoken there; the member for
Nickel Belt has met with you people. How
long? How long? This problem has been dis-
cussed now for at least ten years, and you
cannot culvert it in.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You want an answer?
Mr. Martel: Yes I do.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say that this question has been asked by the
hon. member to, I think, three Ministers that
I know of here. Of course, I do not know
whether OWRC is responsible for this, but
nevertheless I can bring you up to date as
to what is happening as far as OWRC is
concerned.
In May of this year, a resolution was
presented to the commission, endorsed by
some ten municipahties in the Sudbury area
relative to this matter. The commission has
agreed to undertake a complete study of the
problem as requested by the resolution— par-
ticularly the determination of whether or not
a correlation exists between the occurrence
of fog conditions and the quality of water
being discharged from Inco to Copper Cliff
Creek. That is underway now. As soon as
we get a report on that, if the hon. member
would like, I could get in touch with him,
but I cannot give you any more than this
evening.
Mr. Martel: I hope this will not be too long
forthcoming. You have already been ten years
in waiting for it.
The next point I would like to move onto
is Lake Wanapitae, from which as you are
aware, the city of Sudbury might eventually
have to draw its source of water. McLellan
Mine is operating out there, and I just want
to quote— and this is written by an independ-
ent journalist:
The unfortunate thing about all this is
that each day a recently developed mine
near Lake Wanapitae is pouring thou-
sands of gallons of filth daily into what
was relatively pure water. At present one
can go five miles out into the lake from the
shore of Boulin's Bay and see the pollu-
tion in the water with the naked eye.
This apparently goes on with the bless-
ings of the Ontario water resources com-
mission which gave McLellan Mine per-
JUNE 12, 1968
4375
mission to conduct an open pit operation
and dump its waste into a small pond
which drained into Lake Wanapitae. It
did not bother to check up or clamp down
when the mine sank a shaft and began
tunnelling. Pollution is not hard to see or
follow. It flows downhill along with the
water.
Now it is like this. I have heard that it is
not being polluted, I have read in the paper
that the government says it is not being pol-
luted, yet you can see it for five miles with
the naked eye. What is happening?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say I fished that lake two years ago, and I
did not see any pollution nor did I know
there even was a mine dumping in the stream
that ran in there. Would you tell me what
stream, and what mine is doing this, so that
we can do some surveillance work on this,
please?
Mr. Martel: McLellan.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: McLellan.
Mr. Martell: McLellan Mines. They were
given permission to conduct open-pit mining,
and have now sunk a shaft and are beginning
to tunnel. Just right as you come into Skead;
by the track, near Skead, and dumped right
into the Wanapitae.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What stream are they
dumping into?
Mr. Martel: There is just a bit of a pothole
there, and the water seeps right into the lake,
right beside it.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It is not a stream run-
ning in the lake? Or is it part of the lake?
Mr. Martel: No.
Mr. Shulman: Why does the Minister not
know what is going on?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Again we are in that
area all the time, and we have never heard
of it from anyone else. If there was a prob-
lem, I do not know why the member did not
write to me months ago, and I would have
looked after it.
Mr. MacDonald: This was a public article
written by a man and was published in the
paper—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have never seen it,
nor had we heard about it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Martel: I would like to go on, Mr.
Chairman, and speak about the only burning
river in Canada. It is a rather strange sight
to see the river burning but nevertheless it
burns. The CNR was find $500. But the
CNR is not the sole polluter of this river.
Low Phos, who claim they are trying very
hard, do attempt to control it but nonetheless
are not very successful and occasionally it
overflows and for miles down the river you
can see foam and green water and apparently
the OWRC are occasionally phoned. They
send an officer in, he investigates, it is plug-
ged up, and sometimes I am told even before
they get back to Toronto they get a call to
say it is over-flooded again.
I am just wondering if the Minister would
look into both these aspects, particularly be-
cause children of Capreol used to swim in
the river, but this is condemned in the sum-
mer now and they cannot swim tiiere now.
The only place they can go to swim is three
miles away; they cannot even swim in the
river, it is so bad. I am wondering if the
Minister would have this checked thoroughly,
and have this pollution of the Vermilion
River stopped completely?
If the Minister is not going to answer, I
will continue. An interesting sidelight in this
article, Mr. Chairman, is:
For years now, Capreol's mayor, Harold
Prescott, has been battling this situation
but his has been a voice crying in the
wilderness. It is an open secret that had
it not been for the power of his union, he
would have been among the unemployed
or transferred a long time ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member
for Sudbury East has the floor. I was just
trying to get some order for the member so
he could speak.
Mr. Martel: From Capreol the Vermilion
flows west, then south. Ten or 15 years ago
it teemed with fish; today it teems with filth,
not just from Low Phos in Capreol but some
more of it that is picked up in the open, from
the waters flowing in, polluted by the town
of Onaping, and the Inco and Falconbridge
Mines in the Levack area. Again, will the
Minister see to it that the pollution by Fal-
conbridge and by Inco in the Levack area is
checked to see that this pollution is stopped?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would think that per-
haps it might save him time and save the
House time, when he goes back to Sudbury,
so I will see that one or two inspectors go
4376
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
up from OWRC and tour this area with him.
How would that be? Then you will get a
first-hand report instead of reading that old-
Mr. Martel: Fine, Friday afternoon, Mr.
Chairman. They could even drive me home.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The memlDer for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: I should like to examine this
matter of the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany and withdrawal of the charges, and I
should like to know from the Minister when
the water resources commission first observed
pollution of that body of water at Kenora?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I think I answered a
question to the hon. member tliat is in Han-
sard. I have nothing more to say about it
this evening.
Mr. Sopha: No, no. You did not tell us in
the answer, unless my memory is playing me
false.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, you had better-
Mr. Sopha: You did not tell us when the
condition first started. I should like to know
that now.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: When the mill was
built.
Mr. Sopha: Then if that is the case, that
would be certainly a number of years. What
justification would the Minister possibly have,
a charge having been laid in a court of law,
so that he could feel free to exercise his pre-
rogative with the magistrate's hearing of that
charge?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I an-
swered that, and this is in Hansard as well.
Mr. Sopha: You certainly did not and—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I gave the reason why,
and it is in Hansard.
Mr. Sopha: Oh yes, you said that they
undertook to correct the situation. I want to
say that that is unsatisfactory, as Bobby Ken-
nedy would have said, that is unacceptable.
The Attorney General would agree with me,
I am quite sure, he would agree with me
that no Minister of the Crown has the right
to interfere with the processes of our courts
of justice. In other words, just who do you
think you are, that you go into a magistrate's
court and interfere with the process of justice
when a charge is laid?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I did not go-
Mr. Sopha: It is nothing short of contempt
for court. The laws of the province are there
to be obeyed and presumably some responsible
official of the water resources commission laid
that charge. I would think— to say the least-
it is a rather startling act for a Minister of
the Crown, for whatever reasons. Adopting
that word from my friend from Downsview,
a high-handed act.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: There is nothing funny— not-
withstanding what the Minister of Reform
Institutions as an observer might think about
it. There is nothing humorous about it at all,
and the people of the Kenora area are left-
no doubt they have been suffering from this
activity for a long time— with this: The Minis-
ter contends that he has some assurance from
the company, but my information is that those
assurances have been given before. The
assurances have not been lived up to— and
this is a fresh assurance that the Minister got.
Aside from the interference with the process
of justice, it ought to be added that it cer-
tainly looks suspicious. Let me tell you, Mr.
Chairman, the Attorney General's agents in
the province who are paid by the public to
enforce the law do not withdraw their
charges. Once a charge is laid before an
appropriate court, it is proceeded with. A
Minister pretending to act under the environ-
ment of his office to go in and withdraw a
charge certainly indicates something about
the attitude of that Minister toward enforce-
ment and respect for the law. Before that
charge I would also like to know— and it is
not in Hansard— a the Attorney General was
consulted whether that charge should be
withdrawn.
And incidentally, I would like to know
who made the representations and where,
when and in what environment those repre-
sentations were made, that led to the with-
drawal of that charge. All those are legitimate
questions.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I must
say that there were representations from all
the paper companies in Canada because we
were discussing the over-all problem. There
was not only one, and I felt and I said, and
I still maintain that before we charged one
company we should charge them all. I asked
them in the early part of January if they
would file plans with OWRC that would be
suitable and accepted. Some of them were
not in. As you know, you do not make a
plan overnight to clean up pollution, because
they are large projects. I felt if we were
JUNE 12, 1968
4377
going to charge one paper company, we
should charge them all. They should all be
charged because one was as guilty as the
other, and—
Mr. Shulman: Why did you not charge
them all?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well that is my busi-
ness, I believe.
Mr. Shulman: It is not your business, it is
our business.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: That is my business as
Minister.
Mr. Shulman: You are supposed to be
representing the people of this province.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not believe in
charging anyone if they will co-operate and
do the things the government is asking them
to do.
Mr. Shulman: But they are not co-operat-
ing.
Mr. Sopha: This is the first time that this
ever happened to me— it is not a precedent—
but I called up an employee to confirm that
this was so, that the charge was withdrawn—
that was somebody in Mr. Cophce's ofiBce, I
forget his name. I was informed by an
employee of the OWRC who was disen-
chanted with his Minister, to put it mildly.
Mr. V. M. Singer ( Downsview ) : Better
not identify him any further; he will be fired
in the morning.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. This is the first time it has
happened to me— this employee treated the
matter with some seriousness, and did not
feel that the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany—is that an American company by the
way?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I do not know. I am
not interested in whether it is American or
Canadian. It is a company operating in
Ontario. Why should I be?
Mr. Sopha: Well some day we are going
to discover something he does know. Do you
want to bet?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would not want to
bet on that.
Mr. Sopha: Do not bet more than a nickel.
Hon. Mr. Crossman: Who is leading that
discussion over there?
Mr. Sopha: Well, the matter was serious
to the employee. He was so disenchanted with
his Minister that he called a member of
the Opposition to protest about him. That is
how the matter came up. After I heard from
the employee, I called that very nice chap,
very courteous on the telephone— in Mr.
Cophce's office. I called Mr. Coplice— he was
not in— but this other chap confirmed to me
that that was so, that the charge had been
withdrawn. I thought it fitting we should ask
the Minister if he ordered its withdrawal.
Now we know who gets to the Minister. We
have established it.
Mr. Singer: He has not told us though.
Mr. Sopha: We know that if you are big
enough you can not only pollute the waters of
our province but you can breach the law,
perhaps. They were not convicted, but—
Mr. Singer: The charges were withdrawn.
Mr. Sopha: —some indication of their atti-
tude to the charge can be seen because they
undertook to correct something. There is an
inference that can be drawn from that. An
inference of guilt can be drawn from it be-
cause they agreed to correct it. But notwith-
standing the laws of the province, it makes
you wonder what kind of an activity we are
engaged in here, in the late hours of the
night, passing laws that are solemn com-
mands of this Legislature. Solemn commands
—the Attorney General might take note of that
—there is something in the philosophy of
jurisprudence there. We made solemn com-
mands in this Legislature, and those com-
mands are then flaunted by the Minister of
Energy and Management Resources from
Sharbot Lake. Now they must have a difi^erent
school of jurisprudence in Sharbot Lake, but
he flaunts the—
Mr. Chairman: Vote 606, please.
Mr. Sopha: —and exercises his preroga-
tive which he thinks he has got— that I con-
tend he has not got— to interfere with what
happens in the magistrate's court. His answer
—if he wants to talk about his answer-
amounted to this: That Ontario-Minnesota
says that some time it will clean up the pollu-
tion—some time. And when I ask him, as a
supplementary question, when will they clean
it up— this is the hallelujah chorus he sings-
he does not know. As soon as he gets in a
corner then ignorantia legis non excusat—
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Sopha: —is the maxim that he adopts.
I think I am in enough trouble with Hansard.
4378
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Well, that is it. It is a sorry commentary,
Mr. Chairman, it is a sorry commentary. Dur-
ing this day there has been a fruitful discus-
sion, a deal made with Agnico— and they
have snowed them all. You should have been
here to hear about that project.
Now the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany has them by the gargle and it makes
you wonder— it really makes you wonder how
much money we are spending here— about $32
million. I have got to sit down in a deep fit
of depression because we are not getting our
money's worth out of this outfit.
Mr. Martel: I would like to get off this for
a moment and find out if the Minister can
find out when the bylaws for the sewer-water
project in Hamner-Blezard will be submitted
to the municipality? Most refused to send
in their resolutions respecting the water sys-
tem until they are assured that their sewer
system will go. Not that they distrust anyone,
but they want guarantee. I spoke to them this
evening and they would like me to find out
if the Minister knows when these bylaws
will be forthcoming so that they can sign
them and return them along with their reso-
lutions for water?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised they were mailed today.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, I received a report some weeks
ago and made an enquiry of the Minister
concerning a proposed approval of a sewage
disposal plant in the Vaughan township, I
think in the neighbourhood of Richvale, fol-
lowing application of some developers in the
township for provision of some sewage facili-
ties. These facilities would serve the hos-
pital in Richmond Hill, its new school in
Vaughan township and a proposed develop-
ment in Vaughan.
Could the Minister tell me if approval was
actually given to that project?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
I advised the hon. member a couple of weeks
ago, and it is on the record, that as soon as
a final decision was made I would advise him.
We have informed the hospital and school to
go ahead with their projects because we will
come up with our project to take care of that
at least.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, die reason I
ask this is that first of all I would hope the
Minister would give careful consideration be-
fore approving any plan in that area other
than for a temporary plant, a small plant to
serve the hospital and the school, one that
will serve the over-all drainage area. I under-
stand the Minister has a plan that was pro-
posed by consultants for tht over-all area and
I would ask in connection with that, that they
give consideration to enlarging a plant at the
base of the drainage area— the Don River
there. And, instead of moving untreated sew-
age for a long distance through a large pipe-
line tliey consider moving the efiBuent through
a high-pressure steel fine to another place of
treatment, if that effluent is considered to re-
quire further treatment, whether it be in a
Metro Toronto plant.
I would appreciate getting the Minister's
views on such a proposal that they not con-
sider building a huge plant which will carry
untreated sewage many, many miles across
Toronto. Would the Minister consider it
feasible to enlarge the existing plant now in
Thornhill to serve that area at the bottom of
the natural drainage area and then move the
treated effluent by another means in a big
main through a high pressure line, for ex-
ample, to another plant if they feel it re-
quires further treatment before being put
into the lake?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I might
say whatever works are proceeded with to
take care of the immediate problem they have
out there, will be temporary.
I cannot tell you whether I approve of this
type of plant or what type of plant it will
be. I think I will have to leave that to the
engineers of OWRC and their personnel to
recommend to the department and to the
municipalities involved there as to which they
think is the best. Whatever that recommenda-
tion is after consulting with them that is the
one I would approve of.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I would hope
that the OWRC will consider a plan that
suits, as it sees best, tiie over-all needs of an
area and not be too concerned about what
the municipalities necessarily consider tem-
porarily to their best advantage. It seems to
me the responsibility of the water resources
commission is for the over-all need of an area,
regardless of municipal boundaries. I would
hope that they would have confidence, within
their own engineering staff, to tell the muni-
cipalities what they will provide and pro-
vide it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
raise a matter with the Minister which has
come up in this House before with other
Ministers and, needless to say, unsuccessfully.
JUNE 12, 1968
4379
This is the rather frightening situation down
in Nanticoke in reference to water pollution.
This government is in the process of build-
ing or is about to begin building a new Hydro
plant down there. This matter came up in
committee the other day and at that time I
asked the officials from the Hydro why in
the world they were not putting cooling
towers in. Let me explain that the—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we have
a vote coming up for Hydro.
Mr. Shulman: This has to do with water
pollution. And I believe this has something
to do with this Minister— very little to do
with this Minister but something to do with
this Minister's department. The situation is
that this particular Hydro plant is going to be
pumping some 100 million gallons of water
a minute in and out and it is going to come
out warmer. It is going to be dropped into
the lake warmer.
Studies all over the world have shown that
this destroys the fisheries and this is very
important in Lake Erie. This matter has been
brought up in front of the appropriate gov-
ernment member who said, those studies are
in different climates and that does not neces-
sarily apply here. It pretty well sums up
Conservative philosophy. They do not want
to learn from anywhere else.
At the committee meeting the other day I
asked the Hydro officials why they did not
put in a cooling tower which would com-
pletely clear up this particular problem and
he answered in three words, "unnecessary and
expensive." This is really going to be a great
tragedy because you people, and I say you
people, are going to destroy the fishing in-
dustry in Lake Erie. This extra heat in the
water is going to do so. We have studies, so
many studies.
They have been printed in the Wall Street
Journal; they have been printed in the air
pollution and water pollution bulletins that
come out of Washington weekly. They just
are not read by the government. This is
going to encourage the growth of algae.
There are already some hundreds of square
miles of dead water in the centre of Lake
Erie. This is going to produce a new area of
dead water near Nanticoke which is going to
grow out toward the centre of the lake and
you, you as this government, are going to be
responsible for the death of that lake.
Once again, I have appealed to the Hydro,
I have appealed to the Minister responsible
for air pollution but it just does not get
through so I, once again, appeal to this
Minister. Let us see if we have any better
response. I say, for goodness sake you are
responsible for water pollution. Get in touch
with the people who are responsible in your
government for Hydro and insist that they
put in a cooling tower because if they do not
in the year 1971 which you referred to as
when water pollution will be cleared up, I
am going to come back here and I am going
to say you are the man that killed Lake Erie.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 606? The member
for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I have a little
trouble. I was trying to follow last night this
whole story of Ontario-Minnesota. I was
listening to my friend, the hon. member for
Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), and I was listen-
ing this afternoon and this evening to my
colleague from Sudbury. I have looked at
page 3551 in Hansard and I just do not fol-
low the Ontario-Minnesota story. Now it is
my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that in
January, 1965, the Minister said to all pulp
and paper companies, you must clear up the
pollution immediately.
They all understood it and that included
Ontario-Minnesota. Then apparently, as far
as I can understand it and I can only refer
to what has been said in this House and
Hansard, as far as I can understand notwith-
standing the pronouncement of the Minister,
of his officials, in January, 1965, Ontario-
Minnesota ignored him. Figuratively, they
thumbed their noses at him. They said, we
are not awfully interested in great pronounce-
ments from the important Minister of Energy
and Resources Management; we are not going
to do very much. So along came the Minister
and on December 20, 1967, he laid a charge.
Now that was pretty serious because the
Minister was annoyed. He was being ignored
and he had authority under the statute to—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: May I correct the hon.
member, I did not lay the charge.
Mr. Singer: Anyway in his name, a charge
was laid.
Mr. Sopha: He withdrew it.
Mr. Singer: Yes. In his name and with his
authority, a charge was laid, because a Min-
ister of the Crown should rightly get annoyed
if somebody thumbs their nose at him and
somebody says: I am going to ignore your
directions, I am not going to pay any atten-
tion to them. If I was a Nlinister of the
Crown— any one of my colleagues here were
Ministers of the Crown—
4380
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You never will be.
Mr. Singer: I know you said that last year.
I pay no attention to this kind of rambling.
I am just saying that as a Minister of the
Crown you should have a certain dignity—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have.
Mr. Singer: And a certain sense of value
of your oflBce.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have.
Mr. Singer: A certain sense of importance.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have.
Mr. Singer: And a certain sense of auth-
ority.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I have.
Mr. Singer: Well, you do not show it in
this House and you do not show it outside the
House. So let us be sensible and let us get
down to the fact that I am talking about—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. Is this a personal attack, or
are we going anywhere?
Mr. Singer: Make him sit down.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: On a point of order.
Is this a personal attack, or are we working
on an estimate?
Mr. Chairman: Let us stick to vote 606.
Mr. Singer, Mr. Chairman, I would be the
last one in the world to personally attack the
hon. Minister. He is a Minister of the
Crown, and I am sure he does his job— not
very well, but I am sure he does his job
within his ability.
Now let me say, sir, he issued an order, in
January of 1965, to a pulp and paper com-
pany who figuratively thumbed their noses
at him.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You said that once.
Mr. Singer: So he said to his officials, this
will not do. You cannot thumb your noses
at a Minister of the Crown. We must lay a
charge. So December 20, 1967— and I am
quoting from page 3551, Mr. Chairman, I
could not be more in order than to quote
from Hansard—
December 20th, 1967; a summons was delivered to
the company, in Kenora, on January 11, 1968. A
charge was laid on December 20, and we told
Ontario-Minnesota— stop polluting the rivers and stop
polluting the lakes.
Well, apparently the charge was with-
drawn.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: It was not apparent,
it was.
Mr. Singer: Did you want me to read the—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Certainly. It did not
say it was "apparently withdrawn".
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister insists, so let me read the whole quota-
tion here. I am reading now from page 3551,
and this in answer to a question from my
colleague from Sudbury. He asks this ques-
tion—I will read the whole page:
I have a question for the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management which is very helpful and
constructive. There was a charge laid earlier this
year, perhaps in the month of January, 1968, against
the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company of Kenora, for
polluting the waters with industrial wastes. What was
the specific charge? Was the charge later withdrawn?
Why? Has the situation of pollution, to which the
charge has been related, corrected. If not, why?
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me make this
abundantly clear. I had no intention of read-
ing this in. I thought the facts were quite
simple, and I could have condensed them,
but it is only at the Minister's insistence that
I am reading the text.
The hon. member for York South inter-
jected at that time. He said: "That sounds
like a familiar story".
The Minister of Energy and Resources
Management replied:
Mr. Speaker, information against the Ontario-Min-
nesota Paper Company, in Kenora, was laid in Toronto
on December 20, 1967; a summons was delivered to
the company in Kenora on January 11, 1968; the
company was charged that they did unlawfully dis-
charge material, namely, wood and chemical wastes,
during the period of 8 months commencing April 1,
1967, into the Winnipeg River, contrary to section
27, subsection 1, of The Ontario Water Resources
Commission Act. The company subsequently advised
me they had recently received a report from a con-
sultant they had retained to advise them on this
subject, and were on the point of presenting pro-
posals to the OWRC for a programme of pollution
abatement.
This being the case, I agreed to withhold prose-
cution, to give the company time to submit its report,
which it did on April 13, 1968. This report was
discussed at the Ontario water resources commission,
at a meeting in Toronto on April 30, 1968.
In answer to the fifth and sixth parts of the
question, the situation of pollution, to which the
charge related, has not been corrected, simply be-
cause, although progress has been made on the
plans, the physical facilities have not yet been
installed.
Now I would not want to leave the story
incomplete. My colleague from Sudbury then
asked—
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Would the Minister explain to us, if the serious
step of laying a charge in a court was taken? Then
why has the situation not been corrected by the
end of May?
JUNE 12, 1968
4381
Hon. Mr. Sitnonett: Mr. Speaker, I would thmk
the hon. member knows, that after a plan is re-
ceived and approved, you do not build the remedial
measures overnight. It takes time. I would expect
if it is remedied 18 months or two years from
now, they will be making very good headway.
Well then the member for York South got
in and he said:
"They have been procrastinating for a
long time." Then the Speaker came in, and
we got oflF on something else.
So the issue is very simple, Mr. Chairman,
and, in case the Minister believes I am at-
tacking him personally, let me assure him I
am not. It is merely because we have a
desire to enquire about these things. We are
concerned about pollution of our rivers and
our lakes. We want to know why this unusual
procedure took place. We want to know why
the charge was withdrawn. We want to know
who wrote the letter. We want to know what
the letter said. We want to know what the
report said. We want to know when the pol-
lution is going to stop.
As I pointed out last night, Mr. Chairman,
it is more than passing strange when the
Minister reads to us— and he read to us— "I
do not know the names of 15 or 18 people
who had been charged and convicted. Some
of them pleaded guilty, some of them did
not. They had been fined from $25 up to
$1,000." We asked the Minister whether or
not he had ever heard of the injunction pro-
cedure in the Supreme Court of Ontario,
and he scratched his head a bit, and said,
"Yes, we did launch one action asking for an
injunction." He did not tell us about the
result of that. Whether or not the Minister
really believes that he has a job to clear up
pollution, I think, Mr. Chairman, we are en-
titled to know the full story about Ontario-
Minnesota.
His answer on pages 3551 and 3552 is far
from complete. He did not table the letters;
he did not tell us what the representations
were that were made; he did not tell us what
the plans were; he did not tell us who signed
the letter; he did not tell us about a target
date; he did not tell us whether or not it was
reasonable to believe the pollution would ever
be cleared up; he did not tell us whether the
charge had been permanently withdrawn, or
if it was going to be brought back; he did
not tell us whether counsel had been in-
structed to initiate proceedings before the
Supreme Court of Ontario, to ask for an
injunction.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, we here
are not satisfied with the conduct of this
Minister, and if he wants to take it as per-
sonal, he may well do so. We are not satis-
fied with the conduct of this Minister nor are
we convinced about his seriousness in clear-
ing up pollution. And when I talk about this
Minister, I talk about him and all the civil
servants who are charged with the responsi-
bility of clearing up pollution.
It is high time, sir, if there is an answer to
this problem, caused by the Ontario-Minne-
sota Paper Company, that he tabled all of the
correspondence; that he told us why he had
reason to believe it was well in the public
interest to withdraw that charge; that he had
reason to believe that, within a period of
whatever number of months he wants to say,
there was reason to believe that the pollu-
tion would be cleared up.
I say, sir, he needs tell the people of On-
tario the reason why these representations
were accepted; by whom they were made,
and if there is any reason, at all, that the
people of Ontario have to believe, that the
Minister and the officials in his department
are seriously progressing along the line of
removing the pollution caused by Ontario-
Minnesota. There is nothing on the public
record, either on pages 3551 or 3552, or in
what he told us last night, or in what he has
told us today, that sheds any light on this. All
we get is bombast from this Minister, and it
is high time that he indicated, to the members
of this Legislature, to you, sir, and to the
people of Ontario, what he proposes to do
about this very serious situation.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Has he got
an answer for that?
Mr. Singer: He has no answer. He just sits
there and snarls.
Mr. F. A. Burr ( Sandwich-Riverside ) : Mr.
Chairman, I should like to point out one other
aspect and, perhaps, take the heat oflF the
Minister for a moment.
Mr. Trotter: Why do that?
Mr. Burr: Well he has been scorched rather
badly the last half hour. There has been
mention made about the threats of various
industries to move away, if they were pushed
too far.
Only last January, the mayor of Niagara
Falls, New York, reported— or complained— to
the international joint commission that five
firms, one of them a Dupont and one a
Union Carbide, had threatened to move down
south because the restrictions and enforcement
of regulations was much easier down south.
4382
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, we have this same problem in Ontario
and Canada. We had it in Windsor, when
our city council tried to get steps taken to
clean up the air pollution. The company said
that if we got too tough, they would move
somewhere else. Now, the only solution is
to have national standards.
The United States has not got them yet, and
we have not got them. But even when we get
them, and the United States gets them, tliere
should be international standards, so that
companies cannot have any place left to hide.
My question is, really, what is the Minister
doing to prod the federal government to
estabhsh standards for water pollution, and to
give leadership to the whole country? What is
our Minister doing to promote this down at
Ottawa? I know that they have closed up
shop down there. The Minister Pepin did
say that he was getting interested, but they
closed before he could bring in any legisla-
tion. Goodness knows what will happen after
June 25, but what is he doing in that area?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that this is one of the great problems that we
have in Ontario. We have standards in this
province; there are no standards in any of the
states adjoining us; and there are no stand-
ards in the adjoining provinces. So, although
we have standards— we have the Act and we
can do all of these things— I think that we can
be fairly reasonable and not drive every in-
dustry that might locate in Ontario, or already
be here, into a sister province or another state.
Now, I am not saying that when we start to
enforce the regulation on some of the larger,
more profitable industries, that they will
move. I do not believe this, but we can drive
out industry before they get here, if we get
too rigid.
We will not let a new industry come in
unless they comply with the regulations as
set by the OWRC. We— and I hope we will
again as soon as a government is formed in
Ottawa— were discussing with the former
Minister standards between the provinces ad-
joining Ontario so that if we were to get a
pulp and paper industry locating in northern
Ontario and we wanted them to meet our
standards they would not move across the
Ottawa River and locate in Quebec where
there are no standards.
An hon. member: That is what they did!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, that is what they
did, and this is our problem. Until we do get
—or the provinces adjoining get— regulations,
it makes it very difficult. I do not think that
there is anyone in Ontario who wants pollu-
tion. Also I do not think that anyone in
Ontario wants to drive a large industry to
another province. I think that we are trying
to do what is right with both the pec^le and
the industry that is here and trying to locate.
I know that I did not answer the question
but it is of great concern to this government
that we meet with the provinces and the
other states and if we do not come up with
a national set of regulations that we do agree
that we must do certain things to clean up
pollution in the Great Lakes and provincial
waters.
Mr. Burr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would suggest that if our standards are the
highest then we should take the leadership
in doing this.
Mr. Sopha: Two things are absolutely clear.
One is that the sooner the water-selling fimc-
tion of this commission is separated from
pollution control the better the common weal
of the people of Ontario will be.
I have alluded to that before and it is
perfectly clear to me that one commission the
size of this body, this gargantuan body that
is growing all the time, simply is unable to
cope with the two aspects of the business, the
sale of water and the pollution control. I
agree completely with my friend from York
Centre when he says that they should get
into the business of selHng water as Hydro
sells electricity.
That is fine as long as that aspect of your
enterprise was separated. I do not want to
suggest a name, but let us have something
like the "pollution control conmiission"; it
might be feasible. I leave that for those who
are knowledgeable in the field. And encom-
pass within the frame of that commission
both air and water pollution; I do not know.
Perhaps it should be reserved for water
pollution, but the functions of this commis-
sion ought to be separated; on the one side
it is an enterprise, and on the other, it is
a regulatory body carrying out the solemn
legislative command of this Legislature.
The other moral, I say to my friend from
Downsview that flows from the whole thing,
and I suggest if somebody sees the Premier
one of these days, I suggest most seriously
that the Premier as the president of the
executive council should look into the prac-
tices of this Minister, for whom he is respon-
sible. Indeed, he should look into the doings
of this Minister, who, self-confessed, has gone
in and interfered with the processes of the
administration of justice. Indeed, the At-
torney General should be concerned about
JUNE 12, 1968
4383
this, also. This is nothing short of a per-
version of our edifice of justice by his inter-
ference in that court.
Now, the second ancillary thing that flows
from it is that not only is that an unjustified
—an unexplained— act, but obviously the back-
ground of this is too embarrassing to the Min-
ister for him to relate it when challenged in
the clearest language by my friend from
Downsview. He wants to play footsy with
this Legislature and he arrogantly sits there
and refuses to disclose just what went on. Let
one of the lesser members of the body politic
try to do that, and you see how far he gets.
What other conclusion can we come to, I ask
the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman?
That was a sinister process. What other con-
clusion can fair and reasonable men come to
tiian that?
When asked to disclose what went on be-
tween the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company
and the Minister, he arrogantly refuses to dis-
close this. So the only conclusion that one
can come to is that there were sinister in-
fluences at work. The public in reading this
have got to come to that conclusion that this
Minister has been beholden, in a very im-
proper way, to a pressure group from outside,
and he has bowed to influence. I am putting
it that way in virtue of your silence.
Mr. Singer: It is a proper charge for the
hon. member to make in view of these un-
usual circumstances.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister sits there and
says nothing.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would like to make
it outdoors.
Mr. Sopha: He makes it in here where it
counts!
Mr. Singer: And you are supposed to be
responsible.
Mr. MacDonald: What kind of barnstorm-
ing is this anyway?
Mr. Trotter: You will not even try to
answer.
Mr. MacDonald: And you a Minister of
the Crown!
Mr. Sopha: A shameful—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. What is this member trying
to say or insinuate?
Mr. Singer: He is not insinuating.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: You said that it was
the most serious charge he could make!
Mr. Singer: That is right!
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What is the charge
about, what?
Mr. Singer: About you.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What did I do? What
does he mean by it?
Mr. Trotter: You bowed to influence.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What does he mean,
"bowed to influence"? I wish that he would
explain that.
Mr. Sopha: I maintain that, in view of
your silence after the remarks of my friend
from Downsview and your refusal to dis-
close what went on between you and Ontario-
Minnesota that led to the withdrawal of that
charge, the only conclusion that reasonable
men can come to is that there were sinister
influences. Do you understand? Are you
capable of understanding the English
language?
Mr. MacDonald: Produce the letters! Tell
us what went on and why you withdrew the
charge.
Mr. Sopha: In the light of your refusal I
am suggesting here that the Premier of this
province, as your senior and the man who
appointed you, has a duty to make an in-
quiry into how you perform your oflSce.
Mr. Singer: Hear, hear!
Mr. Sopha: If you will not do it, then the
Premier has the duty to come in here and tell
us in no uncertain terms why one of his
Ministers went into a court of justice and
interfered with the processes of that court.
Now, that duty is owed to us and to the
people of Ontario, and if you had more sense
than apparently you have, you would not sit
there, basking in the reflected glory of all
your ofiicials and try to treat us in the
cavalier fashion that you do. I want you to
know that we resent it over here. We have
our duty. We have our duty which we
endeavour to carry out and when a question
is put to you in a decent way and it calls
for an answer, then your silence is nothing
short of the very height of inexcusable arro-
gance.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 606. The member for
Parkdale.
4384
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I am interested
in a matter that concerns the pohcy of OWRC
in the Brampton-Bramalea area. I know that
for some time there has been difficulty in that
area, particularly in Brampton, in obtaining
proper housing. One of the main reasons for
it is because of the policy, or the lack of
policy, of OWRC and the problem is this.
In the city of Brampton there are about
34,000 people living there.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
that question was answered last night by one
of our colleagues and it has to do with the
area. There is a joint agreement between all
the municipalities out there. They have
agreed— the agreement has gone out and it is
before the Ontario municipal board now for
approval— to clear up that whole area.
Mr. Trotter: How long did this go on? I
know there were negotiations going on for a
considerable length of time.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Approximately two
years.
Mr. Trotter: About two years and it is now
before the OMB.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They are in agree-
ment-
Mr. Trotter: Thank you.
Mr. Sopha: I do not know if he is answer-
ing any questions.
I want to return to the matter of the water
and sewer services in Blezard, Hamner, Ray-
side and the township of Capreol-Hamner.
I have a special interest in this and I want to
see people in Sudbury provided with housing.
Housing cannot be built in the valley, so to
speak, until sewer and water is provided. I
raised this matter before dinner and I would
like to know when those services are to be
provided in that adjacent area to the city of
Sudbury.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
answered that question. It was asked by the
member for Sudbury. The agreement left-
Mr. Sopha: I am the member for Sudbury.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, the member for
Sudbury East. The agreements were mailed
out today from the offices of OWRC and—
Mr. Sopha: After I spoke?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes, it was after supper
that I answered.
Mr. Sopha: After I spoke?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I do not know
when it was. It was after we came back at
8 o'clock, anyway.
Mr. Sopha: They were mailed out today?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Today, yes
Mr. Sopha: For all these?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: Well, when is the deadline?
Mr. G. Demers ( Nickel Belt ) : It was April
12.
Mr. Sopha: Next year?
Mr. Demers: This year.
Mr. Sopha: When is the thing to be com-
pleted?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There is actually no
deadline set by OWRC. They are mailed out
to municipalities for their signatures and when
they are returned, they will be dealt with.
Mr. Sopha: My goodness, the commission
has been very slow in this. I made that
speech two years ago here. Goodness gra-
cious, I am always complaining, and I do not
want to sound like some members, but if
these conditions existed in the southern part
of the province, if they existed in a munici-
pality adjacent to Toronto, these three organs
of public opinion down here, these three
Metro newspapers, would raise such a howl
that you would have to do something. But
the farther you get from the centre, the more
lethargic government can become. Really,
these municipalities— my friend from Nickel
Belt will bear me out— did everything they
could to assist them. They amalgamated to
give themselves a wider tax base, more finan-
cial resources. Now Capreol-Hamner is going
to amalgamate with Blezard and an applica-
tion went forward yesterday to amalgamate
the municipalities in the western side. So
they are trying, and why this commission
drags its feet in the way it does-
Mr. Demers: They have not signed the
agreements.
Mr. Sopha: Oh indeed, it is two years-
Mr. Demers: They have not signed the
agreements yet.
Mr. Trotter: Just like the Brampton area.
Mr. Sopha: As we vote this $45 million, it
is obvious to me— $45 million in vote 606 and
610, I totalled it up; I said $32 million before
JUNE 12, 1968
'4385
but it is $45 million— and I hope that com-
mission will not think I am picking on them
because they are very fine people, but it is
obvious to me that they have too much to do.
They have more to do than they can do effi-
ciently, and they are spread out too thinly
across the province.
Up in Red Lake, let history record— a
person almost hesitates to refer to it— but
before they got moving in Red Lake three or
four children had to die of hepatitis. In the
result, let it be said by way of epitaph to
those children, I think that Red Lake situa-
tion led to a whole revision of the method of
financing and the provision of water service,
because it is perfectly apparent that many
municipalities just have not got the financial
resources to pay the cost of provision of
these services. How long ago was it? We
were at tliat hearing last July, were we not?
It was in mid-July and that programme had
just come out. It was announced by the
OWRC that they would build the plant. I
think I called Mr. Caverley at that time, on
the day of that hearing. They had just an-
nounced the programme that would provide
the capital plant for this. A whole year has
gone by now until here they have just mailed
the things to date.
I say to the Minister, in all seriousness, I
have my responsibility here and my constitu-
ency is wider than the environs of the city of
Sudbury. I am interested in these outlying
areas not out of the desire to encroach on
my friend from Nickel Belt and my friend
from Sudbury East, but because I know the
effect of the outlying areas upon the city
proper.
Mr. Demers: Get your friend Gravelle to
sign the agreement.
Mr. Sopha: Who?
Mr. Demers: Get our mutual friend Gra-
velle to sign the agreements.
Mr. Sopha: I will call him tomorrow. If
that is what is holding it up, but—
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): How can he
sign it? They just mailed it today.
Mr. Sopha: But what I complained about
is that a whole year goes by and I hear that
the thing is just in the works now. This
should have been started a year and a half
ago. My memory tells me that when I made
the speech here, about those municipalities—
the vice-chairman of the water resources com-
mission is not here tonight; he gets a per
diem allowance.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is on a 48-hour
week.
Mr. Singer: Well, 48 hours plus.
Mr. Ghairman: Order.
An hon member: He is paid over $10,000
a year.
Mr. Sopha: One might think he would be
interested in this vote.
I made that speech in March and they
announced after the speech that they would
make the survey. I wish the Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) was here
to listen to this lesson. They made the survey
and it would be completed by December 1,
they said. These facts are seared on my
memory, you see, because I am so interested
in it. It was not completed on December 1—
that would be December 1, 1966— it was not
completed until well into 1967 and now they
have had a further year to do something and
they have not done it. In the meantime, you
see, no houses are being built. That is the
whole point. No houses are being built in
those valley municipalities and the situation
is getting worse.
Mr. Ghairman, something has got to be
done— it will be done; I am quite sure it will
be done eventually— to separate some of the
functions of this commission so that it can
perform more efficiently. One cannot fail to
observe— and I ask people to be fair as we
sit here voting this $45 miUion— that out on
the street, on almost every occasion that ex-
pert people in the field come up against this
commission, and the commission deals with
them, they are yelling blue murder. So it
was in Brampton. So it was in St. Thomas.
I was down in St. Thomas last October to
speak in a political meeting and the whole
topic of conversation was the treatment of
St. Thomas by the commission.
I do not pretend to know the details, but
it is apparent to me that almost every time
somebody comes up against this commission,
there is a reaction against them of antipathy
and adversity. I can recall getting lengthy
letters from the municipal engineer out in
Brampton about his contract with this com-
mission. There has got to be something
wrong. There has got to be something wrong
with the way they do business, with the way
they spend our $45 million.
For myself, I never liked the way they
treated the city of Sudbury. I never liked
their cavalier attitude, and their peremptory
commands, the way they drifted into tliat
city and started to tell us about building a
4386
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sewage treatment plant to the cost of $5
million, which we have not got to start ofiF
with, and have not got any hope of getting.
Our debenture debt is up almost to the limit
allowed by law now. So I just say to that
Minister, and I would say it to the Premier
if he were here, that the time has come to
have a look at this $45 million and maybe
get the management consultants in— maybe
hire that Walter Gordon firm; what do they
call that, Clarkson Gordon— to come in and
have a look at this outfit and see if it cannot
be readjusted so that they spend all our $45
milhon, that is the people's $45 million, in a
little bit more satisfactory way and with more
despatch.
I say that from personal experience, espe-
cially in relation to those long-suffering town-
ships and some of their conditions. If you
went into the hearts of Tennessee and Missis-
sippi and Alabama you would not find their
equal. So Canadians do not need to look
down their noses at people in the southern
United States. You would not find their
equal, because they have not got the ordinary
rudiments, and I said it before in this House,
and I say it again, that surely a fundamental
necessity of looking after the health and
common weal of our people is that they have
at least sewer and water services. At least—
and that right supersedes the water resources
commission dragging its feet in the provision
of it. That right is far, far ahead of it.
I most reluctantly, in this form, become
party to the vote of this $45 million this year
because I have had too much experience with
this commission now. Too much without
coming to the conclusion as a reasonable man
that tiiere is something wrong in the state of
Denmark. Something wrong, and there is a
footnote. I would have to say to you, Mr.
Chairman, that a man that is getting— what
do you say, $10,000 a year-
Mr. Trotter: It is over $10,000 a year.
Mr. Sopha: Moonlighting at $10,000 a year,
one of those moonlighters— not like the vice-
chairman of Hydro, he is always here. The
vice-chairman of Hydro is always here, but
a moonlighter up there getting $10,000 a
Mr. Trotter: Not even here!
Mr. Sopha: Over and above the $12,000;
he has got a lot of gall in not being here.
And he is pocketing the money and goes
away laughing and scratching all the way to
the bank— he does not have to produce even
by attendance. I do not know, it looks to me
as if the Premier is losing his grip. He is not
here most of the time and he cannot keep
the troops here. If I were the Premier, the
very minimum I would insist upon, is one of
moonlighters that I appointed over there be
here to give some quid pro quo for the
$10,000 that he gets. I suggest that and
commend it to common sense. If the Min-
ister had any decency, he would send the
messengers up looking for him, to bring him
here. Perhaps we could hear an articulate
word from him and what we are getting for
that $10,000.
Mr. Singer: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, before we
leave this vote, I think we have seen tonight
as extraordinary a performance as I have
ever seen in this House in 13 years. The
Minister has been asked to provide informa-
tion with regard to the withdrawal of charges
that has been described as interference with
the courts. In the instance of the O and M
those details have been asked for, indeed the
charges have been put even in the form of
questioning the integrity of the Minister,
mainly because he has bowed to outside influ-
ence and has sat there silently.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as a person who
listened to that aspect of the debate, I have
no other conclusion but that the Minister has
something to hide. He has refused to even
acknowledge anything. He just sits there
silent.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, sec-
onded by the hon. member for Lakeshore
(Mr. Lawlor) that since the Minister has
refused to reply to questions regarding OWRC
withdrawal of charges against O and M— even
in the face of the accusation that he has
wrongly bowed to influence— this House re-
duces the moneys under vote 606 to $1 until
full explanation has been given.
Mr. Chairman: It has been moved by the
member for York South that since this
Minister has refused to reply to questions
regarding OWRC withdrawal of charges
against O and M— even in face of the accusa-
tion that he has wrongly bowed to influence—
this House reduces the moneys voted under
vote 606 to $1 until a full explanation has
been given.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry,
I judge from what is being drawn to my
attention, that I have been unfair to OWRC.
The charge was not withdrawn by OWRC,
it was withdrawn by the Minister. I would
appreciate it if it would be his withdrawal
rather than OWRC's withdrawal.
JUNE 12, 1968
4387
Mr. Chainnan: Perhaps the member would
like to alter the motion so that we have it
properly on record.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is only going to
delay clearing up pollution.
Mr. Trotter: Ho, ho, that is a feeble
answer.
Mr. Chairman: The motion should read
"that since this Minister has refused to reply
to questions regarding his withdrawal" rather i
than "OWRC's withdrawal." !
Those in favour of the motion wiU please
say, aye.
Those opposed will please say nay.
In my opinion the nays have it.
Call in the members.
All those in favour of the motion will
please rise. All those opposed will please
rise.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, those
in favour are 25 and the nays 41 .
Mr. Chainnan: I declare the motion lost.
Vote 606 agreed to. -=»—
On vote 607:
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, was this a confidence motion?
Mr. Chairman: It was 25 against 41.
Vote 607 agreed to.
On vote 610:
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Chairman, on vote 610, I notice that this is
quite a reduction from last year's budgeted
amount and wonder if the Minister could
inform us of the reason for this?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, we
realize that this is somewhat lower than last
year but we hope that this is a more realistic
estimate-
Mr. Chairman: Order please. I wonder if
the Minister would permit the chair to
explain what has been done? We have had
vote 606 which was Ontario water resources
commission; 607 Ontario water resources
commission; and 610 under the Ontario water
resources commission in the same manner in
which we had taken the conservation authori-
ties branch.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Chairman, on vote 609— the vote on Ontario
Hydro-
Mr. Chainnan: Vote 609 is yet to b6 called.
We are discussing vote 610.
Vote 610 agreed to.
On vote 609:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Muskoka.
f Mr. R. J. Beyer (Muskoka): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to make a few remarks on this
vote. The estimate before the House relates
to the development of nuclear energy as a
I source of electric power generation in our
province. Although power generation by this
means is a scientific development of fairly
recent origin, dating from perhaps 18 years
ago, Ontario Hydro's interest in nuclear
i energy and commitment to the development
of generating stations using such a technique
goes back to about the beginning of that
period of time. As a result, Ontario Hydro
has today, in relation to its capacity, as large
a stake in nuclear-electric development as any
utility in the world— including those in Great
Britain and the United States.
The subject of supplying power produced
from nuclear reaction was discussed in this
^ House during the time I have been here by
the present Minister of Public Works (Mr.
Connell), when he was vice-chairman of
Ontario Hydro in 1957 and 1958. In the
current session, we have heard in this House
from Opposition speakers for the first time
since then, I believe, certain critical references
to our nuclear programme. Though more than
a decade has gone by since the subject was
first introduced, such comments are welcome.
They appear to be based on misconceptions,
yet, we should be pleased to note the interest
now being taken in the subject.
The commitment of Ontario Hydro to the
atomic power programme adopted and devel-
oped by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited—
which is an arm of the federal government-
has proven in the results obtained, to be fully
justified. Not only is this the case, but our
engineers and all associated in the Canadian
reactor policy are more enthusiastic than ever
about the technique and its future.
Comparisons may be made with methods
employing nuclear reaction adopted in other
countries, but the salient fact is that each
country must adopt the technique best suited
to its own circumstances and resources.
Ontario Hydro is and always has been
keenly aware of the desirability of using
uranium in Ontario mines for the purpose of
generating electricity, as an alternative to the
purchase of imported coal. As far back as
1953 the commission announced its intention
4388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of participating with AECL in feasibility
studies as to production of electricity from
nuclear sources. This was followed by the
assignment of a number of Hydro engineers
to a study group with engineers from AECL.
This group was entrusted with the responsi-
bility of examining the prospects of producing
nuclear-electric power.
The result was that Canada adopted for
this purpose the design technique of natural
uranium as the fuel, with heavy water as a
moderator. The advantages of this system
were amply demonstrated in the plant con-
structed at Rolphton on the Ottawa River, a
20,000-kilowatt station known as "nuclear
power demonstration," or NPD for short. The
decision to proceed with the Rolphton station,
in co-operation with AECL and Canadian
General Electric was made in 1955. The plant
has been operating successfully for six years
—consistently, reliably and safely producing
power for Ontario. It is worth noting that up
to the end of 1967 it had delivered a total of
more than 609 million kilowatt-hours of
electricity into the provincial grid.
Owned by AECL and Hydro, this proto-
type plant has, year after year, met or ex-
ceeded the winter peak target set for it. It
has provided invaluable information to help
with the operation of the 200,000-kilowatt
Douglas Point station on Lake Huron.
Technical difficulties encountered at the
Douglas Point nuclear plant last year were
held up by some as evidence that Canada's
programme to develop uranium reactors as
an economic source of low-cost electricity is
threatened with failure.
In reality, however, the problems with
Douglas Point, which is the first full-scale
nuclear station to be built in this country,
are similar to those experienced by utilities in
other parts of the world. Prototype equip-
ment, whether it be nuclear or conventional,
has teething problems.
On March 8, Douglas Point, which had
been operating at 75 per cent of capacity
since the middle of December, reached its
maximum output of 200,000 kilowatts. After
a week of operation at full capacity it was,
during the favourable power situation experi-
enced at this season of the year, shut down
for planned maintenance and modification. It
was back on the line again in mid-April and
commissioning tests at up to 100 per cent of
rated capacity and more are continuing.
Douglas Point has not diminished the con-
fidence of either this government or Ontario
Hydro in the natural uranium, heavy water
reactors which are the foundation of the Cana-
dian nuclear prograirune. Douglas Point's per-
formance of recent months speaks for itself.
It works, and works well. Just how well is
indicated by the fact that during the three-
month period from December 15 to March 15
its output was available to the system 85 per
cent of the time and, following a planned
shutdown for inspection, Douglas Point is
now producing its full rated power of 200,000
kilowatts.
The government of Canada, tiirough AECL^
owns the $85 million Douglas Point plant.
The station's nuclear component was designed
by AECL. Ontario Hydro designed the con-
ventional portion and constructed the plant
at AECL's expense. The commission oper-
ates the station for AECL and buys the
energy it produces at the same rates the com-
mission buys power from inter-connected
utilities. Hydro will purchase the plant when
commissioning tests are completed, at a price
which will make the cost of pOwer fully
competitive.
Certainly some unfortunate diflBculties were
experienced in getting Douglas Point on the
line. But as the months pass and the fore-
casts become facts, there is more and more
confidence in its performance.
In 1964, Hydro made a major nuclear
commitment with the decision to proceed
with construction of a 1,000,000-kilowatt plus
station at Pickering. The first two units of
this plant are being financed under a co-op-
erative arrangement with Ontario Hydro con-
tributing approximately 40 per cent of the
$272 million cost, the government of Canada
33 per cent, and the province of Ontario 27
per cent.
The vote in the estimates, sir, shown under
item 609 includes the province of Ontario's
contribution during the current fiscal year.
Under the plan, the two governments will
obtain full recovery of their contributions
with interest, and repayments are expected
to begin in 1971. Again, AECL is responsible
for the design of the nuclear portion of the
station through its power projects division.
Last year, Hydro announced it was pro-
ceeding with two additional units, raising
Pickering's capacity to more than 2,000,000
kilowatts and making it one of the largest
nuclear stations under construction in North
America. Hydro itself will finance the entire
$256 million cost of these two additional
units. It is hoped to have power flowing from
the first unit by 1971, even though construc-
tion delays caused by work stoppages during
the past year have set back the programme.
Unit 2 will follow later in the year, and imits
JUNE 12, 1968
4389
3 and 4 at Pickering are scheduled for service
at yearly intervals.
If things go as planned, Pickering and
Douglas Point will be supplying power equiv-
alent to the electrical requirements of two
million Ontario homes by 1973.
Mr. Chairman, I am able to say tonight
that Ontario Hydro plans to make a major
new commitment in Canadian heavy water
reactors before the end of this year. The
new developments will involve 3,000,000
kilowatts of nuclear capacity. In all likeli-
hood, the size of the generating units will
represent another step up to the range of 750
kilowatts each. I should point out that Hydro
is not yet able to put all of its kilowatts into
one technological basket, and to maintain
system balance it is expected that an addi-
tional 1,000,000 kilowatts in conventional
thermal generation will be committed.
This will mark the first time that nuclear
power has formed such a large part of new
scheduling.
Experience gained at Douglas Point is
pointing the way to better design and con-
struction and improved operational techniques
—refinements which are being incorporated in
die Pickering station as part of a systematic
programme that reflects the Hydro's basic
responsibility— that of producing a reliable
supply of electricity at the lowest possible
cost.
We believe that the Canadian natural
uranium heavy water reactor offers us the
best means of doing this. Hydro, of course,
is constantly reviewing all techniques to
ensure that it can take advantage of new
developments. There are those who advocate
that the national research council should be
involved in this work. We would welcome
their participation in the nuclear power field.
When the Douglas Point project gave indi-
cation of trouble, critics of our nuclear pro-
gramme were off and running. Hydro was
accused of being too bold, of gambling, of—
in effect— putting all its nuclear eggs in one
reactor. I suggest that there are two ways of
getting to the top of an oak tree. One is to
climb it; the other is to sit on an acorn and
wait for it to grow.
As has been pointed out by Ontario Hydro's
chairman, it would have been nice to experi-
ment with a number of concepts in addition
to the design that uses Canadian natural
uranium as a fuel and heavy water as a
moderator. But, given the limited financial
and scientific resources of a country the size
of Canada, we could have spread ourselves
so thinly that nothing at all would have been
achieved.
Hydro could, of course, have stood by and
waited for others to develop an acceptable
system-then adopted it. But it chose to go
ahead in partnership with others— go ahead
with a system that is uniquely Canadian,
using as fuel the relatively inexpensive
natural uranium with which our province is
so richly endowed.
Innovation is venturesome, even under the
best of circumstances. But had we not gone
ahead when we did, it is very probable that
we would be lagging behind other industrial
nations; and, I suspect, be facing accusations
at home of timidity and lack of enterprise.
Evidence to date suggests Canada's approach
has paid oflF. In a period of about 15 years,
the Canadian-designed power reactor has
moved from the concept stage, through dem-
onstration, and full-scale application. Now,
the engineers are confident that this will be
a highly economic proposition.
Adding to their confidence was a recent
prediction by a leading American consulting
engineer, Alexander Kusko. Looking ahead
to the years 2000 to 2030, he stated: "Nuclear
plants using heavy-water and breeder reactors
will supply all of the bulk power directly by
cable to load centres."
In this province, Ontario Hydro's objective
is to obtain the largest practicable proportion
of its new resources from nuclear energy,
supplemented by hydro-electric development
—including pumped storage. Studies have
been going on for about 18 months, and
Hydro is planning to make the new commit-
ments in its nuclear programme— to which I
referred— later this year.
Power demands in a consistentiy expand-
ing economy such as Ontario's can be pre-
dicted with reasonable accuracy. Plans can
be drawn up to meet these demands. But
execution of plans to reach goals within time
targets is distinctly another matter— nature
and the human element being what they are.
Fortunately, nature co-operated admirably
in 1967. When Canada's centennial year
dawned, Ontario Hydro, of necessity, was due
to break all records. More than 1,000,000
kilowatts of new generating capacity was
scheduled— the largest one-year increase in
the commission's history. One that would
have met expected demands with a reasoned
or calculated margin of reserve.
That 1,000,000-kilowatt goal, as is now well
known, was not achieved. In fact, only about
half of the new equipment scheduled for
service actually produced power. The reason
for failure can best be described as a com-
bination of circumstances. These circum-
stances included late dehveries of equipment
4390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in certain cases, failure of certain equipment
to meet performance standards, and— equally
serious— a strike by 3,000 construction work-
ers which began in May of last year and was
not fully settled until early January, 1968.
The strike, in which wage rates and bene-
fits were not factors, was the first in 16 years
of harmonious relations between Ontario
Hydro and the member unions of the allied
construction council. It brought work to a
virtual halt on a $1.25 billion expansion pro-
gramme and caused completion dates to be
deferred on about 280 projects.
The strike stemmed from the commission's
refusal to grant four major concessions asked
for by the council. These were: that Hydro
recruit exclusively through the member
unions; that the unions determine the sources
of equipment and machinery installed at con-
struction sites; that jurisdictional disputes be
settled by a tribunal in Washington; titiat non-
working foremen be members of the bargain-
ing unit.
The commission felt that to accede to these
demands would be to relinquish its responsi-
bility as trustee of a publicly owned, prov-
ince-wide enterprise carrying on activities in
a variety of union and non-union labour
markets. We held, in short, to the position
that we could not deny to any qualified con-
tractor or worker the opportunity to bid or
work on Hydro projects.
The strike affected projects ranging from
minor line work to major generating stations,
whose output was essential to Ontario's future
power needs. It was to meet these needs
that Hydro planned the present expansion
programme, designed to provide within 10
years more than double the commission's
present generating capacity of about nine
million kilowatts.
Just for the record, Ontario Hydro has been
planning for and constructing generating
capacity to meet power demands which have
doubled every 10 to 12 years for the past 40
years. This means that under its current ex-
pansion programme the commission will add
in 10 years a kilowatt total greater than that
developed in its previous 62 years.
This obviously calls for planning on a
massive scale. I mention it only so that the
facts may speak for themselves in answer to
criticism which suggested that poor planning
was a contributing cause in the past winter's
sometimes tight power supply situation. If
there is anything certain to focus attention on
Ontario Hydro, it is the possibility of a power
shortage. The possibility was raised early in
December. Reaction was immediate, and
those who expressed themselves ranged all
the way from knowledgeable optimists who
believed that all would work out well to
vociferous critics crying gloom and doom.
When the construction strike began, only
about one-third of the more than 1,000,000
kilowatts in generating capacity planned for
1967 had been installed. The late deliveries
mentioned earlier and failure of other equip-
ment to meet standards had already slowed
the programme. The combination of the two
—the strike and the equipment factor— left the
commission with resources much smaller than
anticipated to meet the peak power demand,
which normally occurs in December. If
things had gone according to plan, our total
resources would have been almost 10,000,000
kilowatts, and power reserves would have
been closer to the acceptable level.
While the actual margin of reserve was
considerably less than desired, a few factors
were operating in Hydro's favour as winter
approached— including the forces of nature.
The levels of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie
were both above normal— a matter of great
importance since the behaviour of these two
bodies of water affects nearly 3,000,000 kilo-
watts of hydro-electric generation on the
Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers— and levels
of water storage elsewhere across the prov-
ince were generally good.
With this co-operation and employment of
other measures. Hydro managed to get safely
over the peak periods of consumption— as it
confidently expected to do. When needed to
maintain reserves, additional power was ob-
tained in the normal way from neighbouring
utilities in Quebec and the United States,
and by utilizing a block of 300,000 kilowatts
of interruptible power— that is power supplied
to certain industries who get substantial rate
discounts to compensate for the possibility of
brief occasional interruptions.
The peak power demand— which is to say
the maximum sustained demand over a 20-
minute period— is normally made on the
Hydro system on one of the business days in
the week preceding Christmas. The relatively
balmy weather we had before Christmas was
not normal, however, and as a result the new
peak of 9,214,300 kilowatts was not reached
until January 8.
The commission met the peak demand by
using the insurance avenues I have men-
tioned, and by pressing into operation every
possible resource at its command. This meant,
among other things, that power which might
have been produced by large economic gen-
erating units, was produced by smaller, less
efficient units at up to three times the cost.
JUNE 12, 1968
4391
When I say "power that might have been
produced ty large economic units," I refer
particularly to 600,000 kilowatts of new
power that was scheduled for service in 1967
on completion of units 6 and 7 at Lakeview
generating station, on the shore of Lake On-
tario west of Toronto. Units 6 and 7 have
been rescheduled for operation this year.
When all eight imits are in service they will
bring the plant to its ultimate capacity of
2,400,000 kilowatts, making it one of the
largest coal-burning generating stations in the
world.
The Lakeview plant illustrates the revolu-
tionary pace at which Ontario is expanding.
At full production its output will be greater
than Hydro's province-wide demand in 1947.
Delay in completion of units 6 and 7 at Lake-
view was not only frustrating to Hydro plan-
ners, it was costly. Delaying the operation of
one of these 300,000-kilowatt units for four
months— a period in which it could have pro-
duced 700 million kilowatt-hours of electricity
-meant that $3 million worth of power pro-
duction was lost forever.
Reviewing further what might be called
the winter of our discontent, there's the mat-
ter of the commission purchasing power from
interconnected utilities in the United States.
When the storm blew up in December over
the alleged possibility of a power shortage,
news reports quoted statements by persons I
can only describe as highly uninformed as
saying that the commission would be forced
to buy "expensive" power from American
sources.
For the record, again, let me say that
Ontario Hydro is constantly exchanging
power throughout the year with intercon-
nected utilities in the United States— buying
and selhng huge quantities when it is most
economical. This is as much insurance for
those utilities as it is for Hydro. As an ex-
ample: despite the long, dark, and sometimes
cold winter, our system conditions were such
that the day after Christmas, the commission
was able to assist utilities in Michigan with
about 300,000 kilowatts.
One more note about these so-called ex-
pensive imports from the United States.
During 1967, Hydro sold approximately $1.5
million worth of power to United States utili-
ties, and bought only about $669,000 worth.
This, of course, means that rather than being
an importer of electricity and an exporter of
dollars, the commission was actually an ex-
porter of electricity and an importer of dol-
lars, earning more than $800,000 on the
exchange. The 1968 situation is expected to
be comparable.
So much for Hydro's balance of payments
-a salutary situation that I am sure all here
would like to see projected on the national
fiscal scene. Generation reserves are becom-
ing a matter of increasing importance to the
Hydro operation. Where 10 years ago we
thought in terms of a 14 per cent reserve,
today we need to think about considerably
more. There are several reasons for this,
among them the fact that the huge, complex,
thermal-electric stations now being built pro-
vide more operating problems through the
year than hydro-electric plants, which now
form the bulk of Hydro's generating facilities.
Consider the Lambton coal-burning station
near Samia, now planned to be in service in
1969 but originally scheduled to deliver its
first power later this year. When a generator
the size of those being installed at Lambton
is removed from service, the Hydro system
is deprived of 500,000 kilowatts of power.
Consequently the question arises, why install
such large units?
The answer is that experience is proving—
at least in the case of thermal stations— that
the larger the unit, whether coal-burning or
nuclear, the greater the economy. The Lamb-
ton station was originally planned as a two-
unit plant, with a 1,000,000-kilowatt capacity.
The size was doubled when studies indicated
that several million dollars could be saved in
engineering, construction and other costs by
increasing the size of the station to 2,000,000
kilowatts.
Lambton, and the earlier-mentioned Lake-
view plant, are two of four thermal stations
in partial operation or under construction
which will ultimately add a total of more
than 7,000,000 kilowatts to the Hydro system.
The others are Hydro's latest venture into
the super-giant class of thermal electric
plants, the 2,000,000-kilowatt Nanticoke sta-
tion near Port Dover, at the eastern end of
Lake Erie, and the $528 milhon Pickering
nuclear plant, on the short of Lake Ontario
east of Toronto.
Preliminary work at the Port Dover site
began last fall. Power from the first of four
500,000-kilowatt units is expected late in
1971. Again to illustrate the growth of our
system: The capacity to be installed at Nan-
ticoke will about equal Ontario's share of
the power resources at Niagara Falls. Con-
tinuing the trend, options were taken up
recently, on sites on Lake Ontario for two
4392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
more thermal stations, both in the 2,000,000-
kilowatt range. One is located about 20 miles
west of Kingston, and the other approximately
five miles west of Port Hope.
Construction of a modem thermal plant
takes from five to seven years. Those whose
passion is planning will be quick to realize
that the commission is already looking beyond
the bounds of our present expansion pro-
gramme. It is preparing, in fact, to meet
demands expected to top the 22,000,000-
kilowatt mark by 1980. That is a year, inci-
dentally, in which one-third of our resources
may be nuclear.
Hydro's faitli in nuclear generation has
prompted a double-barreled question that
warrants an answer. Why has the commis-
sion continued to build coal-burning plants?
Frequently coupled with this is the charge
that such plants add to the problem of air
pollution, particularly in metropolitan areas.
First, the reason for having committed
coal-burning plants. Simply, it is because of
operating considerations. A nuclear generat-
ing station is what is known as a base load
plant. That is, its operation is such that it
meets the power demand through most of
the 24 hours of the day. But other generation
is required to meet brief peak demands. We
believe that coal-burning plants, operating in
conjunction with nuclear stations, provide the
most economical balance for the Hydro sys-
tem.
Hydro-electric plants, of course, still have
an important role in Hydro's programme, but
I must emphasize that their capacities are not
enough to offset the base-load features of
nuclear stations. Coal-burning plants are less
expensive to build than nuclear and can be
stopped and restarted more quickly and more
economically. Nuclear plants, with their high
capital cost and comparatively low fueling
expense— thanks to natural uranium— serve the
system best when they operate around the
clock.
As to air and water pollution— those sub-
jects which were much in the news in the
last year, and which I spoke about at length
in this House recently— I would only reiterate
that Ontario Hydro is by no means indiffer-
ent to the health of the people of this prov-
ince. It is ready to adapt every proven
further means which will ensure cleaner air,
and, in respect to the water used for coohng
purposes at its thermal plants, is working
closely with the government departments
concerned.
The advent of the giant thermal station is
changing the pattern of power production in
Ontario. By 1970, the commission's thermal-
electric capacity will be greater than our
water-power resources for the first time.
Ontario Hydro is nearing the end of the
line as far as available water-power sites are
concerned. The remaining sites being studied
for economic development— most of them in
the James Bay watershed— have an estimated
combined potential of approximately 1,000,-
000 kilowatts. But several river projects are
currently either under construction or in the
planning stage.
In the north, a total of $48 million is being
expended on two sites on the Mississagi River.
The Aubrey Falls development, 68 miles
north of Thessalon, is scheduled to add
130,000 kilowatts to the Hydro system in the
fall of 1969; and the 215,000-kilowatt Wells
station, under construction downstream, is
scheduled for completion in 1970.
Also, development of a site at Lower Notch
on the Montreal River, southeast of Cobalt,
is underway. Still in the north, $1 million
worth of rehabilitation work at the Kakabeka
Falls station near Fort Wilham, which in-
cluded a new dam, is now complete. In
eastern Ontario, both units at the new
139,500-kilowatt Mountain Chute station on
the Madawaska River went into operation in
late 1967; and a few miles downstream, a
two-unit extension to the Barrett Chute plant
is scheduled for service this year. Still farther
down the Madawaska, construction is under
way on a two-unit addition to Stewartville
generating station, scheduled for service in
1969.
In relation to our coal-burning stations,
last year we purchased about 5,500,000 tons
from Nova Scotia and the United States. The
recent imposition of lockage charges on the
Well and canal has added considerably to the
cost of imported coal. These charges will
increase fourfold over the next four years, and
by 1971 will add about $250,000 to Hydro's
yearly coal bill.
Costs, of course, are going up on all sides,
and no one knows it better than Hydro. After
fighting the rising tide for a number of years,
the commission was forced last November to
concede that escalating wages, salaries, inter-
est rates and prices in general were continu-
ing to push costs beyond Hydro's capacity to
absorb them.
The result was an announcement of in-
creases in interim rates averaging about 6
per cent for power supplied to the 354 murnc-
JUNE 12, 1968
4393
ipal utilities in the Hydro system. Evidence
—if any is needed— that Ontario Hydro has
aided the municipal utilities in holding the
line, may be seen in figures showing that the
average residential cost per kilowatt-hour in
1967 was 1.14 cents, compared with 1.18
cents in 1957. Average costs for commercial
and industrial customers have similarly de-
clined.
Looking at it another way: Between 1949,
the base year for the consumer price or cost-
of-living index, and today, the cost of living
has increased by more than 50 per cent. We
are now paying over $1.50 for what we
bought for a dollar in 1949.
Yet, during that same period, the cost of
electricity to the average municipal residen-
tial customer in Ontario increased by only 12
per cent— or little more than one-tenth of a
cent per kilowatt-hour. Besides supplying
power to the municipalities. Hydro also serves
more than 500,000 customers of its own in
rural areas. There has not been a general
rate increase to these customers in 15 years,
thanks in large part to the introduction of a
variety of cost-saving techniques.
Last year, however, the same inflationary
pressures which brought about higher interim
rates, resulted in a deficit on Hydro's rural
service operations. An upward adjustment in
rates to these customers will, of necessity, be
made in the near future. Though some of the
specific details are still to be worked out, the
proposed increases are merely designed to
meet rising costs and carry the commission
through the next two years.
I am not attempting to minimize our in-
crease in rates, but we do have to meet our
growing costs. And one of the major causes
for the rising costs is high interest rates. The
commission now has to seek funds in a mar-
ket in which interest rates are the highest on
record. Our borrowing must cover new
money requirements as well as refinancing of
maturing bonds. It was only a decade ago
that Hydro could borrow money at 4 per
cent. Our most recent bond issue carried a
rate of nearly 7 per cent.
But the money is needed and the piper
must be paid, for we cannot delay projects in
anticipation of more favourable borrowing
conditions. Forecasts for this year anticipate
a power demand approaching the 10,000,000-
kilowatt mark. And we are forecasting a
gross capital expenditure for the year of $281
million— up 20 per cent over last year.
Rounding out the forecast is the sobering
expectation that the system's operating and
maintenance costs in 1968 may rise as much
as 15 per cent.
The commission's primary objective for
1968 is to get construction back into high
gear. Ground lost because of the strike must
be made up. We have underway a pro-
gramme involving almost 8,000,000 kilowatts
of new generating capacity for completion
by 1974.
We are also looking forward to the joining
of our east and west systems in 1970. The
first step will be completed this fall, when a
link-up with the Great Lakes Power Corpo-
ration will make possible the transfer of
limited amounts of power between northwest-
ern Ontario and the rest of the province.
Upon completion in 1970 of the 500 miles of
line now under construction, a full inter-
change of power over commission facilities
will be possible, giving Hydro a completely
integrated system covering an area of 250,000
square miles.
I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by a
brief reference to our marketing programme.
While mention of a marketing programme
may sound inconsistent in light of what has
been said about our margin of reserves dur-
ing the past winter, the explanation is that
the programme is designed primarily to en-
courage greater use of electricity during oflF-
peak hours. Since it follows that the greater
the amount of electricity consumed in the
valleys between the peak periods, the lower
will be the general over-all unit cost, the pro-
gramme is in line with the basic commission
policy of maintaining the cost of power at an
extremely low level in relation to all the in-
flationary pressures with which we are
burdened today.
And with the huge expansion programme
we now have underway, it is important we
continue to demonstrate the merits of elec-
tricity and present them effectively to the
people so that this new capacity may be
fully utilized as it comes into service. Our
job is to keep aliead of the province's demand
for electric power. Last year, we just made
it. This year, with harmony restored in our
relations with labour, and improvements on
other fronts, we are confident we can surge
ahead in the race.
But no matter how big tlie margin may
become, there will be no respite. For as
Ontario grows. Hydro must grow, leading the
way into a future which will require the
equivalent of seven or eight power grids the
size of our present system by the year 2000
-and that milestone is only 32 years away.
4394
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr> Robarts moves the committee of
supply rise and report certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the esti-
mates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 118
ONTARIO
Eegiglature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 13, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 13, 1968
Tabling final sections, report of MTARTS, Mr. Haskett 4397
Ontai-io-Mimiesota Paper Company water pollution, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 4397
Talks between the UAW and Massey-Ferguson, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Nixon 4398
Timber exported from Ontario, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. T. P. Reid 4398
Third readings 4399
Estimates, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Mr. Simonett, concluded 4399
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall 4420
Royal assent to certain bills, the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor 4426
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, continued 4426
Recess, 6 o'clock 4433
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
4397
The House mrt at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today our visitors in the gal-
leries are: In the west gallery, George Vanier
secondary school from Willowdale; and in
hoth galleries, students from St. Anthony's
separate school in Toronto.
Later today, we will have joining us, stu-
dents from Mount Hope public school in
Mount Hope; from the high school of com-
merce in Windsor; and from Jarvis public
school in Jarvis, joining us.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table the
final sections of the report of the Metropoli-
tan Toronto and region transportation study.
In so doing, I express the gratitude and ad-
miration of the government to the committee
members and staflF who have worked so hard,
so long and so well on this assignment.
I am confident that their report will prove
to be a significant factor in future develop-
ment and progress, not only for the region
they are examining, but also for other areas
throughout tl\e province where the experience
and findings of this study will be most useful.
Two years ago, the first section of the final
report of the transportation study was tabled.
Its title was "Growth and Travel: Past and
Present." Today, I am tabling the second
section, entitled "Choices for a Growing
Region"; and the third section, entitled
"Transportation for the Regional City: State-
ment of Principles and Recommendations."
Mr. Speaker, this report has important
implications for tlie people of every munici-
pality in this region. I shall welcome the
comments and suggestions of the hon. mem-
bers when they have examined its contents.
To begin that important dialogue, several
hundred persons, representing municipal and
other interests in the region, will meet this
afternoon at the Queen Elizabeth building of
the Canadian national exhibition to hear
presentations on the report.
TiiiRsnw, June 13, 1968
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
Motions.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Premier.
In view of the refusal of the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management (Mr.
Simonett) to disclose information pertaining to
the withdrawal of pollution charges against
the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company, .sir,
will the Premier table any correspondence
which passed between that company and the
government of Ontario, in relation to these
charges?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Nfr.
Speaker, I reject the suggestion in the ques-
tion that there was any refusal on the part
of the Minister to disclose information to the
House. On May 29, he was asked a similar
question by the member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha), and his answer is set out there. I will
not repeat it now. As far as the government
is concerned, there is no correspondence that
has taken place between the government and
this company, in relation to these charges.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the
Premier if he is aware that last evening, when
the money was being voted for the depart-
ment, the Minister was not able, or not pre-
pared, to give the Opposition the information
associated with this matter? This is of obvi-
ous public concern, in view of the pollution
that has been taking place in that part of
tlic province, and elsewhere. Surely, there
would be some correspondence Ix'tween the
government and that company over the years,
pertaining to this, and I believe it should be
available for the public record.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, may I say
there has been correspondence l>etween the
Ontario water resources commission and the
company, but the government has not Ix'en
involved in this. The OWRC, through its
own powers, laid the charges; the Minister
answered the circumstances of why those
charges were withdrawn. He put this infor-
mation before the House in reply to a ques-
tion, and there is simply no correspondence, I
am informed, between the government per se.
4398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
There is correspondence between the Ontario
water resources commission, of course, and it
extends over a considerable period of time.
But the government was not involved directly
in these withdrawals, and there is no cor-
respondence to he tabled.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree
with the Premier that the OWRC is not part
of the government. The Minister, Ixst night,
refused to give the information associated
with the withdrawal of charges; and surely,
it is that correspondence, between the OWRC
and the company, that should be a part of
the public record.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Labour.
Are the talks, under the auspices of the
Minister of Labour, between the UAW and
Massey-Ferguson continuing, and can the
Minister report any progress?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, the talks are continuing and, quite
frankly, it would not be fair to either party
if I were to discuss the progress, in reference
to this matter, at this time.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a
question to the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker— several questions really.
Is it true, as stated by Dr. J. A. Hannah,
head of associated medical services, in the
current issue of the Ontario Medical Review,
that the number of laborator>' tests, per
thousand persons, performed in Ontario, is
up 654 per cent in the past five years?
Is Dr. Hannah correct, in his statement in
that publication, that the cost of laboratory
services has increased by 294 per cent in the
same period?
Are Dr. Hannah's statements true, that
many such tests are unnecessary and un-
related to the diagnoses?
Is it true, as Dr. Hannah suggests in that
publication, that the accuracy of much of
the laboratory work being done in the hos-
pitals and commercial laboratories is dubious?
What steps does the Minister inttnid to take
to rectify the situation, and docs The Depart-
ment of Health keep surveillance over the
accuracy, number and cost of laboratory
services? If not, why not, and if so, why
had action not been taken earlier?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I will take the questions as
notice.
Mr. Speaker: The member for l\ainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I ha\'e a question for the Minister of Lands
and Forests. What class of timber has been
exported from Canada, to whom, and from
where is such timber exported under the
authority granted to the Minister by The
Crown Timber Act, section 14, subsection 2
of the revised statutes of Ontario, 1960, for the
period since the statute has been operative?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for Rainy River, he has referred to
Canada but I assume he means Ontario.
Since 1900, the export of wood from Crown
land has been controlled by order in council.
In 1947, the Prime Minister of Ontario
announced a new policy which would elimin-
ate the export of unprocessed wood by 1958.
To bring this about gradually, quotas were
estabhshed for all companies which had
exported in 1947; and these were to be com-
pleted by 1958. Special arrangements were
to be made for those companies whose
licences and agreements were purported to
grant export privileges beyond 1958.
These were advised, by the Minister, of
the volumes and species to be exported, and
that approval to export would be on a year-
to-year basis. In 1967, the government
reviewed the policy stated in 1947 but, due
to the unemployment, it was not opportune
to finalize a policy in that year, so it was de-
cided to continue to export on a year to year
basis. The present status of export from
Crown lands is governed by two orders in
council, approved in 1967, which authorized
the export of an annual volume of 100,000
cords of poplar— may I mention that we
utilize only about 5 per cent in the province-
and a total of 50,000 cords of other species or
their equivalent cut in Ontario.
In addition, special permission is sometimes
given to export small quantities of fire-
damaged or fire-killed timber for short periods
only. Export from Crown land, and I think
that this will be of interest to the member,
declined from 623,256 cords in 1947 to
202,074 cords in 1957, to 68,207 cords in 1965.
which is considerably below the total volume
authorized by order in council of 1967.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is all the timber that
is exported under this? Do you have the
figures per year for 1960 onwards?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We would be pleased
to give this information to the hon. member
for Rainy River, for 1960 to 1968.
Mr, Speaker: Orders of the day.
JUNE 13, 1968
4399
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motions:
Bill 50, An Act to amend The Securities
Act, 1966'.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, on
Bill 130, The Employment Standards Act,
I would like to say that in my opinion this
Act is not really the charter it is supposed to
be for the unorganized workers of this prov-
ince. I do not really think it does the job
as it was annunciated by the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Bales) for those in the province
of Ontario.
I wanted to make that comment because
I think there is a lot of work that has to be
done in terms of raising the economic stand-
ard of living of the people of this province.
The government ought to get on with that
kind of job and produce the right kind of
charter that will give those people that
promise in terms of increasing their standard
of living.
TJhe following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion:
Bill 130, The Employment Standards Act,
1968.
Bill 131, An Act to amend The Wages Act.
BiU 132, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safety Act, 1964.
Bill 133, An Act to amend the Ontario
human rights code, 1961-1962.
Bill 134, An Act to amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1965.
Bill 136, An Act to amend The Income Tax
Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 137, An Act to amend The Financial
Administration Act.
Bill 138, An Act to establish The Depart-
ment of Revenue.
Bill 139, An Act to amend The Public
Service Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 142, TJie Ontario Labour-Management
Arbitration Commission Act, 1968.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to
make a few remarks on Bill 142 during the
second reading debate but I do want to take
this opportunity briefly to commend the Min-
ister for introducing this type of bill. Its con-
tent and reasoning and the drafting which, in
my opinion, is done as well as any bill that I
have read, bring about a pretty clear cut
idea of what we are trying to do.
We all know that this legislation to estab-
lish competent arbitrators in the field of man-
agement-labour relations is long overdue. We
are sure, in the union movement, that it
will tend to relieve a lot of the concern and
the agitation that has developed over the
years because of the lack of competent arbi-
trators. I was speaking to one group particu-
larly, in Hamilton two days ago, and they
tell me they have at the present time some
60 cases waiting to go to arbitration. This
is a lesser number than they have had for
many years because over many years they
have had to pick up and resolve cases by
direct negotiations that were slated for arbi-
tration and in the grievance pot when the
contract came open. This, of course, diverted
from the real purpose of a collective agree-
ment.
Speed is what is needed in this regard. We
hope that the board will be established as
quickly as possible and that they will get
down to work and establish the panel of
arbitrators that will be available for the two
bodies to clear up the grievances that grow
between collective agreement termination
dates.
One of the real problems in regard to long
delays in establishment of arbitration boards
and their reports has been what happens to
the grievor when there are delays of six
months, a year, a year and a half, and two
years. What happens to his seniority? What
happens to his capability of finding another
job if the arbitration is ruled against him?
All of these combine to put hardship upon
the grievor when he has to wait so long for
his grievance to be adjudicated.
Again, I comphment the Minister on this
bill. We hope it can be put into eflFect as
soon as possible and remove this problem
that we have had for so many years.
Clerk of the House: The 24th order: House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(Concluded)
On vote 609:
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, unfortunately it was not
possible for me to hear the comments made
by the vice-chairman of Hydro last evening.
I know that he is always anxious to have an
opportunity to put Hydro's case before this
4400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House and on previous occasions he has
lamented bitterly when this opportunity was
denied him.
In the past year there have been some
changes in the business of Hydro and some
changes in Hydro policy, which I think should
be discussed in the House at this time. This
particular vote, which provides the funds
for our participation to pay for the province's
share in the construction of one of the nuclear
power generating plants, is a most appro-
priate time for the discussion to take place.
In remarks made by the chairman of Hydro
in the last few weks we have been told that
the costs of Hydro are going up, and this,
of course, by government policy is associated
directly with the costs of generation and the
provision of these services. This is the cor-
nerstone of Hydro policy that the rates
charged are directly connected to the costs
of production. It is about these costs that I
want to have some views from the Minister
and from the vice-chairman, if possible, this
afternoon.
In the predictions made by the chairman,
we look forward to a doubling of our electri-
cal capacity in the province in the next eight
years and rough calculation would indicate
that this will take $1 billion of new capital.
I presume that almost all of this would have
to be raised with the interest rates that have
been referred to in the discussions already,
so we can see that this is a new and serious
debt, a burden for the people of Ontario to
carry, and particularly the users of Hydro.
Mr. Chairman, we know that in the last
year Hydro was able to manage itself through
a serious power shortage. We were warned
by the chairman just before the end of the
year that it might be possible for regulations
to control the use of Hydro over the peak
periods to be imposed. Fortunately for all
concerned this was not necessary and only
those power users with interruptible contracts
found that the machines slowed down and
stopped at a certain period every day, on
regular occasions through December and on
into January. While this is regrettable, those
industries have to accept the responsibility
for that particular misfortune since they have
a contract that gives them the power under
normal circumstances at a very competitive
rate indeed.
Nevertheless we in Ontario have been very
proud of the fact that we have been able to
provide, even on interruptible contracts,
unlimited power for the expansion of our
industry, and down through the last 25 years
this has been one of the great attractions
that Ontario has been able to ofiFer in the
expansion of our economy.
But Ontario Hydro has been entering in
recent years into a new sort of expansion,
based on power developed from atomic
sources, and I want to say something specific
about this.
It was in the Legislature on April 18,
1963, that the then Minister responsible for
the Hydro, the hon. Mr. Macaulay, said on
page 2556 of Hansard tiiat tlie Douglas Point
plant on Lake Huron "will cost an estimated
$81.5 million, is on schedule and within cost
estimates. It will go critical in late 1964, and
will be commissioned in 1965." I and some
of my colleagues visited Douglas Point in
November, 1967. They were then trying to
clear up the difficulties that had plagued this
experimental plant for more than a year.
They had not yet achieved full power; full
power was achieved some six months later.
The plant was not commissioned in 1967, and
I have heard no public announcement of its
commission yet.
We can only assume then that the plant
is a full three years behind schedule even
though the work on the plant had begun in
1959 or 1960. However, the Minister of the
day, had great confidence in this experimental
programme, and I well remember discussions
in this House reaching a level of some
enthusiasm as we looked forward to the day
when we in Ontario, as one of the world's
major producers of uranium, would team up
with Atomic Energy of Canada in the
research and development that would permit
us, surely by 1968, to have a heavy water
moderated source of atomic power for electri-
cal purposes or other purposes on the market
which would compete with other types of
power sources around the world.
Not only has Douglas Point turned out to
be a severe disappointment in some regards,
being a full three years late in its commission-
ing, but Atomic Energy of Canada, as I
understand it, has yet to sell on an open
competitive basis a source of atomic power
anywhere in the world, except Pakistan which
was financed at, I believe, tiiree quarters of
1 per cent interest for 40 years under the
Colombo plan. This surely cannot be con-
sidered as acceptance of the heavy water
programme on the competitive market any-
where in the world. Still we are proud of
what Atomic Energy of Canada has been
able to do in research and development, but
they have done this with full support, both
moral and economic, of the Ontario Hydro,
JUNE la, 1968
4401
the users of Hydro, the people and the gov-
ernment of the province of Ontario.
The present Minister announced about a
year and a half ago that even though Douglas
Point has not proved out to our expectations,
the government of Ontarfio had sufficient
faith in the principle behind the source of
energy to go ahead with the work that would
develop one of the largest atomic power
plants in tht world when it is completed, at
Pickering. He used the phrase at that time
that he had sufficient faith in the heavy water
procedure, and the mechanism that had been
developed by Atomic Energy of Canada and
Ontario Hydro to make this commitment.
This particular work was undertaken with
great cost; the Minister knows that the
completed plant will cost close to $600
million and that Ontario's share of this will
be something like $365 million— a major
undertaking by the province.
Even in the relatively short time following
the Minister's announcement that Ontario
Hydro was going to go ahead with this, it has
since been announced that we are already a
full year behind in the scheduled develop-
ment of this particular plant. This is extra-
ordinarily serious when we relate the growing
need for power in this province to the
difficulties that Ontario Hydro has experi-
enced in the last year. Many of these difficul-
ties, as the House well knows, Mr. Chairman,
were associated with labour problems. Yet
I want to bring to your attention, sir, the
answer to a question in Hansard, just a few
days ago, on May 28, 1968, reported on page
3504. This was in answer to a question that
had been on the order paper in my name for
some time, relating to the delays at Picker-
ing which resulted finally in the postpone-
ment of the official schedule by a full. year.
The answer is as follows:
With one important exception, delays in equipment
deliveries to the project have been nominal and
could have been accommodated within the original
schedule. That exception is the reactor and shields.
At present it cannot be determined whether end
shield delivery or the construction strikes which have
occurred will prove to be the controlling factor in
the announced deferment of in-service date. Both
are considered to be equally responsible at the
present time.
There has been a tendency by Hydro officials
and those who speak for Hydro in this House
to blame the difficulties associated in this
matter with the labour disputes that we were
aware of in 1967. It has brought us to a
point that if there is a continuation of this
labour dispute at anything like the level that
occurred last year, we are going to be in
serious difficulties in meeting our power
requirements.
Last year, Ontario Hydro had scheduled
one million kilowatts of new power to be
brought into service. Less than half of that
was actually brought into service even though
the demand grows at between 750,000 and
one million kilowatts per year. So we are
not gaining at all on the increased power
requirements that are being made on Ontario
Hydro and on this large public responsibility.
As a matter of fact we are falling behind
even in the decisions that are related to new
atomic projects. We cannot maintain the
schedule that in my view is imperative, if we
are going to continue to keep industry
supplied with power and our municipalities
with the supplies that are needed for their
natural growth rate.
Mr. Chairman, I have got some specific
proposals to make that are related to the
statements made by the chairman of Hydro.
Just today, in the newspaper, the chairman is
reported saying to the atomic energy confer-
ence that is being held in Toronto: that
within the next few months, Ontario is pre-
pared to commit itself to a further large
expansion of our atomic energy resources for
hydro. This I applaud wholeheartedly. We
must move away dramatically from depend-
ence on coal-fired energy in order to meet
modem electrical requirements.
He said, and I paraphrase his comment:
"We cannot put all of our kilowatts in one
technological basket." I agree wholeheartedly
with that as well, because Ontario Hydro has
been committing itself exclusively to the
heavy water design that has been brought
into being by Atomic Energy of Canada.
This has yet to be properly proved. In the
announcement that the chairman of Hydro
made just yesterday, he used the same phrase
that the Minister used more than two years
ago, when he said: "We have faith in the
heavy water method."
Believe me, I hope that both these men
are right, but Ontario Hydro is undertaking
$1 billion in new development over the next
eight years. We have supported and com-
mitted ourselves to the heavy water pro-
gramme and Atomic Energy of Canada,
without reserve. Since 1958, we have pumped
tremendous sums of money into this develop-
ment and I believe those decisions were right.
But it has yet to be proved that Douglas
Point can come up to commissioning pro-
cedures. We have shown our faith by
extending our commitments into the Pickering
4402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
programme which is already a full year be-
hind schedule. The time has surely come,
Mr. Chairman, when we must realize that
Ontario Hydro with its policy to provide
power at cost, must lay down the specifica-
tions for the new contracts that are going to
be offered during 1968. These contracts are
just the beginning of a very big beginning on
$1 billion worth of new expansion. These
contracts should be put up for competitive
tender by those industries around the world
who have the ability to meet our high and
stringent specifications.
I do not want to appear to be undercut-
ting oiur home industry. Since 1958, we have
committed ourselves to heavy water develop-
ment, the kind of development that we trust
and pray— and in the Minister's words— will
pay off in the long run. But in the words of
the chairman of Hydro, we should not be
committing all of our kilowatt eggs to one
technological basket. I believe he is correct
in this. We should put it up for competitive
tender so that Ontario Hydro— which has sup-
ported the heavy water programme of Atomic
Energy of Canada and is intimately associated
with that very development and has been
from the first— is going to allow the citizens
and taxpayers of Ontario to have the advan-
tage of real competition in the provision of
the expensive modem facilities.
We know that the heavy water programme
has built-in advantages of long term costs and
these can be built into the specification that
we put out for general tendering. We know
that the American facilities have expanded
dramatically in the last five years. There are
those— experts in the field— who are convinced
that they have surpassed what we have been
able to achieve here. Mr. Chairman, it is
likwise true that the technology in the United
Kingdom in consort with European tech-
nology is moving very rapidly. There are
those experts who feel that they have sur-
passed us as well.
The proof is in this. The Atomic Energy
of Canada— with all of the support of On-
tario Hydro and the provinces across Canada
—have tendered publicly on the international
market and have not been successful in any
significant case. We have put our plans and
ability before the objective market in many
areas such as Finland, South America, and
parts of Europe. In no instance have we
been able to come up to the specifications
as far as technology and cost were concerned
that would make us successful.
We in Ontario have the largest source of
uranium for energy purposes in the world—
and this means that we have a tremendous
future— but we are committing $1 billion in
new money in the next eight years. A com-
mitment of probably half of that will be made
before the end of this year. We have sup-
ported Atomic Energy of Canada and the
heavy water principle, and we will continue
to do so in Douglas Point and Pickering.
Before Pickering is finished it is going to cost
$600 million.
Surely the time has come to give the
people and the taxpayers of Ontario the ad-
vantage of competitive bids. Now, I hope that
the Minister is not going to try to say that
I simply do not have enough faith in Cana-
dian expertise and technology. I am simply
going by the facts that are available. We
have not been able to compete successfully
on the world market. If we want to, in the
competitive bids that we call for, we can
give Atomic Energy of Canada a full 10 per
cent advantage— which is not out of the way
at all.
To commit ourselves without review of this
matter is surely neither in the best interest
of the economy of Ontario nor these tremen-
dous funds that we are about to commit.
There are many areas in this matter that are
of some significance. We know that Cana-
dian General Electric has given up their
independent position in research and develop-
ment in this regard by allowing that par-
ticular branch of the company to be absorbed
by Atomic Energy of Canada which forms a
consortium with Ontario Hydro. In a sense,
we have a complete vested interest in the
heavy water development.
This has yet to prove itseK to the satisfac-
tion of those who can judge it objectively.
We have this full commitment amounting to
close to $800 million now, in support of the
heavy water programme. Surely if we are
going to follow the advice of the chairman of
Hydro himself applied in a similar sense, we
cannot put all of our eggs in the one techno-
logical basket without at least reviewing what
is available from competitive sources outside
of Ontario and Canada. The Minister knows
that we are committing ourselves heavily to
the importation of American coal, both for
the new plant in Samia and the one at
Nanticoke. There is no doubt that this is
going to be a continuing heavy import re-
quirement. We do not for one moment see
our commitment reverting in the same way
as enriched uranium which is available at
the present time to us at least from American
sources.
On the other hand, we have to take a
realistic view of the provision of Hydro at
cost. We see our cost going up by 9
JUNE 13, 1968
4403
per cent to the consumer in the next year.
Surely our subsidies— and this is what it
amounts to— to the development of the Cana-
dian industry have to be looked at in the
very careful light of world competition.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Chairman,
I find it a little bit hard to follow the leader
of the Opposition. He says that before the
Ontario Hydro builds any more heavy water
plants, they should go to the world in open
competition. I take it that he has not got
much faith in AECL, which is a Canadian
company, and has developed a heavy water
plant as we know it today. I do not know
whether—
Mr. Nixon: Why do you think that Douglas
Point is three years behind and that Pickering
is already one year behind? Our needs for
Hydro are growing faster than we are moving
to meet them.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, I could answer
that. I cannot answer about AECL. I think
that it was an experimental plant and I
understand that. I think if you had been
here yesterday evening, had listened to the
vice-chairman for Hydro and heard his
speech, perhaps it would have answered
some of the questions you are asking today.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, if I cannot go
out of the House for five minutes without
asking you, things are getting pretty bad. I
would just like to quote one paragraph that
was in that speech last night. This is regard-
ing Douglas Point.
On March 8, Douglas Point, which liad been
operating at 75 per cent capacity since the middle
of December reached its maximwn output of 200,000
killowatts—
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Where are you
reading from?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Xhis is the speech that
was put on the record last night by the vice-
chairman of Hydro.
After a week of operation, at full capacity, it was,
during the favourable power situation experienced at
this time of the year, shut down for planned main-
tenance and modification. It was back on the line
again in mid-April and commissioning tests at up
to 100 per cent of rated capacity and more are
continuing.
Mr. Nixon: But it is not commissioned, and
you said that it was going to be commissioned
in 1965.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I did not say that it
was going to be commissioned in 1965. I do
not recall this.
Mr. Nixon: Are you denying that your pre-
decessor said such a thing?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, let me explain
what AECL is. It does not belong to Hydro,
as you know. It was built and produced and
Hydro will buy the kilowatt hours produced
when it is in production. As you know, too,
it was an experimental plant and anything
that I can find out from the engineers with
AECL, and with Hydro— who are quite knowl-
edgeable I would say— they feel that this is
a good concept. It is a concept that is using
Canadian material, and natural uraniimi—
which we have plenty of in the province.
Now, if one or the other makes a plant,
I understand that the cost might be 10 or 15
per cent less, but then we would have to pur-
chase enriched uranium from some other
country, because there is no enriched uranium
in Canada. So we still think—
Mr. Nixon: We can specify Canadian
uranium for enrichment.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: So you believe in tak-
ing our money and buying enriched uranium
from the United States when we have natural
uranium that we can use in a heavy water
plant?
Mr. Nixon: Canada should consider a ura-
nium enrichment plant. You believe in buy-
ing American coal when you could be using
our uranium.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: No, now you are con-
fusing the issue. We still think— I mean
Hydro and AECL, and of course I have
never heard anything to the contrary— there
has not been experience enough with any of
these plants to say which is the better plant
as yet.
We still think, and I am told that the heavy
water plant is designed as a plant that we
can build in Canada which will compete—
they hope and think, and we have faith in
their statements— with any plant built in the
world. We can use our own materials, natural
uranium, and I would think until there has
been enough experience with this plant that
we should not condemn it.
I might say that we are not into day-to-day
operation with this plant or of Hydro. I think
the vice-chairman would like to answer some
of your questions after I am finished. But,
when it was decided that Hydro would build
a plant at Pickering, negotiations were car-
ried out with the hon. Mr. Drury, who was
your federal representative. This is where the
cost sharing comes from, and I believe that
4404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they think this is a good concept. I know they
do because they are willing to go along and
put so much money in a plant for Hydro. I
would think that before we condemn this
concept that we should give it a chance to
prove itself.
Now, you spoke about an announcement
that the Chairman had made last night say-
ing that perhaps we should not put all our
eggs in one basket. I do not know, I have
not spoken to him, but I do not think he was
talking about nuclear plants. I think he is
sold on the heavy water plants.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, I agree.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: There is another way we
can produce power— we have for years— that
is, hydraulically. Hydro is producing hydraulic
plants at the present time— and then of course
there is the thermal plant, and I think this is
what he had reference to. There are three
type of plants that we can produce electricity
with in Ontario, but he was not talking about
another concept of a nuclear plant. I think
the vice-chairman will answer the rest of the
questions.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, I want to make it clear that I under-
stood Mr. Gathercole's statement very clearly
to mean that he did not want to move entirely
into the atomic field and he was going to
keep some of his eggs, so to speak, in the
thermal or the coal fire thermal field. I was
just extending his comments to apply to
my argument. I do not want you to think
I misunderstood his position.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Very good.
Mr. R. J. Boyer (Muskoka): Mr. Chairman,
I, too, am sorry that the hon. leader of the
Opposition was obliged to leave the House
last night because I endeavoured to answer
last evening some of the questions that he
has raised. It was like the question from the
hon. member for Grey-Bruce that he asked
yesterday which had been inadvertently an-
swered one day previously.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Boyer: What I was endeavouring to
say is that many of the questions that the
hon. leader of the Opposition has raised today
I did endeavour to answer last evening. As
to the proposition for looking at other parts
of the world and trying to adapt systems that
have been built up there to our own country,
we might very well ask what type of system
is indeed being referred to.
Now we have a unique system in our coun-
try. It is a Canadian method and technique
for producing electric power from nuclear
energy and it uses natural uranium. Every
other system uses enriched uranium. It would
be necess-ary, therefore, if we had a plant
of some other type in Ontario to buy enr
riched uranium from the United States and
yet, in the United States, as I understand it,
there is the great problem of sufficient supply
of enriched uranium for stations already
established in the varous utilities in the
United States. They are already worrying
about this. Enriched uranium is an expensive
item; the fuelling costs in their plants are
sending the costs of power up in the United
States. We expect, from our system in this
country, that we will be able to produce
power at a lower rate than in the United
States.
I want to say that other parts of the world
have also examined the matter of enriched
uranium. In France there has been an effort
made to build up a plant which would supply
that country's needs. Between $2 and $3
billion, I understand, has been expended
already in an effort to get such a plant going
but it is not yet functioning. All over the
world tliere is a problem about the supply
of enriched uranium.
We are in a very fortunate position in this
country in the system that has been adopted,
developed by Canadian genius, by our expert
Canadian scientists. But I think this point
should be made emphatically clear that there
is a pool of technological information in the
nuclear scientific field and that Canadian
scientists are knowledgeable about develop-
ments in other parts of the world. Informa-
tion comes to them; we supply information
to other countries. Indeed, many of the
developments achieved by Canadian scientists
have been used in other countries including
the United States, nevertheless every country
must adapt the type of system that best fits
the local circumstances.
In the United States at the end of the
war when the question of using nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes was first being
studied, they had already, for military pur-
poses, built up a system of enriching uranium
and developing otlier requirements. It was
based on what they had on hand— their
resources— and tliey adapted the system that
they have in the United States, which is the
pressurized boiling water and hght water
system.
JUNE 13, 1968
4405
In Britain, of course, there were other
considerations special to their circumstances.
But here in Canada we had a great resource
of natural uranium, we had a great deal of
technological know-how; scientists, indeed,
had been working on nuclear matters in
Canada for over 60 years, and this was the
unique Canadian system which was built up
and which is attracting attention elsewhere
in the world. The president of Atomic Energy
of Canada Ltd. when speaking in Toronto
this very week told about the interest
being taken in our system in the United
States. He predicted that within three years
there will be a start made in the United
States on one such plant.
I understand this is considered, perhaps,
to be just the first of commitments which
future years will bring in our neighbouring
country using this Canadian system. It is a
good system and is already showing that it
works well, and will be producing power at
very low cost.
The hon. leader of the Opposition did
refer to coal. Hydro's imports of coal, and
yet, if he is pressing for the adoption in
Canada of a system from some other coun-
try which would require enriched uranium,
then I submit that we would be sending more
of our Canadian dollars outside the country
and further throwing off balance our inter-
national trade.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
make it very clear. My view is that we have
been seriously supporting the Atomic Energy
of Canada Ontario Hydro programme for
more than 10 years to the exclusion of all
others. If it had lived up to its basic require-
ments and had gone into service in 1965,
there would have been no need to plan that
Nanticoke programme to be a coal-buming
one that will continue to pollute the air of
southern Ontario with imported American
coal. It would have been a nuclear pro-
gramme entirely.
Now I admire you people over there for
having the faith that you do, but the time
has come when you must realize that your
commitment on faith is insufficient. Now the
programme of heavy water development has
to stand on its merits in competition with
other programmes that have been developed
independently in other parts of the world.
Our duty as Canadians has certainly been
fulfilled in building the experimental plant
at Douglas Point, and making the heavy joint
commitment at Pickering and the commit-
ment of Ontario alone which is going to
amount to $365 million.
No one can say that we have not given the
Atomic Energy - Ontario Hydro consortium
the very best opportunity, and I believe, with
you— surely there can be no mistake— that
these plants will eventually come into full
service. But I simply draw again to your
attention, Mr. Chairman, that the conunis-
sioning date of 1965 has not yet been met
and we are in June, 1968. The Minister
has indicated that he is very satisfied with
what Douglas Point has been able to do, but
surely when we compare it with the predic-
tions of just a few years ago, we can see
that it must be seriously disappointing.
If it had, in fact, met its requirements,
we would never have gone ahead with the
Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired installa-
tions. On the other hand, the faith of the
government was not sufficient to go ahead
with those as atomic installations. They
had to, as we say, distribute their eggs in
the baskets, by putting in these coal-fired
installations which are going to be obsolete
even before they are built.
I am saying that the atomic energy of
Canada programme— the heavy water pro-
gramme—is a good one, but it should now
stand on its own feet in international com-
petition, around the world and in Ontario.
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that
the hon. leader of the Opposition is examin-
ing this whole matter very carefully. But
there is one thing he has been saying with
which I cannot quite agree. If he thinks of
this, I believe he will reahze that it was not
a delay in bringing in Douglas Point that was
a principal consideration of Ontario Hydro in
the commitments some time ago for Lambton
and for Nanticoke. It is quite right to say
that we will have as much nuclear power in
our system as possible. As a matter of fact
Ontario is more committed to nuclear genera-
tion than any other jurisdiction that we know
of. But you will never have a system which
is completely and entirely nuclear. This is not
practical, not possible, not operative.
Mr. Nixon: It is elementary, too—
Mr. Boyer: Nuclear is a base load system;
it operates best when it is going 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. Of course, the
power demand varies, therefore you have to
have other plants which will meet the daily
peaks and the weekly peaks. Consider there-
fore, that you have to have other types of
plants. Already we have hydraulic plants for
4406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
peaking purposes but in addition to that we
will have to have a coal burning plant and
beyond that, as I mentioned last night, we
expect in the future that we will have a
further pumped storage plant. But nuclear
can only form at any time a part of an
electrical system for a province such as
Ontario.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Chair-
man, if I might, I was interested in the com-
ments of the vice-chairman of the commission.
Towards the end of his statement, he spoke
about the advantageous position, I take it, to
the Dominion of Canada, in connection with
out balance of payments position relative to
the necessity of acquiring enriched uranium,
and our present position in connection with
the Samia and Nanticoke facilities with
respect to the purchase of soft coal require-
ments, mainly I think from Pennsylvania.
Since you are able to generalize would you
give me your specific figures as to how much
is going to be saved?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): One at a
time fellows. Let us get an answer.
Mr. Boyer: I think perhaps we would need
a period of research of some several days on
that matter. I would not have-
Mr. Bullbrook: Am I correct in assuming
then from your statement that you are able
to tell this House that the position is this—
that we are able to beneficially take a posi-
tion, as far as Canada's balance of payments
is concerned, that because of our position
with respect to the heavy water project, we
will not have to get into any enriched pur-
chases? Are you saying in effect that this
will beneficially reflect in the overall balance
of payments position? Do you have any
figures for us at all?
Mr. Boyer: I think Ontario Hydro has never
considered buying enriched uranium, so I do
not know that we can— certainly we cannot
immediately submit an analysis of that matter.
Mr. Bullbrook: That is the very kernel, Mr.
Chairman. How do you substantiate the
generalization you just made? If you have
not analyzed—
Mr. Boyer: Because there is not just a
simple alternative between enriched uranium
and coal. There is not that simple an alterna-
tive. We will be using both nuclear and coal
alv/ays.
Mr. Bullbrook: The fact of the matter is,
am I not correct in saying, that you have not
analyzed what the cost picture will be. You
cannot tell this House really, that you are
benefiting our balance of payments position
by adopting the atomic energy approach.
You cannot say that for one moment.
Mr. Boyer: Of course we can, certainly—
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Chairman, may I have a
word on this discussion? I am interested in
this nuclear field because under my depart-
ment we sent a nuclear mission to Japan in
1965 and since that time we sold something
over $300 million worth of uranium. I do
not think it is recognized that in many of
these countries they have a nuclear pro-
gramme such as we have. For instance,
France is building its own stations using heavy
water; Japan is building a heavy water plant
right now of its own design; the United King-
dom uses a graphite system, which it is trying
to sell to the world, and the United States
is using the enriched system.
We estimate that between now and 1985
there will be something like $3.5 billion
worth of heavy water, sir, required for
nuclear plants around the world using a
heavy water system. That is why we are
interested in developing heavy water in this
country. What I think is not recognized is
that you do not sell nuclear plants like you
sell washing machines. Many of these coun-
tries either have sufilcient water power or
have their own natural resource in coal, and
so they do not need, at the moment, a
nuclear energy plant for power. Japan, of
course, is entirely different; they have to
import most of their fuel, whether it be oil
or whether it be coal, and they are looking
to Canada and other sources for nuclear
energy. But I also remind you that every
time a nuclear submarine goes to Japan,
there are riots, because they suffered from
nuclear power development many years ago,
as you recognize, and they are being very
cautious and very careful as to what kind of
a plant they put in.
One of the things about the nuclear field
that I understand worries most people using
enriched uranium, is that afterwards it has
to come back to be re-activated and how do
you carry it from one continent to another
without providing an opportunity for perhaps
an accident, which would cause great diflS-
culties? The Japanese are very interested in
our heavy water system because they do not
have that problem when you have to re-
activate the uranium.
JUNE 13, 1968
4407
So I think there are many things here that
should be considered. First of all, Canada
in my estimation is doing the right thing in
developing its own heavy water system
regardless of the length of time we take.
Mr. Nixon: We are talking about Ontario
Hydro.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am talking about
Ontario too. They are building a plant down
in Quebec. Quebec is building a $100
million plant down there for the use of
heavy water also. I am just suggesting that
we should do everything we can, and I
think the hon. leader of the Opposition agrees
with that. We should do everything we can
to nurture our own atomic energy programme
here and sell this heavy water system around
the world. Many of these systems are going
to be sold only when foreign aid funds are
available to put these in as a foreign aid
project in many of these underdeveloped
countries where they do not have fuel, or
they do not have the natural resources to
develop their own power. Until they do, they
are always going to be underdeveloped in
more ways than one, so I would hope that
out of this discussion we do not get dis-
couraged about heavy water plants, because
I think it is going to be one of our greatest
exporting areas in the next few years.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope
that this is so. The Minister knows that when
he told the House of our sales of uranium,
these were sales of the mineral and not of
any package— he says I should not call it a
power package. But he is also aware of the
fact that there are a good many nations who
are not developing on their own and who do
not see fit to adopt the procedures or the
programme that we in Canada have tried to
convince them would be in their best in-
terests. I hope in the future, with the Min-
ister, that we are able to do this.
But we are not talking about oiu: national
efforts, important though they are. We are
talking about the responsibility of Ontario
Hydro to provide power at cost. As the cost
goes up and we see the consumer faced
with a 7 to 10 per cent increase in the
immediate future, we can see that the costs
of power in this jurisdiction are going to be
much more significant than they have in the
past. 1 would agree, Mr. Chairman, with the
comment that has been made by the chair-
man, that we in Ontario have been in a very
competitive position, but now we find our-
selves not being able to supply this energy
or being in danger of not being able to supply
this energy.
There is no thought that we are advocating
the importation of enriched uranium unless
it can be shown by specifications and com-
petition that this would be in our best in-
terest. A part of those specifications would
surely be the use of our own uranium. The
Minister surely knows that enriched uranium
is used in the control rods of even the plants
we are building in Ontario now. We cannot
get along with it; we do not use it as a basic
fuel, but we cannot control the apparatus
without it. As a matter of fact, we had a
little trouble with one of those enriched
uranium control rods at Douglas Point. The
thing is now lying in the bottom of a huge
swimming pool up there and it will probably
be there long after we and our children and
our children's children are dead because
nobody knows yet how to get the thing out
of the way. It is going to be there, shielded
by the water in the swimming-pool-type
storage that they have under those circum-
stances.
I am just saying, Mr. Chairman, under these
circumstances where we are asked to vote $9
million, which is an insignificant amount of
money compared to the amount that Ontario
has invested in this programme and is asked
to invest in the immediate future, that we
see to it that the best interests of the tax-
payers and power consumers are brought to
the fore, and I say there is some question
that Ontario Hydro policy has these best
interests at heart.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I would think, sir,
that until somebody could prove differently,
we should not be condemning a system
which, from any information I can get, is,
perhaps, one of the best developed. Provid-
ing it has the hfe-and I think that the only
doubt they have in mind now is what the
life of the plant will be, whether it will be
20, 25, 30 years, if that is the life built
into it— it will produce electricity much
cheaper than any source, outside of hy-
draulics, that has been developed as of to
date.
Mr. Nixon: This might not be a fair ques-
tion, but I wonder if the Minister or the vice-
chairman can tell the House if the Douglas
Point plant is presently operating at or near
the capacity of 200,000?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I just said that.
4408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: You said it was run up to that
point for commissioning exercises, and then
shut down for a modification.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: But it was started
again, and is up to 100 per cent.
Mr. Nixon: Is there any further information
on that?
Mr. Boyer: During the commissioning
period, Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary,
occasionally, to shut down the plant for
adjustments or modifications, that sort of
thing. But, as the Minister has said, the plant
had been operating at full capacity. I think it
operated at something over capacity for a
time. Within a week or two, it will again be
run up. The commissioning period of any
plant-
Mr. Nixon: It got up to full power?
Mr. Boyer: Oh, yes. Well, it has been up
to more than full power, more than the rated
capacity. Within a couple of weeks, I expect
the plant will be fully operative again. Tjhe
commissioning period of any plant quite often
takes about a year; but it is hoped that the
plant can be fully commissioned this autumn.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Chairman, I was one of those who did hear
the remark of the hon. member for Muskoka.
I have gone through his speech fairly
thoroughly, and noticed that he mentions
that Hydro's basic responsibility is that of
producing a reliable supply of electricity, at
the lowest possible cost. I think, from his
speech, that there is a great deal of defensive-
ness on the part of Hydro, as they seem to be
not nearly as sure of themselves as they
have been, perhaps, in tlie past.
Now, we have seen a residential flat rate
increase which adds 72 cents a month to the
average householder's bill or $8.64 a year.
This increase was postponed for a few
months, and because of the delay in raising
these rates. Hydro lost about $2 million. They
will end the year with a surplus of slightly
less than $3 million, and they had counted
on $5 million to offset their future increases.
Tlie general manager of. Toronto Hydro
expects Toronto to be in a difficult position
again, in 1971, because rates were not raised
on February 1.
We have listened to a debate, here this
afternoon, showing that they are having prob-
lems with the system that they have planned
and are trying to get operating efficiently.
We note that they just scraped through at
the Christmas time period. We also note that
those who are interruptable users are being
cut at certain particular points.
There are a few other aspects that I would
like to discuss today. Particularly, I would
like to ask the hon. Minister or the hon.
member for Muskoka, where the heavy water
comes from and the approximate cost of it in
the nuclear plants? I would like to have
some comment about the safety procedures
that are being followed, with these radio-
active materials, at the Douglas Point plant,
and I would like to have further comment
about the laser approach to transmitting
power, whether very much research is being
done in this field, at this particular time.
I understand it is being used in medicine,
and I would like to know, perhaps, at what
time we might expect this to be used to
transmit power in our part of the province?
There are two or three other things, in
regard to safety, that I am concerned about,
and since Hydro has the responsibility of
inspection for safety in this province, I think
some things need to be read into the record;
and I think that Hydro needs to be a little
more safety-conscious than it has been.
I refer, first of all, to an article in the
Toronto Telegram of April 11, 1968, when
a seven-year old boy, Gary Watkins, was out
playing. A Hydro crew was replacing lines on
towers between Finch Avenue and the Mac-
donald-Cartier Freeway, parallel to Highway
400. About 25 youngsters, in a field behind
Driftwood public school, were playing with
the wire, as it hung slack between two
towers.
As the winch pulled it taut, Gary and
another boy hung on. The other boy dropped
off, when 10 feet in the air, and was not
hurt, but Gary did not let go until he was
nearly at the top of the tower. Gary, who is
in the hospital for sick children, has a
broken leg and internal injuries.
"I just pray he regains consciousness", Mrs.
Watkins said tearfully last night. Mr. Watkins
blamed Ontario Hydro for not having men
watching the cable as it was hoisted. I under-
stand that the closest man was about a mile
away.
So it seems to me, that when this kind
of operation is being carried out, there should
be somebody, at periodic intervals, who can
see what is going on and, if necessary, help
the operation; and not allow this kind of
thing to happen.
Another thing of concern, concerns the
death of a young man delivering papers for
JUNE 13, 1968
4409
the Toronto Star, last March 12. He had
slipped on some ice, grabbed the door, and as
he grabbed the door, he was electrocuted—
—this is in the Toronto Star, of April 12,
1968-
The inquest, under Coroner Gerald
Cranston, adjourned April 11, resumed
today. At the earlier hearing, N. F. Polloch,
supervising electrical inspector for Ontario
Hydro, testified there was no ground
attached when he inspected the sign's
wiring set-up an hour after Pinch died. He
said he found 375 volts of electricity in
the door, enough to result in a very severe
shock to Pinch, who was wearing damp
felt shoes. Polloch said the sign was not
set up to 1968 electrical standards.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Mr. Chairman, is it fair to say that
this is really in order, when you read the
description of the vote that is under discus-
sion here now? I recognize it is a matter of
extreme concern, but is it totally in order,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: "Well, vote 609-
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not think
it is.
Mr. Ferrier: I would submit, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. member for Muskoka,
in his address last night, ranged pretty far
afield—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That does not
mean you have to replicate the same mistake
today.
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. Ferrier: Well, if it is in order for him
to wander, I think it is—
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Chairman, on a point of order. I wonder if it
is the practice of the House, for the House
leader, who is present, to consult the chair
before he rises on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well then, I will
try to be in order.
On a point of order. As I read the descrip-
tion of vote 609, it simply asks the House
to vote the sum of $9,650,000, to provide for
the province's share of the cost of construc-
tion and installation of plant equipment and
expenses, relating to the 1,000 megewatt
nuclear power generating station, as directed
by the Lieutenant-Governor in council.
Now I ask you, sir, to rule as to whether
this tyi>e of debate is in order.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. Vote 609 certainly
does cover only the generating station-the
$9,650,000-and the debate so far today has
ranged around that particular topic. How-
ever, I must agree that the vice-chairman's
statement last night ranged around many
other things and the Chairman cannot find
a basis for ruling the member out of order.
Mr. Ferrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The problem in this situation is that at
the coroner's hearing, Ron Pogue, a technician
with the Canadian standards association, said
he found a cracked insulator that leaked
current to the door when he inspected the
sign, after the boy's death. If the sign had
been properly grounded, Pogue said, there
would have been no harm done and the youth
would not have been electrocuted. Now—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if I might ask a question. Was this
a sign on someone's building?
Mr. Ferrier: It is a sign on someone's build-
ing. A complaint was made. The Hydro
inspector came and found current was leak-
ing from the sign into the door and he turned
oJBE the power. A person— Hydro repair-
electrical repairman came to repair the sign
and he did not properly ground it. No Hydro
inspector came back afterwards to see if the
job was properly done and—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Was it a qualified
electrician who repaired it?
Mr. Ferrier: Yes, it was. A fellow by the
name of Belak.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: They do not always
have an inspection after they—
Mr. Ferrier: I think in instances like this,
where we are dealing with human lives, that
we need to be a little more strinfrent about
our safety procedures in our inspection.
Another thing that causes concern was the
death, last Sunday, of a man at a pool in
Centre Island. The thought is that there was
current leaking into that pool. John Forbes
of North York was electrocuted. This is
form the Globe and Mail of June 11, 1968.
J. R. Simonett, Minister of Energy and
Resources Management said yesterday orna-
mental illuminated fountains and pools are
not covered by new provincial regulations
governing electrical installations in swim-
ming pools. The regulations followed the
4410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
death by electrocution last year of a boy
in a high school swimming pool.
Now I think that whether we like it or not,
these pools are not for wading in and I
think that children are often impulsive and
jump in this kind of pool. Most of the time
tiiere is no problem. But I think that the
Minister should give serious consideration to
making the regulations that apply to swim-
ming pools also apply to this type of pool
so that we are not faced with the same kind
of situation where human life is in danger.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I for-
get now the first question by the hon. mem-
ber—it was not on safety, it was on rate. I
think he would agree, that on one likes to
see our energy rates go up. But at the
present time, as you know, with the cost of
construction, cost of labour— and I do not
mean labour to construct, we have a lot of
line men out there and their salaries are
going up— with the cost of borrowing money
today, I think he would agree with me that
perhaps electrical energy is one of the
cheaper things that we can buy.
As to the safety end of it, we are all con-
cerned about this one. When you deal with
electricity you are dealing with something
that is very hot and an accident can happen
at any time; many foolish accidents happen
right within homes. If people knew just
more about it, it would not happen but I do
not think that you can have an inspector or
an inspection every time something happens,
an electric current within a home or within
a building. It would be nice if you could but
it does not happen in many cases.
This accident last Sunday at the Island, I
would agree with him— perhaps it would be
better if we were to oudaw lights in wading
pools and in swimming pools. I do not think
that would hurt anyone's feelings because
there is always the danger that something
could go wrong, no matter how well they are
installed nor how well they are insulated.
The other accident, where the young chap
caught the line as it was being pulled up,
I suppose that is the first time an accident like
that has ever happened in Canada and boys
will be boys. I expect he thought this was a
good opportunity to go for a ride and see
how far he could get off tlie ground. But
he got too high and when he fell, of course,
there was serious injury.
I doubt if you would expect any line crew
to watch this procedure all the time to see
that some young fellow did not grab the
Hue as it was being pulled up. It would be
nice if we could do it but as you know, wheo
they are stretching hne— I think they stretch a
mile at a time or somewhere around a mile
at a time— it is pretty diflBcidt to hire men at
the salaries they are receiving today to cover
the whole mile of that process and do nothing
else but watch some young fellow so that he
will not get on to hitch a ride up in the
air.
Mr. Ferrier: Perhaps barbed wire could be
put over some of the fences that are around
Hydro lines to keep these children out. But
I wonder—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Qiairman, this was
riglit out on the line, where they were
stretching a line. You cannot put a fence
around that—
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Ferrier: I will leave that, but would
you comment on the laser programme;
whether there is research and on where you
get the heavy water?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I will not comment on
laser. I think you should get this answer
from some of the technical people from
Hydro and if you would like to arrange to
go down tliere, I think they had better answer
that question.
But I understand the heavy water we are
are borrowing from the United States at the
present time. It will be replaced as soon as
the plant is in operation in Canada.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to draw
attention to a set of facts concerning the
labour relations of Ontario Hydro that, I
will allege to you, mark Hydro as being
somewhat less than an enlightened employer
and, indeed, engaging in practices that are
not similar to those found in industry itself.
But I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that I am
drawing attention to a set of facts. I am
not asking any questions. I am not gomg to
be put in the position, by the Premier of
this province, that I have to be subservient
to this Minister in asking him to respond to
any enquiries. But I lay these facts before
the Legislature.
John Maxwell is employed by Ontario
Hydro at Sudbury. He is engaged in what,
I believe, is called the construction side of
their operation. At Sudbury, Ontario Hydro
have a rather large work force and appar-
ently, one observes, they service many of the
installations of the conunission in the sur-
rounding area. Indeed, one gets the impres-
sion that the workers of Sudbury travel many
JUNE 13, 1968
Mil
hundreds of miles in the maintenance and
construction work involved in the enterprise
of this commission.
John Maxwell has been employed by
Hydro continuously— that word is continuously
—for a period of some 20 years. My friend
from Parkdale will appreciate this when 1 tell
him that after 20 years of continuous em-
ployment with Hydro, John Maxwell is called
a temporary employee, they may even use
the word casual. But for 20 continuous years,
Maxwell has served Ontario Hydro. Recently
he was directed by his superiors to engage
m work on the behalf of Hydro at White
River. Now maybe somebody will inform me
how far White River is from Sudbury, but
I would think it must be something of the
order of 400 miles. He was engaged by that
commission in work that was taking place
over a period of time in White River.
His home is in Sudbury and, as might
aaturally be expected, Maxwell journeyed on
weekends from his work in White River to
his family in Sudbury. On one of the week-
ends when he was returning from Sudbury
to his place of work for Hydro at White
River, he was involved in a motor vehicle
accident. He was completely without fault.
Another car carrying a group of teenagers,
boys, came across the centre of Island Road
and collided with his car,, head on. Now
under that part of the inhuman laws of this
province, Maxwell could not, of course, con-
tend that he was engaged in the course of
his employment because he was taking him^
self from his home to the place of employ-
ment. The workmen's compensation legislation
holds that he is not actually in the course of
his employment until he gets to White River
and presents himself at the job. So Maxwell
was left to his own resources.
Having some familiarity with some of the
aspects of Hydro's operations it occurred to
me, when I heard that Maxwell was in the
hospital at Sault Ste. Marie, very seriously
injured with several fractures that he sus-
tained from this traumatic experience, that I
contacted the regional manager of Hydro. He
was a very pleasant fellow, and 1 forget his
name but he recently replaced Mr. MacAdam.
I said to him, rather optimistically, that of
course Maxwell would have the benefit of
an income protection plan which I happened
to know that Hydro has. The regional man-
ager told me no. Maxwell is not covered with
income protection because he is temporary.
I said his wife had informed me that he
had worked for more than 20 years continu-
ously for the commission and I suppose that
I cannot hope to attract the interest of the
vice-chairman in this matter, but he can read
it in Hansard, I suppose.
Mr. Boyer: I am listening.
Mr. Sopha: So I said: "He will be covered
by your income protection plan?" The re-
gional manager said no, that he had no
income protection because he was only a
temporary employee. I, of course, asked how
one could call a man who worked continu-
ously for you for 20 years, a temporary
employee? He said: "Well those are the orders
from head office. These people on the con-
struction side of our operation very rarely
are put in the permanent category." I said:
"Well, pretty soon this man will be ready for
his pension. In five or ten years, he will
be ready to be pensioned. Has he any ho][)e
of ever becoming permanent with you?''
The answer was no, they are always kept
temporary. Of course, the whole point is that
if you search your mind, you cannot think
of any other industry, and probably there is
no other industry in the whole of the prov-
ince, where they would employ people for
two decades and still call them temporary.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): The Nia-
gara parks commission!
Mr. Sopha: Yes, well, I am going to say to
my friends from Niagara Falls and Parkdale
(Mr. Trotter) that this queer practice of
calling people casual or temporary workmen
is unique to the government, and you do not
get it in any other sector of the industrial
community.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Yes> incfeed, my friend from.
Parkdale is correct; it is a complete disgrace.
So here we have a man who is truly vic-
timized by a truly technical system that is
superimposed upon him, and of course he
is powerless as an individual to exert any
influence on the commissioners of the Hydro
Electric Power Commission in any way. He
has to accept what their beneficence will
devolve upon him and what the fates will
decree, and how could you condemn him?
Here is the man. How could you condemn
any working man in this modem day and
age who had no resources put aside? He has
nothing in tlie bank to meet this emergency,
and is looking to his employer to shroud him
with protection against the emergency which
he and his family have encountered. Of
course he is foimd to be in a state of want.
There are two things that ought to be
pointed out about this. One would think that
4412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the first place, a government commission
such as this, which after all is representative
of us, would follow the most enlightened prac-
tices, they would be the leaders.
They should be ashamed, and they should
be shamed into a state where they would not
perpetuate these technical labels that they
put upon those who serve the people. That
is one aspect of it. TJhe other is that on the
basis of pure common sense and ordinary
humanity, they might expect that those who
work for them, in the course of their lifetime,
are going to encounter some emergency situa-
tion such as this man encountered. In that
case, of course, whichever way you look at
it, if Hydro in their labour practices operated
the way that we 117 would like to see them
operate, one would not have to stand in his
place in the Legislature and draw attention
to a tragic set of circumstances such as this
—to be in a position, as this man was, so
that he could not have the ordinary form of
income protection paid for partly by himself.
I have not asked Maxwell, but I would
assume that if Hydro approached him and
said, "Would you like to contribute to some
form of income protection?" I would expect
that the ordinary person of ordinary reason
and common sense would with alacrity accept.
But really it is credit neither to this com-
mission nor to us as the supreme governors
of this commission that this situation exists,
and has been shown by my friend from Park-
dale to exist in The Department of Highways,
and by my friend from Niagara Falls in the
Niagara parks commission, and I would not
doubt, in other sectors of the government.
One must wonder aloud just why the govern-
ment of Ontario is unique in imposing this
artificiality on its work force? Is it not simply
justice that this man, after 20 years of con-
tinuous and faithful service, should be pro-
tected? I would like to say that on asking
the employers in Sudbury what kind of man
Maxwell was, and what his record was, with-
out reservation they gave the man a very
high recommendation, as having been— for
two decades, mind— a faithful servant of this
commission.
When all was said and done, you see, what
happened to Maxwell was he had a label. He
suffered from a label. He was called tem-
porary, and because the label had been put
on him by Hydro, which must have reasons
—and I will not repeat my mistake of last
ni^^ht by asking what they were— of course all
the tragedy of the situation has to descend
upon him and his family until he recovers
and is able to go back to work for Hydro
again.
I do not want to leave any discredit on
Maxwell at all, but I expect that before he
does recover— and the doctors tell me it will
be six or eight months until he is able to
present himself— he will be on welfare. He
and his family will go to the resources of
the state and ask for charity or a handout to
keep him until he is able to go back to work.
This is the legacy of 20 years of work for the
Hydro commission. Finally I must say that
tliese facts having been revealed, that com-
mission ought to be thoroughly ashamed of
itself, that such labour-management relations
are permitted to exist within its doors.
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Chairman, may I say that
Ontario Hydro endeavours to be among the
leaders in the community with respect to
labour relations. In the case of Mr. Maxwell,
who has been employed in the construction
force of Ontario Hydro for 19 years, he is
one of a class of employee known as casual.
There are two types of employees— the regu-
lar, not permanent but regular; and the
casual, not temporary, but casual-and the
casual employees are those who are engaged
in construction.
In keeping with the general practice of
pay in the construction industry, Mr. Max-
well has received a high rate of pay versus an
extensive benefits package. At the present
time his rate of pay is $4.75 per hour with
double time for all hours in excess of 40 per
week, and in addition he was receiving free
board in camp. We all regret, of course, the
circumstances under which he is off work at
the present time, but he is covered by sub-
sidized Ontario hospital services commission
insurance, upon which the Hydro pays 75
per cent of the premium. He is also a
member of the pension and insurance plan
of Ontario Hydro.
Mr. H. MacKenzie (Ottawa Centre): Mr.
Chairman, last night in the Globe and Mail
was a report about a talk at the Royal York
on nuclear plants and this sort of thing. I
am not sure whether the chairman of Hydro
was misquoted or not, but it was indicated at
one point that he thought that tlie interest
in our type of heavy water plant would grow
as uranium became scarcer. Later on he was
quoted as saying that with our type of heavy
water plant, with the cheap fuel required that
you can literally— I think his words were—
run the hell out of them.
The question arises, of course, Mr. Chair-
man, that uranium I do not think comes in
JUNE 13, 1968
4413
unlimited quantities. I am wondering with
regard to the rate at which the usage is
increasing and with regard to the eflBciency
of uranium and everything else, could you
tell us, sir, how many years the known de-
posits of uranium will last?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I would
doubt if anyone could answer that question
and give you a definite answer, but as I
understand, as fas as we know in the foresee-
able future, what is being used in the prov-
ince of Ontario at the present time, is
unlimited.
Mr. MacKenzie: In other words, Mr. Chair-
man, are you saying that the known reserves
in Ontario today are imlimited, the rate at
which we are using them, and the rate of
growth which is taking place. Is there no end
to the supply of them?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Well, again I do not
think anybody could prove that, but that is
what I understand from those in the mining
who should be in the know.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to make some comments in connection with
this vote. In my first remarks, I would like
to stay with 609. I hope you will afford me
the same privilege as you have others to
veer away from that to discuss matters a
little closer to home.
I would like to read some facts as I know
them into the record.
On must appreciate that the Ontario
Hydro Electric Power Commission's prime
responsibility of providing electrical power
at the cheapest possible rate may not
always be entirely compatible with the
general economic, social and environmental
benefits of the province as a whole.
On the one hand, therefore, they must
be held to their prime objective. On the
other hand they must be persuaded to
adopt an appropriate socio-economic atti-
tude to the welfare of Ontario and Canada.
Several issues of importance now arise:
One, for source for future generating
coal, oil, or nuclear; two, siting of power
stations to minimize pollution effects; three,
beneficial location of power stations to aid
other elements of the province's economic
picture; four, participation in water diver-
sion; five, highest and best use of land.
The following statements attempt to present
the position in each of these five areas in
layman's language and may, therefore,
suffer from a lack of professional precision.
1. The Ontario Hydro Electric Power
Commission has reached a point where its
major future developments may be fuel-
consuming plants as opposed to generating
stations utilizing natural water resources.
Development of the remaining reserves of
hydro electric energy has progressed during
the past ten years, particularly in the north-
western parts of the province and the
OHEPC engineering forces have been
maintained at work in this area. There is
some question as to whether the initiation
of new projects and the rate of develop-
ment are not linked to the steady capability
of the specialist engineering department
retrained by the commission. It would be
well to consider whether more rapid de-
velopment of these distinct provincial
resources would be to the benefit of
Ontario, even though it would require the
help of private consulting organizations
such as is the case at the Lower Notch
project.
I understand you use private consultant firms
there.
The major capital investments in the
near future will, no doubt, be in the con-
ventional and nuclear power. The OHEPC
is probably the target at which Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited are aiming their
720 megawatt Candu type reactor, which,
they claim will give 3 mill energy levels.
Were this to become reality, nuclear power
plants could soon outnumber conventionally
fuelled stations.
There should be a continuing watch on
the use by the OHEPC of all modem
technological advances to achieve mini-
mum generating costs. Some concern
could be expressed that the commission and
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited might
become "inbred" with respect to their
engineering and development.
This is what my leader was saying, by the
way:
Adding some independent consulting
engineering skill may be of great benefit.
I understand at the last meeting of the Hydro
commission with the committee, the chairman
did say then that they are using some private
concerns for some work in the province to get
caught up in the backlog of work. I under-
stood the chairman to say that at our last
meeting.
4414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Boyer: As at Lower Notch.
Mr. Bukator: As at Lower Notch. They
are also doing some engineering consulting
for you in other areas.
Mr. Boyer: Oh yes.
Mr. Bukator: Now if this method is being
applied, even in part, it is a step in the right
direction as I see it.
2. The adverse environmental facts of
conventional power stations and perhaps, to
a lesser extent, nuclear power stations, will
become a growing concern.
This bears repeating. I mentioned it the
other day but I would like to get it on the
record again.
It is significant that the smoke plumes
from the Lakeview power station are often
the most distinct signs of air pollution
on Lake Ontario. There is some evidence
that anti-pollution measures taken since
the inception of the commission's thermal
generation programme in the early 1950s
have been inadequate. Power generation
economics may be more and more influ-
enced by the need to consider environ-
mental factors in the future.
3. The HEPC is fortunate in being able
to locate its major thermal generating
plants on the large bodies of inland water
available in the province. The heat losses,
which become very substantial in large
power stations, are usually safety dissi-
pated in large bodies of water. Occasion-
ally situations do arise where cooling water
discharge does upset the ecology balance
of the lake areas with adverse effects.
Now I am going to speak a little about home
if you do not mind.
Attention will probably become focussed
on the possibility of using thermal power
station discharge to offset the effects of our
severe winter. One distinct opportunity
arises in the area of inland waterways.
Power stations sited on the Welland canal
could be of great benefit in keeping the
seaway open for winter navigation.
I understand that these waters are quite
warm. If that were possible it could be used
along the Welland canal to keep that body
of water open, because they are going to dis-
charge water somewhere anyhow. I think it
makes good sense.
What is 4; let me see: "Participation in
water diversion."
The Hydro Electric Power Commission
may become involved in the issue of a
diversion of northern waters to assist in the
dilution of streams and lakes in the indus-
trial regions of the provir>ce, or alternatively
to deliver adequate supplies of clean water
to polluted areas. Certainly any plans for
major diversion of pumping with power
recovery from hydro electrical generation
would involve the commission. While it
would not appear to be in the general
interest to encourage it to formulate yet
more plans for northern water usage, they
should be induced to adopt co-operative
attitudes for the provincial and Canadian
good.
5. The HEPC occupancy of high value
land is greater in those areas of our urbaa
communities where their transmission lines
run. Wide swaths of good, usable land are
reserved for transmission line right-of-ways.
Increased demands for power are going to
involve extension for upgrading our trans^
mission lines. It appears to be to the
general benefit of all who seek some means
of releasing transmission line right-of-ways
property for better economic use.
I could mention many areas where you do
have valuable land occupied by transmission
lines, that I think in this day and age could
be put underground, and I do not say it to
take the whole package into that, but theie
are areas where you could progressively do
this— near cities especially:
To achieve this, the HEPC may have to
sacrifice some advantages of lower trans-
mission lines and maintenance conveniences
in adopting high vokage, underground
cable transmission.
In view of the interest of the provincial
Department of Municipal Affairs and the
Ontario housing corporation, steps should
be taken to induce the commission to
participate in a broad, interdepartmental
study of a type most conveniently under-
taken by professional consultants and plan-
ning organizations.
And why I say that, too, is because when I
was involved in municipal affairs back in
1955 and 1956, we talked about putting all
wiring in subdivisions underground, and I
think the wires leading up to that particular
municipality could also be put underground.
I know of some areas where the Hydro did
drop their lines underground, and have sold
their valuable lands for, at a guess, close to
$90,000 per acre in the Niagara Falls area.
Previous to that there were transmission lines
JUNE 13, 1968
4415
across properties that took up this valuable
land and made it of no good to anyone.
To all appearances, the HEPC is per-
forming its function satisfactorily. We
should not lose sight, however, of the fact
that the commission was most fortunate in
that weather and load conditions during
the past winter saved them from serious
system overload. It is, perhaps, a reflection
on their planning that the winter reserve
of generating capacity for 1967-1968 will
have come from south of the border over
limited interconnections.
I understand that you do not have too ade-
quate connections between the United States
and Canada and possibly Quebec and the
province of Ontario. This I am guessing at,
the latter.
Mr. Boyer: It has been much improved
in recent times.
Mr. Bukator: It has been much improved?
I quote:
The Hydro Electric Power Commission
will have to become deeply involved in
any further development of the northeast-
ern power network. It should be encour-
aged to adopt an attitude which would
consider the Canadian economy in addi-
tion to its own system's convenience.
I think this was not taken into consideration
too often. But I think now we should look
at it from every branch of our economy, to
co-operate with municipalities, where Hydro
may put power in to the detriment of these
particular communities because of the valu-
able land that they could take up, if nothing
else.
I would like to touch on the pension plan,
and I know that this is not the place for it.
But may I make this point, Mr. Chairman,
through you. I would like to see the budget
of the Hydro considered in the same way as
departments of government are being consid-
ered in this House when their estimates come
before us. It could come up as individual
votes where we could take our problems up
in each particular bracket, to discuss them
openly and thoroughly. As the vice-chairman
of Hydro said last night, they are spending
this year $281 million. We know nothing
about it until we read it in the papers. 1
think we are legislators ought to know what
is taking place.
You had a capital in your assets alone of
something like $3.2 bilhon in the last year.
We do not have the 1967 report before us,
and it would appear to me that if we are
going to spend billions, it would be a much
better way to get our information here, with
your experts before you such as you have
here with all departemnts of government,
rather than meeting in committee for just
one hour a year, you just cannot even scratch
the surface.
Having said that, I would like to tell you
something of a letter I received from a person
who apparently reads the papers also. She
said: "As you are the provincial parliamentary
representative for the county of Welland"-
She has broadened my scope; I represent Nia-
gara Falls and not the whole coimty, "—and
the Hydro critic m the assembly, I would
like to supply you with some critical mate-
rial. I would, however, like this to be kept
strictly confidential as regards the sender, but
it is, however, authentic material." I have
the address of the party— she is a widow
apparently, who feels that she is not being
treated properly. I think maybe when you
hear her letter you will agree with her and
me that there ought to be some consideration
given to widows.
First let me explain the system that the
Hydro have in regards to allocating of
pensions to their employees retiring on
pensions:
1. The employee, when retiring on pen-
sion, may take his pension under two head-
ings, which I will explain. A contingent
annuitant—
And I think she meant an annuity:
—this means that he can take his pension
and leave 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent of his
pension so that on his death his widow is
not left to be destitute. This in my opinion
is a despicable way to issue a pension after
a person has given his lifetime skill to the
Hydro. Again it means that only the em-
ployee witli a big pension can afFord to do
this, and a man retiring on a pension any-
where under $150 to $200 per month could
not readily afford to retire on tlie scheme.
2. There is what they call five-year guar-
anteed pension, which is, when an em-
ployee retires, his pension is guaranteed for
five years, but if he dies only one day after
the five years has lapsed, his widow is left
without any pension whatsoever, not even
any medical benefits. If he dies within
the five years, then the widow draws pen-
sion up to the end of the five years, and the
same thing happens, she is left absolutely
destitute.
Apparently there is that type of plan:
The most disgusting part about this is
that in December, 1965, an agreement was
4416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
signed by the Hydro, that every employee
who retired after January 1, 1966, at his
death, his widow would receive 50 per
cent of his pension, but no provisions were
made for the widow of the pensioner prior
to that date, and as you are aware, being
a local, these men who retire prior to Janu-
ary 1, 1966, are actually the pioneers of
the Hydro, employees who put the Hydro
in the position that they are in today. We
pensioners, as a body, through what is
called the provincial council—
This is a council made up of the pensioners:
—have been fighting for an improvement
in pensions to the widows for over three
years. In October, 1967, the Hydro did
give us a little break, after a three-year
struggle, which was and I quote: "Every
widow of a deceased pensioner, who was
married to the employee at his retirement,
and who has not remarried after his death,
will receive 25 per cent of his pension, plus
PSI and OHSC of which the Hydro will
pay 75 per cent and the widow 25 per cent
to be retroactive to October 1, 1967."
Mr. Boyer: I trust you agree with that?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, we have often argued
about certain bills here that we did not think
were adequate. We voted for it because a
little is better than nothing. So this appHes
in that category very well.
Mr. Boyer: There was nothing before, but
now there is this improvement.
Mr. Bukator: That is right and it took 60
some odd years to bring about the little bit.
Quoting again: "This is an insult to all." She
had the answer for you, I am glad you inter-
jected. This is the widow's argument.
This is an insult to all the old pensioners
to give those at present employed with
them their retiring 50 per cent and those
who have retired before December 31,
1965, only 25 per cent of the pension.
When one comes to pursue the balance
sheet of the pension fund you will see that
the Hydro are none too generous in their
allocation of pension.
I might at this point say that there was a
time not too long ago that the workmen's
compensation board treated a similar prob-
lem the same way. Certain widows were
getting $50 plus 12.5 per cent per month, as
I recall, and the widows of a later date got
$75 plus 25 per cent for each child. But now
it has been increased in the last few days.
It did not take too long in the time of the
former Minister of Labour, Tod Daley. He
did bring in an Act that gave all of the
widows the same amount.
If Hydro did not have the money I would
say that this would be the proper thing to do,
to continue to pay them according to the
amount they paid in. But according to this
information that I have, if it is so and I
imagine it is, then I do not think the condition
should exist today.
The balance sheet for the year ending
December, 1966, showed that the assets were
$201 million. They are growing at the rate
of nearly $2 million a year. They are talking
about the pension plan. So if that kind of
money is there I do not think that they are
being treated properly, because they must
pay the same amount for that loaf of bread as
the one that gets the greater amount.
This is, you will agree, a fabulous amount.
In Ontario there are approximately 800
widows being left destitute— I did not believe
that figure would be that great— 800 widows
or should I say there were. I have here a
list of the total of names thereon in Niagara
district alone; there are over 200. Of course,
out of these, 79 are deceased, which leaves
approximately 120. Out of these there are
2 per cent who are contingent annuitants
leaving 98 per cent destitute widows.
But why should the Hydro agree to give
all employees who retired on or after Janu-
ary 1, 1966, 50 per cent and their pension,
plus medical benefits and for tliose who
retired before that date on 25 per cent plus
medical benefits on this, only from October 1,
1967. That means some of those widows, and
I have interviewed some of them, had been
living without one cent from the Hydro for
years, some for as long as 15 years. This is
the state of affairs which needs exposing and
as of this year we are attempting to get the
Ontario Hydro electrical union to bargain
for us in their agreement and to bring pre-
vious widows on an even keel with future
widows. A little assistance would help to
rectify this matter. My correspondent wrote:
We, the present-day widows, want 50
per cent of our deceased husband's pension,
the same as those who are retiring today
with, of course, the same medical benefits.
I hope you understand this letter and
should you require any more information
I could either phone or write.
I wanted that on the record because if this
condition exists other departments of govern-
ment have cleared up the situation. I am
talking now again about the workmen's com-
pensation board, and I think Hydro could
JUNE 13, 1968
4417
well afford to do that if that money is there
for them.
I would come short of the mark if I did
not talk about taxes this time. I will use that
up in my Budget debate.
Mr. Boyer: But we can count on you talk-
ing about taxes.
Mr. Bukator: "Local boy drowns after
tumbling into Hydro canal." This was an
eight-year-old boy. I have his picture here
and I have one of the spot where he fell
off the wall down the bank on April 20. I
imagine this will develop into a court case so
I do not want to say too much about it,
but let me read the heading of the local
paper, April 20— "Ontario Hydro negligent
in death of the boy."
In a casual, off-the-record moment with
die chairman after the last meeting, as I
walked by him, I spoke with him; I would not
want the chairman of Hydro to get the
impression that I am picking on him. He has
taken on this job with its multitude of sins,
if there are any previously and with his
compliments. He has taken on this job at a
time when many things have happened in
the past that we cannot blame him for.
But he did say this, "I have talked about
capping the canal." We talked about many
millions of dollars so the Hydro does not want
to spend that kind of money. I can readily
understand it. It is the taxpayers' money of
this province. But he did say to me that a
chain link fence would be erected along it.
He thought that would suffice. I say in this
House and for the benefit of the people in
that area I would be very happy to see chain
link fences if they are properly maintained
because children can get under and over very
easily.
I would like to see that happen and it
should have happened many years ago
because the old, deterioriated fence that is
there now certainly does not keep anything
out. On many occasions you have cattle and
deer in that canal.
I think on behalf of the family of this
boy, it is a terrible thing to lose your chil-
dren in tliat way. I reahze tliat tliere are
times they do get by and no one wants this
to happen, but anything the Hydro would do
to assist under these circumstances would
be a step in the right direction. I wanted
to get that on the record.
I read with interest, and I would be remiss
in my duties, if I did not read to you a para-
graph of what happened at one of the con-
ventions here in tlie city of Toronto, as
reported in the morning paper, the Globe
and Mail— and they may be right about
Hydro I do not know-but I think if the press
thought enough about this account to publish
it maybe tliis is constructive criticism and I
would like to read into the record, from the
Globe and Mail of April 17, a small portion
of it, that is; I will not read the whole
account:
Major Overhaul of Hydro Plan is
Termed Vital
A major overhaul of all research and
development programmes being carried
on in the field of electric power in Canada
was urged yesterday by a member of the
science secretariate of the Privy Council.
Rapid developments are posing problems
of scale that are being met by extending
current design rather than by introducing
new technology, D. N. Cass-Beggs told the
annual meeting of the Canadian electrical
association of engineering and operating
division. While many regional and national
research establishments are involved there
is little co-ordination of planning. An inten-
sive study should be undertaken to define
the research needs to assess the facilities
available and to propose the best means to
develop the research offered both on the
regional and national basis.
I suppose the chairman or vice-chairman
would readily agree with me that nothing is
perfect and we always strive for something
better.
But these are professional men who know
their business and they say that this should
be looked at. It makes sense that every
department of government and every business
in our country that we just cannot hold the
status quo and say "this is it, we are doing
the best and we do not have to do any more".
I put to you two points— if I have not made
them to you— that private enterprise, such as
my leader has said to you, would help fill up
the backlog of work if need be with engineers
who can stay in this country. Not only
engineers, but professional men have left
Canada for fields farther away because they
feel there is more money there for them. I
speak of our neighbours to the south. An
engineer there will get himself $5,000 or
$6,000 a year more than he will get here,
after we educate them they leave the
country.
4418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think, sir, that this is an area in which we
can develop our resources with what we have.
We have the uranium; we are developing
now, as the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management said, the heavy water method
and we no doubt will have that one day.
I think we should set the pattern because
we are capable of doing that. Hydro has
taken a back seat from no one but I do
believe our engineers ought not to leave this
country to get jobs when they could fill many
positions here to do a job for us because you
have now started to allow private consulting
firms to do something for you. The chairman
has said, and I think, this should be further
developed.
If we do that, we are on the right track.
If we continue to labour for one purpose
and one purpose only to keep our rates down;
I do not like that 9 per cent increase of rate
naturally. It is a good argument for the vice-
chairman to say that percentage-wise every-
thing has increased, but Hydro increased not
so much. Other things have gone up 50 per
cent or 100 per cent. Hydro only 12,
You must remember one very important
thing, whether you want to face the fact or
not— and I am sure Hydro does because they
are capable men— Quebec is our competitor
for industry. Quebec at this moment is devel-
oping—and I guess some are in use now—
power projects with no equal in the world;
they are backing the waters up for some
seven miles into a lake that will take I do
not know how many years to fill.
They will be competing for the customers,
for the industries, that we are striving for
also. Hydro is a major factor with many of
these industries, especially the heavy indus-
tries such as the abrasives industries in the
Niagara peninsula. We are in competition
with Quebec then whether we like it or not
and I think our people are capable of keep-
ing abreast and, I hope, a little ahead of them
when the time comes.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Chairman, I think
all of us in the House would agree with
the hon. member's remarks regarding the use
of our engineers. If we can build up indus-
try in Ontario— and I mean Ontario, we talk
about Ontario, not Canada— the more we can
get here the better we would like it.
I would just like to say one word regard-
ing Hydro's estimate or Hydro's expenditures
for the year. I think the hon. member said it
would be nice if it could be brought here
and dealt with by this body. As you know.
there are no public moneys in Ontario Hycbo,
only moneys that tiie government feel should
be spent for special projects. We do vote
some money to subsidize rural lines in.
nortliem Ontario. The government subsidizes
50 per cent of all rural lines in northern
Ontario. That one vote is there. This other
vote now is for the nuclear plant at Picker-
ing and those the only public moneys that
are spent with Ontario Hydro. I would doubt
very much if we could demand that they
bring all their estimates here to be dealt with
by this body. It would be a terrific job^
anyway, because of the moneys they spend
and the things they have to deal with.
But there is one thing about it, if, as the
member says>, the members find they are
not getting enough information in the one
hour in the committee on commissions, I
think Hydro is ready at any time, and was
ready this year to spend two or three days,
if necessary, if there were more questions
to be asked.
The other thing that the member men-
tioned was getting rid of some of these
power lines that are around our cities where
there are valuable lands. I think we would
all agree with the member on that. At the
present time— I am told this by Hydro oflB-
cials— it is very expensive to put high-tension
wires underground. I think it is a feasible
thing to do when and if they get money,,
and I think they are doing it in some places
where the land is very valuable.
The other thing— on the letter from the
widow— I do not think we will discuss that
here. I notice it was confidential and the
member did not mention any names. But if
the member would like to discuss that witlb
some of the pension people at Hydro or
with the vice-chairman, I am sure that they
might look into that matter.
Mr. Bukator: Anything I have said about
the pension plan applies across the board.
Some are getting 25 per cent, some
are getting 50, and I think they all should
get the 50 per cent. The money is there
and can handle that.
Concerning transmission lines underground
in the city itself, where you see a multiplicity
of wires running through the city and trans-
fonncrs and these ugly old poles that have
been stubbed— I guess they call it— this is
a thing of the past, this is a modem city.
Surely we could progressively do this. Hydro
does a good job because the vice-chairman
said— and I would like to pursue this a bit
JUNE 13, 1968
4419
further, too— that you charge on a 20-mmute
peak. This I have known since my years
with the utiHties commission.
I wish I were involved in that type of
business because you also have a 13th bill
at the end of the year. If they did not pay
enough money during the year you collect
that also. So you want to fill the valley with
an off-peak industry that will develop in
that particular town because the power is
there and they have paid for it. Now, I
think many municipalities have this kind
of cushion with which they can work and
Hydro should encourage it so wires could
go underground.
I feel, too, that we have to work to-
gether. I know the chairman did say to
me—and I say George Gathercole, in ray
opinion, is or>e of the smartest men in the
business— "Our office is open, come and see
us." But, I would rather discuss the indi-
vidiial expenditures. You say this is not pub-
lic money? I say to you whether we pay it
through a light bill or through taxes, it is
still public money and I think we have a
right to take a look.
I think we have a right to see where the
money goes. No one here is condemning
anyone with improper expenditures, but we
would like very much to know how this
money is administered and spent in project-
ing their thinking such as The Department
of Education vdth the large budget. The
Department of Highways do it, why can
we not scrutinize the accounts of Hydro in
die same way?
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Regard-
ing linesmen working for PUCs and Hydro,
Hydro is one of the largest employers of
linesmen and it has been brought to my at-
tention by them that they are seeking to be
accredited as a certified trade. I have been
told because Ontario Hydro is opposed to this
move, it has not met favourable recognition
from The Department of Labour. Could
someone in Hydro, the vice-chairman or
someone, tell me what the reasoning is be-
hind the fact that Hydro is opposed to the
accrediting as a certified trade of linesmen?
Mr. Boyer: Mr. Chairman, the subject is
much more complicated than the hon. mem-
ber would indicate in his question. It is not
a matter of Hydro being opposed to cer-
tifying or accrediting or in some way indi-
cating success of a lineman in his training.
However, this is a matter on which there
have been good meetings between municipal
utilities and the Department of Labour. I
think that the whole matter will be worked
out.
Hydro has a very fine training programme
in the township of Mono at the new train-
ing centre, and we expect that the require-
ments of municipalities and of Ontario Hydro
as to the training of Imemen will be fully
carried out.
Mr. Good: Can I follow through on this
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welling-
ton South was on his feet and said "Mr.
Chairman" first.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Chairman, further to what the hon. member
for Waterloo North asked regarding these
tradesmen, The Department of Labour went
into all the other departments— plumbers,
watchmakers, mechanics— what is the holdup
on this? This has been going on for four or
five years now.
Mr. Boyer: I am not aware of any holdup.
Mr. Worton: No, but they have petitioned
us for a number of years now to be qualified
as tradesmen.
Mr. Boyer: Well, they will be qualified
as tradesmen, of course. They will be
qualified.
Mr. Worton: No, not as a certified trade.
I think that this is a very good industry and
I feel that they should have some status
attached to their position.
Mr. Boyer: If it is a matter of certifying
as a trade, I think that is a matter which
has been dealt with by the federal department
of labour. This is a question I would think
more properly might be put to our own
Minister of Labour (Mr. Bales) in this House.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 609, the member for
Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
may I ask a question on the same point? The
organization that is representing the Ontario
Hydro employees in this regard that hnesmen
be certified as journeymen— as I understand
this is what they are requesting— has the
Ontario Hydro made any reply to the organ-
ization that is representing in this regard,
whether they are giving a positive or negative
answer in this request that they have made?
4420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Boyer: I believe this is up to The
Department of Labour, not to ourselves. I
know that there were conversations between
representatives of municipal utilities and The
Department of Labour. I know that there
were meetings, I am afraid that I am not as
fully informed as the member might like me
to be on this matter, but I think it is more
of a Department of Labour matter,
Mr. Pilkey: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if
the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission
was in favour of linemen being given the
status of certified journeymen, I am sure that
The Department of Laboiur would work in
co-operation with the commission in this
regard. And that is the point that really I
am trying to make. Has there been any
dialogue with the association and The Depart-
ment of Labour in regard to certifying these
linemen? Or does the commission take the
position that they do not warrant the status
of journeymen? I think that this is the point
that we are trying to get at. Is it the com-
mission's outlook that they do not warrant
journeymen status?
Mr. Boyer: I am quite sure that the Hydro
commission would take no such attitude, but I
will be very glad to endeavour to produce an
answer to this question later.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
make the point clear that I have checked
with The Department of Labour. Hydro-
being one of the largest or the largest
employer of linesmen— has clearly stated that
as far as it is concerned, it requires a mutual
understanding between employer and em-
ployees, who are the linesmen, before this
status can be reached. Ontario Hydro is
opposed to this, according to The Depart-
ment of Labour, and I would ask why.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the vice-chair-
man and the Minister have covered the
various aspects of Hydro which are not in
this vote. It has been suggested that perhaps
it could be pursued through The Department
of Labour. Again, it was suggested earlier
that the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario can come before the standing com-
mittee, and I would think that this would
also be an opportunity to discuss this par-
ticular aspect.
Vote 609 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This concludes the esti-
mates for The Department of Energy and
Resources Management.
Clerk of the House: The estimates of The
Department of Trade and Development.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Chairman, in presenting
my department's estimates to the Legislature,
I am pleased to report to the hon, members
that the past year was one of steady growth
in investment, profits, opportunities, and em-
ployment across the province. In 1967,
Ontario gained 132 new plants. To be in-
cluded on this list, the new Ontario company
must either employ ten persons, occupy 5,000
square feet of manufacturing or assembly
space, or have annual sales exceeding
$100,000. And also in 1967, Ontario had at
least 262 industry expansions, 14 joint ven-
tures, and 125 licensing agreements.
My department's trade expansion pro-
gramme last year helped ring up some $40
million in sales of Ontario products to many
parts of the world. The government's new
equalization of industrial opportunity pro-
gramme, administered by the Ontario de-
velopment corporation, was firmly launched
in its drive to bring industry to the slower
growth areas of the province.
Departmental estimates for the 1968-69
fiscal year will ensure that our trade and
industrial development programme continues
at its present fruitful pace, and in some areas
will provide for an accelerated programme.
We will continue to encourage new invest-
ment into our province to provide new job
opportunities. To expand exports in 1968-69,
we will organize and send to foreign mar-
kets 22 trade missions, representing more
than 200 Ontario companies. Eleven trade
missions will be sent to the United States,
three to the United Kingdom, two to Ger-
many, and one each to Italy, Scandinavia,
Czechoslovakia- Yugoslavia, Australia-Japan,
West Indies, and Libya.
In the new fiscal year, we will bring to
Ontario nearly 150 buyers and agents to
introduce tliem to our latest products. Many
of these buyers will take part in our special
design awards programmes for the garment
and home furniture industries. As part of
our overseas trade thrust, we will participate
in 15 international trade shows, and at six
of these shows— in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and
Libya— we will sponsor some 60 Ontario
manufacturers to display their products. At
the other nine international fairs, the depart-
JUNE 13, 1968
4421
ment will operate an inforaiation booth only.
We will also continue to hold export forums
for Ontario manufacturers to show them the
advantages of selling abroad.
Our engineering services programmes is
being expanded as an incentive to consulting
engineering firms, contracting companies, and
capital equipment manufacturers seeking op-
portunities in foreign countries.
In 1967, our engineering services pro-
gramme aided three Ontario firms in obtain-
ing contracts valued at over $2 million in
the Bahamas, Dahomey, and West Pakistan.
My department will hold a manufacturing
opportunities show in February, 1969, in an
eff^ort to broaden our industrial productive
base. Also, foreign companies will be in-
vited to display products they would like
to have manufactured under licence in
Ontario.
An innovation to our manufacturing oppor-
tunities show this year will be an inventors'
exhibition, where Ontario manufacturers can
view new inventions and discuss the feasibility
of future manufacturing arrangements or joint
ventures, and our "Shop Canadian" promo-
tions will be continued this year, with the
support of local manufacturers and retailers.
In the trade development field, Ontario
added to its commercial intelligence by locat-
ing representatives in Boston, Cleveland and
Adanta; Kingston, Jamaica; and Stockholm,
Sweden. We also opened a major office in
Los Angeles. Planned for this year are task
force posts in Tokyo, Japan, and one more in
Europe. And we are looking into the feasi-
bilit>' of establishing commercial representa-
tion in Belgrade, Yugoslavia; and Beirut,
Lebanon.
In covering their assigned territories, each
of our task force officers seeks out potential
investors for Ontario; looks for products for
manufacture under licence in Ontario; and
helps find reliable agents to sell Ontario
goods abroad.
Our business opportunity missions will
again be carried on, as teams of Ontario trade
and industry officers will continue to pro-
mote our province as a place for profit oppor-
tunities, concentrating mainly on the United
States— our largest customer and best in-
vestor. These teams udll hold missions this
year in Boston, Bridgeport, Cleveland, Pitts-
burgh, Atlanta and Dallas.
Earlier this year, my department held
Ontario Unlimited weeks in Los Angeles and
New York, which placed under one umbrella,
the complete spectrum of my department's
efforts to attract industry to our province and
promote two-way trade. During these special
weeks, we combine a number of programmes
that would normally take place individually,
to add weight, prestige, and efficiency to our
operations. We plan to hold similar pro-
motions in Chicago and Philadelphia.
This year, my department will enlarge its
research facilities, particularly in the field of
foreign trade. This expanded programme
will include studies into foreign capital invest-
ment sources and potential markets; develop-
ment of industrial product indexes and export
directories; and special long-term studies into
the automotive, machinery, electronics, and
chemical industries. Industrial research and
technical innovation are of vital importance
to the economic well-being of any indus-
trialized nation. Our efforts in this direction
are now being enlarged.
The Ontario research foundation has moved
to its new location at Sheridan Park. Final
cost of the new building was well within the
budget set in mid-1965 before construction
started. The new building, with its added
conveniences and more modem facilities, will
enable the foundation to expand its activities
in serving the applied research needs of
industry and of government departments. It
will also help the foundation in maintaining
a first-class research staff.
This year, the province will provide a grant
of $1,135,000 to the ORF for research. The
amount of this grant is in direct proportion
to the amount paid by industry for research
done by the ORF. It will be used mainly for
essential backup research and for investigating
new ideas and developing new technologies of
potential interest to industry. A further grant
of $200,000 will be provided to the ORF for
the purchase of scientffic equipment.
The advanced concept embodied in the
estabhshment of the Sheridan Park research
community is receiving international atten-
tion. Top science administrators for Russia,
Czechoslovakia, Britain, and other countries
have already visited Sheridan Park to see
the development first-hand.
The Ontario economic council continued to
hold monthly meetings throughout the past
year, with its research and reporting activities
concentrated in the fields of human resource
development, including manpower training
and upgrading, education and immigration;
natural resource development with particular
emphasis on northern Ontario; agricultural
policy with special reference to ARDA; tax-
ation, economic pohcy and the public serv-
ices; and tourism, particularly in relationship
4422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the development of new recreatioual
resources.
1967 was a year of major developments,
both in our provincial immigration pro-
gramme and in federal immigration policies
and procedures. Our immigration oflBce in
Ontario House, London, continues to be the
centre of direct overseas recruiting by Ontario
employers. In 1967, a total of 9,458 enquiries
were handled by the London office, which
also took care of 295 Ontario employers'
recruiting projects. Over 25,000 pieces of
mail were handled and employers' funds
totalling $96,000 were spent on personnel
advertising in Britain.
Our much smaller Glasgow office had 7,707
enquiries in 1967, over 15,000 pieces of mail,
and looked after 41 Ontario employers on
recruiting trips. And last year, the Toronto
office dealt with personnel requests received
from 447 Ontario employers. Altogether,
2,035 employment offers were made to
intending or newly-arrived immigrants by
Ontario employers working with the branch.
The largest single occupational category was
school teachers, who accounted for about 600
of the total, followed by nurses and other
trained hospital personnel.
In 1967, a total of 222,876 immigrants
came to. Canada, representing an increase of
14 per cent over 1966. Of this total, 116,850
came to Ontario, making our share of all
immigrants 52.5 per cent.
During the past year, the Ontario develop-
ment corporation embarked upon a number
of new programmes designed to develop the
industrial growth and economic well-being of
the province.
In September 1967, the Prime Minister
announced the establishment of the equahza-
tion of industrial opportunity programme,
which helps our smaller, less affluent muni-
cipalities to compete for industry on more
equal terms with the larger centres. In our
first review of municipahties that have
applied, we have designated those which
appear to be at a disadvantage compared with
other municipalities in the province, having
regard to such factors as unemployment, loss
or gain of industry, imbalance of tax structure,
and all other factors that relate to a factual
assessment of the situation.
This review is not final, and if circum-
stances warrant it, such as sTibstantial loss of
industry, growth in unemployment, or the
development of better techniques of evalua-
tion, then the situation can be reviewed again,
and either complete or limited designation
can be granted.
We have avoided the use of rigid criteria
in determining eligibihty. There are a great
number of municipalities in the province of
Ontario, each having difFerent problems. A
yardstick or criterion applying in one munici-
pality may be completely inapplicable in an-
other. As the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment, I would not wish to deny benefits of
the programme to a municipality simply be-
cause a fixed formula or criterion suggested
that it was one yard outside some imaginary
boundary line or that it was some tiny per-
centage point below some arbitrary criteria.
We do not claim that the system used is
perfect, and we will look for ways and means
of improving it. We have learned, however,
from tile mistakes of other jurisdictions which
have applied rigid criteria, and do not intend
to repeat these errors, if they can be avoided.
To date, 308 municipalities have applied
for designation under the programme. Of
this number, 236 have been approved. Since
the programme was announced in the fall of
1967, 31 loans under this incentive programme
have been granted amounting to $4,986,000.
A further 22 are under serious review at the
present time.
This new loan programme will have an
important impact on the economy of the prov-
ince. The loans approved to date will create
1,198 new jobs, of which 452 will be in east-
em Ontario, 181 in northern Ontario, and
565 in the rest of the province.
Many of these companies which are pro-
ceeding with plant expansions would not have
done so at this time if the EIO grants had
not been made available. In the case of new
plants, many have chosen locations outside
of Metropolitan areas because of the avail-
ability of the grant. In general, it can be
said that so far the programme is achieving
its objectives of stimulating economic growth
and employment within Ontario, and enabling
a larger number of smaller municipalities to
participate in this development.
In co-operation with the trade and indus-
try division of The Department of Trade
and Development, the corporation has been
assisting overseas companies to settle in the
province. Leads supplied by the overseas
offices of the trade and industry division are
evaluated by the corporation's officials. Where
a foreign company can add a new technique
or skill, and a sufficient market exists for the
product without jeopardizing existing Cana-
dian industry, then financial assistance is pro-
vided.
JUNE 13, 1968
4423
The corporation's conventional loan pro-
gramme has also been moving ahead. To
date, 24 loans have been granted in the
amount of $4.7 million. These loans are
maintaining or creating 1,128 jobs over and
above those maintained by the EIO pro-
gramme. And ODC's guaranteed loan pro-
gramme to date has resulted in 53 loans from
regular lending institutions, backed by pro-
vincial guarantees, for a total of $5.1 million.
The corporation has also continued to pro-
vide advisory services to companies and indi-
viduals both in Toronto and all across the
province. During the year, more than 1,650
companies and individuals received advisory
services, bringing the total provided since the
inception of ODC to 8,900.
In addition, tourist workshops in which the
fundamentals of accounting and management
are discussed with tourist operators were held
in three municipalities. Altogether, about
200 tourist operators availed themselves of
these facilities. These tourist workshops were
sponsored jointly with The Department of
Tourism and Information. Also, 140 inven-
tors were counselled and assisted during the
year.
I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to
deal with the activities of Ontario housing
corporation and Ontario student housing cor-
poration.
So often when we talk of housing, we must,
of necessity, deal with figures on starts, com-
pletions and units under management. Unless
they are related to something, from our own
experience, they are hard to fully appreciate.
There is one comparison which I feel best
indicates the dramatic record of OHC which
was organized less than four years ago. That
is, by the end of this current year the corpor-
ation will have provided housing for 100,000
persons— the equivalent of almost the entire
population of Prince Edward Island.
As of December, 1967, the OHC had under
management 13,931 rental units in 64 muni-
cipalities, housing 70,000 persons, comprising
approximately 23,000 adults and 47,000 chil-
dren. Completions anticipated during the
calendar year of 1968 will provide accommo-
dation for another 30,000.
Since its creation in the fall of 1964, OHC
has not only created records in the construc-
tion of family and senior citizens housing,
but has also introduced development tech-
niques which have created an entirely new
relationship between private and government
enterprise.
I would point out that as of the end of
1967, OHC had under management, construc-
tion or development some 29,519 housing
units. The ratio of family housing units to
senior citizens units was roughly nine to one.
This does not include family housing for
students, such as our Charles Street develop-
ment, which is exclusively for married
students. The Ontario student housing cor-
poration was created in the fall of 1967 and
already has under construction or develop-
ment over 12,000 units for 12 universities
and post-secondary educational institutions.
The launching of a programme of this mag-
nitude in such a short space of time is indica-
tive of the way in which Ontario housing
corporation works with the building industry
and has thus been able to produce these most
significant results.
From just under 1,200 starts in 1965,
OHC's programme climbed to more than
7,000 starts last year. As indicated in the
central mortgage and housing corporation
annual report for 1967, this represented 81.9
per cent of all public housing starts in
Canada and utilized 96.3 per cent of all
federal money available for these purposes.
In addition, 4,000 starts were undertaken for
universities by the Ontario student housing
corporation for a grand total of 11,000 starts
in 1967.
Now let me again, Mr. Chairman, put
these large figures into their proper per-
spective, and I do this by using the United
States housing programmes as an example.
When we relate the United States' 1966
population of 194,800,000 people, to Ontario's
population of 6,960,000 and compare our
respective public housing programmes, we
find that on a per capita basis Ontario hous-
ing corporation, in 1966, started twice as
much public housing, and using the same
yardstick for 1967, Ontario started four times
as much per capita, as did the United States.
President Johnson recently announced a
crash public housing programme, now before
Congress— as reported in Business Week
magazine of March 2, 1968— aimed at meet-
ing some of his nation's critical accommoda-
tion needs. If this programme is approved,
and with it some of the suggested techniques
which, interestingly, OHC has been using
since its inception, then the United States
will, this year, produce some 75,000 public
housing starts. On a per capita basis, tlie
7,500 starts OHC plans for the year com-
mencing January 1, 1968, in family and senior
citizens housing, and exclusive of student
housing or the HOME programme, will be
nearly three times the accelerated United
States' programme.
4424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, in using these factors for
comparative purposes, I do so, not with any
sense of complacency of what has been
achieved to date, but simply to emphasize
the magnitude of the housing programme
underway in this province.
I would now like to turn to our land
development programme which is just one
facet of the overall HOME plan, inaugurated
last year.
During 1967 the corporation made serviced
lots available to prospective homeowners in
ten municipahties, and it is currently active
in land development in more than 40 muni-
cipalities. In some of these, large areas of
land have been purchased or secured under
option— the largest to date in any one area
being more than 2,000 acres. By the end of
last year, the corporation had placed on the
market, sufficient land to permit the building
of 1,182 dwellings. The 1968-69 programme
will produce enough serviced land to permit
development of approximately 9,000 dwell-
ings. The total amount of land currently
under development is approximately 7,500
acres, and we contemplate the acquisition
and servicing of land will continue unabated.
It has been suggested the corporation has
inflated land prices by selling its lots at
current market value. I would like, at this
moment, to set the records straight. To date,
over 86 per cent of all lots disposed of by
OHC were on a leasehold basis, at a monthly
rental based on the net cost to the corpora-
tion, at an interest rate of 7.25 per cent. I
would like to re-emphasize that the land pro-
gramme is not oriented to cash sales. It is
wholly oriented to leasehold or agreement of
sale, with an option to purchase when the
homeowner's economic circumstances permit,
after the first five years. At that time, the
market price prevailing when the lot was
leased is the selling price. If land values
continue to rise, as I am certain they will,
then the lessee enjoys the appreciated value
when he exercises his option to purchase.
If one doubts the success of the HOME
land development plan, I would welcome the
opportunity of conducting a visit to many of
the areas which OHC has made available to
date. Here, we will see homes already occu-
pied, or being built as fast as merchant
builders are able to construct them, and also
meet many families who have finally achieved
their goal of home ownership at costs within
reach of their present income.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Does that in-
clude Malvern?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will get to Malvern in
a minute. Do not run away— stay. You will
not leave, will you?
Mr. Trotter: Wait another 15 years.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You will be here all
week.
Mr. Trotter: Another 15 years will not
change a bit.
Hon. Mr. Randall: This government has
recognized tliat the dynamic economy of
our province has in turn created housing
problems. More important, however, the
government is doing something about it
tlirough the HOME plan which represents a
concerted and many-pronged attack on the
housing shortage. The introduction of con-
dominium legislation, last year, was just one
link in the chain required to provide a
climate in which private enterprise and gov-
ernment could collectively work toward meet-
ing our housing needs. We must face the
fact that if housing on an ownership basis is
to be made available to modest income
families, then they must be prepared to ac-
cept individual ownership in multiple devel-
opments. We are confident this can be
achieved, particularly in our heavily popu-
lated urban areas, and other centres where
more modest cost housing must be con-
structed in line with local income levels,
through building condominium developments.
Ontario housing corporation has invited
proposals from major residential developers
for the construction of 295 town house units
at Thistletown, in Etobicoke. This will be
the first condominium development sponsored
by OHC. These will not be confined to our
major urban centres only, but will also pro-
vide accommodation within the means of
potential homeowners in towns such as Am-
prior, where a 20-unit multiple housing de-
velopment will shortly be undertaken through
the sponsorship of OHC.
Mr. Chairman, another vital link in the
HOME plan has been the availability of
mortgage money for the development of
dwellings on HOME land. Having initiated
a programme to ensure that the cost and
availability of serviced lots would not im-
pede home ownership, the government could
not allow lack of mortgage financing to hin-
der the programme. Consequently, we have
taken steps to ensure an adequate flow of
mortgage money for all HOME develop-
ments, in order that merchant builders will
be able to construct dwellings in sufficient
I
JUNE 13, 1968
4485
volume, so that savings in builder overheads
and costs will be made for the benefit of
the ultimate owner. They will then be able
to maintain a steady production of homes
under the $15,000 limit set by OHC.
Residential accommodation of all types, at
various retail prices, must be provided by
the housing industry in this province if we
are to achieve Ontario's share of the 200,000
national starts per annum, projected to 1970
by the economic council of Canada in its
fourth annual report. This would amount to
approximately 80,000 units, per annum, for
Ontario. We believe this can be accomplished
only if mortgage financing is available on a
continuous basis. It is the intention of this
government, working with the mortgage in-
vestment industry, to make this possible, and
assure that housing objectives are met.
A steady, and ever-increasing, demand for
housing in the years ahead, to accommodate
an expanding population in all our urban and
rural areas, provides one of the most essen-
tial industries, that of construction, with a
challenge to meet these insatiable demands
for accommodation. To accomplish this, we
are well aware that it will require a budgeted
flow of funds annually, over a projected
period of three to five years, unhampered
by the inadequate financial policies of the
past which, to the merchant builder, have
proven virtually unworkable and very costly.
To this end, we in this province have already
moved to ensure the availability of financing
for the HOME plan, as I advised the hon.
members, a few weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to con-
clude these remarks without commenting on
the support which our programme has re-
ceived from central mortgage and housing
corporation and from the Hon. John R.
Nicholson, who was the Minister responsible
for that agency. Mr. Nicholson was a great
advocate of the HOME plan, and I believe it
represented one of the major solutions to
resolving our housing backlog. He was not
always able to convince his colleagues in
this regard. As a consequence, the pro-
gramme has, from its inception, gone through
periods when federal funds were not avail-
able, and the province had to accept full
financial responsibility, or see the HOME
plan bogged down. However, following the
former Prime Minister's housing conference,
in Ottawa, on December 11, 1967, we were
assured of sufScient federal funds to permit
a public housing programme for families,
senior citizens and students, together with
the land development operation, amounting
to approximately $400 million.
Once the land is serviced, however, the
central mortgage and housing corporation
share of the land investment must be paid
back by the province within 15 years. Thus,
any lots still under a HOME lease at that
period must be the financial responsibility
of the province. There is no provision in fed-
eral funds for purchasing completely serviced
lots, so these have been, and will con-
tinue to be, bought to provide immediate
housing by Ontario housing corporation,
wherever necessary to speed up housing
production.
We recognize the financial problems of
central mortgage and housing corporation,
and the heavy demands made on this insti-
tution, and OHC has, at all times, endeav-
oured to co-operate to the fullest extent, in
every way possible, in order to keep our
housing programme on schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to acquaint the
hon. members with what I hope has been a
concise, but informative report on my depart-
ment's activities, and will welcome the op-
portunity to outline these in detail during
discussion of the department's estimates.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, there are two basic policy questions that
the official Opposition wants to focus on in
the present Minister's estimates. The first is the
housing crisis in Ontario and my col-
league from Parkdale will be deahng with
that issue when we get to votes 407 to 410. I
would like to focus my opening remarks on
the second basic policy question concerning
the Minister's operations in his department.
I am concerned with those of his policies
that are making the degree of foreign owner-
ship and control of the Ontario economy,
which is a very large segment of the Cana-
dian economy, much greater than need be
the case. We have here a Minister of a
Canadian provincial government, whose
avowed purpose is to sell us out to foreigners,
especially United States investors and man-
agers. Here is a Minister actively pursuing
policies which intensify this threat to our
international independence and identity. Mr.
Chairman, this present Minister has said: "We
would still be chasing Indians if it were not
for foreign investment". His Deputy Minister,
a civil servant, bluntly states: "Let there be
no doubt about it, Ontario welcomes Ameri-
can capital investment".
4426
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Chairman, may I interrupt the member for
just a moment. I have His Honour the Lieu-
tenant-Governor waiting to give Royal assent
to the bills, I do not wish to interrupt but I
have really no choice but to move that the
committee rise and report.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the com-
mittee of supply rise and report progress
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission I will ask
His Honour, die Lieutenant-Governor, to join
us and give assent to certain bills.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
of Ontario entered the chamber of the legis-
lative assembly and took his seat upon the
Throne.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Lieutenant-Governor):
Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour,
the legislative assembly of the province of
Ontario has, at its present sittings thereof,
passed certain bills to which, in the name
and on behalf of the said legislative assembly,
I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
The Clerk Assistant: The following are
the titles to the bills to which Your Honour's
assent is prayed.
Bill 50, An Act to amend The Securities
Act, 1966.
Bill 59, An Act to amend The Loan and
Trust Corporations Act.
Bill 60, An Act to amend The Insurance
Act.
Bill 91, An Act to provide for the reduction
of municipal taxes on residential property.
Bill 107, An Act to amend The Corpora-
tions Act.
Bill 112, An Act to establish the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
Bill 120, An Act to amend The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Act.
Bill 121, An Act to amend The Hospital
Services Commission Act.
Bill 122, An Act to amend The Pharmacy
Act.
Bill 123, An Act to amend The Medical
Act.
Bill 127, An Act to amend The Ontario
Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act,
1964.
Bill 128, An Act to amend The Training
Schools Act, 1965.
Bill 129, The Department of Correctional
Services Act, 1968.
Bill 130, The Employment Standards Act,
1968.
Bill 131, An Act to amend The Wages Act
Bill 132, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safety Act, 1964.
Bill 133, An Act to amend the Ontario
human rights code, 1961-1962.
Bill 134, An Act to amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1965.
Bill 136, An Act to amend The Income
Tax Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 137, An Act to amend The Financial
Administration Act.
Bill 138, An Act to establish The Depart-
ment of Revenue.
Bill 139, An Act to amend The Public
Service Act, 1961-1962.
Bill 142, The Ontario Labour-Management
Arbitration Commission Act, 1968.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name,
the Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
doth assent to these bills.
The Honourable, tlie Lieutenant-Governor
was pleased to retire from the chamber.
Tlie 24th order; House in conmtiittee of
supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
AND DEVELOPMENT
(Continued)
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, if I may continue where I left oflF.
The Minister said to New York business-
men last May 22 that new United States
investors in Ontario could count on the vari-
JUNE 13, 1968
4427
ous programmes of his department to increase
their profits if they come to locate in Ontario.
He said to his United States audience, "When
you locate in Ontario and wish to export, all
our programmes work for you". To para-
phrase the Minister, what he was getting at
runs like this: Come to Ontario and jump
aboard our trade crusade. We will take you
on a sales mission abroad. Choose any one
of 66 countries. If your American government
will not take you on a foreign sales mission,
forget it, do not worry. Come to Ontario
and the government of Ontario will take you
on a junket abroad. And if you do not like
flying to foreign countries come to Ontario,
stay in Ontario and grow while the govern-
ment of Ontario exhibits your products abroad
for you in international fairs and brings
other foreigners to Ontario to see you.
Mr. United States investor, the Minister
claims, "When you locate in Ontario, all
our programmes work for you."
We have got our own international task
force— one-man task force posts in Milan,
Dusseldorf, Stockholm, and Kingston, Jamaica.
And soon we will be spending taxpayers'
dollars to send men to Zurich, Tokyo,
Belgrade and Beirut.
And do not forget we have got a larger
oflBce in London for you, too. And then this
provincial Minister from Canada says: "Again
these posts can work for you".
And as if this is not enough, he goes on in
the following vein.
Come to Canada, the Minister says, and
get a "Canadian image" which is the greatest
asset going for overseas sales. You nice, harm-
less Americans buy a "Canadian image"— the
price is dirt cheap and your profits high. No
one will know you are not really Canadian, and
always remember the great profit it makes for
your New York City parent company and its
stockholders.
Now, he says, how can we help to get you
to come to Ontario? He says:
The Ontario development corporation
recently launched a new programme of
equalized industrial opportunity in the
province with grants up to $500,000 to
industry in slow-growth areas . . . The
ODC and my division of trade and indus-
try encourage a greater movement of
foreign companies into Ontario by offering
financial help if necessary. Our new pro-
gramme is helping them to locate in the
province."
And if that is not enough to get you inter-
ested in coming to Ontario to own and control
even more of the key manufacturing sector
of the Ontario economy, we will reserve a
place for you as well in the multi-million
dollar Sheridan Park research community. He
adds: "And there is still some room left in
wliich you can locate."
The Minister concluded this specific oration
by saying: "I warmly welcome you to Ontario
—it is truly a place to stand and a place to
grow."
He forgot to add that the result of selling
out Ontario would mean very little place
for Canadians to stand, let alone grow as
Canadians in an independent Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn
to the government's economic thinking. The
Minister's view on what makes for continuous
economic growth in Ontario is a very simplis-
tic one. He says: "We have the resources, the
manpower, and a growing market. But we
need vast quantities of business capital to
finance expansion." Then he says: "But if
Ontario is to reahze our growth potential,
more capital is needed— capital beyond the
capacity of only 7 milhon in Ontario or 20
million Canadians."
His conclusion: Get American parent com-
panies to invest and locate subsidiaries or
branch plants in Ontario.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman,
that later on in the same speech the Minister
contradicts himself. He talks about how won-
derful the Ontario market is for domestic
sales by referring to "over seven million afflu-
ent Ontarians." Well, those seven million
affluent Ontarians just happen to save a lot
more of their affluent incomes each year than
almost any other seven million people in the
world. With such a high propensity to save,
there is a large part of funds available for
investment in this province. That is a flat con-
tradiction to his statement that Ontario needs
capital— United States capital— because the
capital capacity of only seven milhon affluent
Ontarians is so limited. Logically, the Minis-
ter cannot have it both ways. In fact, too, his
analysis is erroneous. I would hke now, Mr.
Chairman, to turn to the argument of the
Minister that foreign-controlled or direct
investment has no economic costs to Ontario
or Canada.
The Minister has said that "we'd still be
chasing Indians if it were not for foreign
investment." And he makes it clear that he is
talking about direct investment, that is,
foreign investment that results in foreign
investors controlling the operation of sub-
sidiaries or branch plants in Ontario for he
says, specifically, "our rates of economic
4428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
growth and technological advance would
have been a lot slower without access to the
capital and technology of many parent com-
panies in, the United States."
His concern is not with foreign investment,
for example, in the bonds of Canadian com-
panies, investment does not carry decision-
making control with it. His top civil servant
in a political speech, his Deputy Minister,
underlines his policy. Mr. Clarkson stated
last January 23, "I must . . . nod in the direc-
tion of foreign ownership," He continues:
In recent years it has become fashionable
in some circles to deplore the extent of
foreign ownership, chiefly American, in
Canadian industry. The charge has never
been proven that this ownership has hurt
the Canadian economy. No doubt the full
grounds of criticism are political rather
than economic. Because so much foreign
investment in Canada has taken the form
of direct equity holdings, foreign invest-
ment is for many people virtually synony-
mous with foreign ownership and control.
Then he concludes, "Let there be no doubt
about it— Ontario welcomes American capital
investment." And he meant subsidiaries and
branch plants of "parent companies in the
United States".
Turning to the future, Mr. Clarkson states:
"Canada will continue to need substantial
amounts of foreign investment ... to maintain
our rate of growth". And again he meant
subsidiaries and branch plants of "parent
companies in the United States".
Mr. Chairman, I would like for the moment
to leave the political implications of increas-
ing United States ownership and control of
many key sectors of the Ontario economy,
particularly in the manufacturing sector.
I want to address my remarks to the eco-
nomic generalization made by the Minister
and his spokesman, the Deputy Minister.
I would like, first, to put against their
economic arguments the views of the chief
economist of this province, Mr. H. I. Mac-
donald. This is the senior government econo-
mist, a man who is a professional economist
with outstanding qualifications for advising
this government on the economic costs and
benefits to Ontario of various government
pohcies. After reading some of his views on
this question to the members of this House,
it will not come as a surprise to learn that
last November the chief economist was trans-
ferred out of the Minister of Trade and
Development's office to The Treasury Depart-
ment.
Here is what the chief economist of Ontario
has to say about the adverse economic impact
and implications of the increasing degree of
United States ownership and control of stra-
tegic sectors of the Canadian economy of
which Ontario is so large a part.
Mr. Chairman, this is an extensive quota-
tion; I shall read it directly without any inter-
ruptions.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member would
permit the Chairman just a very brief inter-
ruption in his comments.
Mr. T. Reid: Another interruption after
the Prime Minister's?
Mr. Chairman: I will extend my apology
to him, but I am sure the committee would
like to note that the hon. Senator, Allan Mac-
Naughton, former Speaker of the House of
Commons, is with us this moment, sitting to
tlie left of the Speaker's chair. I am sure they
would like to extend a welcome to him.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chainnan, unlike the first
interruption yours is quite in order.
Mr. Chairman, the quotation is as follows:
The degree of concentration of foreign
capital in certain areas may give the foreign
owners a degree of influence over the
economy far beyond their relative size.
Concentration of foreign ownership in the
manufacturing sector could lead to the
exercise of considerable influence over
commercial policy through pressures for
tariffs and protection or on other govern-
mental policies such as those affecting the
location of industry. In a more subtle way
it may influence the future course of
capital investment of both foreign and
domestic origin.
The real concern should be that foreign
investment has made it difficult for us to
construct an economy appropriate to our
needs and our own best interest. The prob-
lem may have two aspects: The first is an
economic distortion of the industrial struc-
ture resulting from the monopolistic char-
acter of direct foreign investment; the
second is the derivative nature of the actual
industries which are established in the
branch-plant sector of the economy.
The result of foreign investment in
Canada has been a tendency to establish
not only a greater number of producers
in Canadian industries than the market
would economically allow, but also firms
and industries which are duplicates of the
American parent, although producing on a
JUNE 13, 1968
4429
far less efficient scale. External financial
resources, so readily available to Canadian
branch plants, have provided a deterrent
to the competitive rationalization which
economical production would demand.
The existence of American firms as the
principal component of Canadian secondary
manufacturing has resulted in products
similar to those of the parent firms and
this, in turn, has retarded the development
of a specialized, indigenous Canadian in-
dustrial structure. The victim has been
the national economic identity that might
otherwise have developed.
Mr. Chairman, the chief economist of this
province says there are adverse economic costs
of the present degree of foreign ownership
and control of key sectors of our economy.
The Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall) is on record as saying that that is a
lot of nonsense. Mr. Chairman, if asked to
make a judgment, I would say that the chief
economist of this government should be
believed. He is qualified, informed and has
studied this particular problem for a number
of years.
In spite of this expert advice, this Minister
continues with policies, very actively, I might
add for he is an active Minister, to push
economic-decision making in Ontario and
Canada further and further into the hands of
American parent companies.
I can only repeat what the chief economist
of the government says should be the Min-
ister's real concern. The chief economist states
that:
The real concern should be that foreign
investment has made it difficult for us to
construct an economy appropriate to our
needs and best interest.
The Minister of Trade and Development
is pursuing policies to get more American
parent companies to locate subsidiaries and
branch plants in Ontario which judged, in
terms of the chief economist's analysis and
judgment, is making it more and more diffi-
cult for us to construct an economy appro-
priate to our needs and best interest.
Mr. Chairman, let me now offer additional
evidence on the economic costs of the
Minister's policy thrust to increase the extent
of American ownership and control of the
Ontario economy.
I would like to refer the members to an
article by S. Hymer entitled "Direct Foreign
Investment and the National Economic
Interest." Mr. Hymer states:
The proper place to begin any discussion
of direct investment in Canada is to put
the question: What motivates foreign firms
to own branch plants and subsidiaries in
Canada?
He adds that the motivation is simply to
maximize the profits of the parent. He con-
tinues:
The issue for Canadians, however, is
whether [this] is also in the best interest
of Canada.
Is it to our advantage to have Canadian
enterprise directly affiliated to foreign firms,
or would we be better off if the Canadian
firm was independent? Which form of
business organization results in more Cana-
dian production, lower prices for Canadian
consumers, and higher prices for Canadian
exports? We cannot be sure until we know
what it is that the parent firm is trying to
achieve through control of its Canadian
subsidiary.
Direct investments to achieve international
integration of firms, can be a means of
reducing competition. Since competition tends
to lower price and reduce profits, restraint of
international competition via direct invest-
ment is profitable.
Direct investment can give a firm in one
country control over price and output de-
cisions of an enterprise in another country.
It is a form of legal international collusion.
The operation of foreign ownership de-
creases the number of firms in the world,
and tends to encourage imperfect competi-
tive behaviour. In general, imperfect
competition reduces economic welfare be-
cause it decreases the efficiency with which
resources— such as scarcer labour and
capital— are allocated. Prices, facing con-
sumers, tend to be higher than they would
otherwise be and consumers tend to be
made worse oflF.
This type of market structure has costs to
the Canadian consumer and gains to the
foreign parent company. The excess profits
accrue to foreigners and reduce Canada's
national income. Mr. Hymer states:
Some portion of the foreigners' gains
may be paid for the disservice of restrain-
ing competition and reducing the efficiency
of resource allocation.
Let us turn to a second situation which Mr.
Hymer discusses. He says:
The large volume of foreign investment
in Canada seems to suggest a shortage of
Canadian entrepreneurs or businessmen.
4430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But which is the cause and which is the
effect? We usually think of foreign invest-
ment as a consequence of a shortage of
domestic entrepreneurs, but perhaps the
former has helped create the latter.
If foreign investment were reduced in Canada
and Ontario, Mr. Hymer argues, might there
not be a growth of Canadian entrepreneur-
ship? Mr. Hymer says:
Once over their initial learning period,
might not Canadian entrepreneurs be able
to stand on their own feet? The shortage
of entrepreneurs in Canada might just dis-
appear and with it the need for so much
foreign investment.
Mr. Hymer concludes:
Just as there is an infant industry argu-
ment for a tariff, there may be an infant
entrepreneurship argument for restricting
foreign ownership.
One further economic argument, Mr. Chair-
man, from Mr. Hymer. He says this:
The foreign firm's preference for full
control of its Canadian subsidiary has
meant the exclusion of Canadians from
participation in equity securities, except
to the extent that they have been willing
to buy shares of the foreign parents. The
result may have been to deflect Canadian
saving into other investments with lower
rates of return. This, in turn, may have
reduced total Canadian savings.
This statement is a double rebuke to the
Minister's generalization that there is not
enough capital investment and saving from
Ontario's 7 million affluent people. The first
rebuke to the Minister, from Mr. Hymer's
remarks is this: his policy and active
endeavours to increase foreign ownership and
control of key sectors of the Ontario economy,
which shuts out, increasingly, equity partici-
pation in Ontario by Ontario investors, may
directly reduce the propensity to save by
Ontarians. The second rebuke to the Minister
from Mr. Hymer's statement is this: his policy
may be accentuating the leakage of Ontario
savings and investment to the United States
for investment inequity abroad, instead of in
Ontario.
The Minister's analysis, therefore, Mr.
Chairman, of cause and effect, may very
well be upside-down. And, as a result, the
consequences may very well be perverse.
Mr. Chairman, I would like next to turn
to another side of the issue and it is this:
Direct investment, that is investment by
foreigners in Canadian branch plants and
subsidiaries, is not the only way of getting
foreign capital, nor is it the only way of
importing foreign technology.
The Minister's Deputy Minister, in a poli-
tical speech, made it quite clear that one
of the department's operating premises is
that the only way to get up-to-date tech-
nology from abroad into Ontario, is by get-
ting foreign parent companies to establish
subsidiaries and branch-plants in Ontario.
T)ie department's view is that Ontario can
only get modem United States technological
innovation via the direct link between the
branch-plant in Ontario and the parent com-
pany in New York state, for example. The
Deputy Minister said:
The rates of over-all economic growth
and technological advances would have
been a lot slower without access to the
capital and technology of a host of parent
companies in the United States.
That is, Ontario gets a package deal.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that
foreign direct investment capital in branch
plants has brought with it up-to-date tech-
nology. But, in some cases, they may charge
too high a price. By different policies on the
part of this Minister, we might be able to
lower the price that we pay, and obtain a
higher provincial income.
The Watkins report puts this view forward
in the following way (p. 235):
"The transfer of knowledge," that is the
transfer of up-to-date technology from the
United States to Canada, "that accompanies
the transfer of capital in direct investment
operations, provides benefits to recipient
countries." Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe,
and the official Oppositoin believes, that such
economic advantages can be obtained
through other means which would be much
more acceptable to Ontarians and Canadians.
"Two specific means which are alterna-
tives to direct investment," says the Watkins
report, "are extensive licensing agreements
and joint ventures." When a foreign firm
decides to produce in Canada, it can choose
to establish a Canadian subsidiary or branch
plant, or to licence an independent Canadian
firm to manufacture its products, or enter
into a joint equity venture with an independ-
ent Canadian firm.
From the licensee's point of view, say a
Canadian owned and controlled manufacturer
with a licence arrangement with an Ameri-
can company:
JUNE 13. 1968
4431
The benefit is the gaining of access to
superior technology while remaining free
to choose the products or methods they
want.
The Watkins report continues:
Insofar as licensing of an independent
domestic firm is a substitute for a foreign
subsidiary, Canadian ownership is more
than it would otherwise be.
The Watkins report concludes that:
Licensing agreements can be presumed
to be a useful alternative for Canada in
some cases, provided that the Canadian firm
has freedom to export; [and that] means
should be found to exercise surveillance
with respect to— this freedom to export-
both by collecting information from firms
on a compulsory basis and policing re-
strictive practices.
With regard to joint-ventures as a substitute
for foreign wholly-owned subsidiaries and
branch plants, in Ontario and in Canada, the
Watkins report says that joint ventures are
probably in the national interest of Canada
and, of course, that includes Ontario.
Participation by a domestic firm with
dividend control can be preferable at
times— to the wholly-owned subsidiary
with no resident control— while the small
number of major joint ventures in Canada
suggest that they are not an important
alternative to foreign ownership— there is
almost certain scope for their increasing
use.
There are, in short, viable alternative ways
for Ontario to get advanced foreign technical
know-how without increasing United States
domination of the Ontario economy. As Mr.
Hymer says:
A foreign firm wishing to use its superior
technology or its brand name in Canada
does not have to invest in a subsidiary in
order to do so; it could rent, licence or
otherwise sell its advantage to an inde-
pendent Canadian firm.
Surely these are the areas for a policy thrust
on the part of the Minister of Trade and
Development of this province. Properly for-
mulated policies could increase the economic
benefits of foreign technology and decrease
the economic costs of foreign subsidiaries
and branch plants to Ontario.
There are ways of encouraging the inflow
of foreign technology into Ontario without
its hand-maiden, foreign ownership and de-
cision-making control.
I would like next, Mr. Chairman, to turn
to the question that direct investment-that
is investment in subsidiaries and branch
plants by foreigners— is only one form of
foreign investment.
Mr. Chairman, direct investment, which is
the foreign ownership and control of subsidi-
aries and branch plants, is only one form of
foreign capital investment in Ontario.
Concern about foreign investment centres
on the issue of foreign ownership and control.
Not all foreign investment, or inflow of
capital from abroad, is accompanied by
foreign control; foreign purchases of
bonds and of non-controlling equities are
cases in point. Direct investment, on the
other hand, refers to those cases where
the foreigner, by exporting capital, does
acquire control and retains the locus of
decision-making.
The point is that I am not discussing the
amount of capital that Ontario should bor-
row from abroad; but, rather, the form that
borrowing should take as Mr. Hymer says:
If we restrict direct investment, we are
still free to borrow as much as is desired
in the market for bonds and non-control-
ling equities.
I would like next, Mr. Chairman, to turn
to the question of what makes for economic
growth. The Minister's view is that capital
investment is the most important or strategic
ingredient of economic growiih in Ontario.
That is why he keeps saying we need so
much of it; that is why he goes down to
New York to get United States investors to
come to Ontario to set up their subsidiaries
and branch plants.
The interesting argument on this is that
recent studies in the United States and by
the economic council of Canada, and by the
task force on the structure of Canadian in-
dustry, conclude that additions to the capital
stock of an economy, provincial or national,
has not, I repeat, has not in the past and
will not in the future be the most important
determinant of long-run economic growth.
Professor Harry Johnson, a Canadian who
is one of the leading economists in the world,
stated in 1963:
The results of the research on die sources
of economic growtli that has been steadily
accumulating over the past decade, strongly
indicate that investment, that is the ac-
cumulation of capital, is not a major source
of economic growth.
4432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
He adds that:
The results of this research have in-
Aariably assigned a very small part of
?;rowth to capital accumulation and a very
large part to technical change.
In January, 1962, Mr. E. F. Dennison pub-
lished his exhaustive econometric analysis on
the sources of economic growth in the United
States for the period 1928 to 1957. Mr.
Dennison's analysis concluded that less than
15 per cent of the total increase in real net
national income was attributable to capital
accumulation. The main sources of economic
growth were (a) improving the quality of
the labour force, a contribution of 25 per
cent, and (b) the improvement in techno-
logical know-how knowledge, 20 per cent
contribution.
Mr. Chairman, the Watkins report states:
These findings, which downgrade the
relative contribution of capital investment
in the growth process, by implication re-
duce the importance of foreign investment
in explaining economic growth in Canada.
The report notes tliat:
A major source of economic growth is
the increased productivity of the factors of
production arising from improvements in
their quality, and in the inefficiency of their
use. Improvements in the quality of re-
sources include more education and skill
of the labour force, improved capital equip-
ment, and improved attitudes and enter-
prise of the work force. Improvements in
the efficiency of use of resources stem from
more efficient organization of the produc-
tion process, economies of scale, and shift-
ing resources from low-productivity to
high-productivity activities.
The importance of the improved quality of
the labour force in Ontario for rapid eco-
nomic growth in the future was underlined
by the economic council of Canada. Tlie
council came to the conclusion, Mr. Chair-
man, that one third of the productivity gap
between Canada and the United States was
directly accounted for by the lower quality,
education and skill of the Canadian labour
force.
Mr. Chairman, what the Minister of Trade
and Development will have to face up to
is this: First, as the chief economist of the
government has stated, the monopolistic
character of foreign investment in branch
plants leads to an economic distortion of our
industrial structure, and inefficiency due to
the derivative nature of that investment. This
works against other policies designed to im-
prove the efficiency of use of scarce resources
by a more efficient organization of the pro-
ductive process, economies of scale, and the
shifting of resources from low- productivity to
high-productivity activities.
Second, the public funds spent by this
Minister to get more foreign branch plants
to locate in Ontario would have a much
higher rate of return to Ontario if these funds
were reallocated to The Department of Edu-
cation or to apprenticeship programmes in
an efi^ort to improve the quality of the labour
force. In short, $1 million reallocated from
this department towards labour force educa-
tion and retraining could well have a rate of
return of 15 to 20 per cent, to quote the
economic council of Canada, instead of a
questionable return, if any, in its present use
to get Americans to locate more branch plants
in Ontario.
Third, the Minister will have to face up
to this:
There are alternative ways of getting con-
tinuous infusions of more innovations and
technical "know-how." There are alternatives
to the getting of the package deal of foreign
branch plants tied to foreign parents' research
results. We do not need to pay the economic
costs of even greater United States owner-
ship and control of key sectors of our ccono-
m\ to get the economic benefits of up-to-date
technology. Sheridan Park is a good first
step, and we do not have to sell it to the
Americans to get results. We can also buy
more research directly from the United States,
with no foreign ownership and control strings
attached.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like
to underline a central point. The Minister of
Trade and Development and his Deputy
Minister have a very limited view of what
makes for economic growth in Ontario.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I think the
Minister had ])ctter toss those speeches into
the waste basket— both of them.
Mr. T. Reid: I think also that they have
reacted emotionally rather than rationally to
recent research concerning the sources of
economic growth in a mature economy. They
have also, perhaps, l^een unable to sort out
the political argimient and the economic argu-
ment about foreign ownership and control in
Ontario's economy. There are clear economic
costs to policies that are designed to en-
courage even greater foreign ownership and
control of our provincial economy. In the
years ahead, we can gain the benefits of the
improved technology that have been in
JUNE 13, 1968
4433
the past, associated with this foreign owner-
ship and control without paying the eco-
nomic cost by pursuing alternative policies.
I would request the Minister and his
deputy to have a tough look at the present
policy in the light of recent research that has
accumulated in this area over the past de-
cade. There should be a hard-headed, rational
evaluation. I know the Minister has a soft
heart but in economic matters he cannot also
have a soft head. To ensure prosperity in
Ontario and to maintain control over our
economic affairs in this province, he must
have a soft heart and a hard head.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the political side
of the present degree of foreign ownership
and control of our economy, a quote from
the chief economist of the government of
Ontario. The chief economist of this pro-
vincial government states this:
We can never ignore the real possibility
that Canadian nationhood may lie stifled
in spite of our [American] neighbours' good
intentions.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. Chair-
man, I appreciate the applause from the
members of my group for a presentation of
one minute's duration. I hope it will be re-
newed this evening at 8 o'clock when we
commence. At tiiat time I propose to deliver
the burden of my remarks on the Minister's
estimates so that with your indulgence I
would like to call it 6 o'clock.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 119
ONTARIO
ilegiglaturc of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 13, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 13, 1968
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, continued 4437
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 4469
4437
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
AND DEVELOPMENT
(Continued)
On vote 401:
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West) : Mr. Chair-
man, I did want to make a few brief com-
ments on the speech by my friend from
Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid), in reply to
the Minister's speech on his estimates. He
dwelt at considerable length on the problem
in the Ontario economy of foreign owner-
ship and foreign control. His remarks
impressed me in this manner.
Until I had looked at the Telegram of
today, and the column by Harry Crowe and
Doug Fisher, I had thought that the dif-
ferences between the federal Liberal Party
and the provincial Liberal Party of Quebec
over constitutional matters were as wide and
divergent as the difference is between any
political groupings in this country. It was not
until this afternoon, listening to the speech
from the member for Scarborough East, that
I realized that the differences between the
Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberal
Party were only exceeded by the differences
on continentalism and control of our own
economic affairs between the Ontario Liberal
Party and its federal counterpart.
I am not going to spend any more time
on that subject tonight, Mr. Chairman. I
think that the time available to us on this
estimate is much better spent on a priority
issue in this province, an issue of con-^iderably
greater priority than that dealt with by the
member for Scarborough East. Like him, I
am going to spend all of the time which I
will take this evening dealing with the one
issue, and that is the issue of housing in this
province.
I recall a story from the days of the John
F. Kennedy administration and the period of
social grace and political wit that was in
flower at that time. It was one of the famous
White House dinners, called by the President,
to which he invited a number of notable
Thursday, June 13, 1968
figures in American culture. Oddly enough,
along with them he had some guests from
the Pentagon, and he placed Carl Sandberg,
the famous American poet, alongside one of
the army chiefs of staff from the Pentagon.
He had, as the guest speaker following the
dinner, Mr. Sandberg, and the guest who
introduced Mr. Sandberg was the general
from the Pentagon. After citing Mr. Sand-
berg's achievements as a writer and a pre-
server of American folklore, he said: "Mr.
President, ladies and gentlemen, I now intro-
duce to you Mr. Carl Sandberg. He will now
make up a poem for us". Mr. Sandberg stood
up and said: "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr.
President, I yield to the general. He will
now fire cff a cannon for us". And that story,
Mr. Chairman, I think points cut the manner
in which the Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment (Mr. Randall) in this province deals
with our housing crisis.
He thinks that the solution to our crisis
can be as instantaneous as the manner in
which the general believed poets write their
poetry. Following along in the same analogy,
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk
about the credibility gap that has developed
between the United States administration
and the United States public over the war
in Viet Nam. I think that the Minister of
Trade and Development, in handling the
housing crisis in this province, has himself
developed a credibility gap— one that is as
wide and empty as the 1,662 acres in the
land assembly project known as Malvern.
This evening, I want to discuss with the
Minister the dimensions of that credibility
gap, the gulf between promise and perfor-
mance, and the awesome differences between
the headlines and the housing that has been
imposed on the people of Ontario, who are
anxious to see the housing crisis solved.
Let me start with an example from the
recent provincial election campaign. The
announcement cf the Fleming Ion Park hous-
ing project, last October, was one of the
greatest examples of barefaced pre-election
hocus-pocus in this country.
The Minister unveiled plans for a $60
million development in his own riding, to
4438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
provide 3,500 condominium units just four
days before the voters went to the polls. He
indicated to the press that it could begin in
two months' time. Well, Mr. Chairman, now
eight months later it is revealed that
absolutely nothing has happened.
In the Toronto Daily Star of March 6,
1968, we read that: "The Minister said
yesterday"— the day before this article was
written— "he meant that project planning
would begin within that period. This has
begun, but construction will not start for
quite some time".
The Minister promised the Legislature a
full report on the project, including the con-
struction timetable. He said he could not
comment until the report is completed. Not
even the servicing, Mr. Chairman, has com-
menced, and an Ontario housing corporation
official was quoted in the same article as
saying that the project will be in the planning
stage for at least another year.
To the thousands of people in the Metro
Toronto area caught in the housing squeeze,
this pre-election announcement was a cruel
hoax. But it is typical. It is typical of the way
the Minister of Trade and Development,
responsible for the Ontario housing corpora-
tion, discharges his housing responsibility
throughout the province.
Let me deal, though, with another example
in the Metropolitan Toronto area— this, too, was
trotted out in the last provincial campaign—
the Malvern project. We first heard about it
in 1953, and 14 years later there is still
not a house on it. But the follow-up to that
announcement— prior to the provincial elec-
tion—came only at the end of 1967. In his
December 28, 1967, press release, announcing
the selection of the development team to
prepare land-use plans and engineering
designs in Malvern, the Minister rejected
"uninformed criticisms and comment levelled
at the proposed community". That release
went on:
Mr. Randall pointed out some critics
have said the entire area will be used for
public housing and others have said dis-
agreement and procrastination between the
various levels of government have held
Malvern back for years. "These assump-
tions are entirely incorrect," Mr. Randall
stated. The Minister stated that Malvern
will be a wholly integrated community,
combining residential, commercial, institu-
tional, industrial and public uses.
Let us deal with two aspects of that
release, Mr. Chairman, before going on. In
a Globe and Mail story on May 14, 1968, the
mayor of the borough of Scarborough, Mr.
Campbell, was quoted as saying that the
first houses in the Ontario government's
Malvern development in Scarborough are not
likely to be built before 1970. The four
planning companies, those that the Minister
had announced in his December 28 press
release, had been expected to produce the
first plans for the development by early April
of this year. So far, Mayor Campbell said
"OHC officials have only introduced the
planners to some municipal department heads
in Scarborough and that was last week. So
they are just beginning planning," the mayor
went on, "and now I have to say they will
be fortunate to have first homes built by
1970." We have headlines of 1967, Mr. Chair-
man, maybe we will have the housing in
1970 or 1971, and perhaps even 1975.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): I think before 1971.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, before I was
elected a member of this Legislature, many,
many years ago, when I sat in the galleries of
the House listening to the proceedings, I
would hear members from the back benches
on the opposite side stand up to read edi-
torials from the Toronto Globe and Mail in
praise of the administration. I never thought
there was any other use for Globe and Mail
editorials; I had a very low opinion of them.
But there is one which I cannot avoid read-
ing, Mr. Chairman, in relation to this Malvern
project, and that is one which appeared the
day after the article to which I have just
referred, in the Globe and Mail of May 15,
entitled "The Joy of Not Giving," and it
reads :
When a political carrot is dangled
before an electoral donkey, the position of
the carrot is of the utmost importance. It
must be close enough to interest the
donkey, but not so close that he can
actually sink his teeth into it.
The Ontario government has little to
learn about these techniques. It has had us
trotting hungrily toward the Malvern car-
rot for more than 14 years, salivating like
mad over the thought of about 10,000
housing units for 25,000 persons. The land
was assembled long ago by the provincial
and federal governments and the first
houses were promised for 1954, but these
things cannot be rushed.
A powerful whiff of carrot wafted over
Metropolitan Toronto last October at about
the time of the provincial election, when
JUNE 13, 1968
4439
Economics Minister Stanley Randall let it
be known that the start on the project was
imminent.
After the stimulant, however, comes the
depressant. In the beginning servicing wor-
ries, and then the suggestion this week
that the first houses may not be built
before 1970. We feel sure that between now
and 1970 a number of unforeseen difficul-
ties will present themselves.
With any luck a start on Malvern will be
just around the comer by the time the next
provincial election is upon us.
Mr. Chairman, that is an editorial from the
Globe and Mail which I enjoy quoting and I
think that the ridicule which it heaps upon
this government for the delays in developing
the Malvern land assembly are well deserved
indeed.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to have this hous-
ing in 1970 or 1971 in the Malvern area, what
kind of housing is it going to be? A hint, I
think the first real hint, as to the type of
housing to go up on Malvern land, came in
the same release that I referred to earlier-
the Minister's release on Malvern, December
28, 1968, in which the Minister said:
The development of Malvern will be a
major step toward facilitating home owner-
ship in Toronto.
That hint, Mr. Chairman, was confirmed in
the Globe and Mail story of May 14, 1968:
Patrick Brady, deputy director of the
Ontario housing corporation, said yesterday
that the government's emphasis on home
ownership and Scarborough's already
heavy share of the Ontario housing, could
prompt Malvern planners to recommend
no permanent public housing in the
development.
Later in that story:
"The OHC has set no guidlines for pub-
lic housing in the development," Mr. Brady
said, "and the planners could recommend
that there be no housing units in it. Scar-
borough has about 20 per cent of Metro's
public housing and other boroughs may be
in line for more new units," he said.
That, Mr. Chairman, in an incredible fore-
cast—that after 14 years of delay, after 14
years in which this land in the Malvern area
has been isolated from the surrounding specu-
lation and inflation of land costs, after 14
years of paying a total of $3.5 million for the
cost of acquisition, maintenance and interest
charges— after 14 years of pent-up expectation,
we are not going to have public housing on
Malvern land. That is an incredible state-
ment by the Ontario housing corporation, Mr.
Chairman, and I hope it is one that the Minis-
ter can correct tonight.
If pubhc housing is not going to be placed
on Malvern, who is going to be housed on the
Malvern land, Mr. Chairman? That is another
question that has to be answered. Well, let
me return again to the Globe and Mail, this
time for January 6, 1968, in which statements
are made by officials of the Ontario housing
corporation about the corporation's policy in
regard to land value appreciation. The article
quotes Mr. Suters, the managing director of
OHC:
While defending the government policy
of selling at market value, Mr. Suters said
he could not comment on it. "The corpora-
tion is not out to make a profit from people,
it is out to get people into proper housing."
Mr. Chairman, when we look at the apprecia-
tion of values in the Malvern area, I think
that we have to question this statement. A
headhne over that story in the Globe and
Mail of January 6, reads "$15 million Mal-
vern profit likely for Ontario and Ottawa-
land value soars." At the time, a piece of
speculative writing perhaps, an article that
was regarded by many as quite far-fetched
suggesting that the federal-provincial part-
nership could come into a bonanza of this
size. "Federal and provincial agencies would
have a potential profit of about $15 million
if the Malvern project were ready to be
started today," the article said, "Depending
on how much of the land went to high-rise
apartment use, the figure could be higher.
But for every acre of single-family residences
the profit would be about $18,000."
Mr. Chairman, if home ownership is to
be the form of land use for those areas set
aside for housing, then we have to think in
terms of single-family residence lots. These,
according to this article in the Toronto Globe
and Mail, could currently sell at $10,000 to
$10,500 each, with about four on each acre.
Theoretically, if the entire area was covered
by single-family housing, the profit would be
more than $30 million. Calculating what the
appreciation on a per-lot basis would be, Mr.
Chairman, the land has cost the Crown-
Ontario and Canada— slightly more than
$2,000 an acre to date to acquire, maintain
and pay interest. Using the cost of $6 million
for servicing, which was one figure that
appeared and was attributed to Scarborough,
the cost of servicing and acquisition could
be approximately $3,600 an acre. I find that
figure much too low.
4440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that a much more appropriate
figure in estimating the book value— the cost
of acquisition and the cost of servicing to-
gether—would be more in the order of $5,500
per lot, on the basis of four lots to the acre
for single-family dwellings. At the current
appraised market valuation of $10,000 to
$10,500, that represents an appreciation of
double the book value of those lots, double
what the provincial and federal governments
paid for them and what the cost of servicing
would probably be.
In his estimates speech this afternoon, the
Minister said that it has been suggested that
the corporation has inflated land p-ices by
selling its lots at current market value.
"I would like to set the record straight,"
the Minister said. "To date, over 86 per cent
of all lots disposed of by the Ontario housing
corporation were on a leasehold basis, or a
monthly rental based on the net cost to the
corporation, and an interest rate of 7.25 per
cent." But we are not quarreling with that,
Mr. Chiirman. What the Minister did not
deal with in his defence of the change that
the corporation has inflated land values, is
the manner in which ground rents or leasing
rents are set for HOME lots as they were in
Bramalea— where the corporation acquired
land and serviced it at one cost, and, because
of the time delay, in putting those lots on
the market, the current market evaluation was
considerably above book value. He did not
defend h'mself against the charge that in
Malvern, the same kind of process is going to
be followed when housing is put on that
land for the HOME programme.
In the article on January 6, Mr. Chairman,
it renffirmed that the provincial government's
policy is to sell land at market value. The
government is certainly not going to take into
account, once lots do go on sale, the tre-
mendous appreciation that has accrued to it
in this 14- or 17- or 18-year period, or what-
ever it turns out to be, from the time of
acquisition to the time that lots and houses
are first offered.
If thsse lands in Malvern are subdivided
into lots for leasing under HOME, and the
lease rent is based on the market value at the
time that the lease is drawn, then the prov-
ince will be, despite Mr. Suter's statement,
"making a prcfit from people," and the gov-
ernment will share in that prcfit. The specula-
tion will not be found in the Globe and
Mail story, Mr. Chairman. It will be found
in the land development pohcies of the
Ontario housing corporation.
Let me turn to another example of this
gap between promise and performance, Mr.
Chairman. Early in 1967, the Minister an-
nounced that 20,000 lots would be provided
through lease under the HOME plan, includ-
ing over 4,000 in Metropolitan Toronto. And
that, I believe, was just following the Throne
Speech early in 1967. Ndw it is revealed that
only approximately 1,100 lots were made
available and none of them within the actual
boundaries of the Metro area by year's end,
1967. Only 658 were actually taken up by
prospective home owners in 1967, as some
lots were in remote areas where there was no
demand or the price or size was unsuitable.
Mr. Chairman, that is a tremendous short-
fall in performance— from 20,000 lots promised
at the beginning of 1967 to only approxi-
mately 1,100 actually offered and 658 dis-
posed of at the end of the calendar year.
But let us take it up to a later date, the latest
which I have been a^le to obtain— for the ten
months since the first HOME lots were
offered to the public. I believe the Minister
himself has said that a total of 1,365 lots
were disposed of in that ten-month period-
nothing approaching the dimensions of the
HOME programme that the Minister forecast
at the time of the Throne Speech in 1987.
Let us extend the period of grace some-
what for the Minister to fulfil his projection.
What is forecast for 1968-69? In his speech
this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the Minister
pointed out that the 1968-69 programme
will produce enough serviced land to permit
development of approximately 9,000 dwell-
ings. Thit is the only indication we have of
the number of lots to be made available and,
of course, that figure is meaningless if we
try to extract from it the number of lots that
will actuallv be offered for home ownership
under the HOME plan.
Adding that number-the 9,000-to the
number of lots that the Minister said would
be available under the HOME programme—
the 20.000— we come up with a total of barely
half of what was promised.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out
another contradiction between what the hous-
ing corporation and the Minister told the
pub'ic of this province is going to be achieved
in housing and what is actually performed.
It is a statement by Mr. II. Peter Langer, a
member of the board of directors of the
Ontario housing corporation, in the Windsor
Star, May 1, 1968, in which he said:
Ontario housing corporation hopes to
makes 6,000 new building lots available
in 39 municipalities this year.
JUNE 13, 1968
4441
That figure may be the one. That figure may
be the target that the Minister is shooting
for under the HOME programme in 1968-
69.
But earlier, Mr. Chairman, in a report in
the Toronto Daily Star dated April 2, 1968,
the Minister said:
Ontario's home ownership made easy
programme will expand to provide many
thousands of lots this year—
that is in 1968, or 1968-69:
—but he refused to elaborate on how many
lots would be provided, or where they
would be located, until detailed plans are
presented in the Legislature.
Yet we have this later story dated May 1, in
which one of the directors of Ontario housing
corporation speaks of 6,000 HOME lots being
made available and the Minister saying that
he cannot say and will not elaborate, on April
4, as to the number of HOME lots to be
oflFered in 1968.
In the public housing field, Mr. Chairman,
this record of contradiction is equally shock-
ing. On July 31, 1967, the Prime Minister
(Mr. Robarts) said that Ontario housing cor-
poration expected to start 12,000 units last
year. He failed to mention that over 4,000
of these were student housing units. For
families and senior citizens the province only
started a total of 7,100 units in 1967.
On the basis of that kind of calculation,
Mr. Chairman, the Minister claimed, in his
speech to the Beaches-Woodbine Progressive
Conservative association, reported in the
Toronto Star on April 2, that Ontario housing
corporation had produced 20 per cent of the
province's new housing last year and will
raise the figure to 25 per cent in 1968. That
is a very commendable level by the way, Mr.
Chairman, and I want to speak of it a little
later.
But the credit for achieving 20 per cent of
the housing starts in the province last year
was based on the inclusion of almost 4,000
bedrooms, Mr. Chairman— not homes— for
students at universities.
But the contradictions keep turning up.
In his speech in Barrie on Thursday, May 23,
tlie Minister said, according to his release:
One out of every ten housing starts in
Ontario last year was made by Ontario
housing corporation.
Suddenly the claim is cut in half, from 20
to 10 per cent.
Mr. C. G. PUkey (Oshawa): That is a
credibihty gap.
Mr. Peacock: And while there were, I
think, approx'mately 62,000 housing starts in
the province last year, I do not sec how the
Minister-even acknowledging the 7,100 starts
on family and senior citizens' im its-can come
up with either the 10 per cent or the 20 per
cent figure, if he adds in the 4,000 student
housing unit starts.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that Ontario
housing corporation did not even come close
to building the number of family and senior
citizens' and student housing units that the
Prime Minister forecast over the summer.
A total of 6,400 starts in family housing
were forecast or promised; 5,700 were actu-
ally undertaken, for a shortfall of 700. A
total of 1,700 senior citizens' housing units
were forecast for starts in 1967; only 1,400
were actually gotten under way, for a short-
fall of 300. In all 4,400 student units were
supposed to be started in 1967; just under
4,000 were actually commenced, for a short-
fall of 400.
So that between promise and performance
for starts in 1967, Mr. Chairman, we have a
shortfall of 1,400 units, or a gap of better
than 10 per cent. The number that the
Minister did manage to commence— the 7,100
senior citizens' and family housing units— fell
far short of the need.
The Canadian welfare council, which is
launching the Canadian conference on hous-
ing, has undertaken a major research project
in the housing field and estimates that Ontario
will need about 75,000 units a year until
1971, and nearly 89,000 annually in the
following five years.
I believe that at least 25 per cent of these
should be public housing, if we are to meet
the needs of the thousands who have been
priced out of the private market by the
economic policies of the Liberal administra-
tion at Ottawa.
On this basis, Mr. Chairman-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Peacock: I wi'l take a little more time
later in my remarks, Mr, Chairman, to deal
with the coalition between Ottawa and
Toronto to defeat the expansion of our hous-
ing policies in this province.
But on the basis of what the Canadian
conference on housing has estimated to be
the need in Ontario until 1971, we need
19,000 public housing units of senior citizens'
4442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and family unit types at present— that is, at
the end of 1967-and not the 7,100 that were
actually commenced by Ontario housing cor-
poration.
And what do we have forecast for the
coming year? The Minister in his speech
this afternoon, on the estimates, pointed out
with pride the contrast between what was
happening in the public housing field in the
United States, and what he has been achiev-
ing, in his view, in Ontario, He told us this
afternoon, Mr. Chairman, that on a per capita
basis— and I just want to say in parenthesis
here, that he did not take the trouble to
tell us directly and straightforwardly and in
a separate, specific way what the plans for
senior citizens' and family housing starts in
Ontario would be in 1968. He put it in a
reference to what was happening in the
United States. He said, on a per capita basis,
the 7,500 starts Ontario housing corporation
plans for the year commencing January 1,
1968, in family and senior citizens' housing
and exclusive of student housing, or the
HOME programme, will be nearly three
times the accelerated United States pro-
gramme.
It is only in these references to what is
happening in the United States— in these il-
lustrations of how well he is doing, in his
lights— do we get any information at all
about what Ontario housing corporation
plans to do to meet the housing crisis in
Ontario.
I suggest that the increase in starts of 400
between 1967 and 1968 is absolutely pa-
thetic; absolutely unrealistic; nowhere con-
ceivably close to what the demand in this
province is, even granting the Canadian con-
ference on housing's estimate of total demand
which I think is conservative.
So far, Mr. Chairman, into 1968, the
Minister appears to have announced starts
for about 3,100 units, some senior citizen
and some family units, from what I can
gather from Ontario housing corporation
press releases. I want to point out, Mr.
Chairman, that, of these starts, a very large
proportion will not be scheduled for com-
pletion until well into 1969. When we are
talking about starts, Mr. Chairman, we are
talking about the possibilities, indeed the
probabilities, of getting into the same kind
of hang-ups that the Malvern project has
gotten itself into, and starts in this light,
therefore, are not a very meaningful measure
of the activity that the Ontario housing cor-
poration is carrying on when we look at the
need that now exists in 1968.
We should be talking about completions
that have taken place in 1967, and that are
guaranteed to take place in 1968, if we are
going to talk realistically about meeting the
present demand, and not allow the backlog
of housing to grow any larger than it al-
ready is.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to further
introduce the element of confusion into the
publicity and the information that the Minis-
ter for the Ontario housing corporation pro-
vides to the public of this province. In his
Budget address on March 12, the Treasurer
of the province (Mr. MacNaughton) said that,
"In this Budget we have recognized that
housing merits a top priority claim in On-
tario's finances. To meet our goal of good
housing for every citizen, Ontario needs an
average of 90,000 new units each year from
now until 1970"-90,000, Mr. Chairman, not
75,000 according to the estimate of the
Provincial Treasurer, but 90,000 units.
How much more abysmally short are we
going to find ourselves on the basis of the
Minister's forecasted starts of 7,500 units in
1968? How much more short we are going
to find ourselves on the Provincial Treas-
urer's estimate of demand compared with the
Canadian conference on housing's estimate
of demand is about 3.3 times, Mr. Chairman.
The number of units that the Ontario housing
corporation should be building under the On-
tario Treasurer's estimate of demand is about
25,000 if we are going to meet the 25 per
cent proportion of public housing to total
housing for the province. So we are even
further behind than the estimates of the
Canadian conference on housing would
suggest.
But in his speech this afternoon, Mr. Chair-
man, let me remind you that the Minister
said, in talking about the economic council
of Canada's forecast of 200,000 national
starts per annum needed up to 1970, that
this would amount to approximately 80,000
units per annum for Ontario. Why the two
figures of 80,000 in one document— the
Minister's estimates— and 90,000 in the Pro-
vincial Treasurer's Budget, Mr. Chairman?
This has not been explained. It is not a very
wide gap, tliat 10,000 difference in number,
but it is illustrative of the confusion that
exists in the housing field in which the sta-
tistics keep changing, the forecasts keep
changing, and the promises get ever further
and further ahead of the performance.
JUNE 13, 1968
4443
The Minister's assertions that we were do-
ing more than has ever been done before in
the past, or more than other provinces, do
not gainsay these shocking shortfalls. The
gap between promise and performance means
that the pressure on rents and home prices
for everyone will continue to grow.
Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, about
what is happening in the housing market
currently. According to central mortgage and
housing corporation, the number of housing
starts on a seasonaly adjusted basis in On-
tario in April, 1968, was 69,200 expressed as
an annual rate, down almost 10,000 com-
pared to the 79,400 units the month before,
again expressed in an annual rate. One indi-
cator of what is going to happen later this
year in the housing field is the change in
the number of NHA loan approvals. In April,
these dropped by 56 per cent to only loan
approvals covering 2,500 dwelling units from
4,000 in April last year. In the January to
April period of 1968, the loan approvals in
terms of dwelling units fell by 19 per cent
compared with the same period a year
before.
Under the pohcies, Mr. Chairman, of the
high-interest NHA mortgages set by Ottawa
we are squeezing more and more families
out of the private housing market in this
province. In 1963, according to central mort-
gage and housing corporation, families with
incomes under $7,000 per year represented
almost three quarters of all National Housing
Act borrowers, but in 1967, Mr. Chairman,
they represented just over one quarter. I use
that period of time, 1963 to 1967, because
in 1963, Mr. Chairman, we were well into
a period of expansion, and incomes were
rising and home activity was picking up.
Families with incomes of less than $5,000
per year dropped out of the picture com-
pletely in that period, Mr. Chairman, because
of the shortages in housing and the steadily
rising interest rates. The average family
income for an NHA borrower in 1967 was
$8,300 and I suspect that in the province of
Ontario it was somewhat higher. Dr. Albert
Rose, who is himself a member of the board
of Ontario housing corporation, says that it is
fair to argue that the housing crisis has spread
as far up the income distribution as the 75
per cent mark if not higher on the scale.
Mr. Chairman, many members of the Legis-
lature are famihar with what has been hap-
pening in the private housing market as a
result of the scarcity and the high interest
rates and the high down payments and the
higher monthly carrying charges. They have
instance after instance of hardship and depri-
vation in the private market. Looking at the
Metropolitan Toronto housing registry figures,
Mr. Chairman, we can see the extent to which
families are shut out of the housing market
by the policies carried on by Ottawa and
Toronto. At the end of 1967 the registry
had 10,000 applications on file for family
units, 4,800 for senior citizens units, for a
total number of applications of 14,8Ck). Be-
tween the end of the year and the end of
March, 1968, the registry received an addi-
tional 3,200 applications for family housing
and 875 for senior citizens, for a total of
additional applications of 4,000. But in the
meantime, in that period, Mr. Chairman, one
has to deduct from that total of applications
on hand at the end of March, those who were
housed by the registry, or found housing on
their own, or those who were found to be
not interested. As a result of the survey
of need or demand that OHC carried out
for Metropolitan housing registry, 5,400
applications were wiped oflF the active file.
I think that it is important to point out,
Mr. Chairman, that at the same time as OHC
was weeding out inactive applications, an-
other 3,200 had come in for family units. For
senior citizens' units there were 460 applica-
tions called out as inactive, not interested or
who found their own housing; almost double
the number were filed in the three-month
period as were culled out. The difference at
the end of March compared to the end of
December is fractional. The total number of
applications on hand as of March 31 stood at
13,100, down from 14,800 at the end of 1967.
Mr. Chairman, in my own community of
Windsor, the extent of the phght is illus-
trated by the number of applications that
were on file at the Windsor housing auth-
ority in April. These totalled 1,500, of which
1,000 were for family units and 500 for
senior citizens' units. I might say that of
the 1,000 applications for family units, about
350 were applications from families headed by
women.
What is the Minister's answer, Mr. Chair-
man, to the housing crisis? In the Budget
speech and in his own estimates he talks
about adding to the OHC advances, which
will mean spending $400 million in all on
housing in Ontario in 1968 and 1969, equal-
ling all tliat the housing corporation has spent
since it was set up in 1964.
Let us take a look at the figures that the
Minister and the Provincial Treasurer have
offered to us as their recognition of the ex-
tent of the problem in Ontario. The Provin-
cial Treasurer said in his Budget speech: "We
4444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have provided the funds to carry out the
greatly expanded and accelerated public pro-
gramme which is required. Our total capital
advances to the Ontario housing corporation,
and to the Ontario student housing corpor-
ation have been increased more than 30 per
cent to over $62 million for 1968 and 1969.
This level of spending by our agencies will
bring in over $300 million of CMHC capital
financing. Thus, the total housing programme
for next year will amount to almost $400
million".
But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
spending on housing for families and senior
citizens, what are we talking about, assuming
that the Minister is successful in getting all
the money which he says Ottawa has prom-
ised him? We are talking about an expendi-
ture of just over half of the $400 miUion,
an expenditure of $215 million on housing
for those who are in the greatest need of it,
Mr. Chairman— families and senior citizens.
Another $100 million is going into student
residences and community housing projects.
Land assembly— which is to increase the
supply of serviced land and stabilize housing
costs, as Malvern was presumably designed
to do over the last 14 years— will take up a
further $73 million. That is quite an inflation
in itself. Mr. Chairman, with the extent of
this province's housing programme for 1968,
I fail to see how the province's plans for land
assembly are going to generate spending of
$73 million. During 1967, according to
CMHC again, the federal contribution to land
assembly under section 35(a), in the province,
amounted to only $1.8 million, providing 505
lots, and the actual outlay reached $3 miUion
for land assembly. This provided a total of
22.98 acres of land in 1967. How, in 1968-69
does the Minister propose to escalate spend-
ing to $73 million from approximately $3
million in the previous year?
I would also like to point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that the increase in advances to OHC
and the Ontario student housing corporation
are not really as great as the Minister wouM
have us believe. In 1966-67, OHC received
an advance of $12.2 million, in 1967-68, $41.5
million, and in 1968-69, it is estimated that
the corporation will receive an advance of
$49.8 million. But the Minister fails to point
out that while the capital advances will rise
by $8.3 million for OHC, the percentage in-
crease is not 30 per cent but 20 per cent in
fiscal 1968-69, compared to the previous year.
The increase in advances in 1967-68 were
three and one-half times as great in dollar
terms as the increases proposed in the current
fiscal year, so that the Minister, in terms of
what he did in 1967-68, is doing less in 1968-
69 by approximately $21 million— the differ-
ence in the size of the increases between
these two years.
The Premier of this province, Mr. Chair-
man, said that he had postponed Ontario's
entry into medicare because housing took
higher priority. It has taken the higher
priority, to the extent of $8.3 million more
in spending by OHC this year compared
with last.
This is just another miscellaneous instance
of the manner in which the housing statistics
of the province are handled by the Minister.
On January 30, 1967, in the Northern Daily
News, he stated that he was considering re-
moval of the 5 per cent sales tax on building
materials. On April 13, 1967, Mr. Chairman,
the Minister was quoted as telling the Legis-
lature that he will not recommend the
removal of the 5 per cent sales tax on build-
ing materials, because other industries would
ask for the same relief. In Hansard, when
asked if it was advisable to remove the sales
tax on building materials, he rephed that it
was a matter of opinion.
I suppose that in my position, on housing materials
I would say yes. But, on the other hand, the
minute we say yes, somebody says: "Well, we are
entitled to have it removed also." So where do you
go from there?
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have not gone
very far from there because the Minister has
left us once again with a promise to con-
sider—early in 1967, and then later in the
year. His performance shows that he has
reversed himself.
What became of the proposals to develop
satellite cities? I have already touched on
that with respect of Malvern. In December,
1967, Mr. Brady of OHC was quoted as say-
ing that four satellite communities with total
populations of 100,000, are planned to be
situated from 50 to 100 miles from Toronto.
In September, 1967, the Prime Minister in a
campaign speech said that within five years
the provincial government will be developing
satellite cities, and this would short circuit
land speculation and red tape. "The provin-
cial government will buy parcels of marginal
farm land and plan the satellite cities. This
is under study by Ontario housing corpora-
tion," he said.
On May 24, 1968, the Toronto Daily Star,
reporting the Minister's speech in Barrie,
said that the Minister last night distributed
the text of a speech promising that the prov-
ince will soon start developing large new
.satellite cities— but he left the promise out of
his speech when he delivered it. He did say
JUNE 13, 1968
4445
in his speech: "We do not propose to let
the housing crisis of the moment push us into
a programme where prudence would be sac-
rificed in the interests of expediency. "The
rapid growth of urban population will make
the satellite cities necessary," he said, "but
we cannot permit urban sprawl, its ugliness
and disadvantages, to mar our cities." I won-
der, Mr. Chairman, in the light of that, if
the Minister is really thinking of green-belt
instead of housing for the Malvern project?
Mr. Chairman, I believe, and the members
of the New Democratic Party group believe
that the only answer to the housing crisis in
Ontario is for the Prime Minister to relieve
his Minister of Trade and Development of
his responsibility for the Ontario housing cor-
poration immediately, and to set up a full-
fledged department of housing and urban
development, with a Minister who is prepared
to tackle the problems of land costs, mortgage
costs, municipal service costs, low-rent hous-
ing, tenants' rights, and the whole ball of
red tape which has caused interminable
delays in putting roofs over our people's
heads.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development ) : Mr, Chairman, in order of
delivery— I would not say importance— of the
rebuttal this afternoon, perhaps I could be
permitted to make a few comments. I would
like to deal with the quotations from many of
the speeches that my hon. friend from Scar-
borough East read this afternoon. I sense that
in the delivery and with the interjections from
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha),
there was an attempt to drive a wedge
between our department and the new Depart-
ment of Treasury and Economics, and I want
to assure you that this cannot happen. I
want to assure you that we are in complete
co-operation at all times. Perhaps the member
did not know this, but he quoted from my
Deputy Minister's speech in New York or
New Jersey. I will just start it, because I
think we have the article— I will not go all
through it. He said: "The national policy
fostered the establishment of industrial plants
in Canada to supply a Canadian market
which in the absence of tariffs will probably
have been regarded as just one more Ameri-
can market area to be served from home
base," and so forth and so on.
Mr. Chairman, that was not my Deputy
Minister. That article was written by Mr.
Ian MacDonald in our Ontario '67. That was
taken from Mr. MacDonald's comments. I
think also the article that the hon. member
is quoting from was— and he can correct me
if I am wrong— a magazine article written by
Mr. MacDonald called: "Foreign Ownership
—Villain or Scapegoat?" He gave both the
cons and the pros and the negatives and the
affirmatives. And if you had read all the way
through, here is what Mr. MacDonald said in
one paragraph:
Turning to foreign investment, however,
we find two significant differences. First,
Canadians themselves pursuing a higher
rate of growth for their own country, have
catered to American business instincts, and
facilitated American ownership. And sec-
ond, it is well within our power to change
the degree of foreign investment. At the
same time, there is one very good reason
why even the most anxious have hesitated
before attempting to change the foreign
investment position. We have not succeeded
in discovering how to have our cake and
eat it too, along vdth the added guarantee
the supply of cake will be adequate to
satisfy our expanding appetites.
I have another one here that I think is very
interesting— so that we make sure that Mr.
MacDonald and I are on the same wave-
length. I am not suggesting that these are
unworthy objectives, but I am pointing to the
confusion which arises when they are all
lumped together. It is clear that these objec-
tives are not necessarily mutually dependent;
a nation can be sovereign without being
independent; it can formulate distinctive
policies without producing a national identity;
it can have a national identity without being
sovereign, and it can do all these things or
not do them, without necessarily damaging
the nation's economic interests.
It is of primary importance to examine
each of these causes of concern with a view
to seeing which of them— economic interest,
national sovereignty, independence, distinc-
tive policy, and national economic identity-
have a bearing on the foreign investment
issue. Only in this way can we determine
what, if anything, foreign investment offends
against and, more important, what policies,
if any, we should adopt.
Later on in the hon. member's speech he
touched on a comment made by Professor
Harry Johnson, and I think we should see
here what Harry Johnson had to say on the
other side. But before we get to Harry John-
son, Mr. MacDonald again said:
The suggestion then is that we have put
our boring to good use by increasing our
capacity to produce, as well as our eco-
nomic wealth. And, even if the benefits
cannot be precisely measured, they are real.
4446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The story was reported recently of a highly
successful Canadian computing firm that was
unable to find capital in Canada. It is now 70
per cent owned in the United States. Would
it really have been better for Canada if that
firm had failed— better dead than American?
Whatever the origins of capital, such firms
provide employment and income for Cana-
dians in the same way as any other businesses.
And C. D. Howe is reported to have remarked
that he never examined the nationality of a
dollar bill— and he was a pretty good Liberal,
I think.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Yes, but he
could be wrong!
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think you would ack-
nowledge he was a pretty good Liberal.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: All this may have
betrayed the absence of reasonable prudence.
His policy was perfectly sound as far as
economic growth, employment and income
creation in Canada is concerned. Now, more-
over, as Professor Harry Johnson has argued,
Canada receives the additional benefit of
taxes paid to the Canadian Exchequer.
Private investment can contribute to eco-
nomic welfare in two ways. It yields an
income to the investor— a private benefit; and
a tax revenue to government— a social benefit.
If investors invest at home, the country gets
both benefits. If they invest abroad, the host
country, rather than the investing country,
collects the social benefit and I think this is
where Canada fits in.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and read a
few other comments from Harry Johnson and
a few others. But I just want to clear the
point with my hon. friend here from Scar-
borough East that I do not like to read from
articles— I would sooner be original, but I am
just saying-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Next time you get up, if
you go to read-
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): What hap-
pened to the original housing programme?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If you are going to read,
take both sides of the book and then we will
get the proper story. Now, I just wanted to
clear that point because I did not want any-
body to get the impression that there was a
difference between the young man who came
from the university into government life, and
decided that he could not get along with the
economics Minister. In fact, I learned a great
deal from him and I think he learned a great
deal from me. And we consult with each
other almost on a daily or a weekly basis
at least, and I can assure you that we will,
continue to do so.
Mr. T. Reid: What did he learn from
you?
Hon. Mr. Randalh Now, we are going to let
you make a speech in a few minutes if you
will just let me finish. I respect the opinions
of my friend from Scarborough East, but to
be honest with you I have hved too long with
reality to accept theory in this hard, cold
world we are in today.
Because there is not a province, there is
not a nation I know of that is not advertising
morning, noon and night and trying to do
what we are doing to make sure that we get
our share of the world markets, and create
our share of the jobs. And just as long as I
have this job— I think I am like Mr. Howe— I
am not interested in where the dollar is com-
ing from. I am interested if the dollars are
interfering with our sovereignty, at this level
as well as the federal level. If we do not
like what is happening, we should sit down
and prepare some guidelines.
I think before Mr. Winters went out of
oflBce, he sent out 6,000 letters to manu-
facturers and asked them a number of ques-
tions. One, of course, was: "What is bothering
you when you ship your goods to other
countries? What are the hidden, non-tariff
items?" And I think, perhaps, we have got
some of those difficulties right here for
foreigners doing business with Canada. So it
is a two-way street.
Canadian investment in 1965 and 1967 is
an interesting figure that I think I should
point out to you because I hear this story
that Canadians are timid— they will not in-
vest a dime in their own country. Do not
believe it. I will give you some figures.
Here is 1965-67, combined new manufac-
turing establishments, plus expansions. In
1965-67 Canadians invested $828,795,872 out
of their own bank accounts which we talked
about this afternoon. Foreigners at the same
time invested $800,407,600. That figure is
very close to a figure I quoted last year in
this House-about $690 million in 1964 and
1965 was Canadian and $692 million was
American or foreign. But the foreign invest-
ment at that time accounted for roughly two-
thirds of the jobs created. Of this figure I gave
you here for 1965 and 1967, the Canadian
JUNE 13, 1968
4447
investment created 82,242 jobs; the Ameri-
cans, 115,362. So I do not think we can tell
them to take home their money and take
home their plants, that we do not want to
play ball any more.
Mr. Nixon: How much did we invest out
of the province?
Mr. T. Reid: Have you studied the Mexican
system?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know all about it, I
have been down there several times. I would
not trade it for ours for free.
Mr. T. Reid: Does not the Mexican gov-
ernment have some control over their com-
panies?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, but look where they
are. They do not have an economy like we
have. Mr. Chairman, I might say that I was
not a disciple of Walter Gordon, but I have
known the gentleman for 30 years. In fact,
he was my auditor for a number of years, so
I know him very well. But I did not share
his political religion, or his political philoso-
phies, and I think when he got together with
the eight leading economists across the
country, they disappointed Mr. Gordon. I
think when they were finished, he was rather
disappointed because they came up with
some interesting facts.
They say that the Watkins report realizes
our dependence upon foreign capital; they
acknowledge this in no uncertain terms. They
have not said what we can do about it, but
they acknowledge that we have to have it.
And Watkins says also this: It is not too much
foreign capital that is worrying the Watkins
people, but how we want them to operate in
Canada.
So far, even Ottawa cannot tell our foreign
investors how they want them to operate and
I can understand the problem. I sympathize
with the people up in Ottawa that have to
make this decision, because if they make tlie
wrong one and we do not get any investment
in this country and have to depend on our-
selves, then I think we are going to have
much slower growth.
I think Mr. Pearson, the former Prime
Minister, a year or so ago said we could settle
for a 30 per cent lower standard of living.
He may have been exaggerating a little, but
I do not think he was too far o£F the mark.
I would also suggest that if I am in the
wrong league, I am in a good league, because
every Premier of every province in Canada
has been abroad and has been in the United
States looking for foreign capital. Mr. Winters,
time after time, has made statements that
they welcome foreign capital. Maybe that is
why he decided to get out of pohtics, I do not
know. I have not heard Bud Drury, the Min-
ister of Industries, say he did not welcome
foreign capital.
One of the things that I believe we should
look at and be very conscious of when we
analyze the Watkins report— and I have not
read it thoroughly, but I am going through it-
is that he is more interested in what is hap-
pening with multinational companies, what
kind of an influence they have on our
economy or anybody else's.
I just suggest to you— and I guess you are
an advocate of Marshall McLuhan's; I assume
you would be— Marshall McLuhan says that
this is a global village and this is where I
agree with Marshall. I do not understand
him, but I agree with him on this. I agree
witli him that the world is getting smaller
and, as the world gets smaller, we are not
going to be as parochial as we were in the
past. If we have multinational companies,
we have to recognize they do have an influ-
ence in every country they operate in, in-
cluding Canada. If we want them to operate
here, then we should set up some guidelines,
but it should be set up on an international
basis, and this is not hard to do, in my esti-
mation.
We have set up the international monetary
fund— that is an international fund that is
administered in all countries. You have the
world bank. The United Nations has many
agencies operating to make sure that they do
not damage each other's economy. Surely, I
would say to my hon. friend from Scarborough
East, if we are worried about foreign invest-
ment, then let us sit down and figure out
how we can do something about it.
I do not have any answers, to be honest
with you. I do not see anything wrong with
what we are doing, but I am trying to find an
answer for my critics. I want these fellows
to sleep at night. I know they are lying
awake tossing and turning, worrying about
sovereignty. I tell you, I like to sleep at night,
so I do not worry unless I can do something
about it. So I just want to leave that thought
with my friend from Scarborough East. As I
say, I respect his opinions— I cannot buy
them, but I respect them.
Turning to my friend who went through a
mathematical exercise today, it would be
impossible for me to answer all the questions
he posed, because it was sort of a buckshot
approach to the facts and figures. I just say
to him— do not believe everything you read
4448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in the newspapers. If you do, if it criticizes
you you will throw it in the wastebasket, and
if is good, you will go out and buy 5,000
copies and make sure your friends all get it.
I just want to touch on a couple of things
that the hon. member for Windsor West
brought up. He talked about the 14 years'
delay at Malvern.
I wish some day you would go out and
talk to Mayor Albert Campbell. When that
land was jjought that was miles from the
lx)undary lines of Scarborough proper. No-
body in his right mind would have run a
trunk sewer out that far, leaving all the vacant
land in between until the rest of the muni-
cipality was developed. Also, my friend, the
Don Valley expressway was not built, so the
people could not get in and out. It is bounded,
I think, on the north by Sheppard Avenue, or
by Finch, I forget which. None of those
highways had any accessibility into that
Malvern property. It took 11 years to de-
velop Don Mills as it is today, so I can assure
you that the land was not bought, as far as I
know, in 1952 with the intention that they
would build houses on it the day after.
Mr. Peacock: I never said that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, yes, you intimated
all the way through, 14 years' delay.
I just want to clear up something else too.
You said there was no mention made about
public housing of senior citizens. Let me
assure you that in any development that we
have there will be an integrated community:
senior citizens; public housing; the HOME
programme; I hope some $35,000 or $40,000
houses; high-rise apartments; a golf course;
plus commercial, industrial. All those things
that we need to make up, what I call a
satellite community, and not a satellite city.
I do not think we have got to satellite
cities as yet, and I do not like to refer to
Malvern or even Saltfleet over here as a
satellite city.
As far as the $15 million profit is con-
cerned, I have not sat down with a lead pen-
cil to figure out whether we will make that
kind of money or not. But let me assure you
when we go in to develop the property, we
are going to sell off the commercial. We are
going to sell off the industrial. We are going
to sell off the golf course. We are going to
sell off some of the high-rise. We are going
to sell off land for $35,000, and $40,000
homes.
With that profit, we are going to pour it
back into the land, where we can build a
community centre; where we can build the
schools; the hospitals, if necessary, will come
out of that profit. We can lower the cost of
land to the people that will have HOME lots
on there. So this is the reason for the big
major development areas, with the govern-
ment being the developer.
Mr. Peacock: For services too?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, all services. Yes,
everything. So I just want to show you we
are not trying to put ourselves in the position
of a private entrepreneur making $15 million
selling land. We are using that money to
pour it back into the facilities that, perhaps,
in the past, in many communities, have been
neglected.
Mr. Peacock: Including public housing?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, including public
housing. We have now sold the fact that
public housing should be in any area we
develop and this is what we are doing. Senior
citizens' and pubhc housing. So we will put
public housing in any area that we develop.
Today a comment was made with refer-
ence to Bramalea's pricing on lots going so
high because of the long wait. I think that
is what was said. I want to assure the House
that the day we bought those lots and paid
for them was the day we decided what the
selling price would be.
That price was already established. We
did not price them nine or ten months later.
We priced it the day we gave them the
cheque for the 1,600-and-some-odd lots.
Mr. Trotter: Yet you paid $6,700 a lot.
Hon. Mr. Randall: $6,600 for the first 1,666
and we have an option on 5,000 more at
$4,000, including services. This is a good
deal in anybody's language. I would take
that deal myself.
Mr. Peacock: Why do you not go out
and—
Hon. Mr. Randall: That was the selling
price on the land across the road from the
lots that we bought. And we established that
as the selling price, the market price.
An hon. member: So you made $2,000?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We got a good bargain.
What is wrong with it? We put it back in
the servicing. We are putting our money-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There are other facili-
ties to go in there and we have developed
the rest of Bramalea.
JUNE 13, 1968
4449
Mr. Chairman, just to wind up some of
these comments, I want to clear one thing
that the— another thing that the hon. mem-
ber brought up was Flemingdon Park. May
I just clear up something on Flemingdon
Park?
I will read you— I have two or three papers
on Flemingdon Park. Perhaps 1 will get a
chance to give you the rest as we go through
the estimates, but here are the final two
paragraphs:
At the present time the installation of
underground services in Flemingdon Park
has been completed by Central Park es-
tates on behalf of Ontario housing cor-
poration. Work is now commencing on the
construction of services above ground such
as roads, curbs, and so forth. It is antici-
pated that servicing will be fully com-
pleted by August of this year— we are right
on schedule. An application for rezoning
of the lands has been made by Central
Park estates and this is currently being
processed. Immediately the necessary re-
zoning has been obtained, Ontario housing
corporation will arrange for construction of
the dwellings to commence on a condo-
minium basis. In view of the magnitude
of the development, construction will be
undertaken on a phase basis with com-
pletion anticipated in two or three years.
However, the first dwelling will be avail-
able in 1969.
Now I do not think we could have moved
any sooner than that and we believe that
the programme has moved along as rapidly
as we can push it.
The property is divided by the Don Valley
parkway as you know. Some are on one side
of the highway and some are on the other side.
We have to get a rezone by North York as
soon as we have our plan of development.
They do not know what we are going to
put up there yet. If we are going to put up
five high-rise buildings surrounded by town
houses they want to have a look at oiu" plans
before they give us our complete rezoning.
Mr. Trotter: Will the government take
long?
Hon. Mr, Randall: Oh no. We do not think
it will take long. We are optimistic.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): You have an
option on 5,000 lots in Bramalea.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are in power be-
cause we are doing the right things. We do
not push the panic button.
Hon. J. R. Simonelt (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): You should not
ask that question.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Now let me just finish
to my friend from Windsor.
I want to show him that when he talks
about the $400 million, that money is avail-
able as we want to draw on it and we are
not drawing on it until we can use it. The
money is there. We have been advised by
central mortgage and housing this is the
amount of money available. We are drawing
on it as fast as we can get it. Now, if that
$400 million could be spent immediately
within this year, we say it is going to gen-
erate about $1.5 billion worth of construction
in this province, or $1.5 biUion in spending
power in this province. If you doubt that
figure, I am just adding four to a figure used
by your national leader. Tommy Douglas, in
the debate the other night.
He said spending power is $2 for every $1
in construction. I think he is a little con-
servative for a change. He is never that con-
servative as a rule. I think it would generate
$5 or $6 per $1 in construction and so I
tell you that the housing programme is
moving along. The money is available. Cen-
tral mortgage and housing, as I said this
afternoon, made these funds available and
we are using them just as quickly as we can
put the housing into operation on the lots
that are serviced from day to day.
We cannot do any more than we are doing.
We are going as fast as we can go. I have
no intention of pushing any panic buttons
for anybody. The figure is as I quoted. We
will live with that. As far as I am concerned,
I have never made a promise to this House
that I have not kept.
I have never gone to a municipality and
said we will do something we have not done.
Let me remind you once more, we respect
the fact that municipalities elect their own
officials. If the municipalities pass a resolu-
tion requesting housing, whether it be for
senior citizens or whether it be for pubhc
housing, we are on schedule or ahead at
every municipal request.
Now I do not think you can ask any
more of any organization. It is all right to
sit here and say we need 80,000 houses a
year, or 200,000 houses a year. If you do
not have to build them, that is fine. I just
say to you, as I said to your leader last
year, your type of government was in power
in Saskatchewan for 17 years and you built
4450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
500 houses. If you look at what is happening
in Great Britain today-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Randall: If you look at Great
Britain today they have a greater housing
problem-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: —they have a greater
housing problem in Great Britain today than
in the history of the country. I was in
Sweden in October and I will tell you, there
are 150,000 people in Stockholm waiting for
housing and they are going to wait nine
years. So do not tell me that you or Tommy
Douglas have all the answers for housing.
Believe me, it is not easy and I appreciate
it is not easy.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I ask the
Minister if he really means to say to the
Legislature that he is going to generate
$400 million of spending on housing in this
province and on land assembly too and out
of all of that, produce 7,500 family and
senior citizens starts this coming year, for
$400 milhon.
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. Again you have got
your mathematics wrong. I simply suggested
the $400 million is available for housing.
If the lots were here now, if we could spend
the whole $400 million in one year, this is
what would happen. But we have to have
continuity in this programme. We have to
say to the federal government: "You cannot
turn the tap on and ojS. If you are going to
be our banker, how long is that 90 per cent
going to be available."
If the 90 per cent is not there then we
cannot go ahead and buy land, we cannot
service. We do not know what we are going
to do unless the money is there. The discus-
sion we had in Ottawa was for a figure we
could shoot at. And we are shooting for the
$400 million. I do not think we can spend
$400 million in one year. I do not think it
is physically possible to put up that much
construction.
Mr. Peacock: If the $400 million is assured,
or could be assured, then how many starts
could the Minister promise for family and
senior citizens' units?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Exactly what I out-
lined today.
Mr. Peacock: Only 7,500.
Hon. Mr. Randall: The 7,500 starts-that is
what we are talking about, plus what we
already have underway.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I might start
on vote 801 with the comment that I was
delighted to hear the Minister's deep analysis
of the question of foreign control of our
economy and his very well-thought-out poli-
cies.
His analysis is that we would be still
chasing Indians if it were not for foreign
investment. His policy is, for example, for the
Ontario development corporation "to encour-
age a greater movement of foreign companies
into Ontario by ojffering financial help if
necessary". He added, "Our new programme
is helping these foreign companies to locate
in tlie province."
I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that we have
for the record exactly what the Minister's
analysis is and where his policy stands on this
point. I think it is a significant difference in
policy between his party and my party and I
look forward to continuing debates on it.
Turning to the first estimate, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to commence my remarks by
referring to the publication Industry which is
published by the Canadian manufacturers
association. It is number 241, November,
1967. It has a very interesting quote in here.
The quote is:
Ottawa, which spent $6.5 bilhon in 1964,
will this year spend well over $9 billion, an
increase of over 40 per cent. Likewise, the
provincial government, which spent some
$4 billion in 1964, will spend about $6.2
billion, a jump of more than 50 per cent.
Municipal level spending has also increased,
Mr. Chairman. Turning to this fantastic
increase in provincial government expendi-
ture, I would like to refer the Minister to
some of his own estimates in the main office.
For example, Mr. Chairman, if we take the
maintenance estimates over the past five or
six years, we find between 1966-67 and for
the estimates next year, 1968-69, that the
maintenance expenditures will double. I
would like to ask the Minister how he can
explain such a doubling of this one item in
head office, of maintenance over a period of
two years. I thought this government was try-
ing to cut down on bureaucratic expansion.
Instead when I look at the Minister's main
office I find tliis fantastic increase. Doubling
is a lot in two years. Is there any explanation
for it in that particular sub-item?
JUNE 13, 1968
4451
Hon. Mr. Randall: The figure I have is
$125,000 last year and $134,000 this year, a
$$9,000 diflFerence. What figure are you refer-
ring to?
Mr. T. Reid: I was referring, Mr. Chair-
man, to the estimate for 1966-67 which was
$64,000 and which has jumped to $134,000
for next year. That is a doubling.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There was a re-arrange-
ment of departments in there. In that year,
housing was with us up on 950 Yonge Street,
and they are now down in their own office
with the corporation on University Avenue.
The only difi^erence in the maintenance costs
this year is a $9,000 increase. Some of that
maintenance was due to a re-arranging of
some of the departments such as housing.
Some of the cost was printing. Some of their
stationery was provided by us. It was a
re-arrangement of departments that made the
difference, according to the information I
have here.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me
that the Minister's argument would support a
conclusion that there should have been a
halving of that particular estimate rather
than a doubling. If you had added more
functions to your main ofiice, then I could
expect a doubling. But what the Minister has
just said, Mr. Chairman, is that he has pulled
out functions from his department over that
two-year period, and yet it doubles. I do
not quite understand.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me see if I can
explain myself again. We have added, but
we moved the housing corporation out. We
had to move them out to provide space for
new departments that we set up. For instance,
our Trade and Industry department ex-
panded, our Ontario development corporation
expanded, and when they came in separate
corporations, we had to provide the necessary
maintenance to operate these departments.
Now, I think, primarily, there are increases
in the cost of equipment, and the cost of
printing and stationery. I think the cost of
printing and stationery has gone up very
considerably in the last two or three years.
In fact, I think that every time we get a bill
for stationery, it has increased. I can only
comment on what we have this year for print-
ing and stationery. All branches in the main
ofiice have $25,900. I would doubt that there
would be half that in 1964. However, I vdll
get some further information to see where the
64 and 125 are, or where the difference is.
I do not have it here at the present time.
Mr. T. Reid: Sir, I think that would be
helpful if what the Minister has said is cor-
rect. I find it difiicult to understand, because
in the trade and industry division in 1966-67
the estimate for maintenance was $84,000,
and that increases by 50 per cent for next
year to $126,000. So I do not see how he can
argue that one reason for the maintenance
estimates going up over a two-year period
in his main ofiice is because he was doing, in
that two-year period, some of the maintenance
functions for divisions such as the trade
division.
Look at the trade and industry section, in
vote 405. We find that the maintenance esti-
mate has also increased by 50 per cent. So,
I would like more detail on this at a later
date.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will get it for you.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Under this vote,
would you discuss housing in the towns and
villages that have not got sewage?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. We are discussing
houses.
Mr. Spence: There is no possible chance
of getting CMHC money to build houses in,
say, villages or towns of 3,000?
Mr. Chairman: I think that would be
proper under vote 407.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I can talk to you about
it under vote 407. I think there is the pos-
sibility.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would also
like to know under whate vote I could dis-
cuss the equalization of industrial opportimity.
Mr. Chairman: Trade ministry— possibly
vote 405.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, on item 5, the
grant to the Ontario research foundation is
to be paid in amounts as authorized by the
Minister. I would like to inquire from the
Minister if this indicates that the Ontario re-
search foundation does not have a specific
grant to which it is entitled in full in this
fiscal year. Does it, instead, depend on the
dollar-for-doUar matching, or some such for-
mula, that is required of firms establishing
their research facilities in the Sheridan Park
operation. Perhaps that comes up later on.
I do not see a separate vote on Sheridan
Park. I am wondering ff it could be dis-
cussed under vote 401?
Two things: The first point is whether the
research foundation can look forward to a
4452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
definite amount of money regardless of the
participation of private firms in the research
estabhshment at Sheridan Park. And the
second thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I under-
stand the Minister has been asked by the
industrial research institute of the university
at Windsor to have a representative of the
province appointed to its board of directors.
The industrial research institute at the uni-
versity at Windsor has been carrying out, for
the southwestern Ontario region, applied re-
search contracts for private customers— again
on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. It
would like very much indeed to have a link
with the Ontario government, or through it
to the Ontario research foundation. I believe
that the Minister has declined the request of
the IRI to appoint anyone from the provincial
level to its board of directors.
Hon. Mr. Randall: At Waterloo or Windsor?
I am informed that this is a federal Depart-
ment of Industry programme with a number
of universities, and in Windsor an ex-em-
ployee of ORF is the general manager. The
reason we felt we should not participate, is
that we have a liaison with them. We do not
feel we need to have somebody stationed
there to work with them, or, in similar cir-
cumstances would they have somebody
stationed with us. We think that co-operation
between these university programmes is very
good. We recognize what is going on, and
our general manager, Mr. Stadelman, and his
staff, are in very close contact with the
national research council in Ottawa, and any
department in Ottawa that is operating these
research facilities in the various universities.
But I do not think that we would have
enough people on the staff to put somebody
into each one of those research centres. How-
ever, we will be in liaison with them at any
time required.
Now, you ask about the amount of money
they get. Prior to your coming into the
House, of course— I do not even know the
background of ORF— but great sums of money
have been given to ORF. I think the last grant
was about $3.5 milhon when the building
was sold over here on University Avenue,
and they moved out to the new research
centre. It was felt by the directors of ORF
as well as ourselves, perhaps in order to
further the work of the institution out there,
that we should help them by matching them
dollar-for-dollar with their earned income.
Now, I think there is an incentive here for
them to go out and do something for them-
selves, because you know it is really not a
government-owned enterprise. It is operated
by a board of businessmen. They have their
own investment fund, they have their own
teams out looking for research work, and
they do, as you know, a great deal of work
for this government. But, we think the basis
of giving them dollar-for-dollar is a fair way
of granting, and, as you will notice, we also
gave them $200,000 this year for special
equipment. If they come back to the depart-
ment, I would assume from here on in that
we would also help them to get further
equipment. I think that that is all I can tell
you on that. I think that the grants are
sufficient for the present time, and I might
say that the Ontario foundation people were
very happy with the way that we worked
out the problems of their finances.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, on the second
point. Do I take it that the foundation was
assured only of the $200,000 for special
equipment, and that out of the estimated
grant of $1.5 million, they will receive only
what they can raise to match contributions
from the private firms making contracts with
them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: They asked for the
matching grants formula, and they are very
happy with it. If there is extra equipment
required, we are quite prepared to look at
this. That is all they can spend. But if they
come back next year and say that there is
another piece of equipment, where do we
sit? We are quite prepared to look at it.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
explain to the Minister that the IRI in Wind-
sor University did not ask for staff from the
Minister's department, or that the ORF be
made available to the institute. But they did
ask for a representative of the province to sit
on its board of directors so that the provin-
cial interest could be heard in the field of
applied research locally. And, while the
federal government is putting up, I think,
$10,000, the institute operates in a some-
what similar manner to tlie Ontario research
foundation. It also is endeavouring to gen-
erate moneys on this dollar-for-dollar match-
ing basis, so that it anticipates a budget of
a considerably larger amount than the federal
grant. It would be very much interested in
having this kind of liaison through member-
ship on the board of directors of someone at
the provincial level.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, as I
understand it, Windsor, McMaster and Water-
loo have these facilities now. All I can say
to the hon. member tonight is that we will
JUNE 13, 1968
4453
meet and are meeting with them and are
working closely with them.
Whether we need to have representation
on tlieir staff, I do not know. I do not think
that we do at the moment, but we are quite
prepared to look at it and, if they need assist-
ance, we will help, because I think research,
regardless of where it comes from, is very
necessary to this province. Certainly we
cannot do it all out at ORF.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, in this vote
to spend $1.5 million towards the ORF.
The principle of making a levy of $1.5
million against the homeowners of this prov-
ince towards one segment of this economy is
wrong. This money should be taxed against
the industry that benefits from this. This is
a business expense. Those firms that are
benefiting from the ORF could charge this
as a business expense and it would cost them
nothing. Here we are making a levy against
the homeowners, who cannot pay the taxes
that they have to pay now, and charging them
for the $1.5 million grant to the industry.
Along the same line, a group of farmers
come to the government for help and the
government gives them the deaf ear, but we
take $1.5 million and give it to industry on
this vote. I am opposed to the principle of
giving to a certain segment of our economy
money for research from which they alone
will benefit.
Under this next, advertising and films—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, are we
through with Ontario research foundation?
Mr. Sargent: Are you going to take it sec-
tion by section?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, just so we finish
with one or the other.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister has to talk about
number one, if he wants.
Hon. Mr. Randall: If you want to finish
this, while we are on Ontario research foun-
dation, it is okay with us.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I will wait.
Mr. T. Reid: Just returning to that specific
vote that my colleague referred to— the ORF.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): I cannot hear the hon. member.
Mr. T. Reid: Can you not hear?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): You just
be patient and you will hear! It will be very
intelligent, believe me.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to agree with the need for more research in
our economy, and more technological inno-
vation which the Minister has referred to. It
is very important and we need it.
One question is: how should it be financed?
I would like to ask the Minister if he could
explain to me the difference between his
statement in the House today and the grant
hsted for the estimate next year. In the esti-
mate book, the grant for the ORF is $1,515,-
000 but in the Minister's statement on page
6, he says this: "This year the province will
provide a grant of $1,135,000 to the ORF
for research".
Does this mean the current year, or was
the Minister referring to the next fiscal year,
because there is a discrepancy there of $.5
million? I suppose he might say, "What is
a half a million bucks?" But I am interested
in that. Could the Minister answer that?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, the $1,135,000 is
the maximum grant, dollar-for-dollar, against
their earnings. Then there is the $200,000
that we granted them for new equipment.
And then there is $180,000 for industrial re-
search which they do; our department pays to
have it done. They have a staff that calls on
small industry rendering those services for the
trade and industry department, and we pay
$180,000 for that service. In other words,
we use the research foundation for some of
the research service. That makes up the $1.5
million that you find there.
Mr. T. Reid: That means that when we get
to vote 405, under the trade and industry
division, in that particular vote there is not
an amount for $180,000 paid directly from
that division of the department, for the ORF.
It comes in on the main vote, even though it
is for that particular division of the depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, in other words, that
department contracts that work to be done,
but it is in the same vote.
Mr. T. Reid: The second query I have, Mr.
Chairman, is that when one looks over the
research grant from the Minister's depart-
ment to the ORF starting in 1959, and going
on through for his estimate next year, one is
struck by the lack of growth in this par-
ticular expenditure.
Let me give a particular example, Mr.
Chairman. In 1962-63, which was six years
ago, the grant to the ORF was $1.54 mil-
lion. The estimate for next year is $1,515,000.
It would seem to me that if the Minister
4454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
really did believe as he stated in the state-
ment to us today on page 6, that, and I
quote:
Industrial research and technological
innovation are of vital importance to the
economic v^^ell-being of any industrialized
nation. Our efforts in this direction are
now being enlarged.
If the Minister really did believe in the
importance of research in our economic de-
velopment, as he professed this afternoon,
then surely there should have been a much
more rapid expansion of the grant to the
ORF?
I mentioned before that one can spot,
throughout his whole department, very large
increases in what I call bureaucratic expen-
ditures, such as postage, maintenance and so
forth. Yet when we look at this estimate, an
area in which the Minister says that he has
a vital concern, we find that really over a
seven-year period it is only increased by 50
per cent.
I am really saying, if you believe what
you say in your statement, surely you should
not be at the $1.5 million level, but at a
higher level, or have established greater in-
centives for the private sector to do even
more for the research on contract basis.
If that is a matching basis, that Sheridan
Park in the ORF, what explains the very slow
rate of growth in die contract research done
for private industry, as my colleague from
Grey-Bruce pointed out? And the slow rate
of growth, tied to the slow rate of industrial
growth by research— what ex-plains that?
Surely it is not a fast enough rate of growtli,
in the Minister's opinion. Wliat is the Min-
ister going to do to stimulate this type of
technological research?
Hon. Mr. Randall: First let me say that we,
as I said a few minutes ago, have granted
to the research foundation the money tliat
they say they require.
Going back to the discrepancy in the
figures. At one time-
Mr. Sargent: —that section of it—
Hon. Mr. Randall: When the government
—just a minute— when the government made
grants to universities for various research
facilities, a grant was made to ORF.
Back in 1960 there was an amount of
$205,491 included in the grants to univer-
sities; $205,315 in 1961; $278,363 in 1962;
$307,500 in 1963; the same amount in 1964;
and $300,000 in 1965. That money is dis-
tributed to the universities by The Depart-
ment of University Affairs, so it no longer
is in the figures that you are looking at here.
T,heir grants have been improved more than
the 50 per cent you are referring to and, as
I said a minute ago, they are getting all the
money they requested from the government
for these research services.
Mr. T. Reid: I would follow up on two
things, Mr. Chairman. That is very helpful.
Would it be possible to see what I call a
consolidated sheet of the research grants?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mr. T. Reid: Both in your own department
and in another department?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We will be bringing in
—I hope within the next two weeks— the re-
port of the research foundation, an up-to-date
report. You will have a statement on your
desk.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, it would be
very helpful. The final question I have in
this particular item is this. Do I understand
correctly the government's grant to the On-
tario research foundation is tied to a formula?
In other words—
Hon. Mr. Randall: The only formula is:
If they earn $1 million, we give them $1
million.
Mr. T. Reid: Okay.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Dollar for dollar.
Mr. T. Reid: I appreciate your reasons for
this incentive approach. Let us just put the
case bluntly.
There are a lot of American subsidiaries
in Ontario. A lot of their research is done
down in the United States, so they get it that
way. This has advantages to Ontario, too.
But if the Minister feels that the rate of
research done in private sector in Ontario is
not fast enough, as indicated by the fairly
slow rate of growth in the contracts they
make with the Ontario research foundation,
then surely the formula limits him in the
amount of expenditures he can put into that
type of research. In other words, I am sug-
gesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister
might re-evaluate that formula so that he can,
instead of reacting to external pressures on
the amount of his grant, take the initiative
and try to stimulate it.
JUNE 13, 1968
4455
Hon. Mr. Randall: I can just say this— and
I speak from my own experience in industry
—at one time our research was a bent hair-
pin and a screwdriver. TJien, as business got
a little bigger, we had a little research centre
of our own. I think this is the story of Cana-
dian research. Some of the bigger companies
came in and were able then to get their
research done here.
On the other hand, there are many com-
panies that, if they are subsidiaries of foreign
parents, will have their research done by the
foreign parent. These people wall benefit
from it. So, in effect, the Ontario research
foundation was set up to go out and assist
small industry to do the kind of research that
they could not do themselves. Now, as
industry grows, we have a lot more small
industries coming in. ORF has been able to
keep up its pace of looking after research
requirements for small industries.
On the other hand, there is a competing
force here and that is, as our own industries
get larger and more sophisticated, they do not
need ORF services. I think if you were to
go out to the research foundation today and
see the ten companies that are now located
there, you would find the reason they have
located there is they decided to do their own
research in Canada.
Now there is co-operation between ORF
and these people, but most of their money is
spent on their own research laboratory. We
have never stinted, insofar as Ontario re-
search foundation is concerned, to assist small
industry with sufiBcient funds and it is the
wish of their board of governors that they be
matched on this basis— for every dollar
earned, we grant them a dollar.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, could the Min-
ister tell me this? Of the six or seven private
companies using the facilities at Sheridan
Park, how many of those companies have
their equity more than 50 per cent owned
by foreign parent companies?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not think I have
that information here. I would be glad to
get it for you, though.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, would—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to make a few remarks on this vote hav-
ing to do with the general policy of the
department because, other than housing, it is
difficult to assess how useful this department
is to government and if we are getting the
value for the time and money put into the
department. We have discussed research. I
for one think that this is one particular item
that the government is justified in encourag-
ing because it is only by research and in-
dustry in the modem-day complex society
that we are going to get anywhere.
In fact, in Canada— I do not know about
Ontario, I only have these figures as coun-
tries as a whole— but we in Canada only
spend 1.1 per cent of our gross national
product on research and how to develop our
industry. In the United States they are very
conscious of this and they spend about 3.4
per cent of the gross national product trying
to find out how to improve their products
and trying to get a better piece of the market.
In Great Britain, they spend twice the
amount of gross national product that we do.
So we have a long way to go in this field and
I think that this is one point that this de-
partment should emphasize.
But what I highly question under this vote
is the amount of money that is spent on item
6. If less money was spent on number 6 and
more on number 5, I might feel that we are
getting more value for our dollar.
The latest figures that I have on what this
department has spent are two years old. I
think two years ago this department spent
almost $1.4 million on what we might call
public relations— goodwill. That $1.4 million
was for the entire department, but now we
are getting almost that amount of money—
$1,247,000- just under the main office.
I know that that is the main part of the
public relations, but it is not all of it and I
predict that they must be close to the figin-e
of $2 million on public relations. This is just
getting out of hand, because we have no way
of knowing or analyzing what we are really
getting for our money.
We know that we have our foreign offices
abroad and I hope we are not overlapping
with what the federal government does or
tries to do. But I suspect there is an over-
lapping, both in trade and industry and in
immigration, with the federal government.
This I do not know and I do not think the
officers of this department can really know.
But when a new department is formed— and
this is a relatively new department— they
tend to grow like wildfire. There seems to
be no control on their spending policies. For
example, Mr. Chairman, this department
spent $29,896 on banquets and entertaining
alone two years ago— and it has increased
since then. Again it is something that I think
they simply have to tighten down on. I know
4456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the Minister of this department is
probably the happiest Minister in the Cabinet.
He always seems to have a pleasant smile
and good salesman approach, but he has
good—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): He smiles more than I do?
Mr. Trotter: Well he smiles more than the
Minister of Reform Institutions smiles.
He has good reason to smile because he
has got the best of fun to gain friends and
goodwill for his department and, I hope, for
the province of Ontario. But newspaper, radio
and television advertising for Trade and
Development two years ago cost $855,000.
Also, Tourism and Information advertised to
bring the tourists, and to some extent we can
analyze by the number of tourists that come
into the province. But it is highly question-
able when we see government advertising. It
can be justified, perhaps, in some places— in
some of the advertising we do and I would
like the Minister to give tlie House some
idea of what advertising is actually attempted
by this department and what benefit he hopes
the province gets and if they have any way
of knowing what we really get
For example, in exhibitions alone, nearly
$128,000 was spent— and that amount has
increased. That is not counting Expo. That
is over and above anything that was spent
on Expo. In passing, I compliment the de-
partment for their efforts on Expo. I thought
our building there was good and I think, by
the number of people that attended, it was
worthwhile. It would seem that we, being the
banner province of Canada, should make the
effort that we did and I compliment the de-
partment for it, but I highly question some of
the ads that I have seen that are being used
in Europe.
I think the spending is getting out of hand.
Pamphlets and publications— $126,000; con-
ferences—this is over and above the banquets
—over $41,000. This is running into a lot of
money. It is continuing to increase and
there is no way to analyze what we are actu-
ally getting for our money. I would like the
Minister if he would— and I have remarks on
something else on this vote, Mr. Chairman—
but I would like to stop here and ask the
Minister if he would care to comment and
give the House any indication of what he
feels we are getting for our money?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, Mr. Chairman, I—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry we
are both on our feet at the same time, but
the member for Parkdale has hit a sore spot
with us here. This department is the propa-
ganda department for the government. You
are asking us to spend $1,247,000 of the
money of the taxpayers of the province of
Ontario to promote the government in every
area of public relations. They have done a
complete saturation of the PR field in pro-
motion. This money has been used to send
the Minister and his cohorts and tlie hon.
Prime Minister on junkets all over the world,
with camera crews following them. We sit
in our living rooms and watch them cavorting
in Europe, smiling for the cameras, living in
the lap of luxury—
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer ) : Frustrating, is it not?
Mr. Sargent: Very frustrating. And we
have to sit and eat this propaganda selling
the Robarts administration— nothing else but.
They have run the whole gamut, Mr. Chair-
man. They have even got the women in the
act— around the province tliey have organized
the women. You have got so low you even
have to organize the women. You go into
each area and you organize the women, using
the public funds to organize them as another
Tory—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not easy.
Jealousy will get you no place.
Mr. Sargent: But they are getting pretty
hard to swallow, all these things. Talking
about the great job you did at Expo last year,
you did a great job down there all right for
your buddy, the Ports of Call; they ended up
with about $90,000 profit.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Look at this, this is amazing.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: What is wrong
with that? What is wrong with profit?
Mr. Sargent: This is tiie man who guides
our finances. He is the pilot of the financial
affairs of this province and he makes a deal
through this Minister and gives the Ports of
Call 6 per cent of the gross. And the Ports
of Call did not put up one five cent piece.
They furnished nothing, and you even put
the money in the till. The more money they
lost, the more money they made.
That is the deal you made for us. Now
how smart can you be as the financial advisor
of the province? Can you say that is good
business?
r
JUNE 13, 1968
4457
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, on
a point of order. I am constrained to say the
hon. member is misleading the House.
Mr. Sargent: All right. You tell us the
facts then, will you please? I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that he is misleading the
House if he says that is wrong, because those
are the facts given to us in Hansard.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You have no affin-
ity for facts,
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I challenge
him to tell me the facts then, if he knows the
facts.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): What vote are
we on now?
Mr. Sargent: We are on the propaganda
end of this—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: So we are talking about
$1,247,000 to disseminate the good job that
you fellows think you are doing, but propa-
ganda is expensive machinery here. Every-
thing—the whole bit. We have magazine
advertising, pictures of the Prime Minister in
everything you pick up, and billboards across
the highways. In everything we do, we see
this snow job you are doing, using public
funds.
Out of this vote, Mr. Chairman, came
$70,000 to build a display in front of this
building which was there for a matter of
weeks and then torn down— $70,000 to put
up a scaffolding display out in front of the
building. This is tlie kind of waste going on
under this vote.
I, as a taxpayer, think it is a shocking
thing that you can spend $1.2 million of
money for nothing but promotion, for propa-
ganda. That is all it is, because you could
take that $1.2 million out and keep your
camera crews back home here and stop the
PM going across to Europe with the Minister
and all these junkets going on at public ex-
pense.
This is wrong, it is public money. If you
want to go across there pay your own way,
but do not use public funds.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Do you not think
Ontario is worth promoting? I do.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I will
deal first with the question from the hon.
member for Parkdale.
All I can say, with reference to advertising,
is this. As long as I have been in the mer-
chandising field I do not think there is any-
body can say to you that they have spent X
number of dollars and they have sold X num-
ber of goods.
If General Motors stopped advertising to-
morrow, I do not think they would sell an-
other automobile. They know they have to
advertise. You have to advertise if you want
to sell.
Mr. Sargent: They have a quality product
to sell.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, but they have
build it up by advertising and promotion. Do
not ever kid yourself.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Have
a little faith in good old Ontario, a quality
product.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me get the decimal
point straightened out— I am talking to my
friend from High Park here; Parkdale, I am
sorry, I apologize, Parkdale. In this province,
gross provincial product last year was $24.9
billion.
Mr. Sargent: That was none of your doing
was it?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Wait a minute now,
wait a minute— $24.9 billion. It is estimated at
$27 bilHon this coming year.
Maybe I am wrong, but I look at the prov-
ince as something that has to be sold— not
only at home, but beyond this jurisdiction—
if we want to sell the kind of products we
produce. If we want to sell the way of life
we have here; if we want to get our share of
foreign markets, I think we have to promote
the province.
When we talk about $1,247,000 for all of
these things that is a very small budget for a
$24.9 bilHon sale, believe me.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, that is silly.
Hon. Mr. Randall: All right. No, it is not.
Nova Scotia— little Nova Scotia— spends
$600,000 to $700,000 a year. New Bmnswick
—the last figure I had was something around
$300,000 a year, and they were told by
experts if they did not advertise they would
never get tourists down there, and they recog-
nize that. They have an office now in New
York, and they are talking about—
Interjections by hon. members.
4458
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Randall: Just a minute now, one
at a time. I will answer all your questions,
just give me time.
I am just suggesting that, on advertising,
if this province stops advertising we would
go out of business in more ways than one.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Randall: For a man in the news-
paper business you are leaving yourself right
out on a limb tonight. A lot of your customers
are going to pull the plug. No more advertis-
ing. The Owen Sound Bugle is going to go
right down the drain.
Let me just suggest tliis. If you look at any
of our national magazines, you will see ads
running in these magazines from almost every
state in the United States selling the various
jurisdictions across the line. And this province
has to do the same thing. We have been
selling tourism for many years very success-
fully.
Mr. Trotter: You said that is not your
department.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know I said it is not
my department. We have been seHing tourism
very successfully. You would not stop adver-
tising for tourists, so why should you stop
advertising to sell your merchandise?
Mr. T. Reid: That is under trade and indus-
try.
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, this is under trade
and industry. This is a programme of selling
the province of Ontario and its products.
Mr. T. Reid: There is no item for advertis-
ing-
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it is right in the
main vote, right here. We are looking at it
right now. That is what we are talking about.
This is the vote for the advertising.
I suggest to you that tiie amount of money
that we are spending is not out of line com-
pared to what other jurisdictions are spending.
This province has to compete if we want to
sell our merchandise, if we want to sell our
services.
I do not think anybody who has been in
the merchandising field, or even in public
office, would fail to recognize that this gov-
ernment could not go by, year in and year
out, widiout spending something to promote
its services, to promote its people, to promote
its products.
Mr. Sargent: But you are selling Robarts,
tliat is all you are selling.
An hon. member: It is a good product.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You show me an ad
where either the Prime Minister or I have
appeared— a national ad— bring it in. To my
knowledge, there is no $70,000 display out-
side the main door here advertising the
picture of the PM.
Mr. Nixon: No, that is The Department of
Public Works that does that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There is no picture out
here, where is the picture?
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I suggest, Mr. Chair-
Hon. Mr. Robarts: You mean you do not
want my name on anything?
Mr. Nixon: Just tlie pay cheques.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, if there
is any doubt we are getting value for our
dollar, the Starch report, which is one of
the analytical institutions on advertising, has
said, the readership in our advertising runs
90 per cent and we are within the top 15
per cent of readership in all the magazines
we have appeared in. The ads that appeared
in the New Yorker were rated at 150, which
is 50 per cent more than 100 per cent— which
is where they averaged them.
So I say to you that any money we spend
is spent to get the best results, the greatest
coverage, for the least amount of dollars. And
I would think that any government or any
province that did not advertise had just
better fold its tent.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
dwell on this again. This has been no answer
at all, because we are spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars, nay, when you look at
the government as a whole it goes into the
milhons, the money spent on public rela-
tions. For example, two years ago the travel-
ling bill of this department alone was about
.$340,000-that is the travelling bill, over and
above the items that I read having to do
with public relations.
Incidentally, I must admit the Minister is
a good talker, but they have one of the big-
gest telephone bills in the government. I
think they spend on telephone calls $55,000
JUNE 13, 1968
4459
—that was two years ago, and it is higher
now. When the Minister was giving me that
Hne there I realized why the telephone bills
were so high.
The unfortunate thing is that it seems to
be government money on a policy that does
not seem to have any definite goal. Sure
we want to bring business in, but there is
no question that the great volume of busi-
ness that is generated in this province and
on this province's behalf outside its own
borders was in existence long before this
department was ever born. Certainly you
cannot take credit for what prosperity this
province has had. I have been trying to get
something definite, something specific that
has happened-.
I do know that one or two companies, for
example, that went on the junket to Moscow
-I think that cost around $23,000-did get
contracts, not amounting to very much as
far as I know, but how much they are going
to be in the future we do not know. But
there is really no analysis done of this de-
partment.
Hon. Mr. Randall: How would you know
how much you were going to get if you did
not go?
Mr. Trotter: Well, you see, it is where
you put the limit on the amount of money
that you spend and it is literally going away
up. Now, we see the estimates increased
here. Each year they get higher and higher.
There seems to be no stopping it, and yet
we cannot get a proper analysis of what
this department really does for business.
As we come to other items in the esti-
mates of this department, we will be asking
what specifically is done. I have talked to
numerous businessmen and to most of them
this department is something of a joke. Many
of them are furious at the amount of money
that seems to be spent in a frivolous way,
and I am certain that it is. I do not think
that a modern government has any right
to be spending taxpayers* money at the rate
we are doing, around $1 million for one
department for newspaper advertising. This
banquet business and—
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
that is not just newspaper, that is all ad-
vertising,
Mr. Trotter: Newspaper, radio, TV adver-
tising, that is right. And I say around $1
million; I think it is actually higher now.
It was $855,000 two years ago. I do not
have the exact figures for an analysis of the
whole department for this year. I do not
think they are available. But the general
approach of government to this dealing with
business is frightful, and it is completely
wrong. There are so many things that money
is needed for today that this business of high
living and good-will has no place in govern-
ment unless you can show specifically where
you are getting some results.
Well now, Mr. Chairman, I had one other
item I wanted to deal with that has been
discussed under this vote, and under general
policy. You would think the Provincial Treas-
urer would be glad we bring these things up.
We do not like seeing our money wasted, and
it is about time the Tories quit wasting
money. There is no doubt in my mind that
this money on advertising is often deliberately
spent at election time. Time and time again—
Mr. Nixon: Right.
Mr. Trotter: Time and time again they
have regurgitated this trade crusade, "Buy
Ontario" and "Buy Canada," just before elec-
tions. They use the public moneys to per-
petuate themselves in power. But over and
above that, there is a continual waste of
public money by foohsh and wild spending.
Mr. Nixon: You drag out that old crusade.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, when they are
dealing with research-
Mr. Nixon: You have not had a quarter-
page ad since last September.
Mr. Trotter: I think this is one matter— I
do not know if it would come under research,
it certainly comes under the main oflBce being
discussed— and that is, I think, the concern
of many of us about tlie foreign control of
our industries. Ontario, being the main in-
dustrial centre of Canada, is involved more
than any other part of Canada. Because of
our split jurisdiction in many of these matters
between the federal and provincial govern-
ments, it concerns the government of Ontario.
There is no question that we need foreign
capital and if it is properly handled it is a
good thing. It is up to us to see how we can
get the most benefit from foreign capital, and
at tlie least cost. But no country in the west-
em world, or probably any part of the world,
that has used foreign capital has ever allowed
any percentage close to what we have done
in permitting our assets to he owned by
foreigners.
4460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Japan has had tremendous growth since
World War II. It has used foreign capital,
but it has very stringent controls on what
money comes in and where it is used. It is
the same with Great Britain. The Bank of
England is very cautious on how money is
invested within Great Britain, although they
seek it. The same with France. France,
the United Kingdom and Japan have gone out
and they have sought foreign capital. But
they have not been as stupid and as wasteful
as we have in losing the control of our assets.
You know when you look at the sorry state
of things— 60 per cent of our manufacturing,
59 per cent of our mining foreign controlled.
Petroleum and gas 74 per cent, automobiles
97 per cent, the rubber industry 97 per cent
foreign controlled. Chemistry 78 per cent
foreign controlled. I think it is important for
every Canadian, and particularly for this gov-
ernment of the province of Ontario, to take a
very hard look at how we encourage foreign
control or foreign investments of our industry
and our assets here in Canada.
I think that the Minister should be ashamed
of himself for making that remark, "You can-
not eat independence". It is not just a matter
of waving the flag. We have to remember
that a lot of people have given their lives as
well as their time and their assets in building
this country. And I do not see why we should
sit back foolishly, virtually without any con-
trols at all. The United States is literally
the home of free enterprise. It will not tol-
erate the things that we tolerate. Here, we
sat back and Labatt's could have been owned
by Americans. But the American government
said no. Here is a major industry that is still
Canadian because the Americans stopped
the takeover. We allow large American com-
panies to come into Canada. They form pri-
vate companies. As a result, because they
are called private companies, we cannot ask
what assets they have. The American gov-
ernment knows. They can ask. But we sit
back stupidly and say: "No, it is a private
company". You know, 743 of the largest pri-
vate companies in Canada are 60 per cent
foreign controlled. And yet, I emphasize,
Mr. Chairman, that the American government
enquires as to their assets, but we cannot.
Mr. Reilly: Are these national, or are these
provincial charters?
Mr. Trotter: It does not matter. They are
usually provincial charters, and the majority
are in Ontario. I cannot tell which one, but
I know from the way company charters are
obtained in all of Canada that certainly On-
tario does the land office business. That is
why we should be concerned more than any
other provincial government. We know that
we in Ontario have lost business because the
subsidiaries of American companies cannot
sell to China or Cuba. Even today in Sas-
katchewan the potash industry is sufiFering.
They cannot sell to Cuba, because the
American executives would go to jail, if they
allow, or let their Canadian subsidiary sell
to Cuba. Well, when are we going to have
the guts to stand up and run our own country
and run our own affairs? The Americans are
going to lay down their own guidelines to
suit their own purposes.
It is not a question of being anti-foreign
or of being anti-American. It is a question
of being Canadian, and we are going to have
little influence in the world, or be of little
use to ourselves, unless we can control our
own country and our own business future.
Where the flag of trade— the flag of traders
—goes, so the political flags of governments
follow. This has been the history of the
world and the present Minister's utter indif-
ference to this major problem is a shocking
situation. Unfortunately, it has been the
fault of the business community, regardless
of its politics, and it is time for vis to waken
up. I hope and pray that the younger gen-
eration growing up, the children that are now
in high schools, will not be as stupid and
foolish as their fathers and grandfathers were
in letting the control of their industries get
out of the hands of their own country. It is
going to be an increasingly serious problem.
I do not think that punitive measures
should be taken, but I think there are a
number of things that a government can do-
sometimes a provincial government on its
own, and certainly, in many instances, in con-
junction with the federal government, be-
cause it is a national problem. But the
influence of The Ontario Department of
Trade and Development can be very major,
simply because of the amount of industry that
is in this province and the influence that this
province has on the government of Canada
as a whole. That is, because of its numbers
and because of its wealth.
And there is a particular responsibility on
this Minister to be more Canadian, and not
be so facetious about the whole matter. If it
goes to the extreme, whereby we are com-
pletely at the mercy of the Americans, or
anybody else, I am certain that the younger
generation will rebel, and they will take far
more extreme measures trying to solve the
problem than we would want to see happen.
These business firms, with their great mergers.
JUNE 13, 1968
4461
are literally doing away with the small
entrepreneur, the small entrepreneur is really
something left in the books. There are not
too many of them left.
Business today is controlled by mergers,
and when these large companies are foreign-
controlled it means one of two things: Either
Canadian capital goes in from individuals
or the government goes in. This is what is
going to happen sooner or later, and the
thing for us to do is see to it that the best
of enterprise is saved. It will only be done
through government policies that strengthen
and encourage the private enterprise to in-
vest. But through our economic councils or
whatever department or section of this depart-
ment we use, we are going to have to ask
what is going to be done with the mutual
funds, and with the great funds insurance
companies have. Even, as the Watkins re-
port suggested, we should be in a position
to set up a trade export board, as many other
countries have done.
For example, suppose China wanted to buy
automobiles from a plant in Ontario, and the
Americans refused to let their subsidiaries
sell. Our export board, itself, would buy the
cars from General Motors, and then in turn
sell them to China. This is one practical way
that was suggested in the Watkins report, and
I just use that as an example. But it means
that government has to move in to help get
around laws that the Americans are forcing
on their own people. I believe it is called
the United States trading with the enemy Act,
that is giving so much trouble right now,
and that was passed in 1917. The Americans
are getting tougher and tougher all the time.
We are going to have to worry not just about
laws that were passed in 1917. There are
certainly going to be the guidelines being laid
down now, developed from the laws passed
last year.
I think this is a highly important matter,
and a heavy responsibility rests with govern-
ment today. I urge it on the government be-
cause I do not like to see extremes of any
kind in society. If we allow this serious situa-
tion to become a crisis, there is going to be
a tremendous reaction from young people,
who will soon take over this country. I do not
blame them.
Our resources have not been husbanded as
they should have been, and this Minister has
no intention, as I see it, of changing the
course that he is on. I believe that he is rush-
ing headlong towards a disaster. I regret to
hear the remarks that the Minister has made
tonight.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister advise what foreign services or what
offices we have? I mean like Dusseldorf or
Milan. Where are the various offices across
the whole bit here?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Can we finish vote 401?
We will get into that in the trade ministry
vote, 405.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about the adver-
tising films and so on in vote 6 here. We
have an item here last year— Inn on the Park,
$17,000. That is one item for entertaining and
dinners, and so on?
Hon. Mr. Randall: You mean in 1967?
Mr. Sargent: In the accounts, yes. In other
words, we have an item of $17,000— that is
$50 a day over the year in one hotel. I am
objecting to the fact that here in this prov-
ince, with the greatest boom time in the
history of our country, the debt last year was
$215 million. We went into debt $215 million
last year— that is almost $1.5 million a day
into debt. And here he has the nerve to
spend, and in a supplementary vote. We are
spending under the trade ministry $3 million,
and $1 million for promotion. It is a shock-
ing thing that the Minister says: "If we did
not do these things, we would go out of busi-
ness." What a ridiculous statement.
Under this vote, we are asked to spend $1.2
million for advertising. We have the greatest
huckster in the history of the province in this
Minister here. But the motivation is deceit-
ful, because you are selling nothing but propa-
ganda. We have these offices. I was in Los
Angeles a few weeks ago and I went into the
Ontario office there and asked—
Mr. Reilly: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
What vote are we on. Are we not on 401?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 401.
Mr. Sargent: Item 6 is pretty wide in this
vote! In tlie Ontario office in Los Angeles-
Mr. Chairman: Let us call it vote 405.
Mr. Sargent: The point is that we have this
government which has increased the sales tax
now to the limit. We have the hospital tax,
OMSIP gone up, the gasoline tax gone up,
everything is up and you have the nerve to
spend $4 million or $5 million here on promo-
tion! I think that you have gone the limit,
and are spending another $125,000 in Japan
4462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
under this vote for tlie Expo there in 1970.
You will be lost in the shuffle, but it is
$125,000 a week.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 401?
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
add one comment to what my colleague from
Parkdale stated. Last year at this time in
this department, the Minister of Trade and
Development made the statement that the
survey he had done, or seen, showed that
Americans do not buy Canadian goods
because they are the same as their own and
therefore, unless some different products are
produced, we will have trouble selling on the
American market.
I think that the remarks were made in the
context of his explanation of why so much
overseas development effort was made as
opposed to United States promotion.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that
one possibility explaining the results of this
survey is the statement that the chief econo-
mist made about the United States firms
coming up here and setting up firms and
duplicating production from the United States.
Well, of course! Since the Ontario manu-
facturing sector is so heavily owned and
controlled by Americans, they are producing
the type of goods that they produce in the
United States. When they try to export to
the States, the Americans do not want the
goods because they are produced in the
States. I suggest to the Minister, in looking
over the remarks that he made in this House
last year, that there might be some relevance
in the remarks of the chief economist about
the subsidiaries duphcating United States
production items, rather than diversifying.
It raises very serious questions about adver-
tising in the ISIew Yorker, too, for example. I
would like to turn to a different point here,
a much more specific point.
Hon. Mr. Randall: May I answer one ques-
tion? You said that it should make a difference
whether they should advertise in the "New
Yorker. We are not just trying to sell mer-
chandise, we are trying to encourage the
manufacturer to come here and set up plants
here. I would also suggest to you that we
have a number of cases where our manufac-
turers produce a different kind of design or
product to the American. If it is different,
they can sell it and that is where we have
had our success in many parts of the United
States selling a product that has different
design and features.
In the article you are talking about there,
that is an ordinary product— like a Westing-
house or General Electric toaster. They all
look alike. Therefore they might have trouble.
I myself sold a difference to the United States
and many other parts of the world when I
was in the industry. But that comment there
was made with reference to products that look
alike. I do not think that the Americans can
tell the difference any more than the Cana-
dians can whether the product is made over
here or there. I am just suggesting that these
ads that we run are not single purpose types
of ads to sell a product. They are also to
encourage investment here in Ontario.
Mr. T. Reid: I think that this reinforces
the point that we should do all we can to
encourage product differentiation in Ontario,
particularly by firms that are owned and con-
trolled by residents of this province and by
Canadians.
The second point on this vote is this. On
looking over the estimates and the actual
amount expended over the last eight years in
the department, one gets some very interest-
ing results. My conclusion in looking over the
main office estimate and the actual amount
expended is that I do not think very much
of the ability of this department to prepare
budgets.
It looks like a rather sloppy type of presen-
tation to me. The department just does not
seem to be able to learn from past experience.
It comes to this Legislature to get approval
for the expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars
and persistently does not come anywhere near
spending what this Legislature approves.
Take for example the "salary" item for the
main office. In 1965-66 the Minister asked this
Legislature for, and got approval to spend,
$361,000. And he went and spent $418,079,
by getting a Treasury board order. Now what
this means, Mr. Chairman, is that there is an
error in budgeting and judgment of over 16
per cent in 1965-66.
If that was just the only slip, I would not
criticize the Minister so sharply. But then
again, in the following year, the same error
in the same direction was made, and it seems
to l3e a persistent error on the part of the
Minister's department. Again in 1966-67, in
the same persistent direction, the Minister
spent 16 per cent more than he got approval
for on the presentation of his estimate to this
House.
Mr. Chairman, for next year, the Minister
is asking us to approve $667,000 for main
office salary. Is this a realistic figure or is it
16 per cent less, as the Minister is in the habit
of allowing? Mr. Chairman, the same budget-
ing forecast mistake was made in 1965, 1966,
JUNE 13. 1968
4463
and in 1967 for main office "postage." In fact,
the error was in the neighbourhood of 35
per cent. And, if that is not enough, again
in the item entitled "Advertising, Films, Con-
ferences," et al, a 20 per cent budgeting fore-
cast error was made in both 1965-66 and
1966-67.
And now the Minister, in a sense, and I
say this politely, has the gall to come to tis
this year and ask us to approve estimates for
those items for next year. How can we
believe him? It seems a useless exercise; the
credibility gap of the Minister is so wide.
Persistent errors, all in the same direction, in
three separate items in one vote. Does not
the Minister learn from experience? How
can he explain persistent budgeting forecast
errors? And how can he ask us to believe
that this budget makes any sense at all?
Does he have any explanation, Mr. Chair-
man?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I certainly have an
explanation for that one, my friend. I am
glad you brought it up. Let me just suggest
this: when I get any money from Treasury
board, I do not pad my requirements; I say
this is what I need. If I have any left over,
I am going to turn it back and I have a
record of turning back funds that I do not
require, and will not spend unless I need
them.
Mr. Trotter: That is just poor budgeting.
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it is not poor bud-
geting—it is good budgeting. In my own
business, if I gave my advertising manager
$100,000, and he had $10,000 left on Decem-
ber 31, and he went out and spent it just to
get rid of it, I would fire him. And that is
what you should do.
Now you ask if we do not know what we
are doing when we are budgeting. Let me
tell you where the differences are. In the
main office vote, salaries, $72,000, made up
as follows: Arbitration award, in the year
after the budget was all established. We do
not have a crystal ball; we could not see what
was going to happen on that. Overtime pay-
ments, $11,000— this is the one you referred
to, 1966-1965.
Mr. T. Reid: I referred to 1965-1966.
Hon. Mr. Randall: 1966-1967.
Mr. T. Reid: How about 1965-1966?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will give you 1966-
1967 first.
There is $72,000 there; there is additional
postage required for most development facili-
ties established by the department at Expo
which we could not foresee. We did not
know what was going to happen down there
with people coming into Expo. As you know,
there was twice as many people arrived.
There is $12,000-
Mr. T. Reid: Was that not 1967-1968?
Hon. Mr. Randall: This is 1966-1967-
$12,000 you asked me about, did you not?
You said it was an amount of money there
that we did not account for; we had to go
back to Treasury board. These are Treasury
board orders for 1966-67.
Then there was an amount of $250,000 to
ORF— a grant to make available the addi-
tional funds required to complete the build-
ing in Sheridan Park.
Mr. T. Reid: But I did not talk about that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know you did not but
you asked about Treasury board orders. I am
just telling you, these are Treasury board
orders.
Mr. T. Reid: Answer my question.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Pardon?
Mr. T. Reid: Answer my question.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I answered your ques-
tion.
Mr. T. Reid: I did not refer to that at all.
I referred to salaries.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I answered salaries.
There was an arbitration award in the amount
of $72,000.
Mr. J. E. Rullbrook (Samia): Did you anti-
cipate any elevation of salaries?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, we provided for
some but there is—
Mr. Rullbrook: What percentage?
Hon. Mr. Randall: —always arbitration
going on— always changes made in salary
adjustments, and they are postdated.
Mr. Rullbrook: Would you let me direct
a question along these lines?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Rullbrook: Would you give us the
figures, Mr. Minister, as to what you antici-
pated the elevation was, and what the award
of the board of arbitration was?
4464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
might say, on a point of order, it is not
customary to anticipate that. I suggest you
can neither negotiate nor arbitrate for these
situations if you disclose the position before
you do it. It is not done.
Mr. Bullbrook: That is not a point of order.
I arose and asked the Minister if I could
direct a question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister is providing
answers to the member for Scarborough East,
and the member for Sarnia interjected. Is the
Minister completed with his ansv.'ers to the
questions from the member for Scarborough
East?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If I have not, I will get
further information for tlie hon. member for
Scarborough East.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 401, the member for
Windsor West.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, on these first
three items, or two items, in the main office
vote.
I think we have been talking about peanvits
when we were examining what this Minister
has drawn from the consolidated revenue
fund, in excess of what the Legislature voted.
And, of course, a sizeable piece of that total
for Treasury board orders which, in 1966-
67, amounted to $4.9 million, was accounted
for by expenditures for Expo. The fact still
remains that almost half of what the Minis-
ter—or over half of what the Minister— spent
in 1966-67 was not put before this Legis-
lature for approval or consideration.
In item 7 we see an anticipated expendi-
ture of $125,000 in preparing for Ontario's
participation in the next Expo, due in 1970.
I want to suggest to the Minister, that well
before 1970, in fact, in his next estimates for
1969-70, he should put before the Legis-
lature, in an accurate, budgeted manner, just
what Ontario is going to be committed to in
that 1970 exposition, and not treat the ex-
penditures in the manner in which they have
been treated for Expo at Montreal, where
half of his main office vote and two-thirds or
more of his Expo expenditures were not put
before the Legislature for discussion.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister have any
comments?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The only comment I
have at the moment, Mr. Chairman, is that
we are just getting started with Expo *70;
$125,000 is what we anticipate we will have
to spend this year.
We are now preparing estimates for the
building, for what is going to be in the build-
ing, what our operating expenses will be.
That will be going before Cabinet I would
think within the next few weeks, and then it
will be brought to the House, if it is required.
We estimate that it is going to be $2
million outside for the Expo *70 pavilion.
Now, we get advances on that, as required,
from the Treasury board. We do not take
the money until we require it. So, if it is
not in this budget, we may have to go back
this year— if we move ahead with our plan,
we may have to go back to Treasury board
for Treasury board order. Otherwise we have
to wait until next year before we can do any
work at Expo '70.
We do not draw the money in advance if
we do not need it. And so, it is not sloppy
bookkeeping to go back and get Treasury
board orders. It is good bookkeeping not to
take the money unless you can use it.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, does the Min-
ister draw out money under the voted ex-
penditure before it is required? I do not
think he does.
I think when the Legislature votes him a
certain amount of money, he does not draw
that money until it is required; he leaves it
in the fund until it is required. There is no
reason why the Minister cannot put his
anticipated expenditures for Expo *70 accu-
rately into next year's estimates.
Hon. Mr. Randall: May I just stop you
here for a minute. We went to Treasury
board about October of last year with our
budgets. We had no idea then what we
would do at Expo '70; it was not decided to
go into Expo '70 until almost the end of the
year. And so the budgets were already made
up. Otherwise we would have put in a figure
when we put in our budgets.
We did not have the budgets made up.
We did not know what we were going to
spend. I do not know yet what the exact
amount will be. We have put an outside
figure on $2 million. We could not ask them
to put something in the budget unless we
knew what we were going to do in Expo '70.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to make a brief comment and I would
like to put a question to the Minister, through
you, on this question of foreign control. I
have heard a lot about that tonight; and I
r
JUNE 13, 1968
4465
have heard about this question of branch
plant economy that we have in the province
of Ontario, and frankly, I think we do.
When I first came into the Legislature
there were some interjections one night, and
some debate took place. The Minister stood
up and said that there were so many plants
and so many jobs that came into the province
of Ontario, and he said those plants consisted
of numbers of employees— 13, 15, 25. And
in sum total, it was something like 75,000 jobs
had been created by the Minister and the
people in his department. They had created
these jobs by enticing American subsidiaries
to situate their plants here in the province of
Ontario.
Following that statement, a few weeks
later at a seminar of the Ontario federation
of labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Bales)
got up and panned this question of the small
plants being sitmted in the province of
Ontario, because these were the plants that
were paying very small wages. Something
like 23 per cent of these small plants were
paying $3,000 or less.
The question I want to ask is this. Are we
not only bringing in these subsidiary plants
that give us this question of foreign control;
in add^'tion to that, are we importing povertv,
in terms of lower wage structures through
these small subsidiary plants, that are coming
into the province of Ontario?
I think that if we are going to bring these
plants into this province, then they ought to
be paying a proper wage. So that the whole
question of bringing these plants is more
important than just saying that we have
created X number of jobs. Obviously, we
have to— when we create the job, we bring
the plant in. This should bear some resem-
blance to the standard of living that we a'-e
providing in the province at the time that
plant comes in.
But over and above that, I am firmly con-
vinced that we ought to get some control of
our indus^try in this province. We are allow-
ing new industries to c^me in and the expan-
sion of the present industry.
A good example of that is General Motors.
I have been in that nlant for 28 years and
there h^s just been fabulous growth in the
General Motors Corporation. They have just
perpetuated the financial hoM that they have
in this orovince without anybody doing any-
thing about it and it is just growing.
I am suggesting to the Minister that one
day thev are going to control our destiny.
They are going to control our destinv and
this is what is wrong with it. I think as
Canadians we ought to at least be putting up
some kind of fight to control our own eco-
nomic destiny and our own political destiny.
If we do not do something about it now, if
we do not go to work on it now, then our
children and their children are going to in-
herit something that we are not faced with
at this moment.
But this is what they are going to inherit.
They are going to inherit economic and poli-
tical control from another country and this
would be wrong. This would be wrong if we
left our children and their children after
them, that kind of heritage and that kind of
environment and everything else that could
exist.
So there are two things. One, I think we
ought to control our own destiny and two, I
would like to know if the Minister does take
into consideration the kind of wage struc-
tures that these plants have before they come
in here so that we are not inheriting poverty
in this province. We have got enough of if
now and we have got a tremendous job to
take care of what we have without inheriting
any.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, in
arswering the hon. member's question I can
just say this. In most of the industries I
know of, the men meet the labour regulations
in this province. If they do not, the union
so-^n gets around to find out what they are
doing and gets them organized. Now any
companies that I have beeen associated with
have good union members, paid good wages.
As far as this department taking credit for all
the jobs— no we have never said that.
Wp said a year or two ago that there must
be 75,000 new job opportunities created in
this province to take care of the people com-
ing into the work force. Last year, the num-
ber of people employed went up 115,000
jobs. We did not create all the jobs, but we
say we created Dart of the climate for these
people to get jobs.
Mr. Sargent: So did Ottawa.
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is all right. All
governments are creating the jobs. But I say
in this province here we created a climate
wherebv 115,000 people were added to the
labour fo^ce. I would say that 54 per cent
of the 132 companies we have brought in
were assisted to locate by this department.
So we have played a great part in bringing
in some of these new plants. Now, insofar
as the wages they pay, I think that they pay
the going rate. I do not believe that there
are many companies today that are giving the
4466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kind of incomes you are talking about. They
cannot all get General Motors wages. They
are not all working for General Motors— and
I think you recognize this.
I have heard the story about branch plants
before, my friend. Let me tell you this. If
you do not start somewhere you are never
going to have a plant. When MacLaughlin
started, General Motors only had half a
dozen people, the same as every—
Mr. Peacock: What became of MacLaugh-
lin's interest?
Hon. Mr. Randall: A very small branch
plant. I do not think we should worry how
small the company is. I went to Fort William
the other day to open a plant for a good
Liberal. When he went to introduce me, he
could not even remember my name and t
said, that is what I get for coming up to do
a job for a good Liberal. When I finished, a
reporter said "You must have an ulterior
motive. You would not come up here, all the
way to Fort William, to open a plant with
20 people in it." I said: "My friend I would
go to the end of the world in the province of
Ontario to open up a plant for five people
because, when you get five today, you may
have 500 tomorrow." And so I think the
questions is answered.
We are going to bring in any entrepreneur
who wants to start a plant here, fits into our
programme or we can help him expand. Now
this, to me, is the only way you are going to
create jobs. I say we will have to create more
jobs in manufacturing. By 1970, you will have
only 10 per cent of the labour force employed
in farming, fishing, agriculture and mining;
34 per cent will be in manufacturing and the
rest must find jobs in the service industries.
And you only create service jobs by creating
manufacturing jobs. I do not know which
comes first, but I just say to you that as I
chase this programme around day in and day
out, I see these numbers of people coming
into the work force and I wonder whether all
are going to be employed. I think that we
are doing a pretty fair job of setting up a
programme for these small manufacturers
with the EIO programme, helping them
locate. Certainly we want to see them pay
the right kind of wage. If they do not pay
the kind of wages they should pay, then they
are looking for public housing and other sub-
sidies which the other taxpaper has to take
care of.
Mr. Nixon: Did that big Liberal not come
from Manitoba?
Hon. Mr. Randall: This was the head of
the Liberal Party in Winnipeg— yes Manitoba,
he opened a plant in Fort William.
Mr. Nixon: Surely he did not say he was
going to the end of the world in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Always worked with the
Liberals.
Mr. Pilkey: I just make the comment
because the Minister, who obviously must
have the statistics at his disposal, said that
23 per cent of the working force— and he pin-
pointed the small plants— are earning less than
$3,000. As a matter of fact, he went a httle
further than that. He said that 47 per cent
of them are earning less tiian $6,000 a year
in the province of Ontario.
All I am saying is that there is enough
poverty in this province. We have got a
problem now to look after them without
inheriting any, without bringing it into the
country. So that all I am suggesting is that
we ought to not only look at foreign invest-
ment in the province of Ontario, we ought to
be looking at the wage structure of these
people that are coming in if this province is
going to grow.
I recognize on this question of foreign
investment and foreign control that it is
rather complex. I accept that and I know
that the job is not easy. But it seems to me
that we ought to be using some plan— a future
plan— so that we can get more control of our
own industry in our own province and that
we ought to be making towards that direction.
It is not good enough to just stand up and
say: "Well we are going to get all kinds of
jobs coming in here because we bring in this
foreign investment." I think we have got to
work two ways. We have got to work on the
question of creating jobs and then we have
got to work in the area of controlling our own
destiny. The way we do tliat is to make sure
that the investment that comes into the
province of Ontario is directed correctly. I
do not think tliere is anything wrong with
that.
One of the members here pointed out that
you do not go into other countries witliout
them having some say as to the direction of
their financial investment and this is what we
have to do.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 401? The member for
Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to return to the question I asked the Minister.
The purpose of the question is this, just to
make it very clear—
JUNE 13, 1968
4467
Mr. J. H. White (London South): I was
hoping you would tell us how-
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. T. Reid: It is concerned with the three
items in the main office estimates— "salaries,"
"postage" and the long one "advertising" and
so on.
My question to the Minister concerns his
past estimates which have been exceeded by
his actual expenditures. I am not passing any
judgment on that right now. The question I
am asking is: Is the $667,000 in main office
salaries going to end up being 16 per cent
more than that? Is the main office estimate
of $3,000 for postage next year going to end
up being 35 per cent more than that? Is the
amount for advertising and so forth— $1,247,-
000— going to end up being 20 per cent more
than the Minister put down in these estimates?
Because, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has a
history of doing this. Now let me just say
this.
He o£Fered an explanation for the year
1966-67 for postage - which was $11,000
more than he came and got approval for in
this House. He oflFered an explanation for the
advertising section in which he spent $163,000
more than we approved in this House. He
said it was tied up with a number of things,
such as Expo. Mr. Chairman, I will give
the Minister the benefit of the doubt, and
say, "Fine, I am satisfied with the explanation
of those two figures that I questioned." He
offered me no explanation, if I heard cor-
rectly, as to why in 1966-67 he spent
$70,000 more on salaries than he came and
got approval for in this Legislature in that
year.
Now, in 1965-66, the year previous, I
do not see how he can tie in an explanation
with Expo as he did in 1966-67. In 1965-
66 he has the following things to explain.
Why, under salaries, did he spend $57,000
more than he got approval for in this Legis-
lature? Why, for postage, did the Minister
spend $18,000 more than he got approval
for in the Legislature? And why, for adver-
tising and so forth, did he spend $244,000
more than he got approval for here? The
point of the specific questions, Mr. Chairman,
is that he has a history of coming here and
asking for less money than he really needs.
I do not like that. I wish he would come
here and say: "Look, I want X dollars. Here
is what I really think that I am going to
spend. I want approval because I believe in
my programmes and boy, I am going to ex-
plain to you why the programmes are good!"
And away we go !
But, do not under-rate us, and shame us,
by coming in here year after year and teUing
us that you are going to spend so much, and
end up spending what amounts to 16 per cent
or 35 per cent more. Those are specific ques-
tions, Mr. Chairman. I have not received
answers to them all from the Minister, and
I just hope that when we come into this
House next year and we are back on these
estimates that I will not find that the Min-
ister was out again on all his estimates. 1
can judge that when we get the public
accounts.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will try not to shock
you, I promise.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I am inter-
ested in the expenditure of $1,247,000. How
much is going to be spent in the direct adver-
tising of the item? I would also like a break-
down, if you could, of what you intend to
spend within the province and what per-
centage outside.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Trade journal adver-
tising, $40,000-
Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry. General figures
are fine, I do not necessarily want a break-
down entirely, just—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am sorry, but I can-
not give you the percentages.
Trade journals $40,000, international ad-
vertising $400,000 and domestic advertising
$200,000; and there is $100,000 for the
Ontario 1968 publication to be put out. These
are the three main expenditures, is that what
you wanted?
Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, thank you, that is it.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused.
As I understood the intent of the department,
advertising was for exposure outside the
jurisdiction itself. Now I understand that you
are spending $400,000 in foreign advertising
and $200,000 in domestic advertising. By
domestic do you mean within the Dominion
of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Within the province.
Mr. Bullbrook: Well what is the purpose
of the expenditure of $200,000 in this con-
nection within the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Randall: This is a regional cam-
paign. Perhaps I could show you one that
we had last year on northern Ontario? We
were advertising northern Ontario. The people
in northern Ontario did not see these ads
because we were talking about people in the
south going up north, locating up there and
4468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
taking their business up there. We were
preaching to the unconverted in the south to
go and locate in the north.
Mr. Bullbrook: Approximately one- third
of the expenditure in advertising then is to
redirect industry regionally; is that the idea?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, there is a tendency
here— for example, "This is Northern Ontario
Today"; this was domestic advertising last
year.
Mr. Bullbrook: Just a few more questions,
if I may, Mr. Chairman, Is there anything
seasonal in your advertising programme at
all? Do you find highs and lows?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes. For example right
now, witli the upsetting circumstances in the
United States and the election year over
there. We wonder if our advertising is going
to mean anything over there with the election
going on.
We look at those factors and if we do not
think we are going to get our money's worth
we pull. So by the end of the year I may
come back and say that we did not spend
$400,000 there. We may devote money in
here to domestic advertising.
If our imports go up very quickly, as they
did over the last year— I think our imports
rose by 12.5 per cent and there was about
13.5 per cent increase in export— when the
imports go up we should do more about sell-
ing our Canadian goods to Canadian people.
Mr. Bullbrook: Would I be unfair in sug-
gesting to you, sir, that in the months of
September and early October of 1967 your
advertising programme on radio and tele-
vision was increased substantially?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it was not.
Mr. Bullbrook: The information given to
me— and maybe it is not referrable to your
department but to The Department of Tour-
ism and Information— the radio station in
Sarnia, this is hearsay, sir, secured expendi-
tures for advertising, in the six weeks prior to
the election, of four times as much as had
been spent in all the preceding months of
1967.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am informed by my
associate here that we were not advertising
on radio last year, we were on television. We
started to finish that around the end of
August, that was our programme last year.
At that time, if you v/ere kidding, and I know
that you were not kidding about the election,
everybody figured that the election would be
in June. We did not figure that it was going
to be in June, I can assure you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 401?
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have a ques-
tion on item 6 on the women's advisory com-
mittee. I understand that the purpose of the
women's advisory committee is to organize
luncheons for Ontario women, as part of the
"Buy Ontario" and before that the "Buy
Canada" part of the trade crusade. Does the
Minister have any ideas as to the kind of
result that he gets from this? How many
members of staff are involved, what sort of
expense accounts do they have, and what is
the connection between the advisory com-
mittee and the special projects committee?
Is it a special office within the Minister's
department or part of the soecial projects
committee? In short, Mr. Chairman, what
does the women's advisory committee do and
how much money do they spend?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, their budget is for
$27,000. They get no salaries, they volunteer
their services. There are 25 women from all
parts of Ontario, representing the women of
Ontario who, we ought to say, spend 80 per
cent of the money. We get the women in-
volved in the activities around the province
to sell the idea of shopping Canadian.
They participate in our Shop Canadian
week. They participated down here with the
fashion awards, the Edie Awards on Fashion,
and they talked last year to something like
6 OCO other women about the economics of
the province and what the women should
know about the affairs of the province. We
think that they do a very excellent job. They
participate in the economv of the province,
and they certainly can also say to you— as
my friend from Owen Sound will tell you—
there is no poMtical connotation there, since
they come from all walks of life. We do not
ask them what their politics are. They just
offer their services.
Vote 401 agreed to.
On vote 402:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have some
remarks on vote 402 if you will permit me.
I could really hold my remarks until we
return to this vote again, if there is anybody
who wants to interject with some construc-
tive comments on the adjournment?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Chairman, that took
mc by surprise.
JUNE 13, 1968
4469
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report progress and ask for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the esti-
mates to 1 o'clock, and then we will have the
private members' hour.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:15 o'clock, p.m.
No. 120
ONTARIO
Hegiglature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, June 14, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, June 14, 1968
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 4473
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 4473
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 4473
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 4474
Selling of time-payment contracts to finance companies, questions to Mr. Rowntree,
Mr. Nixon 4474
Canadian Breweries stock, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Shulman 4475
Oscar award for "A Place to Stand", statement by Mr. Randall 4476
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, continued 4476
On notice of motion No. 31, Mr. T. P. Reid, Mr. Deans, Mr. J. R. Smith, Mr. Ni.xon,
Mr. Pitman, Mr. R. G. Hodgson 4510
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4520
4473
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 9:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This morning our visitors are
from a distance— the St. John Fisher pubhc
school in Forest. Later we are to be joined
by students from Oakville, the Lome Skuce
public school and Munn's public school; from
Sudbury, Macleod public school; from
Willowdale, the Bayview junior high school;
from Peterborough, the Keith Wightman
public school; from Ridgetown, St. Michael's
school; and from Hamilton, Scott Park
secondary school.
We welcome these young people who are
here now and will be glad to see the others
when they arrive.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the 1967 annual report of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs) moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Municipal
Unconditional Grants Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this bill
implements the financial provisions relating
to The Municipal Unconditional Grants Act
arising out of the assumption of the costs of
the administration of justice by the province
and there is one other technical change in
the amendments.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of
bill intituled. An Act to amend The Municipal
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
FmoAY, June 14, 1968
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment briefly on the numerous
amendments to The Municipal Act, which
cover a variety of subjects.
Sections 1, 3, 14 and 23 are of a technical
or housekeeping nature.
Four sections deal with remuneration with
respect to councils, boards of control and
police village trustees. They are sections 8,
21, 22 and 26. The amounts of remuneration
will now be in the discretion of the individual
councils.
Four sections— sections 2, 4, 10 and 28—
deal with provisions for the oath of allegiance
to be taken before entering into elected muni-
cipal oflBce rather than at the time of qualify-
ing.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 set out the procedure to
be followed to fill vacancies in the oflSce of
alderman or councillor in the same manner
whether or not they are elected on the ward
system. In all cases, councils will be em-
powered to appoint. Provision is also made
for breaking tie votes in council on the fill-
ing of vacancies. Sections 13, 15 and 16
amend or repeal the appropriate provisions
in The Municipal Act relating to the assump-
tion of the responsibility of the administra-
tion of justice.
Sections 17 and 19 deal with the consolida-
tion of provisions dealing with the obstruction
of drains and water courses, extending to all
municipalities authority to force removal of
the obstructions.
Section 17 also has provisions for granting
aid to any association duly constituted for
the promotion of the welfare and education
of retarded persons. Formerly, these pro-
visions applied only to retarded children.
A third provision under this section, Mr.
Speaker, is similar to provisions in The Com-
munity Centres Act and The Public Parks
Act. This provision is applicable to boards
of management of arenas and community
centres established in municipalities to grant
them authority to sell refreshments.
Section 9 and section 27 amendments are
complementary to the new part VI of The
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education
Act.
4474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Section 11 provides authority for a judge
to engage counsel and other assistance for
carrying on an investigation initiated by the
municipal council.
Section 12 provides for the continuation
of local government in the event of an emer-
gency.
Section 18 removes the requirement for
municipal board approval under certain pro-
visions of The Municipal Act for specific
undertakings longer than one year. It also
authorizes bylaws to prohibit littering of
private property and extends the provisions
respecting garbage disposal to facilitate the
locating of disposal sites outside the confines
of any one municipality, subject to the
approval of the Ontario municipal board. The
section also allows municipalities to pass by-
laws prohibiting parking on municipal prop-
erty.
Section 20 deals with licensing and regu-
lating of special sales such as "bankruptcy"
or "going out of business" as has been enacted
in private legislation.
Section 24 removes the three-month waiting
period before county council can confirm a
township road closing bylaw.
Section 25 makes provision to enable piling
and shoring used in building construction to
remain in the street.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Assess-
ment Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there
are five amendments to The Assessment
Act.
Section 1 clarifies the intent that paved
parking areas are to be considered as un-
improved land.
Section 2 removes an apparent conflict with
a section of The Public Schools Act.
Section 3 gives the clerk of the court of
revision a choice as to amending the original
roll or preparing a new roll.
Section 4 extends the authority for the
payment of grants to cities, on the same basis
as to counties.
Section 5 is housekeeping.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs,
notice of which was given some days ago.
Is the Minister prepared to outlaw the
selling of time-payment contracts to finance
companies by retailers in the province in
support of the recommendations at the inter-
provincial conference on consumer protec-
tion?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may
I say that there were no recommendations as
such at the interprovincial conference on
consumer protection to outlaw the selling of
time-payment contracts to finance companies
by retailers.
This first conference of its type was
organized as a working conference of senior
federal and provincial officials so that some
attempts might be made at making ourselves
familiar with each other's statutes and experi-
ences in the consumer protection field.
Mr. M. H. Smith, assistant general solicitor
with The Department of the Attorney General
of British Columbia, outlined the situation
to which the hon. leader of the Opposition
makes reference as one of three specific areas
which he describes as being of concern to his
province. The general point that Mr. Smith
raised was not to ban the actual sale of time-
payment contracts to subsequent holders in
due course. It was to preserve the equities
lying in the hands of tlie consumer, having in
mind such a situation as this, that a sale in
law of a document or a promissory note or a
bill of exchange, which the document is, to
a holder in due course and without notice,
may take away some of the rights of the con-
sumer. It is really a matter of law. There is
a great deal of merit in this and it is being
considered and researched now.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a
supplementary question, and this is not
directly a supplementary question. You might
want to rule it out of order, but I would like
to know if the federal department of con-
sumer affairs— I may not have the name of the
department correct there— was it represented
at this conference?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It was— and by senior
officials who played a very active part. This
conference is not to be confused with the
conference being called by Ottawa. This was
an interprovincial conference, with the federal
authority present. Tremendous co-operation.
It was a great success. It lasted four whole
days, something almost unheard in a con-
ference of this type.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Min-
ister's staff is aware that the two conferences
should not be confused. It seems that a
JUNE 14, 1968
4475
statement made by one of the Minister's staflF
was associated with the confusion at the
federal level in this regard.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: There is no such
situation. I will try to rectify that, but it
was a most desirable, harmonious and con-
structive affair.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has a question of this Minister.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a
question for the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs, notice of which has been
given.
Will the Minister order an investigation of
the heavy trading in Canadian Breweries
stock prior to last Thursday's announcement
of an 11 per cent purchase by Rothmans to
determine if stock was purchased by persons
aware of the forthcoming announcement?
Will the Minister lay charges against the
directors of Argus Corporation for mis-
informing its shareholders, the shareholders
of Canadian Breweries and the public by
denying it was considering sale of its Cana-
dian Breweries stock while it was conduct-
ing negotiations for this sale?
Will the Minister pass the necessary legis-
lation to prevent any similar future corporate
abuse?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the first question, the securities
commission, in conjunction with the Toronto
stock exchange, are reviewing the trading
pattern on and prior to Thursday, June 6,
as a part of the normal routine of market
surveillance in which unusual trading patterns
are investigated. The announcement of Roth-
mans acquistion of this 11 per cent factor
portion of Canadian Breweries stock was
made after the close of trading on June 6.
Now the insiders— if I could describe them in
that technical way— Canadian Breweries have
until July 10 to file reports concerning their
trading. So this would have to fit in to this
review that is being conducted.
With respect to the second question, I am
informed that the only published statements,
concerning the possibility of Argus disposing
of its holdings in Canadian Breweries made
by directors of Argus in the past several
months, are those which appeared in the
Toronto Daily Star, of March 4, and the
Globe and Mail of March 5. The questions
arose from the story which had appeared in
the Wall Street Journal of the previous week,
that Trans-Continental Investigating Corpo-
ration of New York was negotiating with
Argus for its shares in Canadian Breweries.
The article contained a photograph of
Bruce Mathews, Canadian Breweries chair-
man and Argus vice president, under which
the caption appeared, I am informed, and I
quote: "talks have been held". In the article
in the Ghbe and Mail, without confirming or
denying the fact of a meeting between Trans-
Continental and Argus, it said that while
the Wall Street article was quite erroneous
in this form, the number of companies want-
ing to have conversations about various parts
of the operations of Canadian Breweries was
almost continuous.
I would like to comment on that Mr.
Speaker because, having had no discussions
myself with the officials of Argus or Cana-
dian Breweries on this subject, or with the,
Rothman corporation, still over a period of
time and the past year, I would think this
department was formed in 1966, I have heard
constant rumours on the street about a take-
over of Canadian Breweries. Rumours to the
effect that this would be a good buy, that
there was good cash surplus available in the
company and so on.
Now with respect to the hon. member's
criticism, or his inferred criticism of the
denial of, I presume, Mr. Taylor— I do not
think we can just take a yes or no position
on the situation like this. Had Mr. Taylor said
yes, "negotiations are active", I would think,
and with respect to any proposed purchaser
of the Argus shares in that company, I would
think that the damage to the market and to
the public interest would be much greater.
I put this to you. It is a question of who
is to say which; who is to say it is greater or
less; whether I am right, whether the hon.
member's opinion is right? I doubt that those
questions will ever be answered satisfactorily,
but the point of it is this— I know of no reason
in the business world why a person is not
permitted and privileged to make a categori-
cal denial with respect to a business trans-
action that is being negotiated. I put this to
the hon. member.
Now with respect to the third question-
while I am presently unaware of any corpo-
rate abuse in relation to this transaction, the
criminal law and the civil law on the subject
of fraud and insider liabihty provisions in
section 113 of The Securities Act are con-
sidered adequate to deal with either the mis-
use of confidential information by an insider
or a fraudulent misrepresentation of the type
suggested in the second question.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this is incred-
ible. Will the Minister allow a supplementary
question? Is the Minister aware that in the
4476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
securities market in the United States, it is
against the law for a member of a board of
directors to he to the pubHc in circumstances
such as has occurred here?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I would want to look
into that situation, because I do not think
you could sum up the law of the United
States on the subject of securities in one
sentence in that way.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Before the orders of the day,
I would just like to make a comment. Last
night I had an award here that I was going
to show the hon. members. But as we were
discussing Expo, I did not want them to
think I was trying to use the award in order
to get through easy on the Expo vote.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) an-
nounced some time ago that the picture of
"A Place to Stand" had won an academy
award. It has since been received and prop-
erly engraved and was in the hands of Chris
Chapman, the motion picture director of our
film. I have it here this morning— and per-
haps for the first time in the history of this
province the award can be seen by the mem-
l:>ers. I am sure our young visitors here today
would like to see what an Oscar looks like.
That little statue over the years has perhaps
meant fortunes to individuals and companies
and has started many very famous people on
very lucrative careers. So I would like to
suggest that if anybody would want to view
this at first hand, to touch it and rub off a
little of the luck, come on over and have a
look at it.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 13th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Reuter
in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
(Continued)
On vote 402:
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Ontario economic council has been
reconstituted by statute at this session and
the Minister has already had a chance to
give us his views. It occurred to me that
since the Minister's new department is Trade
and Development, and the economic aspects
of the government's responsibility are now
going to be handled by another Minister, the
council could come under the jurisdiction of
the Minister of Treasury and Economics; is
that the name of the new department?
However, it has been retained with The
Department of Trade and Development and
that is a decision that perhaps can be changed
in the future, because these various branches
of government have had a habit of moving
from one department to the other— I suppose
depending upon the interests of the Ministers
concerned, as much as anything else.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Trade and
Development (Mr. Randall) is going to be re-
porting for the Ontario economic council and
he is going to have $227,000 in order to
support their efforts. I would hope that by this
time next year we can look forward to the
report of the council as it is newly consti-
tuted. I would think that the stress on its
autonomy and independence should give us
the benefit of a report which will have
stronger overtones of autonomy and inde-
pendence and that this particular report will
become, in the years that lie ahead, a corner-
stone for the discussion in this House and
across the province in the financial community
and elsewhere, as to our prospects for the
year; and as a real guide, not only to govern-
ment policy but to the approach that citizens
and taxpayers would take.
I can remember some years ago it was tlie
habit of the economic— I do not know what
it was called, it was a branch of the Minis-
ter's department concerned with the economy
—to publish very welliprepared monthly re-
ports. Perhaps they were quarterly, but they
seemed to come quite regularly. Month-by-
month or quarter-by-quarter there was care-
ful review of business trends, not only in
Ontario, but as they related to Canada and
the North America economy.
While I am not professionally versed in
these matters at all, I always found these
reports of great interest and helpfulness. So,
perhaps, as well as having a yearly objective
review and prediction of the 12 months that
lie ahead, we can expect regular reports
from the council that would go to a mailing
list that hopefully would include the mem-
bers of the Legislature as well as many other
citizens in the province.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development ) : Mr. Chairman, I do not know
if you are referring to the Ontario Economic
Review?
JUNE 14, 1968
4477
Mr. Nixon: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is still being pub-
lished and—
Mr. Nixon: Is it published quarterly?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it comes out
monthly.
Mr. Nixon: That is the one, and it must
get winnowed out of my mails.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well everybody is on
the mailing list right now. If you are not on
the mailing list, I hope you will let us know.
Of course, this now is being sent out by
Treasury and Economics as you know, it is
in their department. And it is available for
anybody.
Mr. Nixon: What about the yearly report?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think we could work
out a yearly report without any difficulty. I
do not think there is any problem involved.
I think what you are referring to is some-
thing like the economic council of Canada
setting guidelines. We have operated just a
little differently to the economic council of
Canada; as you know, they have a staff of
probably 150 economists up there. Now that
kind of work is being done in the former
chief economist's department, and I would
presume in the Provincial Treasurer's (Mr.
MacNaughton's) presentation of his estimates
that much of that information will be dis-
closed and could be reported on an annual
basis.
The economic council, as we see it, in
Ontario, is the use of many people in our
economy, in all branches of our economy,
that lend to the government their views and
their opinions on matters that we feel that
are of importance to our department in more
ways than one. This information is forwarded
to other departments of government, as you
well know.
Mr. Nixon: I am not sure what the Minis-
ter means when he says that the council is
going to be useful in more ways than one.
But, from my past experience with the Min-
ister I shudder to think what that might
involve.
I can tell you that one of the things that
we should look forward to from the economic
council is an objective review of the economy
of the province. I do not mean the Minister's
part in expanding trade, or anything like that,
but the part that Ontario is playing in the
economy of Canada.
We know that the Minister and his col-
leagues spend a good deal of their time indi-
cating what Ontario's place is, and usually it
is the prime place. We on this side, and
others, tend to discount these claims con-
siderably.
I would suggest to the Minister that some
of this money might very well be earmarked
for this body, which has its own statute, and
the independence of which we will judge
on the basis of what they are able to put be-
for the public year by year. Really, I would
have thought that one of the prime projects of
such a council would be in giving us this
year-end review and year-beginning predic-
tion, which would be of great use to the
government in more ways than one.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to follow up a point made
by my leader. This year, Wednesday, May
15, 1968, page 2986 in Hansard, the Minister
of Trade and Development said, referring to
the Ontario economic council:
This council will advise all departments of gov-
ernment which ask for the services of a council.
They work with The Department of Labour, The
Department of Education, The Department of Lands
and Forests, The Department of the Treasury-which
has the chief economist in it-The Department of
Agriculture and Food.
Mr. Chairman, I thought these were the
terms of reference of the chief economist of
this province, who was with the Minister's
department. Is this not overlapping responsi-
bility? Is this not duplicating? Perhaps the
Minister could comment on this, Mr. Chair-
Hon. Mr. Randall: The chief economist
attends most of the meetings of the economic
council; this is an independent review.
I would say today that the chief economist's
department is a group of civil servants who
perform a task for the government with refer-
ence to the economy, but this is an indepen-
dent review by outsiders— outside businessmen
who sit on this council. As we have said,
they are from universities, from labour, and
from industry, and they give us their views
as to what we should be doing with the
economy of the province. In doing this they
are quite prepared to sit down with all the
departments of government and get their
views on matters that they are discussing at
the council table.
As I reported to the House at that time,
much of the information that they produce
they produce for a particular department.
They work with all these departments on
many matters that affect the operations of
4478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
other departments, so they are a service
branch, in effect, an independent service
branch, to any departments that want some-
thing looked into.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister if it would be possible for
the Opposition parties to have the services of
this council, seeing that it is not a civil
service group, seeing that it is an independent
group?
It would be very helpful to us to meet
with them some time, perhaps to have some-
one attend their meetings, and to hear about
the things that these independent people in
our society, from universities, from labour
and from business, have to say about the
economic policies of this government. Would
it be possible to secure an invitation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, certainly, we would
be glad to arrange it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to follow up on the same approach I took
last night, concerning the gaps between the
Minister's estimates and the actual amount
expended.
Last evening, Mr. Chairman, we discussed
three of the items within the main office
estimates in which the Minister consistently
underestimated how much he would actually
expend. And the Minister made some com-
ments on my criticisms and answered some
of my questions. But last night, Mr. Chair-
man, the consistent error, as I call it, in
budget forecasting was all in the direction of
asking for less than they actually expended.
In other words, over-expending considerably
in a number of items. And I felt that had a
relationship to what we are being asked to
approve in this Legislature for 1968-1969.
Mr. Chairman, turning to the Ontario
economic council, we find that the Minister
has made budgeting forecast errors again,
but in the opposite direction. For example,
in both 1965-66 and 1966-67, the Minister
came to this Legislature and asked, for
example, for $10,000 in "travelling expense"
money for the Ontario economic council.
Then he spent almost 40 per cent less than
he asked for in 1965-1966, and almost 30 per
cent less than he asked for in 1966-1967 for
travelling expenses.
When we look at the otlier item— "main-
tenance," including allowances, fees, con-
ferences, research and special studies— we find
that the Minister, in 1965-1966, Mr. Chair-
man, came to this Legislature and asked for
$140,000, and then he actually expended
much less than this. In fact, about 11 per
cent less. He repeated tlie same budgeting
forecast error in 1966-1967. He came and
asked for $147,000, and then spent 24 per
cent less than he asked for.
When we take the total amount for the
Ontario economic council, first we find that
the piling up of the error in the same
direction resulted in the Minister coming to
this Legislature in 1965-1966 and 1966-1967,
asking for more money than be actually
expended.
Mr. Chairman, I would think tliat tlie Min-
ister would learn from this type of past
experience, and that he would come to this
Legislature this year and, instead of asking
for the same amount that he asked for in
the previous four years for travelling expenses,
he would ask for an amount which was
nearer to the amount that he actually
expended. In other words, he is asking us for
$10,000 again. He has done this for four
years and consistently, for two years, he has
spent only $5,675 in 1965-1966 and $7,060 in
1966-1967.
We turn to the maintenance amount and
we find that he has asked us for $140,000
in 1965-1966; $140,000 in 1966-1967; $145,-
000 in 1967-1968; and then, again, $138,000
in 1968-1969. The point is, Mr. Chairman,
that in 1966-1967, for example, he asked us
for $140,000 and spent only $105,978, then
he comes back and asks us for $138,000 for
next year.
^ I do not understand this. I would think he
would learn from past history. If I were a
medical doctor I suppose I would say that
the Minister has a chronic propensity to make
this budgeting forecast error. What does the
difference mean? It means that if we take a
look over a two-year period— if we look at
the actual amount expended in 1966-1967 for
the Ontario economic council— we find that it
spent $166,345. Mr. Chairman, that was the
actual amount expended. Then we look at
the amount the Minister wants us to approve
in 1968-1969— he is asking us to approve
$227,000.
Mr. Chairman, the difference in what he
expended in 1966-1967 and what he is asking
us to approve today is $60,000, or, more pre-
cisely, about $60,655. That is an increase of
37 per cent in two years.
Again I will ask the Minister why, when
he talks about economies in government,
turning dowm inessential programmes, and
particularly with the history of always spend-
ing less than he asks for, why is this Min-
ister coming to us today and asking us to
JUNE 14, 1968
4479
vote him an amount which is 37 per cent
more than he actually expended in 1966-
1967?
Mr. Chairman, I would only add that he
cannot use the arguments he made last night
about being responsible and whatnot, because
last night his error was persistently in the
other direction. Has the Minister got an
answer?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to sound facetious but I would hope
that one of these days the hon. member will
take time to sit down with some of the
Treasury board and understand why there is
a difference in these accounts. They can be
justified 99 times out of 100. As to this one
here, during that year that you are talking
about we got a rebate from the federal gov-
ernment on joint participation of almost
$37,000, and we are dickering with the
federal authorities for a rebate on almost a
similar amount for 1967.
When we get shared programmes which
were not contemplated— sometimes we start
into a year and a problem comes up, say in
manpower, or The Department of Education,
or The Department of Labour wants some-
thing studied— first of all we find out what
share the federal authorities are prepared to
pay for it. I can go back to a number of
items in our department last year — for
instance, a discussion on a survey in northern
Ontario, when Mr. Sauve in the midst of the
year came out and said they would pay 50
per cent of a five-year feasibility study in
northern Ontario. That has been accepted.
If any of that was paid last year, that would
be coming back to the department as a
credit, but we could not foresee that if we
had set up a study earlier and we were
going to pay for it ourselves.
In the case of the economic council. I
will not say most of their work, but a lot of
their work is in conjunction with the federal
authorities— for instance, in immigration, man-
power and education. They pick up their 50
per cent of the cost and then the rebate
comes back to us, which lowers the cost of
operating that department. Again I say, if a
department does not overspend its budget, I
tliink this is good for the taxpayer as well
as for the department. In the case here we
had some revenue coming from the federal
authorities that was not banked on at the
time the estimates were settled the previous
October, so this is where there is a dis-
crepancy in the economic council expendi-
tures and budgeted amounts.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would just
make one further comment and a question
for the Minister. In the Ontario economic
council there must, of course, be forward
planning in terms of research projects. The
Minister is asking us to approve $220,000 for
the Ontario economic council for next year.
I find it very difficult to believe, Mr. Chair-
man, that he cannot be quite precise about
tliat. In other words, the variation between
what he is asking for and what he actually
will expend in 1968-1969 should be, in a
sense, forecastable.
If the Ontario economic council is doing its
job as the Minister sees it, particularly in
the area of research, surely the economic
council under its chairman should know
now what research projects it is going to
do in 1968-1969? If they do not, they are not
doing their job. If they do know what they
want to do, then they should be able to know
now whether or not they will get participa-
tion from The Department of Labour in
Ottawa, for example, for the joint research
projects. Similarly, in fields related to uni-
versity research, if the Ontario economic
council is really doing its job, Mr. Chairman,
then it will have signed those contracts with
imiversity people to do research for 1968-
1969, because you cannot get researchers just
at the drop of a hat. You have to line it up
six months to a year ahead of time.
So, Mr. Chairman, I simply repeat to the
Minister that I cannot understand why, in
the past, he has not been able to be more
precise in what he asks for from this House
and what he gets. Next year, Mr. Chairman,
he is asking us for $227,000 and I find it
very difficult to believe, even if I spend a
weekend with his Treasury officials, to find
out why the Minister cannot be more sure of
whether or not his estimate is going to be
close to his actual. I would just say, Mr.
Chairman, I will follow this particular esti-
mate with interest over the next four years.
Vote 402 agreed to.
On vote 403:
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I note in the
year ending 1967, Mr. Chairman, the amount
for Ontario house was about $500,000, and
the vote asks this time for only $284,000. Is
this a cutback, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes. There have been
some changes. The immigration costs were
taken up there. You see, we have the immi-
gration department set up separately. The
trade and industry costs are taken out of
Ontario house and they have been transferred
4480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to their proper departments this year. That
would be the reason for the reduction. So
this is just the operation of Ontario house
now, without immigration or trade and in-
dustry expenses in there. They now reflect
on their proper departments since we set up
the immigration department.
Mr. Sargent: I see you are paying Mr.
Armstrong about $22,000 plus allowance-
about $30,000 a year. Is this not a pretty
healthy sum for a cushy job?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would not take it
myself and live overseas, I do not think, for
$22,000 with all the difficulties they have to
put up with over there. No, I think it is
commensurate with the job, with the opera-
tion of Ontario house. We have kept it to a
minimum. There are some other provinces
that have almost a legation.
Ontario house has been operating there,
as you know, since after World War II. It
has done a very good job. In fact, just as
many people come to Ontario house for ad-
vice as go to Canada house. Ontario house
works very closely witli Canada house, par-
ticularly in matters of immigration; they do
almost everything in Ontario house except
give the physical examination, which has to
be carried on at Canada house.
No, I would not think that was too high a
salary. That man over there has a very re-
sponsible position and it is in line with what
Deputy Ministers are getting at home here.
Of course, he has a lot of other difficulties
insofar as living expenses are concerned. If
you have spent any time on the continent or
the United Kingdom then certainly you know
the cost of living over there is a lot higher
than it is here, and the inconveniences, I
think, they have to be put up with would
be certainly worth $22,000 a year. If you
are looking for the job sometime, talk to me.
May I just say while we are talking about
Ontario house that the gentleman who has
replaced Mr. Armstrong, who retired on
January 1, is in the House. I would like to
introduce him to the members. Will Mr.
Allan Rowan-Legge stand up for a minute?
Vote 403 agreed to.
On vote 404:
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
this is one vote under this estimate which I
rather question should be in this department
at all. I have become concerned with the
hodge-podge groups of the various govern-
ment departments. We have seen that the
Provincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) has certain
duties having to do with new people who
come to this country and now we, in this
department, have started another branch of
bringing people to our shores over and above
what Ottawa does. I was wondering if the
Minister would tell us, first of all, how many
people are employed by his department under
this vote 404, and how it dovetails, if it does
dovetail at all, with the work done by the
federal government in Ottawa?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, this is
not a new department. As I suggested a few
minutes ago under the hon. George Drew,
when he was Prime Minister of the province,
you recall the famous airlift back in the 50's.
That is right. We have always had an im-
migration department, but as you said, it was
in some other department. When I inherited
this portfolio, it was in Mr. Macaulay's de-
partment. We re-established it in view of
the fact that we wanted to set it up as a
very active department. This was in order to
get the kind of people we think we need
here, and the skills that we require. The
department consists of 32 people, not only
here but overseas as well. I do not think
the department is overloaded with people.
I think the job they have done in getting
the skills that we require here is certainly
very commendable. For instance, last year I
think we brought in 600 school teachers and
there is quite a report on this. I would be
glad to read it in detail if the hon. member
would like me to. The record of the immi-
gration department is a very excellent one,
as far as I am concerned, because there are
difficulties in immigration, great difficulties.
It is a very sensitive area not only for us,
but for the federal authorities.
We, particularly, in this province, are look-
ing for skills because we recognize that we
are getting tlie vast majority of the sponsored
immigration. The sponsored immigration usu-
ally consists of people who are not as well
equipped to find a job when they get here,
or to earn sufficient money to do the things
that they have to do to live in our kind of an
economy. Our feehng is that the more skilled
people we bring here, I say we— every skilled
person we bring can support at least two or
three unskilled people.
So we have, working with the federal
authorities, concentrated our efforts in our
immigration department to bringing in skilled
help. I think from what we have achieved
to date with 116,000 and some odd people
coming in, out of 200,000, and some odd, we
get 54 per cent of the immigration that comes
to Canada. I think we have been rather
JUNE 14, 1968
4481
selective and have been able to do a pretty
good job in serving the needs of indastries
who come to our department looking for this
kind of support, and 32 people, in my estima-
tion, are well justified in the immigration
department.
I do not think it is overloaded. I think it
has to be supervised, and, I would say, I
think it should be supervised by our depart-
ment because it is off-shore. There are not
too many departments in the government
that are in a position to handle an off-shore
operation. We are, and I think that is the
reason why it first came to the Department
of Economics and Development, and, before
that, whatever it was called— the other depart-
ment—under Mr. Billy Nickle.
Mr. Trotter: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I
understand it, this department places ads in
papers in Europe trying to seek trained per-
sonnel. Am I right on that?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mr. Trotter: Well, approximately how much
do you spend?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would not say this
year— as soon as our slow-down in jobs occurs
here, we slow down the advertising for im-
migrants overseas.
Mr. Trotter: And this, as listed here, under
item No. 4 on this vote— that is not what
you paid for advertising from what I gather,
it just says publication of reports.
I was wondering how much you pay, or
will plan to pay, this coming year for adver-
tising for various trained personnel in Europe?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Our general advertising
last year was $25,000, but we did spend
$96,000 for employers who gave us the money
to advertise on their behalf— in the United
Kingdom papers particularly.
Mr. Trotter: The thing that disturbs me
about this particular provincial government
doing, is that if all ten provinces start adver-
tising in Europe, spending the taxpayers'
money, it seems ridiculous if we end up com-
peting with each other. This is why I feel it
should be done through the Ottawa govern-
ment. This immigration really, constitution-
ally, is a federal matter and surely the Ottawa
government has the responsibility to supply
services for Ontario people. I do not see why,
from our Ontario Treasury, we should have
to spend the money that we do.
Now, I would take it from the policy set
down by the Ontario government, that they
have felt over the years— no matter who has
been in power federally, no matter which
political party— that they have been doing a
poor job on this.
Would this be the Minister's opinion, that
no matter who has been in power in Ottawa,
that they have been doing a poor job in
bringing trained personnel to the province of
Ontario? Is this your view?
Hon. Mr. Randall; Well, I would not lil^e
to put the finger on anybody. I recognize the
difficulties in immigration, having been in-
volved in it myself. I can assure you, as far
as the federal authorities are concerned, both
under the present administration and the one
previous, that this government works very
closely with the federal authorities in Ottawa.
We have their blessing on the immigration
work that we are doing, in order to find the
kind of people we wanted for our economy
here and in the other parts of Canada.
I think it is up to every province to co-
ordinate their activities with the federal
authorities, as long as we are both going
in the same direction. So far, we have had no
complaints from the—
Mr. Sargent: You are in opposition.
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, we are not in oppo-
sition. We are doing the same thing. We are
co-ordinating with the federal authorities, in
getting the kind of people that we would like
to see come into Canada. We have had no-
Mr. Sargent: You would not run your own
business that way.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have no differences
of opinion with the federal authorities as far
as our metliods of recruiting people from
overseas, off-shore, to come here. I think we
have an immigration policy that is probably
more open than any other immigration policy
anywhere else in the world at the present
time. But I know it has brought on some
dangers, in more ways than one. We have to
work very closely with the federal authorities,
whether it is of our political faith or not. We
have constantly worked with the federal
authorities in Ottawa to make sure that we
are not duplicating our efforts.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I rise perhaps
on a point of order. I want to say something
about what the Minister has said, but before
I do, I should point out to him tliat while
we sat long hours yesterday and are prepared
to sit long hours today, we do believe that
the government should at least have enough
people over there to operate the House. There
4482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are more in the Opposition by far than tliey
have in all that expanse of empty blue chairs
over there. However, the Minister is here and
we do have some questions to ask him.
It has been our position for many years
that these questions might better be put in
some less formal committee circumstances
than this. We do not want to put the gov-
ernment supporters out in any unrealistic way.
They have to come in and support the Min-
ister. However, my hon. friend from Parkdale
indicated that he was concerned about the
multiplicity of government agencies in this
connection. I do not know whetlier the Min-
ister is aware that his colleague, the Minister
of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), has
an immigration department, in a sense, in his
own department and his own jurisdiction.
I happen to be aware of that because I
am trying to obtain some help for my own
farm through his office. But, the point is that
the member for Parkdale is completely right
in tliat we have immigration responsibilities
at the federal level, and they are proliferating
here as well. Surely, there should be some
effort to unify the responsibility as the
administration sees them among the many de-
partments of the provincial government.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I can just suggest to
the hon, member that, regardless of what tlie
department is looking for staff, whether it be
The Department of Health for nurses, The
Department of Agriculture and Food for
farm help, or The Department of Education
for teachers, they do work through our immi-
gration department. There is no duplication.
They may assign somebody in that depart-
ment to be in contact with our immigration
management.
Mr. Nixon: Have they got somebody
assigned in that department to travel to the
United Kingdom and other points?
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is right. They will
go over like any employer. They will go over
to our office, Ontario house, and working
with Mr. Donaldson, our manager of the
immigration department there. They will go
into the areas he takes them, and he makes
sure that they see the right people. In other
words, he co-ordinates their activities when
they go there.
They are aware of where— let us say— the
bodies would be available. When the man
from Agriculture or Education goes there,
our people work with him to make sure he
gets his contacts. It is a joint effort all the
way, through, I can assure the hon. member.
Mr. Trotter: One remark that the Min-
ister made, Mr. Chairman, I cannot let go
by. He said that they had the most generous
immigration policy in the world. I guess that
is tlie enthusiastic salesman puffing a bit. I
would rather suspect that the—
Mr. Nixon: He claims he has got the
biggest floating crap game, was not that a
quote of his?
Mr. Trotter: Yes, I believe this Minister
has been attributed as saying that he has
the biggest floating crap game in the world
too. But when it comes to immigration, I
beheve that the policy of this department
would be that it is the immigrants that it
would seek would be strictly highly trained
people. You are out looking for a particular
type of individual; you are not just opening
the doors to anybody. As a result I would
assume that your emphasis is placed upon
the United Kingdom and Germany, where
most of the trained personnel are, who are
available in the world and are apt to come
to Canada. Would I be correct in assuming
that?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have a lot of people
from Europe, of course. Perhaps I could give
you some figures that would give you an idea
of what people we are getting, and where
they were coming from.
For instance, I said that last year almost
117,000 came into Ontario, out of 200,000—
plus for Canada; 62,000 entered the labour
force, and 54,807 were non-workers — they
would be families or dependants. The opera-
tional groupings were: managerial 1,291, pro-
fessional and technical 13,181. These are the
kind of people that we have been concentrat-
ing on. Clerical was 8,616, commercial and
finance 1,693, service and recreation 5,409,
transport communication 876, agriculture
1,680, logging 109, fishing and trapping
10, mining and quarrying 140, manufactur-
ing, mechanical and construction 22,996,
labourers 6,150, others 833, and entrepreneurs
59. Sponsored immigrants to the labour force
were 15,878, and unsponsored immigrants,
46,165.
The sources of the inmiigration in 1967
were: 73 per cent citizens of European coun-
tries; 12 per cent, citizens in countries of
North and Central America; 9 per cent citi-
zens of countries in Asia; 3 per cent Aus-
tralia and New Zealand, and 2 per cent
citizens of coutries in Africa.
Mr. Trotter: Is this total immigration?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. Just for Ontario.
JUNE 14, 1968
4483
Mr. Trotter: This is just from your depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, this is from Ontario.
Mr. Trotter: This is immigration that has
come to Ontario, but not necessarily through
your department?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. 1 just said this is
the total number of people that came into
Ontario, and this is the breakdown of the
classifications of where they came from.
Mr. Trotter: But that does not mean that
you have got this trained help. There is no
doubt about it, trained people want to come
to Canada. We have our own immigration
rules that more or less encourage the situa-
tion where the higher your standards of edu-
cation, the better chance you have of being
given a permanent landing visa by our federal
government.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Why is it that most of them want to
come to Ontario?
Mr. Trotter: They want to come to Ontario
because there are more opportunities to work
—the same reason you and I came to On-
tario; the same reason probably why the
Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) came to
Ontario. It is the same all over.
But the truth of the matter is that there is
duplication. This is a federal responsibility
here, far overweighing the provincial responsi-
bility. When employers from Ontario give
this government $96,000 to advertise for
them, I do not see why our federal office
cannot do the same thing. I would still feel
that the Minister has not begun to answer
this question, and that is the duplication that
is obviously taking place. Quebec evidently
wants to do the same thing. Mind you, if
Quebec had set up an immigration branch or
a Quebec house, as we have done over the
years, there would have been a great uproar
and everybody would have got mad at
Quebec.
There is no doubt about it that constitu-
tionally you probably have the right to do
what you are doing, but I am questioning
the economics of it, the over-duplication.
These figures that the Minister just quoted as
to immigration to this province are largely
due to the efforts of the federal government,
or just the fact that Canada is known as a
prosperous country compared to the rest of
the world. Even our poorest places in Canada
are probably far better than most other places
in the world and people are glad to get here.
But the figures that the Minister gave me
are just no ans-wer. I would like to try to
pin this down if I could.
Of the $96,000 that private employers gave
your department, could you give me any idea,
from the spending of that amount of money,
how many of the required employees you
obtained for the employers?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The first enquiries at
overseas offices from this ad resulted in
17,165 people coming in after reading the
ad to see about coming to the province of
Ontario. Prospective immigrants counselled
were 9,313; landed immigrants counselled in
Toronto were 222. As soon as they got off
the boat or the train, they came to our
immigration office here. Employment applica-
tions received by employers were 16,709;
this is the result of spending the $96,000 for
the employers. There were 16,709 applica-
tions received, so I think the pull for their
$96,000 was pretty good.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Two
hundred?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Pretty good. Applicants
offered employment totalled 2,035, employers
making employment offers were 447. Em-
ployers interviewing overseas were 295— that
is, teams of employers going overseas and
using our offices at Ontario house, and bring-
ing people in to talk to various groups— and
employer expenditures and advertising, as I
have already said, were $96,000. The highest
occupational demand was for school teachers,
followed by nurses and then by other trained
hospital personnel. The demand for civil
and chemical engineers was a loss sub-
stantially, and for mechanical and electrical
engineers off slightly from 1966. The same
applied for supporting technicians and drafts-
men. The demand for skilled production line
personnel was much lower than in 1966.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Excuse me just one
minute and I can get finished.
Mr. Chairman: On a point of order.
Mr. Sargent: Somewhere along the line
there should be something we can believe in
these figures.
Mr. Chairman: What is the point of order?
Mr. Sargent: We have little chance of even
hearing those figures, Mr. Chairman. Just a
moment.
4484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: No point of order.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister-
Mr. Chairman: The member has no point
of order. The Minister has the floor.
Mr. Sargent: This is the biggest snow job
ever!
Mr. Chairman: The member is out of order.
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member for Grey-Bruce thinks this is
a snow job, I would suggest he go ahead and
get the facts and prove it is a snow job. I
tell you these facts are compiled by very
reputable people on the civil service; and
we are not doctoring anything, I can assure
you.
Mr. Sargent: You are trying to justify your
existence.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Certainly, we justify our
existence and our reason on this side of the
House. Why should we not?
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have given the
hon, member for Parkdale the information he
requested. That is all the answer I can give
him. If he wants some more, I will be glad
to pursue it further, but I would think you
could see from the $96,000 spent by the
employers, that we have got fairly good
results for them out of our advertisements.
Mr. Trotter: I take it from those figures
that they got 447 employees, or was it
2,035?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It was 2,035; the 447
was firms.
Mr. Trotter: It was what?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Firms.
Mr. Trotter: But when you would hire
teachers, or at least make it possible that
teachers could be hired in Ontario, who
would you ask to do that? I understand
through your efforts 600 teachers came to
Ontario. Who would request that of you?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mainly school boards.
School boards themselves would send their
own representatives over to interview teachers
in Glasgow and the United Kingdom and at
Ontario house.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on 404, I note
in the item entitled "maintenance" that in
1967-1968 the Minister had an estimate of
$44,000 and then for next year, 1968-1969,
he is asking for $72,000. This is not doubling
but close to it, and when looking over the
other items in vote 404, and at the total
amount he is asking compared to the esti-
mates for last year, I find the entire increase
is almost made up of the increase in main-
tenance costs. I was wondering if the
Minister could explain why there seems to be
this discrepancy in the rates of increase in
the various sub-items? Why does he think
his maintenance costs are going to go up
when he thinks the salary costs will not go
up very much, when his travelling expenses
are estimated to be the same as last year,
and when the publication of reports, exhibits
and displays is budgeted for the same
amount as last year? Why this maintenance
figure? Is this padding once again, or what
is it?
Hon. Mr. Randall: When we reorganized
the immigration department there were new
classifications given for immigration men
serving overseas and they were then given
foreign service allowances which were not
permitted before, and that is the reason why
there is an increase in their allotments.
Vote 404 agreed to.
On vote 405:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, last night I
asked the Minister if he could give us the
offices where he is operating, now under this
vote 405? Like Dusseldorf, Milan, and so on.
Where are you operating? Where do you
have offices?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have an office in
Milan, Dusseldorf, Ontario house, of course.
We have an office in New York, Chicago and
Los Angeles.
In the other areas where the men are
operating they do not have offices. They use
an office service but they do not have an
office. In other words, we want them out
Monday morning and back Friday night and
not tied down with a lot of clerical work.
Mr. Sargent: We have, coupled with the
$1.2 million in the first vote and $3 million
roughly here, we are maybe talking about $4
million on promotion, and if ever an efficiency
survey came into this government this is one
area where we could cut back.
They tell me that when a business is in
trouble, they start looking for areas to save
money and cut back. Well, if any business
was ever in trouble, it is this province of
Ontario; this government here.
JUNE 14, 1968
4485
The debenture debt increase last year was
$450 million— we are going into debt $1.5
million a day— so if we saved $3 million or
$4 million here, it would only be four days
lost, the way we are going now.
I would like to ask the Minister, could he
tell us what results he gets from Dusseldorf,
Milan and Los Angeles? For instance, I was
down there— as I told the Minister before—
I was in the office in Los Angeles a few
months ago, and the man did not even have
time to talk to me. The manager came out
and he put me in a little cubbyhole in the
outer office and gave me a couple of minutes.
I did not tell him who I was, I just told him
I was an Ontario citizen, but he did not have
time to talk to me. If this is an example of
how you operate your offices, it is a waste of
money, Mr. Chairman.
What are we getting out of Dusseldorf or
Milan or those places?
Mr. Nixon: Some fellow down there was
selling cookies.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, you should see
this office in Los Angeles. It is a plush Holly-
wood type. You walk in carpets up to your
ankles, you have choice models for recep-
tionists and all the trappings that reveal the
con game that we have going on over here.
So, in essence, if they are going to get any
business out of the Los Angeles office, they
are going to have to do a better job than
they did on me.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 405?
Mr. Sargent: Just a minute, is the Min-
ister going to answer some questions?
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister have a
comment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I have a comment.
I do not know about the reception in Los
Angeles, I was not there. I always say there
are three sides to a story, yours, mine and
the truth.
I am not doubting the member's word-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: You are going to check it out,
are you?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will be glad to check
it out. But just let me deal with Los Angeles
for a minute.
The office opened there— the man was
posted October 2 and it was officially opened
December 1. At the present time, he is work-
ing on 53 new prospects for plant locations
in Ontario. He is working on 23 joint venture
arrangements, 33 manufacturing arrangements,
31 new marketing deals— that is the cookie
deals where we take a product down there
and sell it.
This is the kind of activity these people
are engaged in—
Mr. Trotter: How many have actually
come, though?
Hon. Mr. Randall: —and the same thing
applies to our other offices. They look after
trade missions when they go there, they set
up appointments so that if you, as a manu-
facturer, went on a trade mission that man
would set up sufficient appointments to keep
you busy all the time you are there and
make sure you talk to people who can say,
"I want to buy." You do not go around ring-
ing doorbells and leave there saying, "I didn't
find anybody who had an interest." He sorts
all those people out before you get there, so
you do not waste your time and we do not
waste our money.
This is the responsibilit>' of these offices.
They get many hundreds of people from
Ontario that manufacturers send over. For
instance, I know Consumers' Gas have been
in Europe a number of times, in view of the
gas find in Holland. They have used our
offices over there in some of the connections
they have made in Belgium and Luxembourg
and other places.
At the present time in Dusseldorf they are
working on eight new factory prospects, three
joint ventures, nine manufacturing arrange-
ments and eight marketing arrangements. This
is the kind of work that these people are
doing.
I gave the House an answer to a question
the member asked me a few weeks ago; I
gave a full answer on our participation in the
Los Angeles market, where there are 22 mil-
lion people, which is more than we have in
Canada. We feel that is the place we should
concentrate the efforts of a man like the
man we have down there, the same as
Chicago and New York.
About 80 per cent of the new plant loca-
tions we get-
Mr. Sargent: I never heard from them
again.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will see that you get
a Christmas card for sure this year.
I will tell you, as far as I am concerned, I
think these offices are justified. In the areas
4486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where we are getting the plant locations,
about 80 per cent of them are from the
United States and we have these—
Mr. Sargent: You still have not any in-
dustries yet.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure we have industries
out of the United States. Tliey only opened
up a few months ago.
Mr. Sargent: How many?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If the hon. member asks
me a year from now I will be able to tell
him.
Mr. Nixon: But you can tell us now and
the answer is none.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I could not say whether
it is none or not. We have an industrial
review that is going to be published, I think
in about two weeks time. Perhaps in that we
will have a list of some Los Angeles plants.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me just point out
one company, Douglas Aircraft. We have
been working with Douglas Aircraft since
they took over the Malton operation a few
years ago. As you know, they are shipping
out of there $100 million a week, or $100
million a month— $100 milHon a year-
Mr. Nixon: Get it right!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, the decimal point
slipped this morning. It is $100 million in
exports of aircraft parts that have gone back
to the Douglas Aircraft Company in Cali-
fornia. We have been talking to Lockheed
about coming-
Mr. T. Reid: You cannot take credit for
that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are not taking credit
for anything. I just simply say-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh yes, we have done a
lot of things for Douglas Aircraft.
Mr. T. Reid: You mean you are responsi]:)le
for the parent company buying their stuff
from their Canadian sub?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, no, no. Do not get
excited now. Just wait a minute now, do
not get excited. You have all morning, we
will not be going out of here until 2 o'clock.
The Douglas Aircraft Company is placing
orders here and when they place the orders,
our people in Trade and Industry have helped
Douglas Aircraft in Canada find dozens of
small suppliers, so that many small towns are
now producing parts for Douglas Aircraft.
This is where we have helped Douglas Air-
craft.
Sure, we do not take credit for the $100
million shipments to the United States, but
we certainly feel we have done something
to assist them in getting—
Mr. Sargent: They have to keep busy at
something.
Hon. Mr. Randall: My associate here tells
me I should read what happened in the
month of April in Los Angeles. Perhaps it
is just as well I do. Los Angeles office
reports 17 new branch prospects, four joint
venture prospects and 17 new licensing pros-
pects for the month of April.
Mr. Sargent: Just like an insurance sales-
man.
Hon. Mr. Randall: In the area of market-
ing, the Los Angeles office reported sales on
behalf of Essex Packers Limited in the
amount of $1.6 million projected for a one-
year period, and also Standard-Modem Tools
in the amount of $500,000.
Of significant interest is the announcement
by Lockheed California of a production go-
ahead for 172 of the LlOll air buses being
purchased by several major airlines through-
out the world. As a result of this, Lockheed
are expanding their California plants and
they are looking abroad, particularly to Can-
ada, for several sub-contractors in this project.
It is to lie hoped that many Ontario com-
panies will be able to contribute to this
programme, and the marketing branch is in
the process of contacting interested suppliers.
The Los Angeles office reports that the
California economy is particularly strong,
despite uncertainties over the devaluation of
die United States dollar and the pending
corporate tax hike. The high level of
employment and personal income and a
favourable construction climate will ensure
continuation of a record rise in employment
which is now in its eighth year.
These are some of the prospects that we
are sorting out with our people in this office
and the other offices around the world. If
we were not there, there is a lot of this
business tliat I do not think would come to
Canada. And it is obvious that we need
the kind of people we have in these foreign
offices.
JUNE 14, 1968
4487
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman,
Under this vote, I would Hke to ask the
Minister— I was not in during his opening
remarks— in regards to industries, whether he
stated how many industries located in the
province of Ontario last year, Mr. Chairman,
we know that they are settling in the big
"golden horseshoe" in general, but so many
of the towns and villages have been struggling
for years and years and nothing has taken
place. Of course, you have a new programme
here- industrial opportunity, equalization of
industrial opportunity in Ontario— and I
would hke to know how many industries
really settled last year outside the "golden
horseshoe", or in towns in rural Ontario
during 1967-1968.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, all I can give you
is what I have here for 1967-the EIO
programme I announced in my opening state-
ment. I told you how many went to north-
em Ontario, eastern Ontario and the rest
of Ontario, but here is a list of the new
manufacturing establishments and where they
located last year: eastern Ontario, 6; north-
western Ontario, 2; Georgian Bay area, 13;
Lake Ontario area, 9; northeastern Ontario,
4; midwestern Ontario, 18; Niagara, 15; Lake
Erie, 7; St. Clair, 6; central, 52: for a total
of 132.
These are pretty well spread, as you can
see, throughout the province. We have no
programme to force industry to go to one
particular area, but the EIO programme is,
in effect, doing that. As 1 said earlier, money
talks. These plants are going where they
think they can operate on a capital basis, in
a designated area such as you have in Geor-
gian Bay. If there are other areas now that
have been redesignated, they qualify for the
EIO programme. For instance, your former
colleague, Mr. Whicher, was always worry-
ing about getting industry in Wiarton. Well,
as long as the federal authorities had desig-
nated areas such as Collingwod, Owen Sound
and Midland, you can understand why some
industries would not locate in Wiarton. But—
Mr. Nixon: Probably you will be able to
fix that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: —now that they have
l)een redesignated under our programme, a
town like Wiarton, and say Meaford— some
of those places— have an opportunity of get-
ting an industry or two.
Mr. Sargent: It does not mean anything.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well I do not know.
You say it does not mean anything, but some
of these towns only need one industry. If
they get it, that is about all they can absorb.
There are many municipahties— and we will
discuss it later— sending in applications. You
well know in your own area they do not have
any serviced land, they do not have any
housing— but they just want to make sure
they are on the list. If they can develop, if
they get an energetic council or an industrial
development officer, and they want some
assistance from us as to how they can get
an industry— that is what we are trying to
do for them.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the—
Mr. Chairman: Is this on 405?
Mr. Trotter: Yes, it rises from what the
Minister just said, that is all.
Mr. Chairman: That comes under the On-
tario development corporation-
Mr. Trotter: Ontario development corpora-
tion? All right I can wait until then.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, through you to
the Minister— we see that rural Ontario popu-
lation is going down and we have to export
our educated young people, the greatest
asset we have, to the great metropolitan areas.
What has been told us in the past— that they
are doing something for rural Ontario to
encourage industrial development or some
industry— is not taking place.
Mr. Chairman: I really think that comes
under 406.
Mr. Spence: I am sorry.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, could the
Minister let me know before we go any
further what type of financial assistance his
department is responsible for— there trade
commissions abroad? What are you paying
for? What are the individual firms paying
for?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We pay the air costs,
the transportation costs to and from the area
where the trade mission goes, and the manu-
facturer's representative pays all his own other
expenses.
Mr. T. Reid: That is economy fare, is it?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, always economy,
including economy for the Minister if I go.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to turn to a number of particular ques-
tions relating to the trade missions abroad.
4488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
As the Minister has stated, this government
pays from the pubHc purse, from the tax-
payers' dollars, the air fares of the people
from private companies who go on these
various trade missions, and the private
businesses pay for the other expenses. I have
a series of questions here, Mr. Chairman, and
I think I had better ask them one at a time
and ask the Minister to comment on them,
one at a time.
On September 9, there was a sales mission
to Basle, Switzerland. Reading from the Min-
ister's press release, I note that on this sales
mission— led by Mr. McRae, a commissioner
of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario— one of the companies represented
was Canadian Westinghouse Company Lim-
ited. I would like to ask the Minister whether
Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited is
a subsidiary of an American company.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, this was a nuclear
mission. And when you send a nuclear mis-
sion you get people from the companies that
are in the nuclear field. And we would invite
people like Mr. McRae, the former chairman
of the board of General Electric, who headed
the mission for me. I could not go on it
myself. Also included was Mr. Smith of the
Ontario Hydro, who is the chief nuclear
official for Hydro, and a member from West-
inghouse. These are the companies that are
building nuclear equipment. They were sel-
ected for this mission because of their knowl-
edge and the fact that they can talk with
authority about nuclear energy when they
visit the various authorities in these areas.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, yes, that is
correct. Canadian Westinghouse Company
Limited is a subsidiary of Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corporation of Pittsburgh, which has a
controlling interest in the Canadian Westing-
house Company. For the information of the
Minister, on the board of directors of Cana-
dian Westinghouse Limited are G. G. Main
and A. K. McCord, two directors who live in
Pittsburgh. So, it is definitely very highly
owned by the American parent and has very
good representation on the Canadian board
by directors of the parent company in Pitts-
burgh.
Seeing that this was concerned with the
nuclear industry in Canada, what assurances
does the Minister have from the president of
Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited, as
opposed to the person who went on the trade
mission, Mr. W, J. Stirling, who is definitely
not a director— he is probably head of some
department within the company— Mr. Chair-
man, what assurances does the Minister have
from the directors of Canadian W^estinghouse
Company Limited that the information they
picked up in Europe would not be fed right
back to the parent company in Pittsburgh, so
the American parent company in Pittsburgh
gets the advantage of the Ontario govern-
ment taking the subsidiary firm from Canada
on the junket over to Europe? Does the Min-
ister have any assurances fram the Canadian
firm or from the parent company in Pitts-
burgh, that the help he is giving to their
Canadian subsidiary is not simply going to
result in bigger profits directly to the parent
company in Pittsburgh? Do you have any
assurances of this? If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, this is like
the question "when did you stop beating
your wife?" I do not think there is any
answer to a question like that. Let me first
of all say that we talked here the day before
yesterday about the Canadian heavy water
system. The Americans are not in the heavy
water system. This man who went from
Westinghouse here would be selling equip-
ment adaptable only to the heavy water
system.
Now it is unlikely that he would go over
there and try to pick up an order and have
something manufactured in the United States
—give them a lead to go back and get the
order so they get the profit on the deal com-
pared to the Canadian plan. I do not think
we can give you any assurance on that and
I do not think it is required. I simply say
to you that on all these missions we never
ask where the parent is.
If they are good Canadian corporate citi-
zens, as most of the American companies are
over here, they go out to work for Canada.
They are doing that and especially in the
nuclear field, because, as I say, our system is
an exclusive system at the present time. They
bring back business for their Hamilton plant.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, just to follow
up on this— can the Minister tell me where
the research centre of Westinghouse— includ-
ing both the parent in Pittsburgh and the
subsidiary in Port Hope is located?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think it is in Pittsburgli
that they have a research centre. Whatever
research they do here, they do in their plant
facilities, I believe, in Hamilton. But they
have many departments. For instance, if they
are manufacturing light bulbs in Oakville,
like maybe General Electric would be, per-
JUNE 14, 1968
4489
haps their hght bulb research may be done
there.
On the other hand, I do not think that
Westinghouse— to my knowledge— have a re-
search centre anywhere away from their main
plant in Hamilton as yet. We are contacting
both Westinghouse and GE because one of
these days we believe that they would be
interested in coming into Sheridan Park and
putting a research centre there to use the
people who are coming out of our univer-
sities. That is what we are trying to encourage
them to do, and if you look at the list of
people at Sheridan Park, you will find, I
think, that 50 per cent of them there now
are subsidiaries of American companies.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the reason I
asked that question was that the Minister
said that this was a nuclear industry visit
aboard and that he invited Canadian Westing-
house Company Ltd. because they were in-
volved in this area in Canada. Then he said,
Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, that
we would not have to worry about the sub-
sidiary giving the information back to the
parent so that the parent in the U.S. could
get the advantage from the Minister's trade
mission, because it was about something very
particular to Canada, it was having to do with
the type of nuclear energy we are develop-
ing in Canada.
Then I asked the Minister where the re-
search centre is for this large international
company, and then he started talking about
them not being out in Sheridan Park yet.
That is not the point, Mr. Chairman. The
point is this: Does the Minister know, or
does he not know, where this international
company does its nuclear research? Is that
nuclear research done in Pittsburgh, or is
it done in Hamilton? If he does not know
that, then he should never have invited this
company to participate in this sales mission
at all.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I dis-
agree with the hon. member completely be-
cause Westinghouse do not make a complete
nuclear plant. They make pieces and parts;
they make some of the motors and equip-
ment, the dynamos and what have you that
go into a hydro generating station, and they
are quite capable of making pieces and parts
for a nuclear package without making a com-
plete plant. So it does not matter to me
where there research is done. If they have
the knowledge in the Westinghouse plant
now that they may have got from the
American plant insofar as making their
electrical equipment— as you know most of
the energy plants are heavy users of big,
heavy, electrical equipment— they have had
that knowledge and they make whatever part
of that equipment they can provide.
It is not unusual to find even some of
our Westinghouse and GE plants co-operat-
ing with some of our Japanese or British or
Swedish officials in supplying, on a combine
basis, electrical equipment for jobs all over
the world. As far as I am concerned the
Westinghouse people are specialists in some
of these things, as well as those at General
Electric, and if they can manufacture them
there with their manufacturing knowledge, it
does not matter to me, and it does not matter
to anybody, where their research is done.
They have already been producing this same
kind of equipment for some of our coal
burning stations, so to them it is a standard
product, it is not a research product.
Mr. T. Reid: Apparently, Mr. Chairman,
the Minister has now said that these are
standard products, which is again the point
which Mr. H. I. Macdonald noted about
duplication of American production tech-
niques and output in Canada. Mr. Chairman,
since the Minister has said that these are
standard products produced by Canadian
Westinghouse, what assurance does he have
that these exports to Europe, if and when
they come, will not be made by the parent
company in Pittsburgh— which is making
exactly the same type of products, by the
Minister's own admission just now? What
assurance does the Minister have that the
export orders, instead of going into the
Canadian subsidiary in Port Hope, will not
go to the American parent in Pittsburgh? He
has just said that they produce the same
thing. They are not unique products, and if
so, you just might be encouraging American
exports from the parent company, which is,
through research, something that does
happen.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would not think that
there would be much possibility of them
taking an order in other country and shipping
a part from the United States when they have
the facilities here. If the nuclear package is
put together here by Atomic Energy of
Canada, Westinghouse, GE, and three or
four others that are in the field. The pack-
age is assembled here before it is shipped
to wherever their plant is going to be located.
For instance, I think for the one that we
put in Pakistan, most of that equipment was
manufactured here, but the Japanese, I also
4490
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
understand, were partial suppliers of some of
the equipment that went into Pakistan. I
would have every confidence in the world in
Westinghouse or General Electric producing
the pieces that they offered to this pro-
gramme, and tliey are producing them right
here. I do not think for one minute they
would be going on our missions and sending
the orders to the United States. I am not
gullible by any manner of means; it could
happen, but I do not think it has.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Leaving that and turning to another question,
in a press release from the Minister's depart-
ment dated January 27, it states that:
Ontario's trade crusade programme hit
the 500 mark today with the arrival of a
nine-member sales mission on its way to
the British toy fair at Brighton.
Later on, the press release lists nine of the
manufacturers who participated in tliis par-
ticular trade crusade programme, and then
the press release states:
Two other Ontario manufacturers went
as far as London with the sales mission.
Tlien began a series of business calls across
the United Kingdom on their own. Their
companies are London Wineries Ltd.,
London, Ontario, and Echlin United of
Canada Ltd., Rexdale.
My question to the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
is first of all did he pay the air fares of these
companies that went over to England on
private business, and got a hitchhike ride
with the trade mission?
Hon. Mr. Randall: What we do is we pay
the air fare to the mission field, and if they
break off at the mission field after our job
is done and they go anywhere else, they pay
their own expenses. It may be possible that
they can come back a different way from
which they went and they come back with
the same fare; that is fair game as far
as I am concerned. But if they break off and
make a tour on their own for their own
personal interest, they pay their own fare.
For instance, when we took a mission to
Russia in 1966, some of tliose men went to
other countries in eastern Europe but they
went at their own expense. Their mission as
far as we were concerned was completed in
Russia, in Moscow, and from there on if
they did not come straight home, anywhere
else they went they paid their own expenses.
Mr. T. Reid: If I understand the Minister
correctly, Mr. Chairman, and he will correct
me if I am wrong, for the tour of these
two manufacturers, and there are several
others like this as the Minister knows, the
government paid their air fare from say
Toronto to London and then from London
to Toronto. If they spent two weeks touring
around in the United Kingdom or staying in
London, tliey paid their own expenses, is that
correct?
This is what I find a bit worrying. The air
fare from Toronto to Lonodon return is the
largest part of travelling expenses, so they go
with the Minister, they spend a day in Lon-
don, say, or two days in London with the
trade mission and then they spend two weeks
touring around England on their own drum-
ming up business, which is good, that is what
they should be doing. But why should the tax-
payers of this province pay the big portion of
their total expenses, which is the cost of
getting from Toronto to London, and from
London back to Toronto, and the private
firms are just paying expenses, such as $5
renting a car and driving around the United
Kingdom?
Surely if they are going over there for
private business, as well as what I suppose
could loosely be called government business,
he should split the total bill down the
middle which is far better than the gov-
ernment picking up by far the largest portion
of the bill, and then these company oflBcials
paying from company pockets or from their
own for the rest. Surely if they are going
over there on private business they do not
go over there witli you, and if they do not
come back with you they should only get
perhaps half their air fare paid instead of
just subsidizing what amounts to a pleasure
trip abroad with a hitch on your trade
crusade.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I disagree that these
are pleasure trips. These men are too inter-
ested in getting business for their companies
to go on pleasure trips, I can assure you of
that. I have been in areas where the air fare
is the least expensive part of the trip. If you
have been in London, England, lately and
tried to get a hotel room, you had better
take the crown jewels with you because I
do not think that you can get a hotel room in
London for much less than $30 to $35 a
day if you can get in. The reverse to what
my hon. friend said is true— the air fare to
the U.S. is very meagre indeed compared to
the cost of meals.
Mr. T. Reid: We are talking about the
United Kingdom.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know, but I am just
using another example. You send a mission
JUNE 14, 1968
4491
to the United States, the air fare is practically
nil compared to—
Mr. T. Reid: I am talking about overseas.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know that you are, but
let us talk about both things; let us talk about
the United Kingdom-
Mr. T. Reid: My question relates to over-
seas; that is expensive for government funds.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Of course you can.
Mr. T. Reid: United States trips cost the
government less than overseas.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Perhaps the Minister
might be permitted to answer?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Of course you can.
When you go to the United Kingdom, once
you get there I would say in most cases, if a
man stays there for two weeks drumming up
business, he will spend a lot more than the
air fare for hotels and meals, believe me, and
other transportation.
Now if a mission was going to the United
States, the air fare is minimal, but the hotel
accommodation and the meals in the United
States would be very expensive for him. On
the average, I think that it balances out. I
do not have any reason to believe that, if a
man goes on a mission, he stays to the end of
his ticket tour and keeps calling and getting
more business. I hope that he spends as much
time as he can at our expense over there, if
we are going to commit ourselves to the fare.
He is going to take the last hour, if he can,
to get orders, and this is what they are doing.
Mr. T. Reid: May I ask the Minister if any
of the people who have done this have felt
the trade mission before the tour is com-
pleted? In other words, did they arrive in
London, and then leave before your mission
is over, or did they wait until the mission is
over?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, they are scheduled
—and we have a trade mission leader with
them out of our own office and usually tlie
member from the Canadian government trade
oflBce is also with us. They stay right to the
end of the tour, I can assure you.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, on January
27, when he talked about this trade mission,
the Minister said that two other manufacturers
went as far as London with the trade mission,
presumably, the sales mission continued, but
these two fellows got o£E their hitchhike ride
to begin a series of business calls across the
United Kingdom on their own.
The Minister just told me just now that
these people always stayed with the trade
mission, yet on one of his press releases says
that a couple of people left the mission.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think that tlie hon. member is reading the
release as it was meant to read.
The mission was to tlie United Kingdom
and, when the mission was finished, then they
went off on their own to make other calls in
the rest of Europe. They completed their
mission with us, whether it was a week or
ten days— as long as they are finished with
our mission, then they are at liberty to go
anywhere they hke.
If they come back to London, then their
air fare is paid back to London, and they get
the return half of their ticket. Once they
leave the mission, they are on their own. But
they have completed the mission work and
we do not take them unless they do.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I will just read
into the record the Minister's own press re-
lease, because he said that I was not reading
correctly. I was reading directly.
Two other Ontario manufacturers went
as far as London with the sales mission,
then began a series of calls across the
United Kingdom on their own.
Now perhaps we will have to get further
explanation for that.
Mr. Chairman, turning to another aspect
of the trade missions, I wonder of the Min-
ister could tell me whether it is the principle
of these trade missions to have people to go
over who are in a similar field? Toy manu-
facturers, and so forth. Is this one of the
principles of your trade crusade?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Do you mean do we
take all toy manufacturers? No.
These missions originated with the federal
government. They used to take what they
called a backplanning mission, such as all
chemical manufacturers, or all rubber manu-
facturers.
We started our trade mission realizing that
this was not the kind of mission that we
wanted; we wanted order taking missions. So
the men who go with us represent different
industries. We would not take two toy manu-
facturers, for instance. We would take maybe
a toy manufacturer, a washing machine manu-
facturer and a building manufacturer. The
reason is tliat we have a better chance of get-
ting business. The second thing is that when
the appointments are made, a man will not
open his office door and find 15 chemical
4492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
iiianufacturers all standing there looking for
an order, or for facts.
That has been very useful, but even the
federal government is now breaking up their
missions and diversifying the people who go
on the missions, similar to what we are doing
here in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 405?
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, in a press
release regarding the sales mission to Dussel-
dorf, Germany, about the Hanover fair, one
of the companies that was represented at the
mission was the Eastern Steel Products Lim-
ited, of Preston.
Some hon. members: Oh, no!
Mr. T Reid: Eastern Steel Products is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Combined
Engineered Products here in Toronto, and
Combined Engineered Products Limited of
Toronto had a working capital in 1966 of
$1,782,419 and a net profit of $1,812,494.
I have two questions on this.
Why was the parent company not asked to
send a top level official who might have been
helpful on this? I can, I admit, see reasons
why you would want the Canadian subsidiary
of a Canadian parent company to go along.
Second, with an integrated operation like
this— with the commercial and industrial com-
plex of Combined Engineered Products of
Toronto— surely this is exactly the type of
company that you do not need to help? This
is a big operation, a big bu.siness even, though
in this case, I think that it is Canadian-owned,
which is good.
I thought that one of the Minister's pur-
poses in the trade crusade was to help the
smaller manufacturer who could not help
himself, and who did not know enough to go
abroad, and so forth. Why is this department
helping big industrial complexes like this,
with several subsidiaries, good working cap-
ital and a good profit rate? Why are we pay-
ing their air fare to Europe and back out of
taxation dollars?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, first of
all let me say that the rule of thumb as far
as I am concerned is that I would just as
soon leave the company presidents at home
and take the hungriest salesmen that they
have. If this fellow is out for blood, he wants
to make a name for himself, and get the
chance to get into the export field. If he gets
an order, he gets very enthusiastic and he
wants to go back. He will work a lot harder
than the president.
I find if you take the presidents along,
they meet usually, with the presidents of the
other companies and they do not buy or sell
each other. When they get back they make a
speech to the Rotary club about the trip to
Europe or wherever they went at the govern-
ment's expense— and no orders.
I speak from personal experience, believe
me. So we try to get the hungry salesmen
of the company to go.
The size of the company and the wealth
of the company, as far as this province is
concerned, does not dictate the kind of people
that we take any more than the EIO pro-
gramme. We hope that the smaller com-
panies can be helped to participate, so they
can grow and expand, but our major objective
in taking these people overseas is to see if
they can make a contribution to the province
of Ontario.
Whether it be a combined enterprise on
the part of the company that you are talking
about, or any other, the size of the com-
panies, as far as I am concerned, do not
have any bearing on whether they should go
on a mission. If they are not doing business
overseas and we want them to get into that
field, perhaps this is a way that we can get
them into it.
The mission that you are referring to was
to the Hanover fair, where we were inter-
ested in getting these people to take a look
at the many things that were being shown,
to get licence arrangements and, if they could,
bring a licence arrangement back here. This
is one of the things I thought you pointed
out yourself veiy well the other day, that if
we bring back the licence arrangement, that
means we are going to provide jobs and
income for our people here. Many of these
missions are looking for licence arrangements
—joint arrangements for manufacturing over-
seas.
We think some Canadian money could be
well invested in Europe today and have some
of those dividends flowing back here.
So this is the objective of some of these
missions; to keep our eye open for licence
agreements. I would say the company you
are referring to is one that certainly could
present a good front if they want to get a
licence agreement from the foreign manu-
facturer. They have got there wherewithal to
produce the product. They can pay their
bills and I think they would be more im-
pressed with this kind of representation than
they would with some little fellow going over
and saying, "Well, I do not have a business
now," or, "I have a very limited business
JUNE 14, 1968
4493
and I would like to manufacture another line
of products."
Mr. T. Raid: That is very helpful, Mr.
Chairman.
Have any of the larger companies with—
you know, large working capital or large
profits— ever offered to the Minister's depart-
ment to pay their own air fare?
I am interested in knowing if any of these
top—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sorry, would you repeat
that question?
Mr. T. Reid: Have any of these companies,
particularly the bigger ones who can very
well afford it, ever offered to pay their own
air fares and go with the trade mission? If
they have offered, could they write you a
cheque, instead of using taxpayers' dollars-
could they spend their own dollars?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot recall anybody
ever going on a mission and sending us back
a cheque.
But keep this in mind. If they have an
interest in that market and they are suc-
cessful, they will go back many times on
their own. This is one of the things that
the mission has done. It has developed a
lot of instant international salesmen. People
who thought perhaps they could never do any
form of business in a foreign market have
gone. They find that they can talk the
language, they can understand the money
and they can get business. When they do,
they go back on their own.
Now the first mission they go with us.
If they have never been there before, this
opens up a whole new avenue to them. But
to be honest with you, I do not think any-
body ever sent us back a cheque.
Mr. T. Reid: Well it gets me to another
point on this, Mr. Chairman. That is, since
the Minister has this programme— and it is
a helpful programme— and since he also pays
their air fare, their transportation costs, he
must believe that these firms need this par-
ticular incentive to be convinced to go on a
sales mission.
Does the Minister really think it is neces-
sary to pay their air fare to get them to par-
ticipate in one of his sales missions abroad?
I suspect that a lot of these firms would
be glad to participate in the Minister's pro-
gramme. If he is a great salesman, why does
he have to pay their fares to make them
come? I think he can do it without paying
them. That is the point I am really getting
to, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not think I can
answer for everybody who went on missions.
But I do not think a lot of these people
would be bothered leaving the job they now
have and going overseas for two or three
weeks unless this incentive was there to get
them to join the mission. It is an in\itation
on behalf of the government to go and do
something for the province of Ontario. This
is how we get them interested in the export
business.
Now keep in mind that, while that man
is away, his salary is being paid by his
employer, who is picking up all his other
expenses. He certainly does not make any
money on the trip, I can assure you. No,
I do not think that we would be successful
unless we had this kind of incentive pro-
gramme to take them abroad. I think every
other province in Canada, as well as the
federal authorities, does exactly the same
thing.
I have a note here. It says in many cases
they do not understand the money over there.
They do not understand the language. In
some cases they do not know how they
will get along. The CIF arranges for pricing
and they have to go there to find out what
they can lay their product down for and what
the obstacles are.
I think I mentioned just yesterday that
one of the last things Mr. Winters did before
he left office was to send out 6,000 letters
to Canadian manufacturers asking them to
report back on why they could not do busi-
ness in certain countries and what the non-
tariff barriers were. I think the easiest way
to find out what the difficulties are is to
have a man go there and investigate them.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
has outlined the purpose of the programme
and it is a very worthwhile programme. The
specific question I asked him, which he did
not answer, was whether he feels that the
paying of their air fares is necessary to get
them to participate. I agree with the Minis-
ter's statement tliat a lot of these smaller
manufacturers in particular just do not un-
derstand the markets abroad. Therefore, what
he is doing is worthwhile. But that was not
the question I asked him. I asked him
whether he really felt that he had to pay their
air fare-
Mr. Chairman: Well the Minister answered
that question specifically. The member is
being repetitious. The question was answered.
4494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Well, if that is the opinion
of the Chairman, I leave it. We will just
have to check Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister
to comment on the following statement and
apply it perhaps, to next year.
In 1966, I believe the Minister stated that
the results of this particular initiative on his
part, brought back $12 million worth of
sample sales. If company profits are 10 per
cent, profits therefore resulting from a trade
mission amount to httle over $1 million.
Now these are profits to the private sector,
to the firms that participated in his sales
mission. But the government spent $100,000,
I believe, in that year. Therefore, for every
$10 profit to the private companies which
participated in the missions, for every $10
worth of profit the missions produced, the
cost to the government is $1. This is a pretty
major subsidy for the conduct of private
business. I was wondering if the Minister—
this is an argument my leader made last
year— would comment on it for the current
year.
In other words, when you estimate how
much these new sales, these trade missions
brought to private companies and when you
make an assumption about how much profit
they make on those sales, you get a figure.
The more successful your missions, of
course, the higher the profit. Then you have
expenditures to make the programme work,
including this transportation cost.
I would like to know if this is still correct:
For every dollar that the Minister spends in
his programme, it brings back $10 worth of
profits for the companies that participate.
Hon. Mr. Randall: All I can suggest to
the hon. member in answer to that question
is that when we are finished with a mission
the men on the mission will give us an aflB-
davit which we have stating what they have
sold, what they estimate they are going to
selling the coming months. We analyze that.
I had it broken down for every year, and
we thought that, up to May 31, 1968,
we would get an accumulative total of
$186,668,000.
Against that, I can only suggest that you
look at the exports for last year, which were
something like $11 billion— higher than what
Mr. Winters anticipated for last year. For
Canada as a whole, 78 per cent of all manu-
factured goods in 1966 came out of the
province of Ontario. Last year, 90 per cent
of the exports came out of the province of
Ontiirio.
Our unemployment figure at the present
time is, I think, 3.1 per cent of the labour
force. So, to all intents and purposes, we have
full employment.
These are tlie things that we have to judge
our performance on. Now as I have said, as
far as trade missions are concerned, Macys
do not tell Gimbles and Eatons do not tell
Simpsons. A lot of the people who go on
missions are in a competitive business and
they are not going to come back and tell
tlieir competitors what they are doing in
other markets. Sometimes they will us, some-
times they will not.
All we know is that they are now export-
ing out of this province and have enlarged
their businesses because they have been able
to get foreign business. This is the way we
analyze tlie results of the trade missions. If
we did not think they were successful I can
assure you I would cut them off tomorrow.
But I think this is one of the most success-
ful programmes this government has ever
had. And I think this is confirmed by state-
ments from men like Mr. Winters and Mr.
Sharp, who wish that other provinces were
doing tlie same thing, that they would get
into tlie act and send a mission abroad the
same as we do, every three or four weeks.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A
final question, Mr. Chairman, on this esti-
mate. A number of Ontario firms participated
in a food show sometime in the last couple of
months. Versa Foods Services Limited par-
ticipated in this particular programme of the
Minister's department. Mr. Chairman, Versa
Foods Services Limited has equity stocks and
they are all held by Duplate Canada Limited.
I would like to ask the Minister whether
Duplate Canada Limited is a subsidiary of
a United States parent company?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot tell you that.
I will find out.
If you talk about a food show, I think this
is one put on by The Department of Agri-
culture and Food, is it not? You have the
information there; I do not have it in front
of me.
Mr. T. Reid: No, it says seven Ontario
manufacturers took part in the mission spon-
sored by The Department of Economics and
Development.
Hon. Mr. Randall: What date was that?
Mr. T. Reid: This is one of the problems I
have, because some of the press releases do
not have any date.
JUNE 14, 1968
4495
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I will be glad to
get the information for you. I do not have
it right here and Mr. York does not have that
information either, but I will be glad to look
it up. I do not know about Duplate, I think
it is a subsidiary of an American company,
but I am not sure.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, if it is, then all the
questions I have been asking you for the
last couple of days apply to that too.
Vote 405 agreed to.
On vote 406:
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister two questions and com-
ment on this vote. You are asking for
$791,000. How much money do you have
available for loans in this department?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The corporation had
set up $7 million of capital from The Treas-
ury Department interest free. In other words,
they transferred $7 million of their bank
account to ODC. It is a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of The Treasury Department, so it
is just taking money out of one pocket and
putting it in another. There is $10 million
which has been allocated for the EIO pro-
gramme.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman: I think we
have established there is $7 million available
under this department. The terms of refer-
ence are available for sick industry. Is this
basically the terms of reference in ODC?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it is to help growth
industries to create jobs, stop imports, in-
crease exports; it is really not for sick com-
panies.
Mr. Sargent: My first acquaintance witli
ODC was back in 1963. We had the honour
of having the first loan made; the first loan
made by ODC was in the city of Owen
Sound. My point here, Mr. Chairman, is
that I know from first-hand knowledge that
this money is used politically to further the
party as a political tool. At the time we re-
ceived the first loan from ODC, we were
happy to get the money. I think there was
about $180,000 or so much available to
Fairfield in Owen Sound, and, as events
proved out, this money was used at the
whim of the Minister for political purposes.
The reason I am telling you this is to review
the situation and how we should use this
money for the small industrial people in this
province. Fairfield needed help and so Mr.
Etchen of his department came up and they
gave the first loan to Owen Sound. This
was in the spring, I think, of 1963.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Afi^airs): On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the member would
answer a question?
Mr. Sargent: I would be glad to.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just wondering
whether this is the fifth or sixth year you
have raised this in this House.
Mr. Sargent: That is a good question; I
shall raise it for ever and ever and ever.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: I want to show for the record,
Mr. Chairman, how you people can use
public funds for your own gain, and espe-
cially in this important department.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I will show you how if you
will give me a moment.
Many times I have asked for a review
of this situation. And so, on Fairfield Indus-
tries, we have the directors now living in
Owen Sound, the whole bit-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: This industry did not have a
chance, we found out, of ever being suc-
cessful. And so the directors of the company
called a meeting in May, as a matter of
record, it is on the record books.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Five times; you are
repeating yourself.
Mr. Sargent: You bet your boots. I was
mayor of the city at the time. And so they
called a meeting of the directors and they
said, "We cannot continue to operate this
business because it cannot make any money;
we will go out of business." And they wanted
to close up shop. But about that time, you
fellows decided to call an election, in the
fall. And so the order came through from
Queen's Park to keep that business—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, do not be so
sillyl
Mr. Sargent: I will stake my seat in this
House on these statements, and if anyone
will question what I am saying, let him
up and say it now.
Interjections by hon. members.
4496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: These are matters of fact,
Mr. Chairman, and if anyone is doubting
my word, I would Hke them to stand up right
now.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: We are talking about maybe
$80,000 of expended money that belongs to—
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): You have
wasted too much time on it.
Mr. Sargent: You are right, John. And
so the word came through from Queen's Park
to keep the business in operation, and a letter
came out on the bulletin board of the com-
pany, signed by an official of this company,
of the Ontario development corporation, to
keep the company running until after the
election. Mr. Chairman, against the wishes
of the directors of the company who had
their own money in the place too, the gov-
ernment continued to supply the money for
this operation, and the day after the elec-
tion, when the Tories lost the seat and I
won the seat, everybody got their walking
papers and all these people lost their jobs.
And this is a matter of record, and I will
stake my seat in this House-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: It shows, Mr. Chairman, how
some $80,000 of pubhc money-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the reason I
am bringing this up is the Minister did not
invent this propaganda machine we have
here in front of us now; he inherited it from
the hon. Mr. Macaulay I imagine. But the
fact is that we have this operation here with
$7 million available to them to loan out. Last
year, with 49 emploj'ces, this outfit here
loaned out in 12 loans $1.5 million. With
49 people, it cost them about $750,000 to
lend $1.5 million.
This is a shocking situation where the
smallest finance company in Ontario, with
two employees, lends more money than that.
But they take 49 employees to lend out 12
loans. My point of bringing this up, Mr.
Chairman, is this: Across this province are
thousands and thousands of small businesses-
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Think
tiny, that is the Liberal outlook.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber for London South is getting more
repulsive every day. There is an area for
concern about small businessmen in this prov-
ince who need help. And the only people
who seem to get any help from this depart-
ment here—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The member for Grey-Bruce has the floor.
Perhaps he could be permitted to proceed.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
there is a great need for an awareness in
this department for the need of small busi-
nessmen to get financial help, to get loans.
The only loans that I see going through this
department are to friends of the government.
Holiday Inn received a multiple loan of about
$400,000 or $500,000 up north there. Husky
Oil, one of the largest oil operations in west-
ern Canada, were partners to a loan through
this department, and a very close friend of
the government was part of the deal. So, it
is only friends of the government who have
access to this money. I say this is wrong.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We have no enemies.
Mr. Sargent: You look after your friends
tool
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: You are the last guys to talk
about enemies.
So we have this amount of money of $7
million available and last year they lent about
$1.5 million. It took them 49 employees to
do it. But I say forget about all this. What
we need now is an awareness, Mr. Chairman,
to help the small businesses across the prov-
ince who cannot get financial help from their
banks or anyone else. IDB is no good for
him. You people, through ODC, are good
for your friends and the big business men,
now how about something for the small
business man?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 406.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, on 406. I want to say
something more about the EIO programme
and I want to direct the Minister's attention
to a question that has been on the order
paper for some months— No. 18 standing in
my name, which the Minister may feel that
he has answered from time to time, but we
have never been able to get the facts gath-
ered together. If it had been answered in
fact, I am sure it would have been discharged
from the order paper. But it asks specifically
for the number of grants and the industries
I
JUNE 14, 1968
4497
that received the grants and locations of these
industries. Nor can I understand why that
information has not been made available as
an answer in Hansard before now. Would the
Minister say something about that?
Mr. Chairman: There are numerous pri-
vate debates taking place in the House and
it is difficult to hear. Perhaps we could have
a little more attention. Order!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, the in-
formation is available for the hon. leader of
tlie Opposition. I do not understand v/hy it
has not gone forward. It was given to public
accounts last week. The information should
be available. I will get it for you. I did not
know you had not got it.
Mr. Nixon: Well, the Minister has a very
large and able staff, and I would think that
one of the things that they would keep an
eye on is the order paper. When we ask a
question in the House that requires some de-
tailed research, we are usually asked by either
the Minister or Mr. Speaker to put it on tlie
order paper. This was put directly on the
order paper, and it is not our intention just
to let them sit around there. We ask the
questions because we v/ant the information.
I must say to the Minister that I was quite
surprised tliat in the six weeks— more than a
month at least— that this has been on the
order paper, the information was not fordi-
coming, because it was in response to en-
quiries that had been made for me.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has indi-
cated that the recipients of funds in the EIO
programme have in the main, and I believe
exclusively, been larger corporate enterprises.
Many, with subsidiaries of foreign parent
companies, have been persuaded to locate
some of their industrial expansion in desig-
nated communities because they have re-
ceived government handouts.
Now this, of course, is a difficult matter for
members of this House. We want to see
industry moving into these communities, but
there seems to be something wrong with the
policy which is going to hand out large
chunks of public funds to companies like
Allied Chemical and Husky Oil and the list
which I do not have before me, because the
answer on the order paper has not been pro-
vided.
We have been able to clip from the news-
papers announcements the Minister has made.
Now surely he must be a bit sensitive to the
fact that public funds are being used to pay
the way for these international corporations,
with tremendous financial resources. Surely
there is a middle reasonable way by which
we can have them locate in communities
which need industry, which need local em-
ployment, so that their own people can have
opportunities that we all wish for them and
for ourselves without being in a position
where the $7 million that is available is going
to be used to finance the activities of these
international corporations.
I would like the Minister's views on this.
Surely he would agree with me that the argu-
ment is not entirely one-sided, and for once
I would like to hear the third side— the one
that he is often talking about.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, first let
me say tliat the 31 loans made to date under
EIO, 15 are 100 per cent Canadian owned,
12 are under foreign ownership and 4 are
mixed ownership. Now we do not just loan
money to wealthy companies. We have many
guaranteed loans, which I read out in my
statement the other day, and these are loans
that the applicant has been able to get in his
local bank where the ODC guarantee-
Mr. Nixon: Well, just a point, if you would
permit me before you continue. It would
help, I think, in the answer. Is it not true that
the amount of money you provide in assist-
ance is related to tiie size of the effort of the
company that is going to move into the area?
The maximum loan of, I believe, $500,000
has been received— as I look at the hst that
has since been provided— by companies like
Kraft Food and Allied Chemical.
There may be some others, but they are
in a position to get the major chunk of the
funds available. I see from this hst that there
are several companies— creameries and so on
-most of which are getting smaller sums
such as $62,000, $25,000, $76,000.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well of course that is
based on the equity they have in the oper-
ation. They do not get $500,000 if they are
running a creamery and because tliey make
application to EIO. I pointed out the other
day that, for instance, Kraft Foods are build-
ing a $6.5 million plant in eastern Ontario.
They qualified then for the full grant-same
as Alhed Chemical in Sudbury and Allied
Chemical in Belleville. But there are otliers
that range from anywhere from $9,000 to
$100,000.
Mr. Sargent: Why did they get a nickel?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well now, you ought to
know. You come from Owen Sound where
4498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the federal authorities have a designated area
programme. You did not object to them fin-
ancing Pittsburgh Industries' $20 milHon
plant. You were glad to get it. You are far
better off to get a Pittsburgh plate glass plant
than one making used bicycle handles which
may go bankrupt in a few weeks with a gov-
ernment loan.
I am not trying to be facetious. I hope
that the EIO grants will bring in more com-
panies such as the federal autliorities are able
to bring into your areas— companies like
Goodyear Tire and RCA Victor. These are
the kind of companies that have staying
power. These are the kind of people that
will expand and give employment to more
people.
Now we have not crossed out anybody with
reference to the EIO loan. We passed one—
I think it was yesterday-for $9,000, but this
is in line with the equity that the company
has in the operation itself. As you know, they
are in 33 Va per cent on the first $250,000 of
their investment, and 25 per cent on the
balance. The more they put in the bigger
the loan, so—
Mr. Nixon: Did that $9,000 go to Dunn-
ville?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I think it was
Dunnville. Yes, that was the company. There
were four passed yesterday, so the size of the
company does not necessarily mean they get
more money than a smaller one, but they are
making a bigger contribution. I think the
plant up in Sudbury— the Allied Chemical
plant— is almost $9 million. The plant they
are putting in Belleville is something like
$7.25 million. So they are the kind of oper-
ations that we would like to see. That is the
sophisticated type of industry we hope that,
with the EIO programme, we can attract to
the province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West was up first.
Mr. Peacock: From the Minister's answer,
Mr. Chairman— I know that we discussed this
at some length in the debate on The Trade
and Development Act, and the EIO portion
of it. But, Mr. Chairman, at that time the
Minister said he would bring into the House,
possibly during the estimates, an answer to
a question of mine as to the number of
foreign-owned companies and the number of
Canadian-owned companies receiving these
forgivable loans, or grants as he calls them.
He has answered that in part today. But
the remarks I made during that debate on
The Trade and Development Act were to
the effect that it seemed to me that only
tliese large international corporations such
as Allied Chemical, Union Carbide, Holiday
Inns, Kraft Foods, could mount the scale of
investment required to receive from Ontario
development corporation the full grant of
$500,000. I want him to tell us, Mr. Chair-
man, just how many of the 15 Canadian-
owned firms received the full $500,000 grant,
compared to the number of foreign or mixed
ownership firms receiving the $500,000. It
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in this formula
the Minister has just described, that the
Canadian-owned or independent firms have
much less chance of participating fully in the
programme than the large international cor-
porations that the Minister says he wants to
see brought into the province. I think he
indicates by his statement that he almost
prefers to have them in the province, rather
than those smaller-scale firms that are more
likely to be owned by Ontario or Canadian
residents.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think the member is
misinterpreting my remarks. I did not say
that at all. I simply said that, as far as we
are concerned, the bigger the company, the
better for the economy. If a big company
happens to be foreign owned, I do not think
we should rule them out of the EIO pro-
gramme. I am having these figures checked.
I will tell you how many got the half -million
dollars.
I can think of three at the moment— tiie
two Allied Chemical plants and Kraft. They
would be American-owned companies, but it
does not rule out Canadians who want to
build the same kind of an operation. The
Canadians can earn half a million dollars,
too. But again it bears out what I told the
hon. member for Oshawa last night— that the
foreign investment in here so far is almost
creating two-thirds of the job opportunities
in this province.
I do not think we want to rule out the
opportunities for jobs just because the com-
pany is foreign. It happens that these people
are prepared to put up an operation today
under the EIO grants. I would hope a lot
of Canadian companies would come forward
and be encouraged to do exactly the same
thing. But the bigger companies over here,
particularly in the chemical field— I think you
would recognize as well as I do— are foreign
owned. How can we convince them, like we
convinced Allied Chemical, to put their plant
up against the smokestack in Falconbridge
and trap those gases that are polluting the
air up there, and turn them into a saleable
JUNE 14, 1968
4499
product? It not only stops air pollution but
they have created employment and invest-
ment in the Sudbury area.
So our feeling is that we are doing the
right tiling as far as any company is con-
cerned. I do not believe we have too much
concern today about where it is owned, and
I do not think we should have, as long as we
want industry in here. I still go on the basis
that if Canadian companies want to enlarge
their operations, if they want to get in the
same business, we will finance them on the
same basis, and this is open to anybody. We
are not drawing a line at whether a company
IS foreign-owned or whether it is not foreign-
owned. In the future, I hope there will be
more Canadian companies participating in
EIO, but others are not ruled out, I can
assure you.
Mr. Peacock: All right, Mr. Chairman, but
I would appreciate having the Minister's
answer just to see how they are doing under
this programme in comparison with the inter-
national firms. And the Minister's answer
raises another interesting question, particu-
larly in respect of the loans to Allied Chemi-
cals in Sudbury next to Falconbridge. Just
how much of the cost of the pollution control
facilities Allied Chemical is installing in
Falconbridge is accounted for by that
$500,000 grant, Mr. Chairman? I think that
would be an interesting statistic to find out,
just how much the taxpayers of Ontario are
directly subsidizing the pollution control
devices that company is employing.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am quite sure the
member is »ot going to accept the fact that
we think it is a good deal; he is going to
take the reverse stand anyway. But I would
suggest this is a very sound investment for
Sudbury and a very sound investmerit where
these plants are going and creating jobs, and
that is my responsibility.
Mr. T. Reid: Did I understand the Minis-
ter correctly, Mr. Chairman, when he said
that 15 of the firms received these interest-
free, possibly forgivable loans were Cana-
dian, 12 were foreign and four were mixed?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, four were of mixed
ownership.
Mr. T. Reid: I would like to ask the
Minister, Mr. Chairman, how many of the
12 foreign-owned firms in Canada received
two or more grants?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Just Allied Chemical
received two. They have put in two plants
in different parts of the province; if they put
in ten plants they would qualify.
Mr. T. Reid: So should I read that there
were 13 loans made to 12 foreign companies?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, 12 loans; the two
Allied Chemical plants are included in those
12 loans.
Mr. T. Reid: Thank you.
I would like to record, Mr. Chairman, that
Matthews Conveyor Company Limited of
Port Hope received, I believe, and interest-
free, possibly forgivable loan of $193,033.
This is a subsidy of Rex Chainbelt Incor-
porated of Milwaukee. I would hke to know
if that is one of the ones that the Minister
is talking about. Uniroyal is another one. We
can trace back its control through Canadian
Lastex. The president of Canadian Lastex
is also president of Uniroyal, and Canadian
Lastex itself is heavily owned by Dunlop of
Canada, which in turn is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Dunlop Rubber Company
of Great Britain. So when we are talking
about foreign ownership, one must be very
careful to trace back through interlocking
boards and interlocking holding companies.
I would like to ask the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, how many new plants have been
located in or near Lindsay, Ontario, in the
last two years with the help of funds, loans
or grants from the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I believe at the moment
on the EIO prograrmne there are two. I
think Lmdsay was designated under the fed-
eral designation— I believe in the first fed-
eral designation, prior to the one where they
designated the Georgian Bay area. But they
had other new plants in there without any
assistance from us. There are two EIO grants
that I know of in Lindsay since we started
our programme.
Mr. T. Reid: Those two grants are John
Deyell Limited—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes; and Uniroyal.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I just again
simply say this: It is very difiicult to under-
stand why a company like, say Northern
Wood Preservers Ltd. responds to a fairly
minor incentive. They got a possibly for-
givable loan of about $90,000. This is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Northern Tar,
Chemical and Wood Ltd. of Port Arthur.
The president of Northern Wood Preservers
Ltd. is Mr. R. J. Prettie, who is also president
of the parent company.
4500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In this complex, the top company. North-
ern Tar, Chemical and Wood Ltd., had a
working capital of 1966 of $1,278,079 and
they paid on their preferred stock in 1966
dividends of $1.70. Here is a company that
is in a very good position financially— fairly
good, in paying out dividends and retaining
a lot of its capital for future investment. I
am not at all satisfied that this grant was
really necessary to get their sub3idiar>%
Northern Wood Preservers Ltd., to locate in
Port Arthur.
I know the Minister would have to say
he is convinced the loan was necessary, but
how can he evaluate this? Does he simply
sit down and bargain with them and say,
"Well, look, I will give you— how about
$40,000?" And they say, "Oh no.*' Then he
comes back next day and says, "well, we will
make it $70,000." They say, "well, we are
getting interested." He says, "all right, clinch
it, $90,000." And they say, "sold!" I can
just see him working this way. Is this the
way it goes? You have no criteria, you admit
it.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not understand
what the member means by not having any
criteria. We established a programme, an
EIO programme, the same as the federal
authorities established, and it does not mat-
ter if it is a British banknote company or
Fort Knox that moves into the designated
area, if you have a programme, they auto-
matically qualify for whatever that pro-
gramme will pay them. This is the same as
the federal authories' programme. We use a
different criteria from the federal authorities,
but it is a designated area.
The size of the company and the owner-
ship of the company have nothing to do
with whether we bargain to give them
$70,000 or $40,000. If we started looking at
the balance sheets of some of these com-
panies we would not give them a dime, we
would ask them to pay us to go in there.
I simply suggest that you have to under-
stand why we have a designated area pro-
gramme; it is to get industry of any kind
to go into an area where we think that it
should go— a slow growth area. We are fol-
lowing the same kind of procedure that is
followed and was very successful with the
federal authorities in their two designated
area programmes.
If you want an example of what or why
we think that the programme should be used,
I could just go back to the case of the Ford
Motor Company in St. Thomas. When the
company was looking around to locate that
plant, there was a toss-up to whether to
locate it in the United States or Canada, and
the only reasons that we got the plant in
Canada were because we can build a plant
much faster plus the fact that it was between
Detroit and Buffalo, plus the fact that they
could send all the cars manufactured in St.
Thomas to those two points. In order to get
that plant, within ten days we had to make
four major decisions on water supply, high-
ways, transportation for employees and the
rezoning. If we had not moved in that direct-
tion, I am quite sure that there was the
possibility that the Americans would have
put that new plant in the United States.
We could have said we did not have to
do anything down there and let Ford thresh
out their problems themselves, but perhaps
we would not have got the plant. The same
thing applies to the EIO. You referred to
Northern Wood Preservers, I have known
this company and it has been up there for
many years. It is 63 per cent Canadian and
37 per cent foreign owned, and they got
$90,000 for expanding their operation. I
cannot think of anywhere today where we
need expansion more than we need it at the
Lakehead. I estimate that this is going to be
one of our major problems in the future to
keep people employed at the head of the
lakes, with its growing population. We are
doing everything we can at the head of the
lakes.
As you have seen, we have made two or
three loans up tliere to help small people as
well as large, and again I go back to the
fact that the ownership of the company, the
size of their balance sheet, has no bearing on
the EIO grants. You cannot say to the Joe
Blow Safety Pin Company, "We will give it
to you because you are a little fellow with
no money," and then turn down Kraft, or
Allied Chemical.
This is wrong, you cannot reason this way.
You have a programme or you do not have a
programme. I might confess to you that
some of my own people say, "Is it not em-
barrassing to give money to a wealthy com-
pany?" I think that Allied Chemical had a
balance after taxes last year of $74 million.
Look at Douglas Aircraft and a few of the
others. I think that these are the kind of
companies that we want to attract to Canada
and particularly to Ontario.
I do not see any harm in using this as a
lever to get these companies to locate in the
province of Ontario. The overall programme
is to get more sophisticated manufacturing
into tliis province— more sophisticated if we
JUNE 14, 1968
4501
can, but have a continuity of job supply. That
is the major factor behind the grant system.
Again, I say to you that I do not look at
the size of the company. I hope that it is
big and profitable and successful, because
that means that they are going to stay here
and provide jobs and pour money into the
economy, so this is the criterion. We do not
just sit down and wave a magic wand over
these companies, I assure you. The size of
the company and the size of the balance
sheet does not enter into the picture, as far
as I am concerned.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to thank the Minister for stating his position
very clearly— the way that he sees the pro-
gramme and his hopes for it. He has made a
very clear statement and I thank him for it.
I do believe, however, that there are pro-
grammes—alternatives for present programmes
-in the spending of that money to get the
same results without also getting increased
dependence on foreign subsidiaries in Ontario.
But I would like to thank the Minister for
stating his position clearly. We can continue
this debate over the next few years.
Hon. Mr. Randall: May I say this— if any-
body in the House has an idea of how we
can improve the criteria, we would welcome
it. We recognize tliat it is a difficult thing to
accomplish without discriminating against
some other municipality, but if anybody has
a suggestion to put forward, we would be
glad to have it, I can assure you.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, how many
consultants do you have in the ODC? What
salaries do they get per day?
Hion. Mr. Randall: We do not have any
day-to-day consultants, but we do have full-
time employees and we pay— 32 of the 49
are consultants— people who will go to your
town-
Mr. Sargent: These are retired business-
men?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Some of them are. As
you know, we started out with a handful of
retired businessmen, but it has become a very
important department of the government and,
particularly, of my department. Now we have
to get the kind of people that have the
experience to deal with the situations that
we find ourselves in. They may not be re-
tired businessmen, but just the best people
in the field that we could get on the payroll.
Mr. Sargent: What is the salary range?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is $11,500 to $13,500.
which is set by the civil service commission.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
East.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): In all of
the companies that have been assisted by
the Ontario development corporation since
its inception, have there been any that have
closed up or gone out of business, for any
reason at all?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, as the hon. mem-
ber pointed out this morning, I think that
the first five or six were not too happy occa-
sions, and since then I have been accused of
being too tough. I can assure you that I have
not been too tough.
I think that the last one was an Indian
chopping totem poles. We loaned him $5,000
and he disappeared with the axe and the
totem pole one night and we have not seen
him since. To me that was a loss that per-
haps we anticipated, but we have been very
successful with the loan programme and the
guaranteed loan progranmie at the banks,
because now we have the staff to follow up.
We just do not give the money to these
companies and say, "I hope that you are
going to be successful." From the day we
put the money in our consultants are in there
at least once a month, or once a week, and
we get their balance, sheets and watch the
trends. We are able to guide these people.
I mentioned yesterday about the number of
people that we interview in depth— the
amount of counselling that we do— this is
all included in the services.
For instance, if we loan money to a small
company, we watch their manufacturing and
their accounting and if they need engineer-
ing assistance or staff assistance or marketing
knowledge, our people are able to do that
for them. This is what the 32 people that we
have are doing— making sure that our invest-
ment is not wasted. As you will remember,
most of these people come to us when they
have gone through their own money, and
figure that they had better go through some-
body else's money. But when the taxpayers*
is put up, we figure that we should have a
back-up staff to protect that investment. That
is why we are using our consultants in all
these cases where the money is loaned.
I think that the reason for not having had
any major losses since a few years ago is
because we have had these back-up services.
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's
thinking seems to be sound, but would he
4502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tell us how many and to what amount of
the total is it effective?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think at the last figure
which we had there were six companies total
since we started in 1963 and a total of about
$490,000.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
must have talked over with his people the
matter of loans for small businessmen, be-
cause we are the only jurisdiction that does
not have this. Most states have small busi-
ness loans legislation and there is a crying
need for it.
I would like to get the Minister's slant
on this. Is there any chance of getting this
in here?
Hon. Mr. Randall: As you know, the fed-
eral government runs a small business loan
programme. We have-
Mr. Sargent: That is not effective.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Wait a minute.
Our guaranteed loan programme is the
same as a small businessman's loan. This is
part and parcel of our programme— assisting
small businesses, if they do not qualify for
EIO. We just put this in this year, but they
have been able to get along with loans
through their banks which we guarantee.
This operates in a similar manner to the
small business loans in the United States,
and I think tliat our programme is just as
successful as theirs. Nobody who can qualify
is turned down.
If a fellow walks off the street and says,
"I have got an idea and I want to manufac-
ture; will the government put up the money?"
We will take a good look at it and try to
find a financial partner. But if he has not
got any investment himself, we are not inter-
ested. I do not think that even the small
business loans in the United States will help
him. But if he is in business today and he is
operating even partially successfully, we will
guarantee him at the bank.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
what the Minister is trying to say, but you
must know that there are hundreds of thou-
sands of small businessmen in Ontario who
cannot get money from the banks. You walk
in there today with a bond and and they
will not give you any money; they want you
to cash the bond. They have no money to
loan, so how does tlie small businessman
operate?
You say that you will guarantee a loan,
but the bank still will not give them any
money, so there is a lot of double-talk some-
where on the line from Ottawa to here.
There is no way to help the small man in
business today. You either have to be a big
corporation— you are loaning money here and
you have two loans to Union Carbide. They
are wholly owned by the United States, and
they got two loans from you. Union Carbide,
Norfolk-Malone in North Carolina— they are
a fully owned United States corporation.
They are getting loans from you, but these
wealthy, million-dollar corporations can get
all the money they want. A half million
dollars from you. Federal moneys— $5 million,
Pittsburgh got in Owen Sound from the
designated programme of the federal gov-
ernment. Millions of dollars are going to the
big companies, but there is no money avail-
able for the small businessman.
You say the banks will give it; the banks
will not give anything to anybody. There is
no money for them to make a loan.
There must be some way. Your portfolio
is involved with helping business per se. It
does not matter whether it is industry or
what it is, as long as it employs people and
helps the economy. TJiese small businessmen
are taxpayers and they keep you going and
we have a responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister has a responsi-
bility to look after this great segment-
hundreds of thousands of people in business
in Ontario today cannot get any help from
the banks. There is an area here where they
have collateral, where they have equity, they
have continuity of good credit, and they can-
not get money from the banks at all. You
should look at it realistically and say, yes
or no, we will do something about it. Can
I have your answer on this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not have any
figures on what the small business loan people
have done in the United States, but since the
inception of ODC we have loaned $18.7 mil-
lion to small business men. We have also
loaned them direct— we have guaranteed them
at the bank— $5 million and I want to assure
my friend that—
Mr. Sargent: In how many years?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Since 1962.
Mr. Sargent: In six years you have loaned—
JUNE 14, 1968
4503
Hon. Mr. Randall: Just a minute now, I
want to point out to you that a lot of these
people do not need money; they need advice,
they need help, and this is more important
to them than money, and there have been
dozens and dozens of businesses-
Mr. Sargent: Try to tell a man who can-
not pay his payroll that he needs advice. He
needs bank credit.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Maybe he cannot pay
his payroll because perhaps he should not be
in business in the first place, who knows. You
do not know and neither do I. I simply say
that when they come to us and they have a
financial problem we do a number of things.
We first of all find out, has the man got a
balance sheet? If he puts it together, he can
go down to the bank and borrow money on
his own. Some of these people do not even
know how to make up a balance sheet; be-
lieve me, they do not know how to make up
a balance sheet. We first of all see what assets
they have; we put those assets together for
them. If they can borrow money from the
bank, which many of them have been able
to do-
Mr. Sargent: But they cannot.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Wait a minute, some of
them have. The ones that come to us. We
do not advertise for everybody to come in
to see us if they have money problems, but
the programme we are running here we think
is just as effective as the small business pro-
gramme. I do not think any government,
even the Canadian government, has enough
money to take care of all the little people in
business, like the mothers and fathers who
want to run businesses. Say I run a small
store and I need $500 or $5,000. I do not
think that any government could finance these
kind of operations.
But anybody in the manufacturing business
or the warehousing business or the tourist
business, if they come to us and they get
a reasonable presentation and they get some
assets, we think we can help them, and this
is what we are doing. But loaning money is
not necessarily the answer to keep these
people in business. I tell you from my own
experience in 35 years in industry, that in
the companies I served with, money was not
always the problem. Sometimes this is what
gets them into trouble; they have so much
money they get too free with it. I never
had that privilege; I always worked on bank
overdrafts. I let the bank He awake at night
and worry about where the money was com-
ing from, but I can assure you that the people
that come to us—
Mr. Sargent: You are out of step today;
you do not know what is going on in business
today.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh yes, I know what is
going on in business, believe me, I am just
as well informed as anybody. I do not know
anything about your small business loan in
the United States; I have not studied it, 1
do not know whether it is federal, or state.
But I do not think anybody in any jurisdic-
tion has a better programme to help small
businessmen than we have here, because
they have been up here checking our pro-
grammes.
Vote 406 agreed to.
On vote 407:
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, on vote 407,
before I say anything I would like to sug-
gest that maybe we could take the last four
votes together; they all concern housing. In
fact it would be repetition to take 407 and
409. Are there any objections? Is that satis-
factory to the Minister?
Mr. Chairman, these next four estimates
are probably the most important four esti-
mates that we have-
Mr. Chairman: Could I get the Minister's
concurrence on that?
Mr. Trotter: He just gave it. He just said so.
Mr. Chairman: Is this agreeable to the
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, it is agreeable.
Mr. Trotter: Under these particular esti-
mates, Mr. Chairman, one of the most im-
portant problems we have in the province of
Ontario, and certainly it is a problem through-
out the country, is the problem of housing.
The Minister has made numerous statements
in regard to housing since he has been
responsible for these estimates, and to read
the history of his estimates and to read his
speeches, I must say in all frankness, Mr.
Chairman, that there is a bankruptcy of
ideas in this department.
Unquestionably the Minister may be a
good salesman, but when it comes to housing
I feel that he has little or no interest in this
problem, and it has certainly become a very
major problem in the province of Ontario.
During the last week of May the Minister
made a statement in the House— I do not
4504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
believe I was present at the time— something
to the effect that money would be made avail-
able for builders in the building business in
order to obtain mortgage money. Just what
he meant by that statement and where they
are going to get the money he did not ex-
plain. In the last remarks he made in his
opening address on these estimates, he talked
about co-operating with business and seeing
to it that they would get the necessary loans.
When I am finished I would like an answer
from the Minister in regard to this. I would
just like to know where he intends to get the
money to encourage builders to build, where
the builders can borrow the mortgage funds?
For example, Mr. Chairman, in 1966, there
was a decline of mortgage loans made by
tnist companies of 48 per cent; by loan
companies of 32 per cent. I think the average
decrease in loans to builders in that one year
alone was 37 per cent.
I pointed out before that the main reasons
for the decrease in loans to builders was be-
cause of the mess that Prudential Finance
and British Mortgage and Trust got the
money market into. The money market was
badly hit in 1966 because of these financial
difficulties, and it has never recovered.
When the Minister makes these flamboyant
statements that they are going to co-operate
with business and they are going to see that
they get the money, there is just no answer
to it. The money at the present time simply
is not available on the private market, nor is
there sufficient public money made available.
The Minister announced as a result of re-
marks in the Throne Speech that this was a
very serious problem and the government
was going to do something about it and we
would gather that more money was forth-
coming. More money from the provincial
Treasury was forthcoming— $15 million. Last
year the Ontario housing corporation spent,
out of the provincial funds, approximately
$45 miHion and now we are told that in these
estimates it is going to be $60 million, a $15
million increase. This simply is not nearly
enough in order to meet the problem that
we are faced with in the province of Ontario.
Again I emphasize, through you, Mr.
Chairman, to the members that when we see
announcements made by the government—
they talk of $400 million being spent in
housing— so often the announcements appear
as if this government was spending that type
of money. Again I emphasize, that if the
$400 million is spent, about $340 million of
it comes from the federal government and
$60 million of it comes from this province.
Wlien we consider the assets that are avail-
able in this province and the magnitude of
the problem of housing, we simply are not
beginning to approach the problem and use
the approaches that we must use. The Min-
ister is faced with a huge economic and
social problem and yet we have heard noth-
ing about land assembly. We have heard
nothing about the importance of large gov-
ernment investment in this field and still we
have to keep going over and over the sorry
example of such an operation as the Malvern
project.
We have literally a turnover of a few
hundred people a year in Toronto in emer-
gency housing situations. I do not mean just
in the regular homes but in the emergency
housing situation where people are kept in,
what I consider, terrible circumstances. We
have these people in Toronto and yet, for
years we have land owned by government
that has become bogged down in red tape.
The Minister, neither through his own de-
partment nor any of the other departments
in government, has given us any indication
that there is going to be any type of uniform
building code. We debated this matter in
the House and it was tossed out in the private
members' hour. It was just tossed out and
has gone to sleep.
So nothing concrete is being done by this
administration. Again, even the private land
developers are still bound up in red tape
when they attempt to get the plans registered.
The Minister may say this is not under his
department but I may point out to you, Mr.
Chairman, that this department is responsible
for housing. No matter where the problems
are it is up to the Minister to find out. I
notice they have on the estimates, $100,000
for grants to study housing no matter where
or what the problems of housing may be.
The principle behind Ontario housing cor-
poration is good in that there should be an
agency of government that is responsible for
housing. But my own feeling is that what
we need in this province is a housing czar,
somebody who will take charge of the situa-
tion and will be determined to see that the
housing shortage is met.
I think it is a frightening thing— as in the
statement made by the Minister yesterday—
to say that a large proportion of our middle
class are not going to be able to own their
own homes unless it is something in the way
of row- housing.
When we remember that the major prob-
lem in building homes today is the cost of
the land, and when we remember we have
JUNE 14, 1968
4505
literally untold millions of acres of land in
this country, it is a ridiculous situation that
in Canada, of all places, we cannot make it
possible for the vast majority of people to
own their own homes.
I just want to give you, Mr. Chairman, an
example of how phoney the work of Ontario
housing corporation can appear to be in just
one example in public housing.
Shortly after Ontario housing corporation
was formed, the metropolitan government of
Toronto went to the Ontario housing corpor-
atin— some time about February of 1965—
and said: "Will you supply us with 4,500
family units in public housing within the
next three years?"
Then Metro looked over the situation, came
back and said: "Will you supply us with 8,500
units within the next three years"? That was
from April 6, 1965. Well, those three years
have gone by and on March 7, 1968, Mr.
Allen, the Metro chairman, made a very com-
plimentary statement on how Ontario hous-
ing corporation had attacked the problem in
Metropolitan Toronto and it supplied so many
units. It asked for 8,500 units. If you are to
look at the statements being made by this
Minister and by the Metro chairman, you
would think it had been done. My feeling is
that the hon. Minister, being a very glib and
very able speaker that he is, must have
breathed into the Metro chairman, given him
a good sales talk and shown him what had
been done. And the Metro chairman, who is
an experienced politician, got carried away.
But I just want to illustrate, Mr. Chairman,
from the facts and from the charts of Ontario
housing corporation how, in truth, this cor-
poration is falling down on the job.
For example, we had asked— at least Metro
had asked if 8,500 units could be supplied
over a three-year period. This is public hous-
ing family units. Well, today there are 6,537
such units in Metro Toronto. You might say
this is a big gain— although they may not have
made it.
But the truth is that, of the 6,537 family
public housing units in Metro Toronto today,
5,082 were in existence at the time Ontario
housing corporation came on the scene. They
have actually built 1,455 public housing units
in Metro Toronto— when it was hoped they
might build 8,500 three years ago. They
have come to about 18 per cent of what was
required.
Well now, what are these other 5,082?
When Ontario housing came into existence
they were already under a federal-provincial
plan— 2,310 public housing units in Metro
Toronto. Then the Ontario housing corpora-
ation went out and bought housing that was
already in existence like Flemingdon Park. I
think that the Ontario housing corporation
here has bought a total of 2,772 units.
But when they go out and buy a unit such
as Flemingdon Park they are not adding to
the housing stock. In fact, they are compli-
cating a situation. They are putting the pres-
sure on the so-called middle class or those
who, up to that date, had been able to get a
house on their own.
Many people who lived in Flemingdon Park
were forced then to move out and to go onto
the market and pay high rents. Again the
policy of the government has, in efFect, made
it much more diflBcult for many people who
were able to carry themselves. And it has
certainly not added to the public housing
stock, except for the 1,455 units.
Looking at this problem, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot understand the inadequacy of this par-
ticular branch of government in failing to
come to grips with this major problem. Nor
can I understand the Metropolitan chairman,
when he seems to think that Ontario housing
corporation is doing a good job, because dur-
ing the year 1967, the corporation housed
2,025 new tenants in Metropolitan Toronto.
Now 2,025 new tenants are not very many
when we remember that the waiting list for
public housing, as of December 31, 1967—
the applicants not just tenants— was 10,247.
There has been some debate, Mr. Chair-
man, as to whether or not the figures are actu-
ally accurate. The hon. member for Windsor
West took up this argument and I am
not going to repeat it. He pointed out
that, after they had gone through the
applications, there were still 3,000 and some
new ones. And I suggest, having listened to
Mr. Robert Bradley's numerous statements on
these matters— he, incidentally, is a member
of the same party as the hon. Minister— that
the active applications on hand are 10,247 as
of December 31, 1967.
Well, this corporation was able to place
2,000 tenants and I think it is appalling that
government today can take such a lacka-
daisical attitude toward what is becoming a
major social problem.
This is one thing that I want to dwell on,
Mr. Chairman— the social aspects of what we
are faced with in our housing situation. It
is a social aspect because people cannot get
housing, decent housing for a reasonable
amount of money. The second situation is
—what are we creating in our large public
housing units as they have been built? How
4566
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are we treating our tenants? What type of
life are they going to lead? This is a situa-
tion we are going to have to live with.
Public housing is going to expand at a tre-
mendous rate. I might say in passing, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. Minister uses as a
comparison the work done in public housing
in the United States, altliough there are two
areas in which we differ from the United
States.
He has shown that in recent years our
public housing advanced more rapidly than
that of the United States. Now I want to
emphasize this— the Americans, in their pub-
lic housing programme run into a great deal
of difficulty with their racial strife. There is
a serious situation that the Americans have
that we do not have.
The second thing is that urbanization in
Canada, from the years 1950 on, has in-
creased at 50 per cent faster than the United
States. We lagged behind and then suddenly
there was, after the war, particularly from
the year 1950 on, a sort of urbanization ex-
plosion and we have gone on at a rate of
50 per cent faster than the United States.
As a result, our housing problem has be-
come far more serious for the average per-
son. I want to emphasize this. It is the
average person, more or less the backbone
of our society, that has been caught in the
crunch of this housing situation.
When we look at the overall programme
and the overall situation, Mr. Chairman, it is
becoming a major social problem as well as
an economic problem because of this: When
central mortgage and housing came into the
field it was believed that it could take care
of approximately 60 per cent of the popula-
tion and the other 30 per cent, the top third,
could take care of themselves. TJiey could
go out and get loans and not have to worry
about any government agency of any kind.
Central mortgage and housing would take in
al)out 60 per cent, and then you would have
that bottom layer, maybe 10 to 15 per cent,
that would somehow be dependent on gov-
ernment completely for housing.
But what has happened, and what is going
to the very roots of our society and of our
standards that we have had in the past, is
that today only about 10 to 15 per cent of
our people are going to be able to provide
for their own housing without any govern-
ment help— that is, without central mortgage
and housing or any other type. So that 10 to
15 per cent are going to be able to help
themselves and then central mortgage and
housing, instead of looking after maybe from
40 to 60 per cent, in one or another, either
through CMHC or through Ontario housing
corporation, is going to have to give assist-
ance of some kind to nearly 90 per cent of
our population. In that 90 per cent, I include
those who get the NHA loans which are
quite common and acceptable today. But
while I say acceptable, I do not mean by
the interest rate— I mean socially. It is not
looked down upon as welfare, because of
CMHC.
When we look at this tremendous econo-
mic change that is taking place it means
that government is going to have to vastly
change its approach to housing. This Minis-
ter, probably by his old business background,
just hates to see government involved in
housing in any way. This is my impression
of die Minister and I regret that he is the
Minister in change of housing. Let him do
the selling for the government if he wants,
but this basic economic policy and social
concern is simply being very dangerously
neglected by this government. If we con-
tinue to lag behind as we have been doing
in the past, then the situation will go from
crisis to crisis and where it gets into an ex-
treme situation it means that extreme action
has to be taken. As I said before, I am one
who is opposed to extreme action unless it
is absolutely necessary.
Well, Dr. Albert Rose, who is a director
of Ontario housing corporation, has said, we
have to keep in mind the social consideration
of housing. I wish the Minister and the other
members of the board of directors of Ontario
housing corporation would listen to him
more often and read what he has written
on the subject, because Ontario housing cor-
poration certainly does not follow the theories
and suggestions that he has set out.
I would like to know from the Minister—
and no doubt he will be speaking on this
a little later— what plans the government has,
through Ontario housing corporation, in
stepping up what we might call new towns.
What are the plans for the necessary trans-
portation that needs to be planned?
I know I was one of those who criticized
the federal government when they had the
housing conference early this year, wonder-
ing what they intended to accomphsh. Yet,
when you sit down quietly and read some of
the briefs presented by the federal spokes-
men, they had a number of ideas and have
given a number of suggestions and showed
that they were willing to help provincial gov-
JUNE 14, 1968
4507
ernments on a number of items. One of the
major ones was transportation, and yet we
hear no suggestions from the government
at all on what is going to be clone; not only
in the immediate future but over the long
haul, and there are so many things that
could be done now.
Be it your zoning bylaws, your building
bylaws, your planning for subdivisions, your
planning for the Ontario water resources
cx)mmission, all of these organizations seem to
have gone to sleep, and I fear the govern-
ment feels that by its simple statements,
almost by the Minister waving his arm, it
can dismiss this very serious matter.
Besides the social consideration of people
who are in the middle income group and who
cannot buy a home, there are these people,
Mr. Chairman, who are already in our public
housing developments and who I feel are
not given the encouragement they should be
given to obtain their own homes. When public
housing was first introduced by Ontario hous-
ing corporation I think the idea was that
this was a stop-gap; that people who went
into public housing would be there long
enough so that they could save enough money
and then go out and buy their own homes
and they would not be living all their lives
in public housing. I think tliis is a com-
mendable idea.
There are two things wrong with it. The
first is that the cost of housing has become
so high that it is impossible to save enough
to move out of public housing. The average
family in Ontario moves every five years. The
average family in the public housing of
Ontario housing corporation moves every
seven years. So instead of it becoming a
temporary place to stay, it is even more
permanent than the home that the average
citizen goes out and buys. Here again, in-
stead of going forward we are going back-
wards, and remember that the average
tenant, the average family in public housing
in Ontario housing corporation units, is going
to be there for approximately seven years,
and there is a great danger when this hap-
pens of public housing becoming ghettos.
For example, I think the goal of Ontario
housing corporation is to keep the number
of mother-led families down to about 15 per
cent of the total number of families that are
in a public housing area. Instead of the
mother-led families being just 15 per cent of
the total, they are about 29 per cent of the
total. The mother-led family or single-parent
family is unfortunately becoming a large
factor in our modem-day society. I think
that, of course, some of these single-parent
families are led by the father. I believe about
32 per cent of the families in puWic housing
units in Ontario are led by a single parent,
mostly the mother, but in some cases, the
father. So that this again shows that there
is a tendency for public housing to become
a ghetto.
One thing that the Ontario housing cor-
poration has managed to live up to is this:
They said when they started out they had a
policy tliat they did not want more than 20
per cent of the tenants of the families in
public housing to be on welfare, and this I
think is correct today-that 20 per cent of our
people who are in puHic housing are on
welfare. But bear in mind that in Metro-
politan Toronto, coming imder the control of
Ontario housing corporation as tenants are
32,600 people, over 20,000 of them children.
As we have constructed some of these units,
they are in effect living in a ghetto, and what
we must do, unless we are creating another
great social problem, is this.
If we do not develop a greater housing
stock, and give these people an opportunity
to keep moving, they are going to stay where
they are. This has been the tendency, and
again I emphasize the average family stays
two years longer in public housing than it
does in the ordinary market, and this is a
great danger. So you have 20,000 children,
and there is little in tlie way of recreation,
there is Httle in the way of, let us say, day
nurseries, and these things are important in
these large community areas. Our whole
system of the way we set the rents is wrong.
I think the system of gauging the rent to
income was right at one time, but because the
economic situation has changed, because the
housing situation has changed. It is wrong.
I will give you an example. I know of one
man— in this case it was a senior citi-
zens' place— who is 66 years of age, and he
had lived in a senior citizens' development
for two years. He still had not retired, he
had a part-time job; he was given a raise. He
makes $6 a month more than he should,
under the rates, so he is told to move, and
v/here is he going to move? He is still re-
ceiving a very low salary-
Mr. White: You are contradicting yourself
Mr. Trotter: It is not a contradiction, Ix?-
cause this is the answer.
He is told to move— to keep going. But the
problem is, to where is he going to move?
There is no place for him to go.
4508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This is why it is a tAVo-pronged situation,
and that is why this government has to do
far more than it has in increasing the housing
stock that is available. If it does not, the
people in public housing cannot keep going.
I agree with the policy that the Ontario
housing corporation wanted in the first place
—and this is for the enlightenment of the
member for London South. This is not to
keep the people there too long— to give them
an opportimity to save money, and then to
go forward. But there is no opportunity to
save money. As a result, if you have rigid
rent control, rigid rental systems, you then
have people that are literally thrown out and
it is a disadvantage to work. By receiving a
raise in pay, they could be forced to move,
and then pay a far higher rent than they can
really afford.
I know of one case where the teen-age
daughter had graduated from high school,
and then she got a job. The rent was going
to be so high, that it was cheaper for her to
move out, and so she left her family. This
is the system, and this happened not too
long ago.
When men are asked to work overtime, it
is often smarter for them to refuse to work
overtime. One man told me, he said, "If I
work overtime my rent is raised and I actually
will end up paying more than what I am
going to receive from my employer, and yet
if I refuse to work overtime too often my
employer might fire me." This rental system
today is just outdated. It would not be out-
dated if there was some place for the tenants
to go, but this is the major problem that we
have.
There are wives who would like to go to
work, but if they work their rent is raised
and, because of the market, they find it is
just not worthwhile. I say to the Minister
that the entire rent situation should be com-
pletely overhauled.
I would make this one suggestion, be-
cause I know the Minister has a problem.
We might say, "Why should people who
go into public housing and start to make
good money— why should they not move out,
because of poorer people waiting?" Even if
we charged a higher rent— in some cases
when rent is gauged to income it goes as
high as 30 per cent of the income— even if
they charge 30 per cent and put a certain
amount of it aside, so that if the tenant wants
to move out and wants to buy, he has
had a chance to save the money.
It is wrong for government to develop
any scheme that is pie in the sky, or plans
to give people something for nothing. The
thing to do is to encourage them to save
and encourage them to work. Our present
policy is now so outdated, that people are
encouraged not to work. "Do not work over-
time," and often these people who do not
work overtime turn the extra work down with
regret. They simply look at it from a dollars
and cents point of view.
One man I talked to the other day re-
ceived an increase in his pay, and he ends
up having $7 less. Because of the increase
in his pay, he was in a new rental bracket,
and it turns out he just loses by the time he
pays the income tax.
So again, I say to the Minister, why is
not something done long before this? He
must be aware of these problems, and what is
infuriating and so frustrating is that govern-
ment just will not take the necessary action
that seems to be obvious.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that probably there
will be other opportunities, before this vote
is passed, to say something else.
I just want to give you one final example
of the lack of foresight and the stupidity in
the way Ontario housing corporation plans
its living conditions for the tenants. There
are many people who do not want to go into
public housing because, in many ways, it
has not become socially accepted. Yet
many people, because of their finances, take
public housing and are glad to get it.
There was one subdivision, called Staple-
ford Farms where 75 per cent of the people
bought their own property. The remaining
25 per cent scattered throughout the sub-
division were in public housing, and you
did not know who was in public housing or
who was strictly on their own. This is the
way it should be. But what does Ontario
housing corporation do? Everybody that is
in a house owned by the corporation— they
go and plant a maple leaf flag in front of
it, so that the kids in the subdivision know:
"My daddy is paying taxes for tlie guy next
door because he is in a house owned by
Ontario housing corporation."
So, even when tiiey had a opportunity to
get away from diis ghetto system, and even
when they had a basically good idea— which
I would heartily endorse— of mixing the vari-
ous housing developments together and get-
ting away from this idea of a ghetto, they
go and do a stupid thing. This is not too long
ago— putting a tree, a particular kind of tree
in front of those homes.
JUNE 14, 1968
450G
Hon. Mr. Randall: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Did you say a flag or
a tree was planted?
Mr. Trotter: A tree. A maple tree, I believe
it was.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You said a flag.
Mr. Trotter: I am sorry, I meant a tree.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I was going to ask if
you would give me a picture of that, because
I do not think we did that.
Mr. Trotter: No, you planted the tree.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think that is par for
the course. In any properties we owned, I
think that we would put shrubbery in. We
would do all the things we had to, because
we have to maintain the grounds.
We do not put it there-
Mr. Trotter: No, they did it in such a
way—
Hon. Mr. Randall: —to point these people
out as public housing tenants.
Mr. Nixon: But, in fact, that is what
happens.
Mr. Trotter: But you planted a tree in front
of all the houses owned by Ontario housing
corporation. There is a lot of social feeling
about this, because then they know which
kids Hve in public housing and which do not.
You had an excellent idea to begin with. You
bought public housing in an area, but they
were not all together. They were spread
around. You got away from the idea of a
ghetto. But then they send out and they say:
"Well, we own 25 per cent of these, so many
houses, put a tree in front of each one." They
do it the same way and it is always marked.
Now this is what has happened.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): That is stretching
things pretty far.
Mr. Trotter: It may be. You may think so.
But that shows how little you know about
the housing problem or you would not make
that remark. I think it is time you smartened
up on that side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Oh, do not be extrava-
gant!
Mr. Trotter: It is not an extravagant claim.
I am telling you— and I have said it before
and I say it again— that this is a major crisis
in this province because of the lack of energy
that you are showing in what policies you do
have. There are some policies that have been
a step in the right direction, but because they
have been such mincing steps, what is hap-
pening is that the changes that are taking
place are overcoming you. You are not even
keeping up with the changes and the demands
that are increasing each day. Each week a
thousand people come to the city of Toronto,
Metropolitan Toronto— to say nothing of the
natural growth. For every house we tear
down in the city of Toronto, for every twelve
we tear down, only one goes up. You are
going to ruin some of these large urban areas
unless you have some type of planning— and
not only the planning, but the vigorous action.
There is no sign of it, no indication of it,
from the government. And so, again I repeat,
it is not an exaggeration. It is a very major
economic and social problem that you have.
This Minister has not even begun to even
look at it. I do not think he is interested. I
do not think he wants to take an interest, and
it is about time that the people in this prov-
ince woke up to the fact of the utterly inade-
quate leadership we are getting from the
present Tory goverrunent.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, last evening
I spent some time talking about the extent
of the housing crisis in terms of numbers
needed. Just briefly now, Mr. Chairman, I
want to say a few words about Ontario hous-
ing corporation's relations with its tenants
through its local housing authorities. I would
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a tenants' revolt
is brewing in many projects under manage-
ment by Ontario housing corporation.
The corporation appears to be as incompe-
tent in discharging its management functions
as it is in meeting the housing crisis. Not only
do tenants not have any say in the multitude
of rules and regulations which govern their
daily lives, but they have no right of appeal
from the decisions of the officials managing
the local projects. The corporation is still
using archaic forms of leasing, which reserve
all rights to the authority and extend none to
the tenants. As a result, tenants tend to feel
that they are second-class citizens, and de-
velop no pride in their homes. To overcome
their growing sense of frustration, I am pro-
posing the following changes in the corpor-
ation's management policies:
1. Tear up the outdated lease forms and
draw up new ones which fully protect the
rights of both parties.
2. Recognize the rights of tenants to or-
ganize themselves into councils, or associations
which can, in effect, bargain on behalf of the
4510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
tenant over questions such as the fairness of
rents, adjustments of rents, evictions, mainte-
nance and the provision of social and recre-
ational facihties. Provide for direct tenant
representation on local housing authority
boards of directors.
3. Establish an independent housing regis-
try in each major centre to handle the alloca-
tion of OHC units according to need, based
on a revised point system which is well pub-
Hcized and understood— not just on suitability
which is given so much weight now. Let us
end the confidential nature of the handling of
applications by the local housing authorities.
4. Set up an appeals procedure for appli-
cants denied accommodation, tenants who are
evicted or refused repairs and maintenance
to their unit. At the moment, Mr. Chairman,
a person can apply to Ontario housing cor-
poration, or one of its local authorities, and
have no idea as to why they have had to wait
a number of years and find themselves still
waiting.
5. Revise the geared-to-income rent scales
to ensure tliat no family pays more than 27
per cent of its income for fully-serviced hous-
ing—the same percentage limit applies to
carrying charges on NHA loans— or 25 per
cent per unit in which tenants pay for serv-
ices themselves. Take into account the num-
ber of children and family circumstances in
setting the scales. Establish the ceiling at
the economic rent for the project so that
families who improve their circumstances are
not forced to re-locate. Provide for annual
review of the scales.
Now, I just have three or four more points,
Mr. Chairman, so I believe I will be con-
cluding in time for private members' hour.
6. Eliminate the prying into tenants' affairs
by adjusting rents once a year and basing the
adjustment on a simple statement of family
income and circumstances, perhaps similar to
the one used by the old age pension sup-
plement. It would be subject to spot checks,
as is done with income tax returns.
7. Make it possible for tenants in geared-
to-income housing to build up a down-pay-
ment nest-egg by giving them the option of
having a portion of rent increases resulting
from improved family earnings credited to a
down-payment savings fund.
8. Provide adequate staff for local housing
authorities, and set up training courses to
ensure that they provide efficient and cour-
teous service to tenants; and I might say to
members of the Legislature as well, Mr.
Chairman.
9. Recognize that housing is not just bricks
and mortar by integrating recreational and
social services into the projects, day-care
centres for children, counselling services,
playgrounds, even swimming pools and gym-
nasiums in large projects are part of good
housing for people.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that not an-
other project should be built by Ontario
housing corporation that does not include a
day-care facility, and not one already in
existence should go longer than can be helped
without a day-care facility being attached
to it.
When we resume discussions of these esti-
mates, Mr. Chairman, I hope to make some
further remarks in support of these pro-
posals.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee rise and report certain resolutions and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the com-
mittee of supply reports tliat it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commerical Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in
this private members' hour, we will call
motion No. 31, on page 6 of the order paper
ha\'ing to do with the voting age for electors.
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No.
31, by Mr. T. P. Reid:
NOTICE OF MOTION
Resolution:
That in the opinion of this House the
voting age for electors in future provincial
elections should be lowered to age 18.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I move resolution No. 31 standing in my
name.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure
today to introduce the resolution that we
lower the voting age in elections to age 18.
Perhaps before giving the particular reasons
why I would like this particular motion before
the Plouse, we should talk for a minute about
just what a vote means.
First of all, a vote is the admittance of a
person into full citizenship in a democracy.
It is the recognition that this person now has
JUNE 14, 1968
4Bn
a legal right and has come of age, as it were,
in Canadian society. It is a recognition of
that person's worth and the possible con-
tribution that he can make to his province
and his country.
In proposing this resolution, Mr. Speaker,
I do not propose to lower the voting age and
let it go at that. I do not propose this resolu-
tion in a vacuiun. Concomitant with lower-
ing, or before lowering the voting age, I
would like to see an expanded education
course in Ontario schools at both the primary
and secondary level in Canadian history and
civics. To my mind, at the present time, the
courses offered are not adequate. They are
not covering the subject. They do not im-
press upon the student in school the privi-
leges that they have as a citizen of Ontario
and Canada, and the privileges that they
must exercise to maintain our democracy
strong and healthy.
I understand from the provincial Depart-
ment of Education that they are now con-
sidering the implementation of such courses
in the school curriculum. I believe that at
the present moment they have a civics course
at the grade 10 level, but I do not believe
that this is adequate. I taught high school
for two years. For that time I had occasion
to teach a Canadian history course and part
of that course was what one might call a
civics course. I do not believe that to my
mind it covered the necessary points, and
certainly it had little eflFect in impressing
upon the student his rights and privileges as
a Canadian and Ontarian.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a rather large
change in the world since 1945. I would just
like to give some brief statistics here. In 1945,
the formal educational average for a 20-year-
old Canadian was eight years; or he had com-
pleted public school. In 1966, the average
formal education for an average 20-year-old
Canadian was 11 years. That is eight years
of elementary and three years of high school
at that time. This average has been going up
gradually, and by the year 1970 the majority
of 20-year-olds will have completed a uni-
versity education, especially under the pro-
posed rules of the Hall report if they are
implemented by the government.
I think that it would be in order at this
point to take a look at the youth of today,
those people who are between the ages of 18
and 21, and see what kind of animal they
are. Certainly the most vehement argument
against lowering the voting age to 18 is that
tlie students are irresponsible and they are
too young, they do not know what they are
doing and so on and so forth.
I think that there is a certain validity to
that, Mr. Speaker, especially if we focus all
the attention on such communities as York-
ville and the hippies that abound therein. If
this is the only youth that we are aware of,
and this is usually the only activity of youth
that is reported at any great length in our
media, then certainly I would be reluctant
to say, "Lower the voting age to 18." But
I suggest to you, sir, that these are not the
majority of the youth of today; they are a
very small minority.
I would like to make a point concerning
them, in any case, in passing. I think that
our society today is partly responsible for the
hippie movement and Yorkville. The people
living there have opted out of this society
that exists in Canada today. They have dis-
associated themselves with the average Cana-
dian life. They have repudiated the values,
both social and economic and religious, of
the majority of Canadians. But we must ask
ourselves this question: "Why have they opted
out of society?" Why have they not taken
the other option of trying to work within
that society to better it?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the
reasons that they have not done so is because
they have not been allowed to participate
and to be involved in the political process,
where albeit no matter how slowly it is done,
the necessary changes in our society come
about. But so much for the hippies, let us
talk about the majority of youth today. Those
between the ages of 18 and 21 just a few
years ago did not have television, or the sup-
posedly modem educational system that we
now have. But people are coming out of our
schools with more education, as is shown by
the figures that I quoted, more aware both
politically and economically about the world
around them, due in great part to the use of
television in the home and at school.
The student of today is much better edu-
cated. I would like to give you an example
of my own. At the end of 20 years, I had
spent four years at university, I had a bache-
lor of arts degree, and I had taught school
for nearly one year before the age of 21. I
feel that at that age, and certainly even a
younger age, I was politically aware enough
to vote. When I was 18, I had completed
two years at university and I think that the
students today are much better educated
both in academic subjects and certainly
politically than those of our predecessors at
the same age 10 or 20 years ago.
Just to suggest to you the responsibihty
and the particiaption of the youth in our
democratic process and in the country as a
43ia
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
whole, I would like to quote briefly from an
editorial from the Rainy River Record, a very
good newspaper in my riding. The title is,
"Proving their worth." It says:
Youth of today is out for a good time.
Young people do not want to study or
work. Some take drugs or take trips with
LSD or get into trouble with the law in
other Ways. These are commonly heard
accusations, but sweeping condemnation of
this segment of our society is unjust.
Plenty of youngsters are willing, ready
and able to do a good turn. The miles-for-
mil lions marches held across Canada early
in May proved that point. Thousands of
young people, along with adults, took part
in the marches, designed to raise money
for good causes. And adolescents were
prominent among the participants. In many
instances it was the adults who dropped
out along the way and the youngsters
stuck it out to the finish.
There is no denying that some young
people are interested only in themselves
and feel no responsibility to the society in
which they live. It is equally true that in
a barrel of apples you may find the odd
bad one but that does not mean that they
are all no good any more or that all should
be blamed for the transgressions of a few.
Basically the younger generation today
wants worthwhile tasks to perform. Give
them a challenge and they will usually
measure up to it. Response to the com-
pany of young Canadians and the Cana-
dian university services overseas bears
this out.
So let us not write today's young people
off as irresponsible or no good. Instead,
let us see if we cannot find more chal-
lenging undertakings for them. We will
probably be agreeably surprised at the
vigour and effectiveness with which they
are tackled.
Mr. Speaker, I want to impress on this as-
sembly that the young people of today be-
tween the ages of 18 and 21 are ready to
shoulder the political responsibility that this
Legislature can hand them by lowering the
voting age to 18 years old.
I think the argument that while they are
still at school they do not contribute any-
thing to society is a false one and is a
sophistic argument based on some of the
more, shall we say, vague generalities of the
society that we live in. It is quite possible,
and in many cases very possible, for a stu-
dent these days to be still in university at
the age of 30 or 31. I have a friend who is
taking post-graduate medicine and he ha«
been in school now for some 12 years and
he has another eight to go. So to suggest
that because he is still snapposedly living off
society, because he does not contribute any-
thing materially to that society, I think is a
false argument. I say again that these people
who are 18 years old have finished, for the
most part, their last year of high school and
are probably entering university, where I
believe they are entitled to make a contribu-
tion to their society.
In the last few months we have seen a
great deal of the political activity of young
people for the election. I have a number of
newspaper articles here. I will not bother
reading them all, but they certainly ex-
claim or point out the participation of youth
in the federal election campaign.
There is an article here in the Toronto
Telegram entitled: "Where Did You Go-
Out, What Did You Do-Politicking." It is
aimed at people under 21. There is another
article on the other page: "The Kids Take
Over In Many Metro Areas." One of the
paragraphs in this article states: "And don't
let anyone fool you, say the workers and the
candidates, these kids know what they are
doing."
Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous
our system really is with regards to voting
age, I would like to tell you that across
Canada we have various ages at which people
are able to vote. Federally, of course, the
voting age is 21— but there seems to be a
good indication that this will be lowered.
Alberta, British Columbia and Newfound-
land have a 19-year-old voting age and Que-
bec and Saskatchewan 18. The remaining
provinces have a voting age of 21. I would
suggest that in this recent leadership cam-
paign, both Liberal and Conservative, a
great many young people took part. But it
was more than the mini-skirted girls waving
placards and pictures of Trudeau or that
other banana-eating fellow. A great many of
them actually had a vote.
I would like to read from a couple of letters
I have on the subject, one from the—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): I will remember you referring
to that lobster-eating fellow.
Mr. T. P. Reid: A letter I have from the
Liberal federation of Canada says the dele-
gates' exact age was not recorded, but we
are able to ascertain from the young Liberals
JUNE 14, 1968
4513
in Canada approximately one-third of the
delegates were under the age of 25.
In effect what this means is that a number
of young people under the age of 21 had a
vote for the choosing of the Prime Minister
of Canada. Those people who went from
young Liberal associations or from the execu-
tive of senior Liberal federation had a vote
the same as anyone over 21. In effect, they
voted in an election for a Prime Minister.
They voted for Mr. Trudeau or whoever
their choice was at that time, but they voted
for the Prime Minister. I am sure he is still
going to be Prime Minister after June 25 so
they, in effect, elected Mr. Trudeau.
This same thing happened at the Progres-
sive Conservative convention. I had a letter
also from them— not on such good paper as
ours came on. It says: "We do not have a
record of the ages of these delegates, so it
is impossible to determine the numbers who
are under 21. We can only generalize by
making a statement that the representation
from the youth wings of the party was more
than double that of any previous leadership
convention."
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this underlines
the great interest in participation of youth
in the political process. The argiunent is in
the last provincial election— the students at
university did not vote when we went to all
that trouble to make sure that they could
have. I would suggest two things to this
assembly. One that some of the statistics
quoted in the Toronto newspapers were not
correct and secondly that it may have been
our own fault in that we voted by not voting.
In other words, they did not approve of
any of the political parties or the policies that
we were putting forward. If that is the case,
then that is our fault and not theirs.
I have in my hand here a very interesting
document— the report of the Ontario Legis-
lature select committee on youth. Really the
only thing one can say about this report is
that the people who were involved in it are
getting older. I would like to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You have found a way
of getting younger?
Mr. T. P. Raid: I would like to read some
of it to you, and perhaps you might follow
up on some of the recommendations-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Certainly he would not be holding it in his
hand.
Mr. T. P. Reid: —contained therein. Per-
haps you have not read it. If you have, I
would suggest you re-read it— and I recom-
mend pages 294 and 295 to you. It says:
"The voting age. Young people at age 18 to
20 today are generally more educated and
more knowledgeable than any previous gen-
eration at the same age.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would hope so.
Mr. T. P. Reid: One of the great weak-
nesses noted by the committee in its many
contacts with young people was the inability
of adults to give youngsters responsibility
commensurate with their knowledge and
capability. Probably this stems from the
unfortunate image that has been created by
those few irresponsible, often immature teen-
agers who all too frequently come to public
attention.
Certainly they do not typify nor represent
the large numbers of stable and good-living
young persons who make up our great body
of youth. Many opinions have been expressed
regarding the desirability of allowing young
people under 21 the right to vote. Would a
lower voting age be in keeping with the
responsibility that should and could be sus-
tained by young people and help them de-
velop more responsible attitudes towards
their community?
It is believed that students at the entrance
level of university, or the work force of the
province are sufficiently knowledgeable and
responsible to intelligently exercise tlie fran-
chise. Many such persons are married and
raising families before they are 21. They
pay taxes, fight for their country, drive cars,
are treated as adults before the courts and
in many other ways are accountable for their
actions as adults in our society.
Knowledge of the functions of democratic
government and personal responsibility in the
democratic process, cannot claim much re-
spect by a group of intelligent young people
who have no voice within such a process. I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have a
great opportunity by lowering the voting age,
to harness tliat energy, that entliusiasm, that
idealism, of the young people, so that we
will have a healthier democracy. I would
like to quote from a statement made by that
great Conservative, Premier Manning, in his
book:
The younger generation of Canadians
are capable of political thought and action
at a level of maturity much higher tlian
that characterizing party politics in this
country at the present time. Youth today
is quick to detect and is strongly repulsed
4514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
by sham and superficiality. Young people
who are looking for purpose, conviction,
inspiration, and leadership in matters of
private and national concern will not, nor
should not, be expected to be satisfied by
gimmicks and school slogans, cliches and
promises, and slick, shallow promotional
campaigns. There will be little room in
the Canada of tomorrow for elections with-
out issues, pohticians without philosophical
standards, parties without relevant policies,
or citizenship without definition of pur-
pose—
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that had we had tliis
in the last provincial election we would be
sitting over there and that superficial sham
government would be sitting over here. So
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a great many of
the comments that we have concerning youth
today, the riots in universities, even at high
schools, are because the students do not have
a voice in the way they are being governed.
They are told they are to enter school in
grade 1 at age five and they are constantly
told in our schools— and I know because I
was a school teacher at one time— you are
here, you will do what you are told, we know
what is best for you. I suggest that circum-
stances have changed, the world has changed,
the educational system has changed, and that
these people deserve a voice in the govern-
ment and the way they are being governed.
Now I would suggest in closing, Mr.
Speaker— I notice my time is running out-
two things:
That this resolution to lower the voting age
to 18, as suggested in the report of the On-
tario Legislature select committee on youth
—although I must point out that some of the
members were in favour of lowering the age
to age 19— but I suggest, as the committee
did, that this problem be presented to the
select committee on election laws, which I
imderstand will be in session during the
summer. I would suggest that this be one
of the prime areas of interest for that com-
mittee, and I hope that they would see fit
to bring in a bill in this House next fall to
lower the voting age to 18.
Mr. I. Deans ( Wentworth ) : Mr. Speaker,
in rising to enter this debate, I cannot help
but be somewhat amused by the fact that
this resolution was introduced from the
official Oppo.sition.
Mr. Nixon: It has been introduced for four
years.
Mr. Deans: Yes, but it seems that you are
imable to convince those at the federal level
of tlie need for tliis sort of thing. In fact, it
seems that you are unable to convince any-
one else in Canada that adheres to the Liberal
policies that lowering tlie voting age in this
country is a desirable and necessary action.
I'here is no province in Canada under
Liberal administration that has lowered the
voting age to 18. No province has lowered
the voting age to 18 under a Liberal admin-
istration, tliat I can find.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Deans: It is also worthy of note that
tlie leading province— the province that led
the way in this social reform— is the province
of Saskatchewan, under a CCF-NDP govern-
ment. It just shows the social progress, the
electoral reform, in this country is directed
from the left.
It is not my intention to cover the points
that were made by the member for Rainy
River. He has painted a very accurate pic-
ture of the youth of this country and of this
province, and I subscribe to the things he
said about youth. I believe that they are
capable and ready now to assume a rightful
position in determining the policies of this
province and this country.
I will, for a moment, summarize some of
the points tliat have been made in years gone
by, and two or three that were made today,
in regard to the matter of having the voting
age at 18.
To begin with, the Labour Gazette in June
of 1968 showed that in Ontario there are
235,000 people in the work force that are
imder the age of 19. This represents 6.2
per cent of tlie work force. These people pay
taxes, they contribute in great measure to the
prosperity of the province, and yet they have
no say of any kind in the law making or the
legislative processes that take place in this
House. This represents a very sizable portion
of the people of this province and yet they
have no say, and it is of some importance
that we recognize this.
Secondly, the Ontario legislative select com-
mittee, as the member for Rainy River said,
recommended that the voting age be lowered
to 19; but the important part is that five
members of this committee felt in their wis-
dom, after studying the matter, that 18 would
have been a more appropriate age for voting.
Mr. T. P. Reid: The majority being
Liberals, I might add.
Mr. Deans: Thank you, that is very en-
lightening.
JUNE 14, 1968
4515
The report points out that in a great many
provinces in this country the voting age has
been reduced below the 21 age level— in
Alberta, Newfoundland and British Columbia,
to 19; in Saskatchewan, as I mentioned be-
fore, and in Quebec, to 18. Ontario, the
province of opportunity and of aflBuence,
decides that 21 is the age tliat we will have.
It seems that once again, as we have been
in many pieces of legislation and debates in
this House, we get to the point of saying that
again we are at the tail end. We never seem
to be leading, we are always dragging our
feet along in the changing of the legislation
in this country.
The select committee points out that a
great many people are married and are raising
famiHes, much before tlie age of 21. Upon
getting married, and upon taking on the
responsibility of providing for children and
providing a home for a wife, surely these
people also have acquired sufficient knowl-
edge of the ways of the world in order to
be able to cast a sensible ballot at election
time? They pay taxes. They fight for this
country, whenever it is necessary to do so.
They drive automobiles. They are treated in
the courts as adults and are, for the most
part, accountable for their actions as adults
in this country. Yet, between the age of 18
and 21, they are refused the opportunity to
have a say in the legislative processes.
I am sure that you will agree that one can
hardly claim to have a better understanding,
a more full understanding, of the needs of this
country because one is 35, or 62, or 98, or 21.
It is nothing to do with age; it is to do wdth
maturity.
It has been said in this House, and I
agree, that the youth of today is maturing
both intellectually and physically much more
quickly than their predecessors. Because of
this it is necessary to make these changes;
it is necessary to recognize this maturity. It
is necessary to give them the opportimity to
fufill the desire that they have as competent
citizens of the province.
But these arguments are arguments v.'e
have heard many times. I am sure you have
listened to them year after year.
One other area that I feel ought to be
taken into consideration— and I say tliis assum-
ing the end result of this debate will be the
lowering of the voting age. We must ensure
that within the educational system there is a
prescribed and definite plan to educate the
children from the early formative years in
the affairs of government, and in the affairs
of social responsibility in order that, when
they get to the age of 18, they not only are
desirous of casting a vote but also very, very,
aware of everything that is taking place in
this province. Not just from a historical point
of view, but also from the point of view of
what could have been done as opposed to
what has been done.
One of the great dilemmas facing us at this
time and one of the great problems that has
confronted this government at least once in
this year and many years gone by has been
the student unrest— the uprising students,
the demand by students for their right to say
something about the processes that they are
forced to live within. It is in this area that
reducing the voting age could probably best
serve the community. If these people who
feel they have something to offer to this com-
munity—if these people who feel that they
have something to offer to the progress of this
province— were given the opportunity at elec-
tion time to voice their opinion as to the
right or wrong of the government policies,
the chances are that they would not then see
the need to conduct the type of unrest, of
riot, of student revolt, that we have seen.
If for only this reason you were to reduce
tlie voting age— if it were to be the only
reason, in order to give those people who
have matured so much more quickly and so
much earlier in life, the opportunity to take
a meaningful part in the processes of this
province then it would be worthwhile.
I do not believe that reducing the voting
age will be the cure-all and I do not think
anyone else does. We are going to get people
in the 18- to 21-year bracket who will cast
their ballot just the same as the people in the
other age brackets— without giving very much
thought to why they are voting and for whom
they are voting. Very little will be done to
change that unless, as I said before, we
initiate into the educational system a proper
comprehensive social and political course that
will enable those children from the formative
years to accumulate the knowledge necessary
to cast their ballot with some reasonable
assurance that they are familiar with the cir-
cumstances and conditions existing in this
province, and this country.
But I do believe that when people get to
an age when they have the responsibility of
adults, they should be given the opportunity
to take part in the democratic processes. We,
in this party, agree that the voting age should
l^e lowered to 18. We not only agree, we
have led the fight in this country to have the
voting age lowered to 18, and we would ask,
please do not wait until we are the last prov-
ince in this country. Take some steps now.
4516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reduce the voting age, give these people the
opportunity to be meaningful, to be useful in
the community. Thank you.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): I
rise in support of the general principle em-
bodied in the resolution before the House
and moved by the hon. member for Rainy
River. I think if the hon. members of this
House were to reflect on the story of the fight
for women's suffrage in Great Britain, they
would find many parallels to the arguments
both in favour and in opposition to this pro-
posed resolution today. In 1884, during the
debate on the reformed bill in the British
Parliament, the all-time-great Liberal, Glad-
stone, vigorously opposed the bill with his
famous pronouncement, "The vessel carried
as big a cargo as it could safely carry."
Mr. Speaker, I know there are many who
would oppose reducing the voting age on this
basic premise of not wanting to rock the boat.
The chief argument advanced against women's
suffrage, of course, was the premise that the
duty of citizenship implies the ability to pro-
tect the state in the capacity as soldiers and
policewomen. I would, therefore, like to
remind the hon. members of this House that
at 18 years of age, young men of this prov-
ince can be called upon to fight for their
Queen and country overseas.
The war service of young men in the two
great world wars and Korean conflict, to-
gether with those serving with our peace-
keeping missions abroad in Canadian armed
forces, justify the extension of the franchise
for our young men and women.
Mr. Speaker, one of the other arguments
proposed against the extension of the fran-
chise to women was that it would cause a
divided House, and that was something that
could never be tolerated at Westminster.
Today we often hear of the generation gap.
If we are to positively and effectively cope
with this problem, it could be aided by
having a balanced Legislature of men and
women of all ages, just as we have men
and women from every walk of life in this
House.
I cannot help but feel that this responsi-
bility—for many of the young people today
who are registering their views by social
protest against various political and moral
issues by demonstration and and other ac-
tivistic means will channel their actions into
being responsible political electors and legis-
lators of this country. We in the Progressive
Conservative Party well appreciate the sup-
port of young people, and for the information
of the members of the House I would remind
them we have the largest student political
movement in Canada, called the Progressive
Conservatice students' federation.
I find it almost incredible today that back
in 1912, Viscount Helmsey opposed the ex-
tension of the franchise to women because
of their militant tactics, which had been
used in the attempt to force the government
of that day to extend tlie franchise to women.
Today, we are probably faced widi the op-
posite situation in that many of our young
people are rather complaisant about the ex-
tension of the franchise to them.
Surely, the classic example of the contri-
bution of youth to the legislative state is
embodied in the famous career of William
Pitt, who at the age of 21 was a member of
Parliament; at the age of 24 was the Prime
Minister of Great Britain. During the 18th
century, young men of Great Britain could
find an easy admittance into Parliament, but
they had to be an aristocrat or plutocrat
whose family could afford the purchase of
a rotten or pocket borough. Just as in 1867
Lord Derby called upon the House of Com-
mons to take "a leap in the dark," I trust
the hon. members of this House will unani-
mously support the principle of this reso-
lution.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the recom-
mendation of the report of the Ontario
Legislature's select committee on youth, 1967,
where, on page 408, recommendation 275,
the voting age in Ontario be reduced to 19
years of age. At this age a young man or
woman is a major contributor to the retail
sales tax and many have commenced to pay
income taxes.
While on this particular subject, I will
refer the hon. members to a recent article
in tlie Canadian magazine supplement of
June 8, 1968, which outlines in great depth
the billion-dollar teenage retail market.
Surely, one of the chief arguments in favour
of the extension of the franchise to young
people is the fact that by 19 years of age
the majority have finished high school and
have joined the labour force or they are
attending an institution of higher learning.
I would further venture to say that a
greater percentage of 19-year-olds of today
are better informed and educated than their
parents were when they received the fran-
chise at 21 years of age. Thus today and in
the future it will be especially the province
of the yoimg Canadian to make decisions
not only for himself but on behalf of many
others. For they, more than any generation
JUNE 14, 1968
4517
of youth that went before them, are better
equipped and, therefore, in a better position
to find the right answers.
Several weeks ago, I asked a number of
young people in my riding of Hamilton
Mountain to express to me their views on the
extension of the franchise to young men and
women 19 years of age and over, and I
would like to share with you a letter that I
received from a young lady, 14 years of age
and a grade 8 student at George L. Armstrong
public school, Hamilton Mountain, dated
June 1, 1968. The letter says:
Dear John:
I am in favour of lowering the voting
age in provincial elections to 19 years of
age, because I feel that the balance of
19 year-olds are ready to choose parties by
then. Ontario's young people have much
to offer. The 19-year-old today has superior
education which the 19-year-olds of 30
years ago did not have the benefit of. As
a teacher, you are aware that education
today does not consist of academic subjects
only. The educators of today try to chal-
lenge their students to be citizens of to-
morrow.
There are those who will argue against
the lowering of the age of voters by saying,
"The majority of 19-year-olds do not sup-
port the government with taxes; why then
should they vote?" My reply to this argu-
ment is that the average housewife who is
not employed outside the home does not
earn money either. Are these people say-
ing then that she should not vote? Teens
like myself who have a keen interest in
pohtics are constantly exposed to it via
radio, television and newspapers. We are
encouraged to be enthusiastic and take
part in the various associations for young
people. In return, we are frustrated by
having to wait until we reach the age of
21 to vote. By this age the interest might
bum out.
There are also teenagers who insist on
burying their heads in the sand during their
teen years and when the first election
comes after their 21st birthday they are
faced with the dilemma of having to
choose, at this age, a poUtical party.
I am saying here that I think Ontario
political parties have to reach out and
encourage the young voters. We have to
get a political grounding sometime; why
not get a good start at an earlier age? It is
not beyond the comprehension of any
19-year-old, with a sound mind, to under-
stand tlie workings of the three levels of
government. Why not let them vote?
It is simply not my behef that politics
is a fad with young people. In fact, I
think Ontario's teens have finally awakened
and are beginning to observe more than
any other generation because of our great
freedom. It is true that some 19-year-olds
are not ready to vote— but, then again, 21
is no magic number eitherl
These are my views on lowering the age
of voters to 19.
The letter is signed by Marion Nancekivell,
48 Knyvet Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario— and
I must say that I thought it was a truly out-
standing letter by this young lady.
Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the
young people of our province and I would
urge every member of this House to support
the extension of the franchise to our citizens
to persons 19 years of age and over. We are
not going to be taking a leap in dark but
rather we are going to let our young people
share with us the responsibilities, privileges
and rights of a mature citizen in the wonder-
ful province of Ontario. We cannot afford
to delay this reform any longer. Let us
leave the cave of Adullam! Far from leaping
into the dark, Mr. Speaker, we will in fact
be bringing some new light to our political
process.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, now that the posi-
tions of the NDP and the Conservatives have
been made clear in support of the resolution
of the hon. member for Rainy River, I would
think that very little, if anything, stands in
the way of this particular amendment to The
Election Act of Ontario. We look forward to
many changes but this is one that should be
achieved with httle or no diflBculty. I just
wish that more colleagues of the member for
Hamilton Mountain were present to hear his
urgings that the Conservative Party, which
has been holding up this development, put
away these prejudices and support it whole-
heartedly.
It seems strange that we cannot move in
the direction of real electoral reform in this
province more effectively than we have in
the past. I myself have been under the im-
pression that the government's efforts in this
regard have been nothing but window-dress-
ing undertaken in the months immediately
previous to an election. In fact, we in Ontario
are falling behind farther and farther and are
the most regressive in our approach to elec-
toral reform, this particular democratic re-
form, when compared with other provinces.
4518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. member for Wentworth was some-
what critical of the Liberal position in this
regard. I guessed he was not aware of the
fact that electoral reform has been a very
important matter as far as our position in tliis
House is concerned, that John Lesage as
Prime Minister of Quebec has undertaken re-
forms very far-reaching in their implications
and importance, and even that great progres-
sive in Newfoundland has undertaken reforms
along the lines that have been put forward
in this connection.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister of
Canada, when he has an opportunity to bring
forward his programme to the new Parlia-
ment, will certainly bring forward the reforms
of the type that are involved—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will he reform the
Senate too?
Mr. Nixon: —in the bill before us.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He said "no"
last week.
Mr. Nixon: And I would say, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions
can look forward to his place in the Senate—
perhaps in the far distant future— and he can
sit there and take part in those debates v/ith
all of the deliberations that he gives us here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am glad the hon.
leader of the Opposition said "far distant".
I am not old enough for the Senate-
Mr. Nixon: But, Mr. Speaker, I know you
have not always been so independent of par-
tisanship as you are at this particular time.
You have taken part in political campaigns,
and I know you would agree with me that
one of the most interesting experiences is
when you are put up against the young
ideahstic, inquiring mind from a political plat-
form or elsewhere. And you hear the ques-
tions and views of these young people,
particularly at the universities, because most
of our students, with the exception of the
precocious types like the hon. member for
Rainy River— most of them are in university
after age 18 and not after 16, as was his case.
He has shown his great abihties there as a
student and in this House subsequently, and
we expect great things from him in the
future. But in this particular connection,
most of the people affected would be either
in the senior grades of secondary schools or
at imiversity, and it is here in recent electoral
campaigns that I have been most impressed
with—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: So have I. They know
how to vote. They voted for me.
Mr. Nixon: I was waiting for that inter-
jection. I was impressed with their idealism
and their incisiveness, the fact they were pre-
pared to approach local politicians and even
visiting dignitaries with a certain hard-nosed
cynicism that really cut through some of the
hash that surrounds campaigns. They are
prepared to ask the questions and make the
comments that showed they are as interested
in the real issues of the day as any other age
group in the community— perhaps more so. I
have had an opportunity, as has every mem-
ber of this House, to talk to students. Frankly,
in the senior levels of secondary schools, I
have been most impressed with the reluctance
of these students to agree with my position
and our position that they were ready to have
the responsibility of the vote.
I have talked to many grade 13 students
who have said that they felt they were
prepared to wait until they were 21. I
thought perhaps this particular approach
showed that they were as responsible and
ready for having the responsibihty perhaps
thrust upon them, as were any other group
that were finally taken into an enlarged fran-
chise over the years with the historical
development that has been put before us
by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have achieved
something this afternoon in getting all-party
agreement in the approval for tihe principle
behind this bill. The matter has been re-
searched by the select committee on youth
and the agreement in that particular body
is available for us in the report.
I hope that this particular change will only
be a part of the electoral reform of the law
that governs elections in this province before
1971 or when we have the next opportunity
to go to the people of the province. There are
far-reaching reforms that are obviously re-
quired, but the one embodied in this resolu-
tion is one of particular importance and
concern.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, may I say at the outset that I intend
to take my seat so that this House will have
an opportunity to move on the resolution put
forward by the member for Rainy River,
but I do want to make one or two comments
in these last few fleeting moments.
I am concerned about a series of events
which have taken place over the last number
of months which have involved young people
and has involved the whole area of politics.
JUNE 14, 1968
4519
And my feeling has been that we have not
really involved the young people, we have
used young people. I look back at the last
two leadership conventions which have chosen
leaders for the two major political parties in
this country, and I get the terrible feeling
that young people are being hauled in to
provide crowds, to provide dancing girls, to
provide colour, to provide glamour— to pro-
vide all these things.
But they were not being used in order to
provide any kind of new dimension. They
were not part of the input. I would say that
the present campaign of the Prime Minister
of Canada, during the last few weeks was the
most obvious use or misuse of young people
that I have seen in my years in this country.
We want young people who are involved—
not young people who are being used in
politics. This is why we come forward sup-
porting this particular measure to allow these
people to be part of the input.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about unrest
in the universities, and it is the bright young
people who are a part of this unrest, I would
suggest that, unless young people feel that
they are going to be a part of the input,
that there is going to be a back-lash— I think
you can see the beginning of one when Mr.
Trudeau, for example, turns to the young
people of Canada and says not to worry
about those $10,000 scholarships that we
promised a few years ago; "Too bad your
parents did not look after you properly."
You know: "The boys with the statistics
were wrong. Some of you will not get back.
Is that not too bad?" I thought that was one
of the most disgraceful things that I have
heard a Prime Minister say in the history of
this or any political campaign.
Here was a promise that was made to the
young people of Canada and has been re-
neged on and now it is being simply ignored.
It is simply an example— the worst example—
of the usage of the young people.
If I may suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the re-
commendations made by the Hall committee
a few days ago indicate a new over-
view of what the role of young people should
be in this country of ours, and I would hope,
Mr. Speaker, that this will be a part of our
new recognition of the role of young people
both in the educational world, as a part of
the input there, and also as a part of the
political world.
Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-PIaliburton):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the only question in
this whole debate is whether the franchise
would be given to the 18-year-olds or the
19-year-olds.
Part of the reason for discriminately low-
ering the voting age in other provinces of
Canada was the Korean war. Veterans came
back to this country at 19 and 20 years of
age. In the armed forces they had the fran-
chise, and suddenly they found on entering
civilian life once again that they were for-
bidden the privileges.
Also the select committee on election laws
which ended in the election of last fall,
found that in Quebec, as a result of lower-
ing the voting age the youth voted almost
entirely as their elders did— except in and
near the city of Montreal, where in the
opinion of those involved in the elections
it was that they voted differently and they
voted for the separatist element in that prov-
ince. Therefore I view very seriously the
recent Star article which mentioned that one
of our members of this House said that there
should be protest and uprising in students.
I also want to say that the university level
covers about 15 per cent of our youth in this
province, many of the accepted principles
of election law reform were accepted by the
select committee and the members, and I
am sure that if tliis is reconstituted at the end
of this session, Mr. Speaker, we will find
much of this work will be reaccepted by the
new members of that committee and we will
also find that they will do very useful work
for the province of Ontario and its people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is
whether to make it 18 or 19 years of age. I
personally have felt that the youth committee
report suggesting 19 years of age and its re-
commendations were based on their studies,
although I know tliat there was some dis-
sention, and that in selecting the age of 19,
I believe the fact that the 19-year-olds con-
tributed more in taxes and that there were
more 19-year olds in the work force in this
province had a great deal to do with that
decision.
I believe our youth does have more knowl-
edge of how we are governed. I would like
to have seen much more constructive work in
tlie proposals for ETV on how we would por-
tray to the youth of our nation a proper respect
for the government by the people, and for
the people. I also feel that this is field that
we can bring to our youth of tomorrow,
through ETV, the ways that we are governed
and the interests of this nation, also further
their ability to vote at the lower voting age.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs ) : On Monday
4520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we will continue with the estimates of The
Department of Trade and Development, and
thereafter with The Department of Lands
and Forests. I would ask the hon. members,
Mr. Speaker, to keep in mind that on Tuesday
the afternoon has been set aside for a special
debate on one of the motions on the order
paper,
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves adjournment of
the House.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Speaker, before you put the motion could
the Minister give us the following estimates
that might be dealt with.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I have given it. Trade
and Development currently on, then Lands
and Forests and then the Attorney General;
and tentatively my own Department of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of tlie House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
No. 121
ONTARIO
iegisilature of (!^ntario
OFFICJAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 17, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, June 17, 1968
Introducing His Eminence Josyf Cardinal Slipyj, Mr. Yaremko 4523
Content and identification of stuffing in upholstered and stu£Fed articles upon their manu-
facture, sale and renovation, bill to control, Mr. Rowntree, first reading 4524
Power Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Simonett, first reading 4524
Impaired drivers, bill respecting, Mr. Shulman, first reading 4524
Mr. R. J. Hutcheon, question to Mr. Crossman, Mr. Shulman 4524
Letters to Ontario jails re visiting MPPs, question to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 4525
Teachers' superannuation fimd contributions, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Shulman 4525
Ontario housing corporation, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. T. Reid 4525
Hall report on education, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 4525
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, continued 4526
Recess, 6 o'clock 4565
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Again today, we have a good
many students visiting the Legislature. In
the east gallery, there are those from Briar-
wood vocational school in Hamilton; and in
the west gallery from Dalewood senior
public school in St. Catharines. Later this
afternoon we will be joined by students
from Britt public school in Britt, from the
W. J. Baird public school in Blenheim and
from Holy Name school in Welland. We are
very pleased to see these young people here
today.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank you
for the opportunity of welcoming on behalf
of yourself and all members of the Legisla-
ture a most distinguished visitor to this
House. In Mr. Speaker's gallery we have His
Eminence Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. As major
archbishop of the Ukrainian Cathohcs, his
eminence the Cardinal can be accepted in
a way as the titular head of the World
Ukrainian Catholics.
His eminence has begun his visit to his
people throughout Canada. Here in the
capital city of the province of Ontario, over
the weekend, tens of thousands of Cana-
dians of Ukrainian background have had the
opportunity of meeting with him.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a great land.
Ontario is a great province. We have wel-
comed, through the years, men and women
from all lands who have come here and have
found their freedoms; freedom of assembly,
freedom of speech and above all, freedom
of worship. To no group has Canada been
more bountiful than to those Ukrainians who
now for some three-quarters of a century
have settled here.
His eminence will travel the length and
breadth of this country and he will find men
and women of his stock who have foimd
their rightful place in this country. Later on,
Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity,
I hope, of visiting with you in your chambers
Monday, June 17, 1968
and just to the right of your doorway, his
eminence will see a plaque which was
erected back in 1952, in commemoration of
the diamond anniversary of the coming to
Canada of the first Ukrainian immigrants to
this country.
His eminence has had a long career of
full devotion to his people, but that life
has been marked by the trials and depriva-
tion of prison camps of Siberia. He has come
to symbohze, to his people and to men and
women about the world, the ideal that in the
end, justice and freedom will triumph. We
are fortunate indeed that he has been spared
to come from Rome to Canada, where he
will find a warm welcome on behalf of all
citizens.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I
should like to say to his eminence those
traditional words of welcome which are used
on this occasion in the mother tongue of my
parents and in his mother tongue—
BITAEMO BAG
BEPXOBHNN APXNEPEW!
Mr. Speaker: I am certain that the mem-
bers of the House are honoured at having his
eminence, this world leader, visit with us
today. I am sure that he will take away
memories of the Ontario Legislature and the
members thereof which will indicate to him
that our people in Ontario live in one of the
finest parts of the world, where freedom of
the individual is above all, a most important
thing.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
I have a bill to introduce, of which notice
has not been given, but I have spoken to the
leaders of the other parties. It has to do
with a transfer of certain legislation from
The Public Health Act to a separate Act of
its own.
4524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED
ARTICLES
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves first reading of
hill intituled, An Act to control the content
and identification of stuffing in upholstered
and stuffed articles upon their manufacture,
sale and renovation.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of this legislation is to safeguard
the health of the public and to protect the
consiuner by ensuring that the content of
upholstered and stuffed articles is as repre-
sented by the manufacturer. For its part, the
industry is entitled to the province's protec-
tion in the maintenance of truth in the
desciption of its products and the elimination
of deception and fraud.
The province of Ontario first enacted
legislation in this field in 1938. The proposed
Act will consist of the legislation presently
found in The Public Health Act and the
regulations passed thereunder. Administra-
tive, procedural, and penalty sections similar
to those existing in The Consumer Protection
Act and the other registration statutes
administered by The Department of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs, have been incor-
porated into the new Act and this new
legislation will come under The Department
of Financial and Commercial Affairs rather
than The Department of Health.
THE POWER COMMISSION ACT
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Power Commission Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, if I might
just give a short explanation of the amend-
ment, section 1 of subsection 1. This amend-
ment is intended to clarify the entitlement of
members of the commission to participate in
the Ontario Hydro pension fund.
Subsection 2: This new clause will author-
ize the commission, with the approval of tlie
Lieutenant-Governor in council, to make
regulations respecting the transfer of pension
benefits.
Section 2: The basis of valuation of the
type of buildings described is brought into
line with current valuation practices.
Section 3 has to do with assessment again
and is self explanatory.
Section 4: The amendments are designed
to enable the commission to act effectively in
emergencies.
IMPAIRED DRIVERS
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled. An Act respecting
impaired drivers.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is sim-
ilar to the law which was passed in England
and which has been so successful in cutting
the mortality on the English highways and
other jurisdictions. But it has one very im-
portant added proviso— which is put in to
meet the objections of many persons who
may object to the accuracy of the breathy-
lizer test— that the driver involved may have
the option of either having a breathylizer test,
or having his blood or urine tested for alco-
hol. I would submit, sir, that this will be a
very e£Fective bill if, and when, passed.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has two questions from the other day. The
Ministers are now here.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Minister of Reform Institutions.
Why has the work of Mr. R. J. Hutcheon,
in the rehabilitation of prisoners from Ontario
reformatories, been hampered by the depart-
ment's refusal to allow Mr. Hutcheon to cor-
respond with the inmates?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Mr. Speaker, on June 10 last, the
hon. member asked me a question regarding
the instances when individuals are prohibited
from writing to inmates. I stated at that
time, and I quote:
This prohibition may be applied from time to
time at an institution when it is deemed advisable
in the best interests of the inmates, and/or those
writing to them, or the security of the institution,
and /or the protection of the public.
That is the end of that quote, Mr. Speaker,
and the decision with respect to this gentle-
man was based on these principles,
Mr. Speaker, may I at the same time an-
swer another question asked by the hon.
member?
Mr. Shulman: Will he allow a supplement-
ary—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you Mr. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are welcome.
JUNE 17, 1968
4625
The hon. member asked questioii No. 674.
First, the question:
Following my complaint that a letter had
been sent to Ontario jails instructing that
visiting MPPs' conversations be written
down and forwarded to the department,
was a second letter sent to the same in-
stitutions instructing that the first letter be
removed from the files and locked away by
the local jail governor?
Mr. Speaker, when this matter was raised by
the hon. member for High Park during de-
bates on the estimates of my department, I
advised him that I had no knowledge of any
such letter being sent to the institutions. I
have since checked with my senior staff, and
I am advised that no such letter had been
sent in the first instance; certainly therefore,
there was no second letter.
The second part of the question was:
Will the Minister please rescind the in-
structions that visiting MPPs' conversations
with prisoners be written down and for-
warded to the department?
Mr. Speaker, since no letter was sent to the
institutions requesting staff to write down
conversations of MPPs, there is no such order
to be rescinded. In any event, it has been
our practice in this department to permit any
hon. member of this House to interview an
inmate privately, and I am sure many have
done so.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Education.
Why are teachers who have resigned after
ten years of service refused a refund of their
contributions to the teachers' superannuation
fund, even though the synopsis of The Teach-
ers Superannuation Act and Regulations 1967,
as issued by the teachers' superannuation
commission, states that such teachers are
entitled to a refund of their contributions?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, there has been some question
raised with respect to the interpretation of
the Act, which can and will be clarified by
legislation very shortly. Pending clarification
to legislation, applications to the superannua-
tion fund have been held up, and they will
be processed once the legislation has been
presented and through the House.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister allow a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Am I to understand that this
legislation will allow these teachers to get
their funds?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
East has questions?
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Trade and Development.
Is the Ontario housing corporation involved
in any way in a low-rental town house proj-
ect, between Sylvan Avenue, Lake Ontario,
Livingston Road, and Marine Drive in Scar-
borough?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): No we are not.
Mr. T. Reid: I have a question for the
Minister of Education. The question is in
three parts.
What is the Minister's estimate of the num-
ber of copies of the Hall report on education
in Ontario, that will be sold to Ontarians
within the next year, at its current price of
$9 per copy?
Second, does the Minister believe that his
estimate is consistent with the goal of ensuring
that the Hall report receives the wide pub-
licity study and discussion that it apparently
merits?
Xhird, what is the Minister's estimate of
the number of copies of the Hall report that
would be sold to Ontarians within the next
year, if its price were changed to $1.95 per
copy?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is our
intention to distribute free to the school
boards, to the educational organizations and
to the schools a copy of the Hall commission
report. We also intend to distribute it as
widely as possible and at as reasonable a
price possible to other interested members
of the public in this province. It is, I think,
a shade premature to determine just what the
extent of this interest will be, and there has
been no determination yet as to what the cost
of tlie publication will be.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a
supplementary question?
I believe the Minister was reported as hav-
ing said during a press conference, that if
the sales of the book at $9-
Hon. Mr. Davis: I never mentioned $9.
4526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Well, could I make a state-
ment and the Minister could correct me for
the record?
Some people have understood the Minister
to have said that if the sales of the Hall
commission report are substantial at its cur-
rent price then he might consider lowering
the price. I would like the Minister to com-
ment on this.
Hon, Mr. Davis: There has been no price
set as yet.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; the
House in committee of supply, Mr A. E.
Renter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OP^
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
(Continued)
On vote 407:
Mr. Chairman: I would remind the com-
mittee that we are dealing with votes 407,
408, 409 and 410, collectively. The member
for Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
man, in the light of those remarks, I would
like to deal specifically with the votes con-
cerning the Ontario student housing corpora-
tion, because it has aspects which are different
from the normal.
Mr. Chairman: It is quite in order, the
member may proceed.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to discuss the Ontario student housing cor-
poration. To preface my remarks, I think that
it would be helpful to deal witli the history
of student housing and how it has been
financed in Ontario, in order to see the
rationale for the establishment of the Ontario
student housing corporation and to judge its
effectiveness in meeting the needs for student
housing in the province. That is to say that it
is necessary to give some background on
some of the history and on how student hous-
ing has been handled to see if the present
technique of financing student housing is
better than the previous system. In evaluating
the OSHC and the money it is scheduled to
spend for next year, we should see if it could
be better spent in some other way, on differ-
ent criteria, and so forth.
I would like to take this opportunity to
deal with this issue, which I consider to be
a very strategic issue in the area of univer-
sity affairs as well as in the area of providing
housing units to students in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, until the late 1950s univer-
sities wishing to build halls of residence on
campus had to rely on two sources of capital
finance: first, gifts or donations from interested
parties and almnni; second, capital funds from
fees and federal-provincial grants. Since well-
established universities such as Toronto,
Queens, Western, and so forth, were located
in centres of considerable population, the
pressures were not too great to construct
residences at a very rapid rate. Those that
were built from time to time were additions
to a paid-up stock, so that the administrative
and amortization costs could be spread over
the whole operation.
Two other factors assisted the situation at
that time. First, residences were quite often
financed by denominational bodies such as
part of the college structure— for example,
Victoria College and Trinity College at the
University of Toronto. Second, living in resi-
dence was considered a privilege for those
who could afford it, rather than a necessity.
The idea of "self-amortizing" student housing
had not taken root at that time.
In effect, universities were willing to sub-
sidize residences out of both capital and
operating budgets even though this usually
meant inequitable use of funds between in-
residence and commuting students. With the
rapid growth in the number of students wish-
ing to go to university in the late 1950s and
1960s— as the Minister has so often reminded
us— tlie number of universities has more than
doubled from six, in 1955, to 14 in 1965.
Some of the new institutions were already
existing and were upgraded to degree-grant-
ing status— for example, Guelph. But many of
them were entirely new, and did not have
recourse to either paid-up existing facilities,
or to alumni— for example, Waterloo and York
Unixersities. To compound the problem, some
of these new universities were located outside
centres of population, and did not have re-
course either to a commuting population of
any size or to digs or boarding situations off
campus— for example, Trent, Laurentian and,
to a certain extent. Brock University, and the
Lakehead University.
For most of the new institutions, housing
took on a role of special importance, since, if
they were to grow as planned, and serve the
whole province or at least their own areas,
they would have to provide housing for a
higher proportion of their students than the
older campuses had. Since this situation
p
JUNE 17, 1968
4527
afiFected institutions across the country, Mr.
Chairman, the federal government was urged
to take action by representative bodies such
as the then Canadian universities foundation
and the national conference of Canadian
universities. The result was that in 1961 The
National Housing Act, controlling central
mortgage and housing corporation, was
changed, to allow that body to make low-
interest long-term loans to universities for
the express piupose of building student resi-
dences.
The terms were generous and practical.
CMHC would provide 90 per cent of the
capital cost of residences to a maximum loan
of $7,000 per bed on a 50-year basis at an
interest rate at that time of 5% per cent. Mr.
Chairman, this interest rate has of course
risen and is presently at, I believe, &k per
cent.
The universities would provide the remain-
ing 10 per cent or, if the per bed cost rose
above $7,770, the capital over and above
$7,000 necessary to build the student hous-
ing they wanted. Very little control was
exercised by CMHC in the operation of this
scheme. Of course, designs and working
drawings were checked to ensure that they
complied with health, fire and building codes
and in some cases where plans were notice-
ably deficient in one way or another, CMHC
would advise the institutions applying for
loans of the changes that should be made.
But, Mr. Chairman, in all cases the automony
of the university in deciding what kind of
housing best suited its needs and the needs
of students was respected. Universities were
free to employ their own architects, and to
retain full design and operational control of
their awa. projects.
The popularity of this scheme can be seen
when one realizes that, in the first four years
of its operation, some 94 separate student
housing projects were financed at a cost
of $139 million across the country. Many
of these, of course, were in the province of
Ontario.
In 1954 alone, Mr. Chairman, seven new
projects and one conversion of an existing
building were financed in Ontario at a total
cost of $18,369,000. This represented, in that
year, additional housing in Ontario univer-
sities of 2,500 beds. These statistics are in
tlie CMHC publication of 1964, page 56.
The scheme was effective and popular with
the universities and, indeed, is still in wide
use in eight of the ten provinces across the
country but not, as we shall see, in Ontario.
Late in 1964, the Ontario government
announced the establishment of a new provin-
cial scheme for the financing of student hous-
ing on campuses in Ontario. The government
at that time stated as its main reason for its
action the fact that they were concerned that
universities in this province were borrowing
too heavily to build student housing, and that
students were sufFering due to the high resi-
dence fees necessary to amortize loans repre-
senting 90 per cent of the capital cost of
student housing construction.
In addition, they felt that universities were
not facing up to their responsibilities in con-
structing residences; that they were building
too few resident places at too high a bed cost;
and, in many cases, that they were still sub-
sidizing housing out of general funds to the
detriment of other academic necessities and
to the detriment of the welfare of commuters.
The rationale of this scheme of the Ontario
government in 1964 seemed impeccable, and
the scheme devised was ingenious. It was to
be administered by the provincial Department
of University AflFairs, which was also created
in 1964, and the basic characteristics of the
plan were these:
The province would give a per bed grant
of $1,400, which represented 20 per cent of
a total per bed cost of $7,000, provided the
university concerned matched that with an
equal contribution of $1,400, again coming
to 20 per cent of $7,000, and that the univer-
sity did not borrow more than $4,200, which
represented 60 per cent of the $7,000 per
bed cost.
Mr. Chairman, the scheme had built-in in-
centives to encourage universities to build
cheaper student housing. If the university
could manage to lower the per bed cost
below $7,000 the provincial grant did not
reduce, but remained at $1,400. This meant,
in effect, that if-and it was a big "if'-if
the university could manage to design housing
for students for a total per bed cost of $3,500,
for example, the grant would represent 40
per cent of the cost. The remaining 60 per
cent could be borrowed and the university
would not have to contribute at all.
Mr. Chairman, with the introduction of
the so-called Department of University
AflFairs, or what I will call the DUA scheme,
a number of reahties became immediately
apparent. First, that the scheme was devised
by a provincial government worried about
federal intervention in education. This
became apparent when a major Ontario
university made representation to CMHC in
early 1965 and were told by the oflBcials of
4528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
CMHC that universities in Ontario could
not use the original CMHC scheme without
first obtaining approval from the province—
that is, The Department of University Affairs
—and that this was not forthcoming. In
effect, Mr. Chairman, the provincial scheme
had replaced the earlier and obviously popu-
lar schedule scheme. For universities in
Ontario, it was not an alternative at all but
a replacement. Along with this came the
realization that the province had used the
$7,000 CMHC maximum loan of 1961, that
maximum loan figure which represented only
90 per cent of a possible $7,770 total cost
as a simple maxim, thereby taking the top
end of what was previously possible.
Second, that if universities would build
the kind of student housing they considered
suitable for their campuses, it would be most
certainly in the $7,000 per bed cost range
and they would be expected to raise 20
per cent of the capital cost rather than the
earlier 10 per cent under the CMHC scheme.
Where 10 per cent was difficult earlier, 20
per cent became simply impossible for uni-
versities desperately short of capital funds
anyway. In effect, the only imiversities cap-
able of using the scheme were those well
established institutions with generous bene-
factors, endowments and fund raising possi-
bilities. The newer institutions in greater need
of student housing were being forced either
to build inferior or inadequate facilities, or
to dip into their sorely needed general capital
funds or not build at all.
Tliird, that the province was not at all
concerned with the value of student housing
as a legitimate and important element in the
learning/living process, nor for tlie variety
of types of housing suited to the various
needs of a very diversed group of institu-
tions with a healthy diversity of housing
philosophies.
In one short year of operation of this new
scheme— notable principally for the rising
clamour from universities in dire need of
realistic assistance in their housing needs,
and noted for the marked reduction in the
student housing projects undertaken— with
this in mind, it became apparent that the
scheme simply was not going to work and
that something had to be done if a major
breakdown between universities and the
province was to be adverted. So the province
did take action.
At the request of The Department of
University Affairs, the Ontario housing cor-
poration was brought into the picture. Their
solution to the difficulty was simple. They
would deal with student housing in thie same
way that they dealt with the provision of hous-
ing units of other kinds. They would under-
take to work with universities using what is
known as the developer proposal call sys-
tem, and for this purpose the Ontario stu-
dent housing corporation was established as
an arm of the Ontario housing corporation.
The method of financing to be used is
simple. The Ontario student housing corpora-
tion, would in effect, revert to the use of
CMHC funds for 90 per cent of the per
bed cost of student housing, and the prov-
ince would provide the additional 10 per
cent to the earlier 1961 maxitnum cost of
$7,770 per bed.
In other words, for the first time, uni-
versities were being offered 100 per cent
financing for residences, a seemingly gener-
ous and unbeatable offer. Of course, this
time around, Mr. Chairman, the provincial
government were careful not to mention
their previous concern for the student and
his rising residence fees because it was not
60 per cent of the cost of student housing
which had to be amortized but a full 100
per cent and this had to be paid for through
student fees.
They made it known instead that diey
were deeply concerned about the need for
the residence places, and that this would be
the only effective way of keeping supply
up with the demand.
It took almost no time on this occasion for
intelligent university administrators to realize
that they were being forced to pay a fan-
tastic price if they were to use the Ontario
student housing corporation scheme. In
return for 100 per cent financing, they would
first have to accept the fact that they were
to relinquish virtually all design control over
projects to be built on their campuses—
since they would not even know who the
arcliitect was to be for their project, let
alone discuss their requirements with him
and reach a creative and resjwnsible solution.
Second, the universities had to accept the
inevitability of agreeing to the results of a
competition among developers in which cost
would be the overriding factor in the choice
of a winner.
Third, the universities would be subject
to the financial and supervisory control at all
stages of construction by the OSHC. And
fourth, and most important, the universities
would have to live with the results of the
kind of design and workmanship that the
less reputable apartment developers would
JUNE 17, 1968
4529
he capable of, and their captive architects,
since these would be the kind of people who
would succeed in the proposal call condi-
tions.
It was entirely incomprehensible to some
that the kind of building— cheaper apart-
ments—thrown up to be amortised for a
quick profit over ten to 12 years, should
be forced upon the universities, who
would be paying for them for 50 years and
would probably use them for longer. Main-
tenance costs on good quality buildings are
bad enough in our universities, but on
poorly constructed buildings, they are
crippling within a very short time of com-
pletion.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note
that the decisions of the Ontario student hous-
ing corporation accepting projects of apart-
ment builders with their captive architects,
will have a direct effect on the estimates of
The Department of University Affairs over
the next decade. I will just note that. Because
of the cheap buildings, the costs of operating
grants to the universities in the years ahead
as they appear in the budget of The Depart-
ment of University Affairs, will be astronomi-
cal. There is lack of co-ordination here, to
make the point simple.
The immediately evident problems of plan-
ning control, design control, quality control,
and of maintenance costs were bad enough,
not to mention the end cost to students in
money and welfare, but the few universities
that heaved a sigh of resignation and set
about to use the system as best they could
were staggered to find out that their efforts
were not only unwelcome, but ignored. It
became apparent to a few universities that
their only real avenue to some control under
these conditions was to prepare the original
proposal call document so carefully that the
worst of the submissions would not be ad-
missible.
This meant that the documentation, includ-
ing well-defined perimeters, and social con-
tent, design content, educational content, and
performance and material specifications, was
necessary. To prepare such a document, at
least one university, the University of
T.oronto, went to considerable expense in em-
ploying the best consultant assistance possible,
only to find that the OSHC refused to use
the data, since such well defined requirements
virtually prohibited developers from using
their normal price-cutting and corner-cutting
methods for so-called economy.
For those universities conscious of the
tremendously important role that student
housing must play in the total scope of the
educational process, the prospects are today
very bleak indeed. They must either accept
virtually 100 per cent government control,
which comes with 100 per cent financing,
knowing that the control of the provincial
government is brought about by a provincial
government contribution of a meagre 10 per
cent of the actual capital, or not built at all.
Many of these universities must be looking
wistfully at the days when they had access
to federal moneys on generous terms, which
carried a minimum of control and recognized
the independence and autonomy of the uni-
versity. No doubt if the provincial govern-
ment understood its role in this matter, in the
same way as does CMHC, it would revert to
the more valid role of a true money lender
only, trusting that the universities would be
responsible enough to use the money wisely
and to undertake the loan repayment neces-
sary. One hundred per cent financing of this
kind would be simple to administer and would
prove a boon rather than a bane to the
universities in the province.
The sad thing, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
is that a creative and successful solution is
near at hand. Responsible members of both
the architectural and contracting professions
and university administrators have made it
abundantly clear that the valid cost controls
sought by the government are available under
various forms of negotiated contract, in which
the university concerned would benefit by
being able to select not only its preferred
architect, but its whole construction team.
The knowledge and know-how of con-
tractors and developers would be put to truly
creative use and the whole university environ-
ment would benefit. It seems that the present
government is bent on strong-armed face-
saving tactics to cover an inept and badly
managed background in the whole field of
student housing. In a few short and critical
years, our universities will begin to pay the
staggering price of imposed poor quality and
meddling, and The Department of University
Affairs will have to dig deeped into the public
purse to pay for the high maintenance costs
of ill-conceived and low-quality student resi-
dences in this province.
Mr. Chairman, I could ask tlie Minister
some specific questions, but I was wonder-
ing first of all whether he has any general
comments to make?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): I certainly have. First of all
let me make it perfectly clear to both you
4530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and the other members of the House that the
universities are still free to go to CMHC and
build on their own; they do not have to come
to OSHC, they can still borrow direct if they
wish. But they came to The Department of
Education and said, "We are in difficulty.
With the influx of students, we need beds and
we need them in a hurry, can the OSHC help
us out?" That is how we got into building
student beds.
Now we also say to you that the universities
do not have to take the designs that we
offer. They sit down with us, and are involved
in all the designs. TJiey tell us their basic
needs and requirements and then we design
to those needs. So they do have a say in what
we are doing with these buildings. We are in
complete consultation with the universities at
all times before these buildings get under
way. The universities themselves, as I have
suggested, can get direct loans from CMHC
if they wish; they can build on their own, and
they can design their own buildings; it is
entirely up to them.
The provincial scheme has not replaced
any other schemes that they had; it has
merely supplemented what they have been
doing in the past. If a request is made for
student housing by the university, the housing
corporation sits down with them, as we did
with Guelph, London, the University of
Toronto, and others. We ask them what their
needs are, and we bring in some of the
designs and show them what we suggest they
can get for the money. That is when we go
ahead with the proposition. The cost is not
the factor in builder proposals. The factors
are excellence of design, and quality. I do not
for one moment think that you would say in
this House that people like Ellis Don are not
competent builders, or some of the architects
used are not competent. We use the best in
the business; very qualified people. To suggest
even for one moment that tliese people are
incompetent is incorrect. We use reputable
builders and architects.
As far as the design and quality are con-
cerned, I would be inclined to stack up what
has been done in student housing today, with
anything that they have done in the past.
As you yourself pointed out, cost is about
$7,770 per student bed. With the savings
that we have been able to make by using the
builder proposal which is acceptable to the
university, we are asking $5,000 per bed, and
the universities in turn have more money to
put into academic facilities, which is what
they wanted. If they are in the dormitory
business, they cannot be in the academic field,
I think, with the kind of funds that they
require. So they have asked this government,
through The Department of Education, to
take that part of the load off their shoulders.
We have been able to do that, and I think
the savings that we have made to date on
student housing indicate that we are moving
in the right direction if we are going to house
all this influx of students coming into our
universities. We have not yet built any single
student housing off campus— it is all on
campus. The married student housing is the
first development down here at Charles Street,
which you see going up. I do not think you
will find a finer building anywhere than we
are building down here on Charles Street. So
I cannot accept the fact that the universities
are unhappy with the Ontario student housing
programme. In fact I think it is to the con-
trary, I think they are very happy so far,
and if you have evidence of anybody who is
unhappy with what we are doing I hope they
will come and tell us about it, but so far we
have not had a complaint.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we will no
doubt be getting into this in greater detail
in the months ahead. I do have some specific
questions for the Minister on this subject.
Could the Minister give me some idea of
what types of facilities are not allowed in
student residences? Just let me give the
Minister a synopsis of the problem. On the
university campus, the residence must be con-
sidered part of the educational and learning
environment for the university. In some
universities, and my colleague from Peter-
borough (Mr. Pitman) probably knows this
much better than I do, there is a definite
philosophy of education tied with residence,
tied with the living accommodation within
the university.
For example, in some universities the
student, particularly one who has been work-
ing with the university planning boards on
helping to say what should be in the resi-
dences, has said that things like common
rooms should be in; perhaps even a dining
room might form part of the residence as
opposed to part of another building. Some
of the student union facilities might be in
the building that you call a residence. In
some campuses we call them colleges, of
which a residence is an integral part, instead
of an apartment building shoved on to the
academic building, or even the student union
building.
So one of the points that I have here is
that, given a philosophy of student living
JUNE 17, 1968
4531
within a university attached to the academic
learning, where the philosophy of learning
says that the common room should be there,
there might even be some offices there for
some members of the faculty, there might be
some student union facilities— even the dining
halls might be integrated within a so-called
residence building.
Now, could the Minister tell me how this
is worked out within the view that the Ontario
student housing corporation simply builds an
apartment building for students to live in?
They go there and sleep, and then they go
back to the university— even though it is the
ground of the same environment. In other
words, Mr. Chairman, what does the Minister
responsible for the Ontario student housing
corporation exclude from his definition of
housing?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We do not know of
anywhere we have excluded anything—
common rooms, dining rooms, the don's
room, offices, TV recreation rooms. They are
all included in this project of ours, and they
are all approved by central mortgage and
housing corporation as well as by ourselves.
There are not any areas that we know of
that have been excluded, unless the univer-
sities have adequate facilities when they join
these buildings and say they do not require
them, but ask for more student accommoda-
tion. I do not know, I do not think we have
had any of those to date. They have all had
this accommodation built in.
Mr. T. Reid: This is getting to the real
crux of this issue. Obviously a residence plan
includes more than simply rooms with beds
and perhaps a desk in the room. If it includes
fairly good don suites, if it includes common
rooms and so forth, the cost per bed is going
to go up from what it would be it if was
stripped right down and became, in a sense,
a dormitory. The costs go up when you put
other things in it.
The thing that I have never been able to
sort out is the relationship of an Ontario
student housing corporation and The Depart-
ment of University Affairs— or as the Min-
ister would say, the advisory committee to
the department— when a university includes
facilities which are also eligible to be financed
from the capital fund on the advice of the
Minister, or the advisory committee to the
Minister.
In other words, if one university puts a
small library reading room into the residence
and comes to you with a higher per-bed cost
because it put in the small reading library
in the residence, does the Ontario student
housing corporation then go to the Minister
of University Affairs and say: "Look, this
university has the philosophy of a residence
as a learning environment and wants to put
a small study library right in the residence.
Will you make a grant directly to the Ontario
student housing corporation so that we can
knock that part out of their plan in estimat-
ing the per bed cost, because it is really a
substitute for something they would come to
you for in one of the capital projects?"
Let us talk about that one example, be-
cause it is a transferable resource and the
only question is where do you put it— in the
academic building or the residence? Surely
there must be enough flexibility, there must
be enough co-operation between two bureauc-
racies of government to ensure that something
which does not add up to more total govern-
ment money is not restricted because of lack
of consultation and communication between
the Ontario student housing corporation and
the people in The Department of University
Affairs responsible for capital grants for
academic buildings.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think you have to
request, as I have said earlier, the $5,000
which covers all the facilities I talked about,
including the furniture. The university affairs
people sit in at these meetings with us and
if some university wants a special library,
then University Affairs will grant that direct.
After the building has been amortized it will
probably belong to the university anyway.
So it does not matter to them, I suppose,
whether the special library is in the building
where the dormitories are or whether they
are in a building across the street. But as
far as the central mortgage and housing
and Ontario housing corporation are con-
cerned, we build all the living facilities. Any
specials are granted by University Affairs,
and on the university side, where it once had
special facilities. Does that answer your
question?
Mr. T. Reid: Yes. One final point on this,
it is on the same wrap-up.
Mr. Chairman: One more question? The
member for Wentworth was up but if he
will yield the floor it is quite all right.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, tlie next ques-
tion is a fairly blunt one and I will make the
blunt statement first. Are the activities of
the Ontario student housing corporation ille-
gal in the sense that they contravene RSO
volume 1, 1960, The Act respecting architects
in Ontario? Now, the reason I state this is
4532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the developer call system means that
the developer gets an architect and it might
be someone in his back room. But he is an
architect in the profession, covered by the
law of this province relating to the architec-
tural profession. I have here, Mr. Chairman,
a press release of the Ontario association of
architects dated March 8, 1968, and they are
very concerned that under this system set
out by the Ontario student housing corpora-
tion, the developer call system, that the archi-
tects who work with tlie developers do not
get paid fees required under the legislation
of this province.
They have not come out that bluntly and
said so, but I gather that the architects work-
ing with developers who submit plans to
Ontario student housing corporation are not
paying the fees set by the association of
architects which is operating under a law of
this province. If they are not being paid
fees, then the Ontario student housing corpo-
ration should not accept plans from apart-
ment builders in particular, who are not
paying architects the fees. This is what is
called the "captive architect" of the de-
veloper. I was wondering if the Minister
could comment on this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I recognize there has
been some concern on the part of the archi-
tectural profession. They would like to be
able to be the only tenderers on a building,
whether it be university or even public hous-
ing, and then they will likely go out and
tender for contractors. We have gone through
that bit to the point where we find now that
most of the major contractors have architects
on their own staff. They are quite free to go
and hire architects— and these are professional
men. If they work for a lower fee than the
association is referring, I think— and my
people think— that it is up to the association
to police their own fees.
We do not think it is up to us. We put
the job out for tender whether it be a uni-
versity building, or whether it be public
housing. The architectural profession is upset
about it, I agree with you; they have been
in to see me. They want to know why we
cannot go through the architects and then
to the developer and builder. But I would
suggest to you to look at Ottawa, where they
are building that downtown court— those
three or four major buildings down there.
There is a developer with his own architec-
tural staff.
He does not use outside architects and
the buildings are erected there for, in some
cases they tell me, $10 per square foot less.
The architectural professional system claims
that maybe you do not get as good a build-
ing. All I suggest to them is that these
buildings are laid down in the specifications.
They have to meet the rigid specifications
of not only ourselves, but central mortgage
and housing corporation, and the universities.
I am quite sure that the value of those
buildings is not any less because we do not
use an architectural association.
They do have professional architects on
the staffs of most of these big construction
companies. I would not say that the day of
specialization has gone, because we are
getting into speciahzation in more areas than
one. But in this instance, I think the cost
indicates that the job is done faster, and
that we are getting good value for the dollars
spent. I do not think we are in any way
contravening the Act insofar as architectural
fees are concerned.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, I have some questions regard-
ing the home ownership made easy plan.
Some of them are related and some are not
related, so I will ask them one by one if you
do not mind.
First of all, when will the lots be avail-
able on Hamilton Mountain that are sup-
posed to be coming out this year under the
home onwnership made easy plan?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is anticipated the
first will be this fall. The hon. member is
not referring to Saltfleet, he is referring to
the other part?
Mr. Deans: No, I am referring to the
Hamilton—
Hon. Mr. Randall: This fall.
Mr. Deans: This fall. On what basis will
they be sold? Will there be a predetermined
price, and they will be sold at that price,
first come first served?
Is there a waiting list now for the people
who want them, or is it going to be on a bid
basis? How are you going to sell these
lots?
Hon. Mr. Randall: They are primarily
leasehold, and they will be advertised. It is
first come, first served. That is the same basis
we have always used under the HOME
programme.
JUNE 17, 1968
4533
Mr. Deans: And it will be first come, first
served after the advertisement?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, on the day.
Mr. Deans: After tlie advertisement or
can people be applying for them now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: On the day that the
lots are called for sale.
Mr. Deans: Now, as to the houses that
were built under the public housing on
Hamilton Mountain— and I can name one of
the streets; I cannot find out the name of
the survey, but the street was Thorley, it
runs off Upper Gage Avenue and you may
be able to find it on one of your maps. I
do not know exactly but they were built
toward the end of last year, last fall.
At the time that the people moved in
there, they were led to believe that there
was the possibility of them being able to
purchase these homes. Is this a real possi-
bility?
Hon. Mr. Randall: These are the ones
that are built on the 90-10 basis that we
talked about earlier. They will be sold just
as soon as The National Housing Act is
changed. It was in the process of being
changed when they called the election. It is
my understanding they are still going to go
ahead and change the Act. We were talking
to Mr. Hignett, president of central mort-
gage and housing, not less than two weeks
ago, and this is first on the agenda, so that
whatever government is returned, the hous-
ing Act will be changed I presume it will
be Mr. Stanfield who will change it.
Mr. Deans: Well, I think you are making
a false presumption, but it is entirely up to
you to presume whatever you like.
Now, the price. Will these be sold for
the original building price, or are they going
to be sold in accordance with the inflated
prices of today?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, these will be sold
at market prices. The house will be estimated
as we are estimating the cost of these houses
in all areas. They will be sold at the market
price of today.
Mr. Deans: Very unfair. How are you
going to determine the down payment on
them? Are you going to take into considera-
tion the rent that has been paid by the
people who are living in them now? And
will tliis be allowed in some way to com-
pensate for the down payment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. They will be sold
on the HOME plan basis. We can take the
land cost out, and rent them the land if
they wish, and they can make the lowest
down payment on the property, same as they
can on the HOME programme. There, I
think the highest down payment is $1,200
and the lowest in some cases has been $600,
depending on the price of the building that
we are selling.
Mr. Deans: When you are determining the
rent for these homes, do you take into
consideration not only the income, but also
the size of the family? I have one case for
example-a family of seven paying $193 a
month. I am just curious if you take into
consideration the size of the family in addi-
tion to the income of the bread-winner?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Would you mind repeat-
ing that? I did not quite get your point.
Mr. Deans: When you are determining the
rent, do you take into consideration the size
of the family? Do you decide that someone
who is earning— and we will pick a figure—
$7,000 a year, with three children, can per-
haps afford to pay more than someone earn-
ing $7,000 a year with five children? Do you
consider this when you are setting the rent
for these accommodations?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think the answer to
your question is— and I think we had that here
the other day— insofar as the number of chil-
dren in a family is concerned, the rent scale
does not take into account family allowances
for the size of the unit required. To this
extent, the rental scale does take into account
the number of children.
Mr. Deans: No. We will go back to the
Saltfleet satellite city. In February, we started
talking about this, and in March you told me
that you felt it was not in the public interest
to disclose tlie price paid. I disagree with the
method used in gathering this land together
and I disagree more violendy with the method
of paying those people who are working for
the government. In the case of Kronas real
estate, how much money was paid on com-
mission to Kronas real estate, when they gath-
ered the 1,500 acres that is to be used for
Saltfleet satellite city?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We did not deal with
Kronas real estate. Nothing was paid to
Kronas.
Mr. Deans: Whom did you deal with?
4534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Randall: I told you the other day.
Jon-Enco construction company, or Jon-Enco
Limited.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I told you the other day.
day.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes. I mentioned it. You
asked a question, I gave you two names. One
was Jon-Enco, the other was B. Kronas, the
real estate man involved.
Mr. Deans: How much did you pay them?
How much did you pay Jon-Enco, I believe,
I was told it was?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We bought the prop-
erties of Jon-Enco. We did not pay him any
commission.
Mr. Deans: What was the full purchase
price of this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: That we are not going
to disclose.
Mr. Deans: Why?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Because we are still
assembling land in the Hamilton area, and
we do not think it is in the interest of tax-
payers to disclose it at the present time. And
let me tell you this, as far as the prices are
concerned— when those properties are looked
over, they are looked over by the Ontario
housing corporation.
They are approved by our people; they are
approved by the board of directors; they are
approved by the Treasury in this province;
they are approved by the Cabinet; they are
approved by the Treasury board in Ottawa,
and by central mortgage and housing, and we
do not think that is in the interest of the
taxpayer today for the government to go out
and talk about the prices for which it gets
its land, and so establish new prices at which
we will have to bargain tomorrow.
Mr. Deans: Fine. How did you arrive at
purchasing that particular property out in the
middle of nowhere? Why do you people not
follow a policy of Iniilding where the services
are available instead of having to buy a piece
of property and wait until the services are
brought to it? At the time you bought that,
there was no trunk sewer on the mountain
capable of servicing that property.
There are subdivisions in that area that
have been there for ten years and which have
not been able to get services and yet below
the mountain, on the part adjacent to the
lake, there are all kinds of property available
for building. Why did you go into that par-
ticular piece? Did they come and offer it to
you or did you go out looking for it?
Hon. Mr. Randoll: We are always looking
for property. It is known that the housing
corporation is in the market for property in
any urban area. They came like many others
and offered us property and the services for
that property are right at the base of the
Hamilton Mountain now. In our discussions
with Mayor Copps and his people, we recog-
nized that there was an area that could be
serviced very easily. That is why we are
interested in the property.
Mr. Deans: Surely, the area where the
services are now, at the base of the moun-
tain, would have been a much more eco-
nomical place to build— not only more
economical but it could have been built on
now and would have served the needs of the
area much better than having to wait five or
ten years to develop this other piece.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am informed by my
people that the land the member is talking
about is owned by a number of entrepreneurs
who are building rather expensive homes in
that area and it was not available to the
Ontario housing corporation.
Mr. Deans: All of the land in Saltfleet
township?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, the member said at
the base of the mountain.
Mr. Deans: Well, the base of the mountain
is Saltfleet township.
Hon. Mr. Randall: A cost of $20,000 an
acre is what they were looking for in the
area the member is talking about. It was too
rich for our blood.
Mr. Deans: Do you know if you are going
to be able to pipe into the city of Hamilton
and use their water?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We already have their
approval for that.
Mr. Deans: You have? Thank you.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): There
was mention made of the rental-to-income
based on the size of the family. I think I mis-
understood that, sir. I always thought it was
on income rather than size of family.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is. We just pointed
out that the size of the family might be taken
into consideration, but it is based on income.
r
JUNE 17, 1968
4535
The note I read here a few minutes ago indi-
cated that on taking it on the geared-to-
income basis, it does give consideration to a
man with several more children than another,
because it does not take in all the family
allowance he gets.
Mr. Worton: Oh, all right.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make a few re-
marks about the whole question of Ontario
housing, particularly as it relates to smaller
communities.
I am not going to give a critique of housing
in Canada— it is being done in other forums
today. But I do not think that after listening
to the Minister's speech and reading his
statistics, you can look at statistics from one
direction to another: one can look at it from
the point of view that all the activity which
is going on right now indicates that much is
being done, or one can just see how far away
the government was from planning for the
needs of this province and particularly the
community I represent. It seems to me that
the important thing is to recognize that this
government is responsible for housing in this
province. I will just read from the statement
of housing policy, under the Minister's name
of the HOME plan:
Constitutionally, provinces are respon-
sible for ensuring that the housing needs of
their citizens are met. The government of
Ontario recognizes and accepts its respon-
sibility to provide or assist in the provision
of adequate accommodations for its citizens.
I am not going to repeat the comments of
my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor
West (Mr. Peacock), but I can only say this,
in looking at the terms of the Minister's acti-
vities as they relate to need, this is one of
the most fantastic failures of this government.
In Peterborough right now there is something
like 500 people who are registered for rent-
to-income accommodation, and how many
units are in operation in the city of Peter-
borough right now? Twenty-two. After these
years we have 22 units for rental-to-income
people.
And speaking of those 22 units, may I also
comment on the way in which those 22 units
were announced? There is nothing closer to
the Minister acting like a laird of the barony
than the description in the release which came
from the Ontario housing corporation,
announcing an official opening in Peter-
borough on Monday, August 28— this was at
the beginning of an election campaign, of
course— by the hon. Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. Wells), representing the Minister of
Trade and Development. The official party
assembled at the city hall and proceeded to
meet the new tenants. If I was the Minister
of a government which could only produce 22
units, I would be so ashamed I would try to
get them opened as quietly as possible.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): That is why he
sent the hon. Minister without Portfolio.
Mr. Pitman: So we had a presentation of
keys to new tenants. Of course, presenting
the keys to new tenants who were already in
their homes was a httle bit ludicrous. The
ribbon-cutting ceremony was scarcely a 1967
way of recognizing people who are receiving
needed help in rental-to-income housing. It
represents the most backward attitude to-
wards people who need government's assist-
ance that I could ever imagine. What we
are trying to do is integrate people in com-
munities who have rental-to-income housing,
and here the Minister has a ribbon-cutting
ceremony for 22 units when there are
hundreds of people waiting for these units
in the city of Peterborough.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have even had a
ribbon-cutting for five.
Mr. Pitman: I know a number of civic
officials who boycotted that particular presen-
tation. They said they were so ashamed of
a government which would go out and try
to identify people in that manner in the
community and could only come up with 22
units out of the hundreds that were necessary.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the member knows that his
own council up there must pass a resolution
asking for public housing and anything they
have asked for we have been prepared to
give them. Now, do not put the finger on us;
go back and put it on the council.
Mr. Pitman: They asked for a good deal
more than 22 units and your surveys indicated
they need between 300 and 400 units, so let
us not confuse the issue. I am willing to
admit this to the Minister, that his agency is
not the only one at fault in this area of
housing, but to try and put the finger on the
city council on that basis is just absolutely
ridiculous.
The next area of need: I have the report
from the family counselling service in which
it indicates that the problem in the city of
Peterborough, in so far as keeping families
together, is not the "other woman" or booze.
4536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but rather the need for homes. I have here
a report, which indicates the number of
people they are meeting day after day after
day who desperately need housing and are
not getting that housing from this govern-
ment. The Minister can talk about statistics;
the statistics I like are the ones that involve
individuals.
For example, I heard from a woman just
a few days ago who is still living in a house
in tlie city of Peterborough with an outside
toilet. We have a woman with 11 children
whose husband makes $1.30 an hour, who
cannot receive housing help in the city of
Peterborough. Then, of course, you can have
the children's aid society tell you a little bit
about need. They have indicated they can-
not keep families together, they cannot put
children with their own families because of
the lack of housing in that city. We have had
two housing surveys indicating we need some-
thing between 300 and 400 units, and the
city of Peterborough council has been trying
to get that housing from this government.
Perhaps the most incredibly disgraceful act
this government ever pulled oflF was of course
the action which took place during the
election in the fall of 1967.
I have a question on the order paper, Mr.
Chairman, which has been on the order paper
for three months. I would suggest to the hon.
Minister and to this government that these
questions could be answered in 30 minutes,
but this government is so embarrassed about
the answers to these questions, I suspect they
would just as soon not have them on the order
paper. They have been sitting there, as I
say, for three months unanswered. And what
are the questions?
When did the Ontario housing corporation
take an option on 292 acres of land known
as the Dixon farm in the city of Peterborough
in the township of Otonabee? From what
company did the Ontario housing corporation
pick up an option on this land? And what was
the cost of the option? Indications that have
been in the press, of course, were that this
land was held at an option for $500,000—
land which was assessed a few years before
at $145,000— and a number of intermediary
steps took place in which land transferred in
one day from one company to another at an
enormous profit. What was the offer of the
Ontario housing corporation for this land? At
what price had the land in question previ-
ously been bought and at what value had
the land been assessed? Finally, were there
any investigations of land use made to dis-
cover the degree of appropriateness of this
land for housing?
One of the things that I find in this docu-
ment here on the HOME plan is that through-
out, your organization intends to work with
municipalities at each point. Well, the
municipality knows nothing about the buy-
ing of this land. In fact if the Ontario housing
corporation had gone to the city planning
office, they would have seen a map there in
which this land was declared a conservation
area. The deal was under water most of the
year, and if you go to the city engineer's
office you discover where the trunk sewers
were going, this was about the last area
where the city expected to build trunk sew-
ers in the planning of the municipality. I
would have thought that the Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) would
have been going up the wall with a thing
like this happening in this government.
This went on very well until just after the
election took place, and perhaps I might read
the statement of the Ontario housing corpora-
tion of September 27:
An agreement to purchase 292 acres of
land for development under the home
ownership made easy land assembly pro-
gramme was announced today by the hon.
Stanley J. Randall. Mr. Randall said 192
acres are located within the southwestern
section.
And it goes on to point it out, and it even
describes what is going to happen:
Mr. Randall, the Minister responsible for
the Ontario housing corporation, said the
land in the city will be developed as
quickly as possible to satisfy the over-
whelming demand for lots under the
HOME plan in the city of Peterborough.
I can agree that "overwhelming demand" is
certainly right. The 292 acres will represent
approximately 600 lots. Then, of course, the
representative of this government in the city
of Peterborough indicated that much of this
land will be used for senior citizens and for
people on fixed incomes.
What happened? On Noveml)er 2, sud-
denly the option was dropped. We did not
even realize it was an option. We understood
it was an agreement— an agreement to pur-
chase 292 acres. The Minister announced it
on September 27, and shortly after, in No-
vember, the option was dropped. I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that this is the most disgrace-
ful example of the use of people's needs for
political purposes which I have seen for a
long time.
I do not know how the Minister can answer
those questions, but I hope he will try. I
think the time has come to find a solution to
JUNE 17, 1968
4537
housing in this province. It is certainly in
the hands of this department, but I would
hope we could take the housing out of the
hands of this department. It is a "poor rela-
tions" department. The Minister is a great
guy when it comes to selling things to other
people and I wish he would spend 100 per
cent of his time doing that. One only has to
look at the housing corporation's offices on
University Avenue, as compared to the ones
you see up on Yonge Street, to see who are
the poor relations. The housing corporation's
offices look like a parody of a newspaper
office in those 1930 movies we used to see.
It is being run by an overworked few. I
would be the first to admit that the people
he has in that department are good. They
are good. But the man who looks after Peter-
borough is looking after every housing opera-
tion from the border of Manitoba all the way
down to Cornwall. It is absolutely ridiculous
and just cannot be expected.
I suggest that we place housing in a
department of housing and urban affairs. If
we want to re-estabhsh The Department
of Municipal Affairs as Housing and Urban
Affairs, fine. But for heaven's sake establish
permanent regional offices immediately in
these small cities, where you can keep in
constant contact with the municipalities,
where you can go in the community, where
you can rezone, if necessary.
This is what often happens with the
Ontario housing corporation. Some of them
get the idea they want to change, for ex-
ample, an area of land assembly. After
the CMHC plans have been given out to the
people in the area, suggesting a certain kind
of housing, they come along and want to
rezone. Then they turn it over to the planning
board and the planning board has to pull the
hot coals out of the fire because the Ontario
housing corporation does not even send a
representative to the planning board meeting
to try and explain what it is doing.
In fact, the planning board and city council
have to pass a resolution to have the Ontario
housing corporation come to the city and tell
what the dickens they are trying to do and
where it is going and what it is up to.
So I suggest very strongly that we get it
out of the hands of this department and into
a new department. Get serious about it and
establish regional offices and then sit down
with each of these municipalities and plan a
short term and a long term plan. Correlate
the need for housing with the needs for
urban renewal in each of these cities, and
with the official plans in each of these areas.
A city like Peterborough, for example, is
completely hung up. On the one hand you
have The Department of Mimicipal Affairs
and its community-planning branch trying to
hold back any kind of urban development in
rural areas. So the people cannot go outside
the city and they cannot get any help inside
the city either.
I suggest very strongly that we get serious
about housing and the first step would be to
take it out of the hands of this department.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I am
delighted that we have another salesman in
the House. He has done a good job with
selling his ideas. I do not think they coincide
with ours and also, I do not think they co-
incide with those of his own council. I have
here about five pages of resolutions from the
city of Peterborough, of which I would be
glad to let you have a copy.
It is the most frustrating area that the
housing corporation has ever been involved
in, in order to get a housing programme
underway. Perhaps you would like to dis-
cuss it with them. If you could get them
to sit down with the housing corporation
and make up their minds what they want, we
could get on with the job.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Are you going to tell us that Peterborough
story?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes. I will tell you the
Peterborough story too. Do not go away.
You will be here all afternoon, will you not?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Oh yes,
today, tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You will get the details.
Do not get excited. I have got a good story
for you— always have a good story. You talked
about the 22 units we have under manage-
ment now. Yes, we have 22 units under
management but—
Mr. Pitman: And more going up.
Hon. Mr. Randall: —but when we made a
survey on what was needed, at the invitation
of the city of Peterborough, they said they
needed 245 family units and 90 senior citi-
zen units. This was their own approval of
the survey and this was what they passed a
resolution for.
Of the resolution, there are 145 family
units at the planning stage now and there are
90 senior citizen units at the planning stage-
that is a total of 235. In the proposal stage.
4538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
there are 50 family units and under con-
struction there are 50 at the present— so that
is 335. Now, if they have got 500 people
waiting for housing, they have not told us
about it as yet.
These are the figures we got from the
council itself. If they are wrong, you had
better go back and talk to them and get the
figures corrected. Give us the correct figures.
We will go back in again,
Mr. Pitman: We do not want another plan.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, all right. If you
are going to build a house yourself, my
friend, you would have to sit down and figure
what you are going to build. The housing
corporation does not have a magic wand. We
have to figure out what they want. We have
to design it. We have to call for tenders. We
have to get it under way. We have to find
the land in some instances. Now what do
you expect to do, wave a magic wand?
Mr. Pitman: Well, we have had two
surveys.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know it is very easy
to say build them tomorrow. You get the
numbers you want, but it is not that easy to
do— and you know it. So you take a look
at what is being done in the city of Peter-
borough. You will find that we are living
up to what Peterborough has asked us to
live up to. If they want any more-
Mr. Pitman: What have they asked you to
live up to?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will send you over a
list of the resolutions. Take a look at these
and look at the frustrations. This is one of
the things the housing corporation has no
control over. If the council itself cannot
make up its mind we cannot go ahead and do
the building.
Mr. Pitman: I said that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, all right. Then we
agree with each otlier.
Now let me, before I get on to the land
assembly deal, cover the last two points you
made. You talk about having a Minister of
housing in the province of Ontario. I would
say you could have a Minister of housing in
Ottawa without any difficulty, because the
Minister of housing in Ottawa is concerned
primarily with banking— where the money is
available from central mortgage and housing.
But if you come down to a province, this
is one or any other, and say: "We want a
Minister of housing here"— he has to take
precedence over the Minister of Education,
the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Treasury
Department, Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Management. All these people have
to be subservient to the Minister of housing.
I do not know how he could ever get any-
thing done on that basis, because these people
are all affected by what happens in housing.
We have something working in this prov-
ince we think is better than that. We have
a task force made up of men from these
departments. When we walk into a meeting
we have these task force men in here. We
say: "We are going to build X number of
houses in Peterborough or Sutton, or wherever
we are going to build them, and these are
the problems we are going to create. If you
have any objections will you go to your Min-
ister, your department, come back at the next
meeting and tell us whether we can or cannot
go ahead? What are the objections? What are
the restrictions?"
That has been operating now for nearly a
year— and very successfully in this province.
So I do not think that you are going to gain
very much by having a Minister of urban
affairs and housing unless you are going to
put all the other Ministers underneath him.
That means The Treasury Department too,
and I do not think you are going to get away
with it. I do not think even I could sell
that.
You did make another suggestion with
reference to regional offices. We think it is a
good suggestion. We already have that under
study with the board of directors of the
housing corporation and I think before long
perhaps there will be some areas in which we
will have a regional office. I think we have
a man stationed at the city hall in Hamilton
at the present time. He was in Hamilton for
a time, but we have had men stationed in
various parts, but they do not have an office.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Try and
find him some time!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, we give him an
office and a coat hanger, tell him to keep his
head under, and remind him not to be there.
They are out doing a job in the field. We do
not want him to be sitting around, we want
him out on the job. Let me answer the ques-
tion with reference to the proposed land
assembly in Peterborough, and I will read a
statement so tliat there is nothing left unsaid.
I think that I covered all 10 points you
mentioned.
r
JUNE 17, 1968
4539
At the time the Ontario HOME plan was
announced, OHC was inundated with offers
of land in various parts of Ontario. In many
instances, there were no formal offerings, but
there were personal visits from landowners
to the offices of OHC. This was the case with
the land offered OHC by the Trent Park
developments. A representative of the devel-
oper called in at OHC's offices in May, 1967,
and made known to the corporation officials
that the land was available for purchase.
Mr. Singer: What was the name of the
representative?
Hon. Mr. Randall: A site inspection was
carried out by an official of OHC on May 26,
1967. At that time, the site was discussed
with the local manager of CMHC, Mr. Carl
M. Hollett, and Mr. W. Parnell of the Peter-
borough assessment department. Also, I have
a note here to the effect that they did go to
the planning office and were told that that
land was right for development.
The land in question comprised approxi-
mately 282 acres— 182 acres within the city
limits of Peterborough, and 100 acres in the
township of Otonabee. The report of the OHC
property agents indicated that, from a super-
ficial investigation, the property was accept-
able and would warrant consideration as a
land assembly project. It was also indicated
that sewer and water facilities were available
immediately adjacent to the property. On
June 30, 1967, a formal offer of the land was
made to the OHC by Trent Park develop-
ments limited. This was in the amount of
$2,400 per acre for the land within the
city boundaries and $400 per acre for the
lands in the township of Otonabee.
The offer was conditionally accepted by
OHC on July 7, and a deposit of $100 was
made to Messrs. Gordon Keyfetz, Paul Baker
and Goodman, solicitors for Trent Park devel-
opments limited. The expiry date of the
offer was August 18, 1967. During the early
pari: of July 1967, OHC applied to CMHC
for authority to proceed with further investi-
gations as to the feasibility of using the land
for development purposes. On July 12, 1967,
OHC was advised by the local manager of
CMHC that further information would be
required before the approval in principle of
the corporation would be given.
On August 29, the proposed development
was brought before the board of directors
with the recommendation that the lands
be acquired. This recommendation was based
on the fact that these lands in Peterborough
developed by OHC and CMHC, might repre-
sent a problem in terms of continuing devel-
opment due to the lack of sewer trunks to
the area. It was felt, therefore, in order to
maintain a reasonable supply of serviced land
to meet the residential market of the city
and thus have a controlling effect on land
prices, OHC must ensure a continuous
supply of serviced land and reserve raw land
for future years.
A total of 192 acres of the land under
consideration were within the present city
limits of the city of Peterborough and
adjacent to tnmk services. On the basis of
this report and after careful consideration of
the matter, the board of directors approved
the purchase of these lands, and order-in-
council authority was then obtained.
Although the necessary provincial approvals
have been received, the corporation was
aware that further investigation had to be
completed prior to receiving CMHC's agree-
ment to participate, and accordingly on
August 31, 1967, an arrangement was made
whereby the closing date of the purchase
would be extended to October 31, 1967,
on payment of an additional deposit of
$50,000. As is the normal practice, OHC
made the deposit subject to the condition
that all moneys deposited would be return-
able in the event that terms and conditions
of the offer of purchase were not met.
As I mentioned earlier, the corporation's
reasons for considering the purchase of these
lands was the difficulty of servicing the
balance of the land already owned in the
city. This would involve extending a major
trunk sewer for approximately one mile, at
a cost in the region of $1 million— in addi-
tion to the time involved. As the land which
had been offered was immediately adjacent
to adequate trunk services, this appeared to
be a way in which the corporation could
maintain a supply of serviced lots in the city
of Peterborough, pending the development
of other holdings.
However, when the proposed transaction
became known, and it became the centre of
a political controversy, it was obvious that
local resistance could result in delays in
obtaining the necessary rezoning, which
would negate any advantage in terms of
time, over the corporation's other holdings.
In consequence, the provincial government
authorization for OHC to proceed with the
purchase was withdrawn. The wisdom of this
course of action has been since substantiated
by the fact that the owners of the lands in
question have applied for rezoning from
agricultural to residential, and this rezoning
4540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has been refused by the municipality on the
basis that the proposed development was
premature.
Notwithstanding, OHC had continued to
discuss the proposal of purchase of other
lands in the city of Peterborough and will
continue to do everything possible to ensure
that tlie demand for serviced lands is met.
As recently as May 30, the corporation's
manager of land development met with the
committee of the council of Peterborough to
discuss ways and means of servicing its
remaining holdings. In addition, OHC has
undertaken the development of that part of
its existing holdings that can be serviced and
some 180 lots will be serviced and available
for building this year. When it was sub-
sequently decided not to proceed with the
purchase from Trent Park developments
limited, the owners were so advised, and in
due course all the deposit money was
returned to OHC.
Mr. Pitman: I would like to ask the Min-
ister a few questions. Is the Minister sug-
gesting that the 292-acre proposal was
dropped because of the political controversy?
I am sure that he said that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Look at tlie other thing
that I talked about. The price of the land
went up in tliat area.
Mr. Pitman: The thing that seems rather
strange to me is that I am wondering what
would have happened if the Conservative
candidate had won the election in the fall?
Would that have meant that there would
have been no controversy and therefore the
whole thing would have gone through?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Now you are being
strictly pohtical.
Mr. Pitman: I am just suggesting what the
Minister has indicated from his remarks, that
because of political controversy, therefore,
the whole proposal which would have meant
so much to Peterborough has been dropped.
Now, I am not being political.
Hon. Mr. Randall: What do you mean,
would have meant so much to Peterborough?
Tliey would not rezone to allow it. Was
that political controversy?
Mr. Pitman: Is it not the policy of the
OHC to go to the municipality to find out
if it should be zoned or whether the munici-
pality is willing to rezone before a matter
such as this is dropped? For example, the
statement of the Minister is that an agree-
ment to purchase was made. Now, an agree-
ment to purchase, it seems to me, is a very
different thing from just having a general
option which is going to be exercised if and
when someone does win an election.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We had reason to be-
lieve that we could go ahead. We had dis-
cussions with Pamell and also Whitehall in
the engineering department of Peterborough.
We had reasons to believe, when we first
negotiated, that we could go ahead. But as
I say, after the political discussion got into
it, we did not think that we could go ahead
with it. The time that we would lose would
mean that we could go ahead and develop
the properties that we had.
Mr. Pitman: I do not think that it was
either/or. I think that the development
of tlie property you already had in the land
assembly property was 183 lots up there
now. But the point is that I cannot see what
change takes place because of the political
controversy, because there was no change at
all. The people on the city council did not
change, and the people on the planning board
did not change except that I left it, so I
cannot see—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I did not say that it
changed. I simply said that in the discus-
sion that came up, it appeared tliat they
were not going to zone that for housing and
if we were going to get involved with the
city of Peterborough over zoning, we might
just as well have waited and taken the time
and energy to develop the properties that we
had.
Mr. Pitman: No question came before the
planning board about rezoning. There was no
application made because I sat on that plan-
ning board for several weeks after and noth-
ing came before the planning board asking
for it to be rezoned.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a
couple of questions arising out of this? In
the first of the Minister's statements, he said
that someone from Trent Park approached
OHC. Who was the person who approached?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not have it here,
but I can get the name for you.
Mr. Singer: I see.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think that you already
probably know it. Why do you not let me
have it?
Mr. Singer: Well, I would like to know. I
only know what I read in the papers and
JUNE 17, 1968
4541
that is not necessarily factual and I thought
the Minister might know who first came to
see him. I would like the name to come from
the Minister.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The Minister
would like to forget, no doubt!
Mr. Singer: I am unable to follow this!
Hon. Mr. Randall: They do not come to
see me as a rule.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right, they went to
see an oflBcial of OHC, and I would like to
know the name of the person who first intro-
duced this project to the OHC.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): That is com-
ing to see the Minister in our constitutional
process.
Mr. Singer: I had great diJBSculty in follow-
ing the Minister's history of this project. As
I recall from his statement, he said first of
all that it wa^ a $100 option, and that at
the time he made the option, he made certain
inquiries and found out that there were
services reasonably available, and it was a
logical piece of land, and on and on and on.
In fact, he thought it was so good that later
he entered into a binding oflFer of purchase
and sale, and upped the deposit, the $100
option to a $50,000 deposit. Now am I right
up to that point, or did I say anything wrong?
Hon. Mr. Randall: There was never an
option, it was always a deposit.
Mr. Singer: What was the $100, the first
$100?
Hon. Mr. Raiidall: That was a deposit.
Mr. Singer: That was a deposit, that was
just sort of to let you look aroimd and they
had to hold the land until you did look
around for a certain time limit.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Singer: All right, but when you moved
from $100 to $50,000, there was a substantial
change in figures. It was my impression that
the Minister said we then had a binding
oflFer of purchase and sale, and there were
terms in it to the eflPect—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Subject to conditions.
Mr. Singer: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Subject to certain con-
ditions.
Mr. Singer: That is right, subject to certain
conditions. And there were terms in it to the
effect that if the vendor was unable to de-
liver the land to the province, subject to
all those conditions, that you get out of the
deal, and the $50,000 would come back to
you. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes. If the deal did not
go through we would get all our money back.
Mr. Singer: All right. Now, can you tell
me how— and it reads like a very good deal
for the vendor— in view of the fact that every-
thing was fine, there were services, the land
was good land, the faults about the land that
tlie member for Peterborough who talked
about it apparently are not so bad. The land
was fine, the services were fine, the price was
fine, why did they let you get out in August
and get your deposit back? It seems more
than strange to me that they would give you
back the $50,000.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not necessarily. He
said that if we did not go ahead with it we
could have our money back. We decided not
to go ahead with it, on account of the condi-
tions I have already outlined.
Mr. Singer: That is not what you told us
in your statement, and I wish you would
refer back to the statement.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I read it.
Mr. Singer: You had a binding oflFer of
purchase and sale. And it has certainly been
my experience that as a lawyer—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Subject to certain con-
ditions-
Mr. Singer: —where there is a binding offer
of purchase and sale—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Subject to certain con-
ditions-
Mr. Singer: All right. Well then, which
conditions did the vendors not fulfill, which
allowed you to get your $50,000 back?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It was a condition that
he did not fulfill. We did not go ahead with
the deal.
Mr. Singer: Oh, now, that just does not
make sense. That does not wash at all, Mr.
Chairman. Let us review it again. Here,
according to all the facts that have been
elicited this afternoon, and all we have read
in the newspapers, was an A-1 deal for the
vendors. They were going to make a very
substantial profit on it.
4542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Was it $125,000?
Mr. Singer: Very substantial; the land
doubled or tripled in value over a period of
a few months, and particularly as the result
of a series of transactions, it at least doubled
in value. The vendor comes in and he
gets a good ofFer to purchase, a binding oflFer
to purchase, from OHC. He gets $50,000 of
provincial money in his hot httle hand.
Then according to the Minister, because
there is a political flurry, he suddenly says,
"I give up my big profit, and here is your
$50,000 back and we will all go off on our
merry ways." That just does not make sense,
Mr. Chairman.
The vendor had a good deal going for
him, a tremendous deal; he was going to
make a substantial $140,000 profit. He had a
binding offer to purchase; he had your
$50,000 in hand. I want to know what
induced him to give it back to you? Why
did the vendor let you o£F the hook? He had
you cold. Why did the vendor let the Min-
ister off the hook?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not think we will
ever buy off the original Indian any more in
this province, the original owner of the
land, because land is transferred from one
to another, particularly in urban areas,
maybe 100 times before we get our hands
on it. You say, why did we back away from
the offer? We had not, at the day that the
offer expired, received provincial or federal
authority to make the purchase, and on the
basis of the explanation I have given you
here, we decided that we would not go
ahead with it, and we backed out of the
offer. It was we who backed out of the
offer, not the vendor.
Mr. Singer: Well, in the normal chain of
events, Mr. Chairman, if you backed out of
the offer, the least that would have hap-
pened would have been that you would have
forfeited your $50,000 deposit. Surely when
you get to that stage and you have a bind-
ing offer of purchase and sale, it is not just
unilaterally binding? If one side wants to
back out of it, at that stage surely he has
to suffer a penalty? Under the ordinary terms
of any offer to purchase— and most lawyers
in the House, all lawyers in the House will
agree with this— under these circumstances
the $50,000 at least would have been treated
as liquidated damages, and would have been
held by the vendor in the event that you
tried to back away.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Singer: All riglit, then. Will the Minis-
ter table the agreement? Will he table the
agreement before this debate is over, other-
wise the debate will have to keep on going,
and show us in the agreement and from
the agreement the basis on which he was
entitled to demand and get back his $50,000.
I suggest that he cannot do it. I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that there is something more in
this deal than meets the eye, and I would
suggest it is a most unusual proceeding. The
Minister's casual explanation that because a
political storm blew up in Peterborough in
the month of August, 1967, just does not
stand. There must have been something
more to it than that. Does the Minister want
to add any further explanation than he has
already given us?
Mr. Sopha: It was during the election
campaign—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me say this. I am
quite prepared to table the agreement of the
offer we had with the people involved. We
have nothing to hide. We are in the business
of buying and selling land, or building
houses. If you think we have done something
that is not according to Hoyle, we are pre-
pared to put the facts on the table. I thought
I had them here, I thought you would
accept them, but if you want me to table
the offer, I will be glad to table it.
As far as the housing corporation is con-
cerned, we are always going to be under
the hammer, I think, when we make deals
for land. People like, I think, my hon. friend
from Wentworth, perhaps rightly says that
maybe we paid too much. If the government
does not come forward and say exactly what
it has paid, everybody says, "You must have
something to hide."
But I just remind you that the housing
corporation is in a very tough position when
it comes to bargaining for land. There seems
to be a feeling that when the government
goes out to buy something, it should go with
a band and have neon signs put up, and say,
"Here is the government going to buy some-
thing. Get your prices up." As far as we are
concerned, if we use a private source to do
the buying, the critics say, "Well, how much
commission did they get?"
We are not going to advertise in the areas
we are looking for land. We are not going
to run a band ahead of the Ontario housing
corporation and say, "It's the housing cor-
poration; the taxpayers buying. Now you
know who it is, get your prices up." I just
suggest to you that as far as we are con-
JUNE 17, 1968
4543
cemed, we are going to be making deals
similar to this from here on in. Perhaps they
can all be open for discussion, but there are
certain things we can suggest with reference
to prices and values and certain things that
I do not think it is in the interest of the tax-
payer or the housing corporation to disclose.
If you want to have a look at the offer,
you are quite welcome to have a look at the
offer. We have nothing to hide.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am not going
to be led astray by any of the red herrings
that tlie Minister has just strewn across the
trail. , .
Mr. Trotter: Aftd he threw a lot of them.
Mr. Singer: We are not talking about the
general course of business and ojffers and
negotiations and whether or not you are
getting a good buy or a bad buy. We are
talking about one specific deal. We are talk-
ing about the Minister's explanation of that
deal, which he read from a prepared state-
ment. In his prepared statement, he said he
had a binding ofiFer of purchase and sale,
and he put up $50,000 as a deposit to
guarantee his good faith in regard to that.
It just does not make any sense when the
Minister can give us no reason as to why
the vendor, who apparently had an out-
standing deal, gave him back the $50,000
and let him get out of the deal, and that was
the end of it— or so the Minister said.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): But he did!
Mr. Singer: All right, he did. I agree with
the Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement, he did, and this is why we want
some more answers. We want to know why
he did it. It just does not make sense to me
that a seller of land, a vendor of land who
has government money, good government
money in his pocket, and who stands to
benefit substantially from a deal in which
he appears to be making at least $125,000,
is going to give back the $50,000-particu-
larly when the Minister says this was a good
piece of land, he had investigated it, there
were services available.
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, the hon. member is misleading the
House and he is quoting me as saying I had
a binding agreement. I had no such thing; I
had an offer given to these people on the
basis that it would be provincially and feder-
ally approved. When it was not provincially
and federally approved, the money was re-
turned. It was no binding agreement. He did
not just give back the money because we put
the heat on him. He had no binding agree-
ment, so let us make that perfectly clear.
Mr. Pitman: On a point of order, I am
reading from a release from the Minister's
corporation itself, which is an agreement to
purchase 292 acres of land for development
under the home ownership made easy plan.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure. A qualified agree-
ment. We have hundreds of them.
Mr. Singer: Where is the agreement? Can
we see this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, we wiH get it for
you.
Mr. Singer: Right now, this afternoon?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We will send for it.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, there is no
point, really, in trying to discuss this thing
until the Minister has in hand all the docu-
ments. His explanation that they got out of
this deal because a political flurry grew up,
was the first ploy. There was nothing in his
statement that said it depended on approval
from Ottawa; there was nothing in his state-
ment that said it was dependent upon
approval from Ontario; the only thing his
statement said was, "We withdrew from the
deal because there was a political flurry that
grew up." What was the extent of the politi-
cal flurry? Was the political flurry the story
that appeared in the papers apparently in-
volving the former Conservative member for
Peterborough? Was that the political flurry
that embarrassed the government?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Singer: Well then, what was the poli-
tical flurry? Surely this government has been
there long enough and has withstood political
flurries when they felt they were right? If,
in this case, they withdrew because there was
a political flurry, they must have felt that
they were wrong, and it must have been
equally embarrassing for the vendor, other-
wise he would not have given you back the
$50,000. It just does not make sense, Mr.
Chairman. The Minister is not disclosing the
full story to this House.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I
would like to make a few more comments on
the purchasing of land. I disagree entirely
with the method used by this government in
purchasing land. It has been stated that the
4544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
purchasing of land is based on the buying of
marginal farm land. At the present moment,
in dealing with speculators, you first of all pay
inflated prices, but tliat is not the worst part
of it.
The reason for Ontario housing corporation
going into the buying of land was to try to
reduce the cost of homes, and the practice
that is presently followed by this government,
of selling the land at today's price when some-
one wants to buy it to build a home, is wrong.
We should be trying to bring down the cost
of lots, and when we buy land as a govern-
ment, as a people, to make available for the
HOME building programme, we should be
prepared to sell at the cost that we paid for
it in order to try to bring down the cost of
land.
If we are going to sell ours at the same
price as the speculator is selling his, then we
are not helping one bit. We are not contribut-
ing at all to reducing the cost of homes. Now
when we buy land in Ontario, we should be
buying it in order to use it as a lever to
eliminate the land speculator from the home
market, and we are not using it in that
fashion. As far as the Saltfleet satellite city
land is concerned, you were right. You paid
too much— away too much. It changed hands
three times before you bought it. I do not
know who John Anco is— I tried to find him
in the book but they are not available— I
suspect they do not really exist.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 407?
Mr. Singer: Oh no, we are a long way from
through.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr. Chair-
man, I would just like to divert the attention
of the member for Downsview for a moment
back to the Chapel-Glen project in Fleming-
don Park. I had intended to raise this again
with the Minister even though I dealt with it
in my remarks Thursday evening, because the
Minister's rebuttal Thursday night, Mr. Chair-
man, raised a lot more questions than it
answered. Many of them have been raised by
the members for Downsview and Peter-
borough in connection with the Peterborough
land agreement to purchase.
I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chair-
man, in respect to the Chapel-Glen project,
has Ontario housing corporation an option on
the property there held by Olympia and York,
or has it a similar kind of agreement for sale.
with conditions attached to it? Among those
conditions, is there the rezoning of a right
of way for use on that property for develop-
ment, and the conveyance of that right of
way from Metropolitan Toronto to the
borough of North York? Has an application
by the developers been made, and is this one
of the conditions for the rezoning of the land
for condominium use?
I would like the Minister to tell the House
if the developer, Olympia and York, has sub-
mitted to the planning board of North York
a subdivision plan, a division into lots of the
properties— because it seems to me that these
questions have to be answered in the light of
the Minister's assurance Thursday night that
this project, which he forecast on October 14
of last year, three days before election day,
is well under way as he stated Thursday night
in reply to my remarks.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I will give you a
complete explanation of Flemingdon Park. I
would be delighted to. With the passing of
TJbe Condominum Act in June, 1967, a great
deal of interest was generated among devel-
opers as to the possibility of providing such
accommodation in the metropolitan area
where housing conditions continue to be
somewhat acute. As a consequence, the On-
tario housing corporation was approached by
Central Park estates limited on July 11, 1967,
with an offer to sell a portion of their hold-
ings at Flemingdon Park in the borough of
North York.
These lands consisted of some 63 acres and
were located east and west of the Don Valley
parkway, and south of the Hydro Power Com-
mission's transmission lines. The land offered
permitted the use of 3,461 apartment suites.
Also offered was a golf course consisting of
approximately 50 acres of valley land. After
thoroughly considering the offer, the Ontario
housing corporation advised Central Park
estates that it was not interested in purchasing
the golf course and in consequence a second
proposal was received from that organization
offering a total of 59.22 acres for the de-
velopment potential of 3,412 multiple dwell-
ing units.
This offer was considered and approved by
the board of directors of the Ontario housing
corporation. Subsequently, the Ontario hous-
ing corporation entered into an agreement
with Central Park estates to purchase the
land. A second agreement was also executed
providing for the engineering design and
servicing of the lands by Central Park estates.
The agreement also provided for Central Park
JUNE 17, 1968
4545
estates to act on behalf of Ontario housing
corporation in all negotiations and other ac-
tions required to obtain the necessary rezon-
ing of certain parts of the land in order to
obtain the density of development proposed.
Ontario housing corporation was aware of
a commitment given by the original developers
of Flemingdon Park to provide a general
community facility in that area. Accordingly
it is a condition of the agreement between
Ontario housing corporation and Central Park
estates that Central Park estates will im-
mediately construct a community centre
which meets the requirements agreed upon
between the organization and the borough of
North York. In this regard, Ontario housing
corporation will bear a proportionate amount
of the cost of the community centre, related
to the dwellings which it already owns in the
Flemingdon Park development and the dwell-
ings which will be constructed on the land
it is now purchasing.
At the present time, installations of under-
ground services in Flemingdon Park have
been completed by Central Park estates on
behalf of Ontario housing corporation. Work
is now commencing on the construction of
services above ground such as roads, curbs,
and so on. It it anticipated that servicing will
be fully completed in August of this year.
An application for the rezoning of the
lands has been made by Central Park estates
and this is currently being processed. Im-
mediately the necessary rezoning has been
obtained, the Ontario housing corporation
will arrange for construction of dwellings to
commence on a condominium basis. In view
of the magnitude of the development, con-
struction will be undertaken on a phase basis
with completion anticipated in two to three
years. However, the first dwellings will be
available in 1969.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, did the Min-
ister say that the rezoning application had
actually been presented to the North York
planning board or did he say it was in the
process of preparation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are advised that
they would go ahead with the rezoning be-
cause they have been working with North
York.
Mr. Peacock: But it is undetermined at just
what point the rezoning process for applica-
tion is at this date.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would say, "yes" but
it is all residential in there anyway so we do
not anticipate any major difficulty.
Mr. Peacock: Right. One other question,
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister's
reply. He did not indicate the term of the
agreement and I would like to ask him the
closing date, and whether any extensions of
that closing date, if they were prior to today,
have already been granted?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The closing date for the
actual transfer of ownership was June 26.
Mr. Peacock: Of this year?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mr. Peacock: Does the Minister expect that
all of the conditions in the agreement will be
met by June 26?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, we do.
Mr. Peacock: In light of the information
which I believe is correct— that the applica-
tion has not actually been presented— the
application for rezoning has not actually yet
been put before the North York planning
board?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, that is not a condi-
tion of us buying the land because if by any
chance the units are reduced, then the cost
of the acreage is reduced accordingly. But
we believe we are going to get the 3,412
units without any difficulty.
We have had some discussions with our
people up there. I think their big difficulty
in the past has been who is going to build
this community centre. As you know, tliat
property has been owned by four or five
different people and, as we wind up being
the final owner, we worked out an arrange-
ment whereby the community centre would
be assured. This is one of the difficulties that
North York was concerned about. Now that
all the-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): By
whom? By you? OHC will accept the re-
sponsibility?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We will commence it.
The cost will be partly borne by us and partly
by the Central Park estates. I think we have
520 and odd units in there now and if wo
put in another 3,412, then we pay a propor-
tion of that to the community centre. That
is going to run about $500,000.
Mr. Singer: Is that not what is holding it
up?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No.
Mr. Singer: The local councillor up there
told me just a week or two ago that the
4546
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reason he was so unhappy about it was,
despite all the promises about building a
community centre, nobody had done anything
to finalize the building of it at all.
Hon. Mr. Randalh It is in the agreement.
It will be finalized. It is in the agreement.
Mr. Singer: When is the community centre
going to be built?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I told you the services
were in. They are now putting in the curbs
and it will be built at the same time as we
call for proposals on the other buildings.
Mr. Singer: Have you talked to the local
councillor up there? He is a supporter of
yours, he should be talking to you.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I assume he knows that
our word is as good as—
Mr. Singer: Yes, he is not very happy with
you.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well we do not expect
to win them all you know.
Mr. Singer: Very few of them are-
Mr. Peacock: I am still not clear as to what
conditions have to be met by Jime 26, be-
cause if the rezoning is not one of them, I
fail to see then how the corporation is com-
mitted to getting this development underway
in the time that is left to it. What are the
conditions if rezoning is not one of them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are buying land.
Clear title is what we require. If we get
clear title on June 26, we figure we can solve
any other problems that may be in offing. As
far as I am concerned I do not see any major
difficulties.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Could I ask the
Minister what the present zoning—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I might add that it is
only east of the Don Valley that has to be
rezoned. The rest is already zoned.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman,
under this vote-
Mr. Young: What residential zoning is on
it now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Pardon?
Mr. Young: What class of residential zoning
is on the land?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Same category as high-
rise, town housing, condominium— multiple-
family housing that is on there now. That
has been zoned on the west side. But on the
other side of the Donway, that is the part
that will come up for rezoning.
Mr. Young: That residential is what— 18
units per acre now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sixty to the acre.
Mr. Young: Sixty? Well, that would not
require much change.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, not multiple— family
high-rise.
Mr. Singer: Are you going to take the golf
course?
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the Minister could say, since we have experi-
enced some difiBculty in this, who the prin-
cipals of Central Park are and where their
business address is located?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Olympia and York have
a building there as big as the Empire State
building almost, at the corner of Eglinton
Avenue and Don Mills Road. I think Mr.
Wrightman is the president. He has a board
of directors. I do not know who they are,
but insofar as I am concerned we deal with
the Wrightman brothers.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, just one question of the Min-
ister before you close that up. Is Central
Park estates, Mr. Chairman, part of Olympia
and York? Or is this not, in fact, another
company?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is part of the same
group. It may be a separate company, but it
is the same group.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, there
seems to be some difficulty in locating the
business address by some people of Central
Park estates. I think it is very important that
we ask the Minister if he can advise us for
whom that land is actually being purchased—
Olympia and York or Central Park estates, as
the news releases said? If it is Central Park
estates, where are they located? Who are
they? Where are they located?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are dealing with
Central Park estates and to the best of my
knowledge their ofiice is in that building next
to the Foresters building. There are two
buildings there. The Foresters building is on
the south side of Eglinton Avenue and their
building is the first one south of Eglinton
Avenue. That is where I see them when I
have been up there.
JUNE 17, 1968
4547
Mrs. M. Renwick: Just one short question,
Mr. Chairman. Is this an American company
or a Canadian company— Central Park estates?
Hon. Mr. Randalh To the best of my
knowledge it is a Canadian company.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, under this vote.
In the past, the central mortgage and housing
corporation would not lend money to build
homes in towns and villages that had no
sewage system. Now at the present time there
are a number of our towns and villages in
the process or in negotiation for a sewer
system, but this will take maybe two or three
years. Would these towns and villages have to
wait till that sewage system is completed
before they would give consideration to give
mortgages on new homes in these towns and
villages?
Hon. Mr. Randall: In our discussions with
these areas that would have to have septic
tanks, we have been assured by central mort-
gage and housing corporation that where a
municipality has made arrangements with
OWRC to bring in services in the next three
years, they are quite prepared to finance
housing in that area, using the septic tank.
In fact, we are doing that in some other parts
of Ontario now. I think you brought up one
to me the other day and I gave you the in-
formation that under the HOME plan we
would be quite prepared to assist.
Mr. Spence: Would they have to prove,
Mr. Chainnan, that they could not get mort-
gage money from any other firm or bank
before they could get it from central mortgage
and housing corporation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is my understanding
that if a man went to a bank or mortgage
company and was turned down, then by law
he has the right to go to a central mortgage
and housing ofiice and ask for mortgage
money. If they have it, they will give it to
him. If they have not got it— they ran out
of money a few months ago in the HOME
programme— then he has got to look around
and either wait until they do have some
money, or see if he can find somebody to
finance him.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, the discussion this afternoon has
largely centred around the question of the
HOME plan and the matter of buying and
selling land and the problems that arise with
that. I suggest that it is an area that the
housing corporation should stay out of and
I think it should attack the problem in
another way. I think the housing corporation
has done an exceptionally good job in its
project proposals where it has gone in and
negotiated a deal for the construction of
projects on land owned by others and just
paid for a completed deal.
But as soon as they get out into this land
business, they are getting into a field that I
think they should leave alone. All they are
doing is adding to the demand and aggravat-
ing the problem. I think the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, understands well that market prices
are a question of supply and demand. When
the province is in the purchasing side along
with speculators, all they are doing is aggra-
vating the problem, a problem that should
be attacked by the government by making
more serviced land available on the market
to home buyers.
There are three or four main problems that
are blocking this availability of building lots
and causing the market to rise. One of them
is the reason given by the Minister the other
day for not going ahead with the Malvern
project. They felt that it was premature, and
planning boards around this province have
kept on saying— and so has the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and others— that projects are
premature. I think it is a matter for the
market to decide when projects are premature
or not. The problem that this government
should address itself to is the provision of
services and the alleviation of education and
other financial burdens that go along with
development of land and the provision of
transportation so that these lands are feasible
for development.
When so much land is available for devel-
opment, and feasible for development, and
the demand is much less than the supply,
then we will see market prices go down and
down quickly. We have seen evidence of this
many times in the past in this country. One
just has to go to Regina or to Winnipeg or
to Calgary. Even today in Calgary I will
show you lots that were put forward for
development in 1910 and are still not built
upon. There was over-optimistic speculation
and once the price began to crack, the whole
level of land prices cracked with it.
We have a problem now that the govern-
ment, in getting into the land business, in
buying land, is going to be faced with a con-
flict of interest. It is going to be worried
whether land it purchases is sold for below
its cost if it does pull the plug on the avail-
ability of services and on the burden of
education and these other costs that are hold-
ing the prices up.
4548
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
It is this control, this fear of having land
going on the market prematurely that is
causing these prices to stay up. Ancaster is
a good case in point, as the member for
Wentworth mentioned before. Because of the
province going in, they are causing the same
situation as Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or any
other big buyer, any assembler of land
causes. Immediately sellers decide they do
not particularly want to sell, and they put
the price up. It is not just the province that
faces rising prices vi^hen they go into the
market like this.
And all you would have to do— and cer-
tainly this Minister knows as well as anyone
in this House— all you have to do to cause
prices to drop is to get an oversupply on
the market. And the Minister, in co-operation
with the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management and the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, is the one who should be pulling the
plug on these blockades that are causing
these rising prices, and getting these services
available, getting the burden of education
and other burdens that go with development
eased on the municipalities which are just not
in a position to face them. We are held up
time and time again. Scarborough is an
example. In Malvern, you were held up for
years because you could not get a service
agreement worked out with the borough. The
borough is holding it up because it cannot
afford to put in services prematurely like
that— if you say it is prematurely.
But if the province put the services into
the areas, then it opens up a whole vast
number of lots for the market and if people
can get to them by transportation, if people
can buy those lots because there is a good
supply on the market and the sellers are
endeavouring and striving to sell them, then
we will see this question of need for the
HOME plan greatly alleviated. Surely it is
not a question of high interest rates that is
necessarily holding it up.
Yes, there are extra costs today but they
are not the real burden in housing. The real
burden in housing is the cost of serviced land
and the real culprit in this question is this
government of Ontario failing to get these
lands serviced, and relieving the burdens
faced by municipalities that have these lands
that are ripe for development, failing to
alleviate the burden of development costs and
providing access so people who want to get
to centres such as Toronto or other areas
where there is employment can buy lands in
remote parts and be able to get to and from
their work easily.
But these are the factors the government
should be doing and not getting into the land
purchasing business.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would like to have the
same faith in a private developer that the
hon. member has. If the Ontario housing
corporation was to run the services through
privately owned land, I can show you land
tliat will double in price overnight and there
would not be any cheap lots for the average
fellow that we are talking about, the modest
income families from $5,000 to $12,000 in-
come.
I would like to think that perhaps the
member is right, that if we put the services
through the area that lots would come on the
market in such a rush that they would
reduce themselves in price. I do not think
this is a remote possibility in any urban area
in Ontario at least, that these lots will come
down because we put services through and
we put value on the lots and then we put the
service through. If we were to announce to-
day that the GO train was going to run in
another direction— I will not mention a direc-
tion or it will be in the press today that that
is where it is going to go— if we announced
the GO train was going to take off in some
direction, I can show you cow pastures that
would triple in price overnight.
The only way, in my estimation, that the
government is going to be of service to
modest income families is to do exactly what
we are doing, regardless of the criticism, and
that is to go out and buy suflBcient land such
as we have done in Malvern and Saltfleet and
what we are doing in other areas, so that
when we get the land a number of things
happen; we can sell off a portion of land like
an ordinary developer for commercial and
industrial purposes and, for example, high-
rise apartments and high-priced homes. With
the profit on that we can turn it into com-
munity centres and schools and lower the cost
of lots for the HOME plan, public housing
and senior citizens.
We have looked at it on the basis that if
there were more lots available, would that
bring down the price? And I cannot be per-
suaded at the moment, perhaps I could be
wrong, but I cannot be persuaded that in any
area in this province, if we put the services
in, we are going to reduce the price of lots
one five cent piece. In fact, I think we would
find the lots would go up in price. I think
all one would have to do is look at the many
thousands of acres held within the metro-
politan area of Toronto, what we call the
JUNE 17, 1968
4549
WiBtropolitan area, and which has been cow
pasture for many years.
It is all very well to say, "Well, if the
services had gone through there, that land
would have been on the market and there
would have been a lot of people living there
with modest incomes." I think from my
experience and from what I have seen of
the price of homes around Metropolitan
Toronto that what you would be doing is
making it possible for $35,000 and $40,000
homes to go up in even greater number than
they have gone up in the past. And the only
protection that I see for modest income
families is for the government to go into that
market, to compete for unserviced land at the
best price possible and then put our services
through so that when we put the services
through, we get some of the benefit— all the
benefit does not accrue to the private investor.
I am in a position to be persuaded other-
wise if anybody else has any suggestions, but
I think this is the only way we are going to
get lots on the market for the HOME pro-
gramme. And I might also say that there are
very few builders I know of left on their
own who would be building housing for
$15,000 or less. If we had not introduced
the HOME programme, I do not think you
would have any housing selling around here
for $15,000 or less. Again, if we do not
have the serviced lots and make them avail-
able to the merchant builders, we will not
have those homes selling in that price range.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I heartily dis-
agree with the Minister's statement. The
Minister well knows from his own back-
ground that if there was a sales market for
50,000 refrigerators in this country and
100,000 were manufactured, that he would
have his refrigerators that he manufactured
on that market and cleared out as fast as he
could, because he knows what would happen
to the prices. They would go down. And the
same is true when it comes to land.
There is a lot of land in this province,
especially around tliis city here, which is
owned by people, not only those who are
so-called speculators but those who have been
farming the land for many years. They have
seen these land prices rise steadily year after
year and they say to themselves, "What have
I got to lose if I keep on holding the land?
It was $3,000 an acre ten years ago, it is
now $12,000 an acre, I might as well keep
on hanging on."
Two things cause him concern today: First
of all, the taxes he is paying on those lands;
and second, the interest on money if he is
a person who has bought the land at a high
price and he is having to pay the interest on
money with which he has paid for that land.
If he starts to see even the level of prices
go static, he is going to become concerned.
There is no question in my mind, and I can-
not for the life of me understand why there
is any question in the mind of this Minister,
that the economics of refrigerators do apply
to land, that if we get not one GO line and
one little bit of a sewage development going,
but really open the areas up where the
demand for housing is great and ensure the
availability of lots is well in excess of any
potential demand, then I think you will see
this price situation correct itself quickly.
There are very, very few owners of land
who will hang on very long if they start to
see these prices dip and they will only start
to see them dip when this government makes
these lots available in quantity by easing
their restrictions on the services, and easing
the restrictions on assessment which munici-
palities have to impose in order to aflFord
housing developments.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I never
counted myself much of a supporter of the
free enterprise system when it comes to
dealing with the socially created value in
land, and I suppose anything I say in that
regard will be so much wasted words for the
time being. But eventually, I am hopeful in
the long run that society will catch up with
itself and will discover just how unjust it is,
and that the few who, at the moment, own
land where there is a pressure of ever-
growing metropolitan areas upon it and
thereby seek to derive the benefit of what is
fundamentally a socially created value,
ought to be required to contribute or plough
back a goodly portion of that value into the
society which created it.
I would not hesitate to advocate in that
regard a capital gains tax. If we are going
to have a capital gains tax in this country—
and I expect we will— I would not hesitate
to advocate the first place it be applied is on
land. As a matter of philosophical premise,
I am willing to state in 1968 that it is
thoroughly unjust, absolutely against any
sense of justice, that the few should hold
the gun to the heads of the many, and hold
it up for unconscionable, inequitable and
oppressive prices for land that might be used
to provide what is a fundamental right to
the citizen— a decent roof over the heads of
his family.
And we have seen in recent years an abso-
lutely astonishing increase in land values
4550
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
simply because of the pressure of population,
the coming of age of a generation that was
conceived during wartime and now, having
left their father's house, they seek to pro-
vide one for their young wives and their
children of tender age. It is ultimately dis-
graceful, truly ultimately disgraceful for
government, which is the final power within
the geographical limits, to be a party to
what amounts to a conspiracy to derive
unjust benefit from the sale of land.
Jeff^erson said a long time ago— and most
of what Jefferson ever said, of course, has
found its way in an eternal form on the
printed pages of history— that the land
belongs to the living and it is the living
who ought to derive the benefit from its use.
To me there is something absolutely, funda-
mentally repugnant to common and moral
sense that any group of individuals can
point to a portion of the earth's surface
which, after all, is finite and measurable,
and say, as against the rest of you, "This
future is ours, to do with as we please". It
will not surely be many generations, heaven
help us, until mankind turns against that
notion and demolishes it for the evil and
vicious proposition that it is.
Mr. MacDonald: The member is certainly
not giving the Liberal philosohpy.
Mr. Sopha: I am speaking the philosophy
of Elmer Sopha, the member for Sudbury,
who comes here with 10,000 votes behind
him, that is whose philosophy I am stating.
That philosophy, of course, if you had blown
the dust ofi^ the book, was first conceived by
Henry George three-quarters of a century
ago and is eternal in its validity.
Mr. Gisbom: That is a long time ago.
Mr. Sopha: Well, three-quarters of a cen-
tury ago.
Mr. Peacock: The member has talked
about Henry George-
Mr. Siopha: All right, I talked about him, I
have talked about him before.
Mr. Gisbom: Does the member for York
Centre agree?
Mr. Sopha: I do not know who agrees
with me or who does not, and that is the
end of our private conversation for this
afternoon. You wait until I am outside and
address all those questions to me in rapid
fire succession.
Now I stand here in my place and I am
going to raise the housing problem, but I
have listened all afternoon and I heard
members from all the four comers of the
province say they have a housing problem
in their particular areas, so I said to myself
before I got up that there is nothing unique
about a housing problem in Sudbury. Appar-
ently, the same symptoms and the same ills
afflict the body politic wherever you find it
in Ontario, because everybody seems to have
a complaint, at least in the Opposition
benches. If the government members but
gave vent to their own feelings, they could
probably fill the record with a good many
more instances of inadequacy of housing in
the areas they represent. And in that regard,
one well remembers the oratory such as one
never heard its like before in this House, of
the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton) a
few years ago.
Mr. Nixon: That was a great speech.
Mr. Sopha: A pity such eloquence has been
stilled in recent years.
The next proposition I seek to make is that
in no area of the social environment has gov-
ernment and politicians failed the people
more in the last generation than in the area
of housing. And if I had but had it here, of
course, I would refer to the document that
launched this party on its 25 years, come
August 4— is it, this year— its reign in Ontario,
that document of 25 years ago that the
Premier (Mr. Robarts) likes to forget.
He will not refer to it tonight at the
coliseum, but that document, of course,
advocated that this party, the Progressive
Conservative Party, would build thousands of
houses for the people of Ontario. They would
have a great surge after the war of provision
of shelter for our people. But 25 years later,
the people of Ontario still face inadequacy
in the fulfillment of that fundamental right.
The second proposition in that regard in
saying that governments and politicians have
failed the people, is to state bluntly that there
are too many governments involved. Every
level of government is involved in the pro-
vision of housing. Why is it in other areas,
in a day and age when we are so jealous of
constitutional jurisdiction, when an election
campaign is being fought on the issue of who
has jurisdiction over what, and they so jeal-
ously guard their perquisites and their areas
of the division of power that they claim unto
themselves, why is it in the provision of this
social necessity that every level of govern-
ment has to be involved, federal, provincial
and municipal?
JUNE 17, 1968
4551
There is one level that could rapidly be
eliminated and that is the level of govern-
ment that is beholden to this Legislature, the
level that is a creature of this Legislature.
The Minister wants to be political. Well, I
am going to entertain him with a little poli-
tics a little later on, but I said during the
election campaign that I would not hesitate
to see the municipal level eliminated from
this field and direct intervention by the pro-
vincial government where the need is dire,
where people are in misery. What is the
extent of the misery?
I was going to save this phrase until later
but I will put it in now: What is the extent
of the misery? I can take you, Mr. Chairman,
to areas in the city of Sudbury where people
live in hovels and I would defy you and I,
if we were junketeers like this Minister, to
go into the heartland of Mississippi or Ala-
bama and see worse.
Mr. MacDonald: You never said anything
about those conditions until the election last
year.
Mr. Sopha: I said that in Sudbury and I
said it over the airwaves, I said it on tele-
vision and I said it to the face of the council
assembled, that we do not need to look down
our nose at Americans and think we are
superior. We do not have the race problems,
we do not have the inbred poverty and all its
manifestations, but we have conditions as
bad as you can find in the worst part of the
United States of America, in the deepest part
of the black south.
Regarding the politicians, of course, one
only has to keep a very tenuous interest and
one sees that rather than build houses, the
politicians squabble among themselves— they
chart and they plan and they study and they
form committees, and they do this and that.
They have housing by headline invented by
Robert Macaulay— was it not?— and brought
to a high art of perfection by Stanley Randall,
housing by headline.
Mr. Singer: Yes, it is the only place they
build them.
Mr. Sopha: The only thing in all their
eternal wranglings they do not appear to do
—the politicians who have the authority— is
build houses. What was it Laurier said about
human misery? Some variation of something
like this— evil is the man who sees wrong and
having the power to right it and fails to do so.
Mr. Peacock: What did King do? He
worked for Rockefeller.
Mr. Sopha: King who?
Mr. Peacock: Mackenzie King.
Mr. Sopha: That is the way Laurier put it
and that is the extent of the failure of the
politicians. All right, I will just get the elec-
tion campaign out of the way— the one last
October-by telling the Minister about the
Tory candidate running against me— and this
becomes germane, Mr. Chairman, to housing,
because he was a great authority on housing.
That fellow-a very frenetic, hyperthyroid,
young individual, bent on becoming what he
described himself to be as the burr under the
saddle, which is a kind of a white knight, a
combination of a white knight and that part
of the horse disappearing last when the horse
is going east, the western end of it-
Mr. MacDonald: I think we got you.
Mr. Sopha: He apparently canvassed all the
Ministry, and one got the impression that
many of the Ministers stopped talking to
this candidate, but one fellow he conned was
this Minister-he really conned him. As far
as I could see, to the end of the election
compaign they remained Damon and Pythias,
David and Jonathan, and every other com-
bination of eternal human brotherhood. That
candidate went around Sudbury— I must have
heard him make the speech 20 times— saying
that he had been talking to Stan Randall;
they were so close he abbreviated the Stanley
to Stan. He had been talking to Stan
Randall, and Stan had told him about some
factory down in Indiana where they were
putting out houses on an assembly line basis
and all they had to do was elect him and he
and Stan together were going to provide these
assembly line houses in Sudbury.
It would be funny if it did not involve so
much human misery, and the only thing he
did not know about Stan in the con yarn
that he was spinning the electorate was that
the one thing that Stan does not do is build
houses— the assembly line or any other kind.
Well, last July, just about the middle of
the month after centennial celebrations were
over, I went to the city council of Sudbury. I
asked for an appointment, an opportunity to
appear before them, and I went there and
I pleaded with them to get ahead immediately
with the building of low-cost housing units
on the Borgia Street land, which now forms
part of the urban renewal. I reminded them,
that is all I had to do, of some of the
absolutely disgraceful housing conditions we
had in the city and here was an apparently
large acreage of land which did not at that
time belong to the public authority though
it does now, but certainly was available from
4552
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Canadian National Railways, and which
could form the environment in which housing
could be built without the dislocation of any
person; they would not have to remove any-
body from it in order to sell it. I do not
exaggerate when I say that I pleaded with
the city council to get ahead with it.
Sadly, during the election campaign, I
undertook to my constituents that I would do
everything I could within my power to for-
ward the development of that area for low-
cost housing and as I stand here today in the
middle of June, I must confess to a sense of
utter futility about it, as I have observed the
procrastination of this department in respect
of developing that land for tenant-occupied,
low-rental housing units. Now this depart-
ment owns the land, and has owned it these
several months. Last Tuesday, June 11, the
Sudbury Star as it is wont to do— and if the
Minister has not been paying any attention
to what I have said up to this point, I would
ask him to harken to this portion of it—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am listening very
closely.
Mr. Sopha: As the Sudbury Star is wont
to do, last Tuesday it published a headline,
"Builder Selected for 177 Units-Low Rent
Housing Going Ahead." That, of course, was
the leading headline in the paper of that
day. There is a news story, of course, con-
nected with that headline and I do not know
whether the news story is written with guile,
or whether it is deliberately disingenuous;
I do not make that allegation. But in para-
phrasing the news story I can say accurately
that it does not support the headline, and
nowhere in the news story, though OHC is
referred to countless times, does it say that
the announcement of any such launching of
177 units, as proclaimed, is authorized in
any way by the Ontario housing corporation.
It says that OHG has selected a builder; it
gives no authority for making that statement.
It says that a meeting with the council is
necessary in order to take the necessary steps
to embark on the project; it does not say when
the council meeting will be held. It quotes
the mayor, and the mayor is certainly less
than certain or emphatic or committed to the
project.
I will just read into the record a portion
of what the mayor is reported to have said:
Mayor Fabbro said today that if tliere
appears to be no question about the tech-
nical aspects of OHC's selection, "I will
have no alternative but to call a special
council meeting in order to send the city's
approval of the scheme back to OHC for
an early start on construction."
That statement from the mayor certainly is
not unequivocal, it is conditioned, and I
must say that I do not fully understand what
the paper is purporting to say that his worship
said in that connection. I do not know what
they mean by the quotation, "if there appears
to be no question about the technical aspects
of OHC's selection." As I understand it, the
selection of the developer is a matter within
the jurisdiction of OHC, and once OHC has
selected, I would think, upon the proper basis,
of course, all other things being equal and
in order, that the city's approval, if it is
necessary, certainly ought to come merely as
a matter of course.
I invite the Minister to use a moderate
amount of time to tell the citizens of Sudbury
—they will be vitally interested— just what
stage this project has reached. Certainly,
there is not much argument needed to be
mustered to show that there has been a
terrible delay in the development of this
land, and incidentally I want to repeat what
I have said in Sudbury. This, as I outlined
earlier, is part of the urban renewal scheme,
the Borgia Street area. I must go out of my
way to commend the Golden Mile for the
excellent articles it did a month or so ago on
Sudbury and in which it described the Borgia
urban area in considerable detail and indeed
invited a lot of enquiries and comments about
that exciting scheme.
But urban renewal is one thing, and the
building of low-rental housing is another. I
have said, and I await argument to show that
I am wrong, and I am one who will change
his mind if on reason and commonsense I
am shown to be wrong, but I await argument
to show me that the two need go ahead
together. Urban renewal is not an end in
itself. It is not a sacred cow. It is not a
be-all and an end-all.
And the building of housing on part of
lands set aside for urban renewal need not
await the development of the master plan
for the commercial section of an urban
renewal area. The vital need is for housing
now, and here is the opportunity to build
177 units and start to move people in them.
One other conmient: When I was home
over the weekend, there was another piece
in the Sudbury Star about this matter. And
the lord knows, he is my witness, that all
I need to do is to sit in my office any after-
noon and I can anticipate at least one phone
call, probably three or four, from people who
JUNE 17, 1968
4553
would like to get into the low-rentad housing
units; would like accommodation in the low-
rental housing.
I think that I do not use the right jargon.
In the affluent society, we must not refer to
anything in the nasty pejorative sense. We
have got to dress it up, so that it is obscure
and unrecognizable. I think they are called
rent-geared-to-income in the argot of the
trade.
Well, people want to move in there, and
I can anticipate three or four phone calls,
and indeed visits, a week from mothers or
fathers who desperately need accommodation,
and I do not keep records. Perhaps I should.
I do what I can, and may heaven prosper
Mr. MacKenzie, the local manager; he is so
kind to an errant politician, and so helpful on
occasion. And Mr. MacKenzie, unlike the
Minister here, has not been before the House
to make long statements about the interven-
tion of politicians, but justice is done. I am
satisfied, because the people are certainly
worthy of tlie consideration.
All right now, last weekend, knowing that
as I do, and knowing a priori and a fortiori,
indeed, of the demands for housing, I pick up
the paper and I read where OHC is making
another study. They are going to send out
thousands of questionnaires in the city to
tenant-occupied premises, to people who are
now tenants. I guess they will use the federal
voters' list to single them out and get their
names and addresses. That would be a good
way for them to do it. They are going to ask
who needs low cost housing. Well that must
be the 65th study that they have made in the
last few years.
Mr. Peacock: It is at least an improvement
in the way the studies used to be carried
out.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. They have made many a
study. And I am prepared to say at this time,
and especially in respect of the 177 units
about which I plead with the Minister to
make some definitive statement to the people
of Sudbury, enough of the studies. A study
never helped any person who had to live in
cockroach-infested quarters, overcrowded,
filthy, to describe the worst. No study
devised by any government ever helped a
person in that quandary.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, I saw
just about the most dreadful sight that my
eyes had ever fixed upon during that election
campaign, when I was canvassing in an area
of the city. I trudged up three flights of
stairs, I shall never forget it. Three flights of
stairs, and here was a family in two rooms-
a kitchen, and one bedroom— seven members
of the family— living in one room. The tiered
bunkbeds for the younger ones, the mother
lying on the bed, and the father was out. I
subsequently discovered where he was, and
you can guess it. He was slurping down the
suds at the local you know what.
Here was the mother lying on the mattress,
one sheet on the bed, a number of children
running around, and the mother looked ill. I
inquired of her if she was ill, and she said
that she had ptomaine poisoning. And I asked
her if she had had medical attention, and she
said they told the doctor and they expected
the doctor but one had not arrived as yet.
Well that sight, as I told my constituents
subsequently over the airwaves, I did not
describe it in the detail I have described it
here, but I told them that sight was unworthy
of a civilization that calls itself civilized. Just
absolutely unworthy and as Bobby Kennedy
has said in a word that I hope to use more
and more; he said it is "unacceptable". That
is unacceptable in a society that calls itself
civilized and indeed likes to refer to itself as
being Christian.
I make no comment on that latter adjec-
tive, but I am one that is fed up with studies,
and I am fed up with the passing of the buck
between politicians, one level of government
to the other, and if the politicians want to
evade their responsibility in this area, they
have got it set up so that it is an unbeatable
combination.
When you have three levels of government
responsible for housing, as we have in this
country, then the buck passing can be carried
on to the highest development of the art,
because there are always two other levels of
government to blame for it. Finally, the last
tiling that I advocate so that the people of
this country would get some housing— and
you see the politicans of all parties running
across the land, back and forth from New-
foundland to Vancouver, talking 200,000 a
year. A nice round ball park figure. They are
all going to build 200,000 units a year, though
I think Douglas is going to build more. He
will never have the responsibility, so he can
really go all out.
If they meant what they said, and said
what they meant, then the way out of the
mess, is for all the governments to come to
a common resolution bent on the ultimate
goal— the provision of decent housing for our
people— and give to a body of some kind, the
4554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
final decision-making power to make the deci-
sions to build the houses.
So that you would not have the municipal
councillors wrangling among themselves. You
would not have the manager of the OHC
running to his Minister every time a decision
on policy is made. You would not have the
manager of CMHC running to the appropriate
Minister in Ottawa to get his authority, and
the interminable delays that follow from the
resorts to higher authority.
Some kind of plenipotentiary body in this
country is required which would have the
power by co-operation between governments
to build the houses that are so desperately
needed. Now, as one who has seen how
democracy can marshal its resources and its
energies in times of national crisis, it makes
one wonder in times of peace how powerless
democracy is to remove human suffering in
such a fundamental manifestation. To see
the futility, and how badly democracy works
when the Canadian people, those of our num-
bers who live in poverty stricken conditions
—inadequate housing— how they have to be
victimized by procrastination and red tape
and finally all the pompous patronizing, large
oval, adjectival, superlative statements of this
Minister which will not eradicate one iota,
the responsibility of the blame, or the shame
that attends this blot on our society.
And one can only wish, when one sees
these conditions, that some means could be
found that someone could come forward and
that some magical marshalling of the forces
of democracy could be arrived at so that
society together, collectively, could make an
assault on this blight and eradicate all the
talk and all the ball park figures, and finally
do what is absolutely necessary— build some
houses for our people.
Not only the 177 that I have been pleading
for in Sudbury, but tens of thousands more
and in the process, let me ehminate the
figures, the necessary number to provide ade-
quate housing, which I would describe as a
fundamental right to the individual. At least,
he ought to derive that from the society in
which he lives.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What
about the 9.25 per cent interest rate on
mortgage money?
Mr. Sopha: Well, that is another field and
1 am not going to get into that. That is an-
other subject in itself and I have some pretty
strong views on that. All the views that I
express here are personal, and I am not going
to stand here long enough to wrangle with
the fringe here, that after June 25 will not
really count in the affairs of the country.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, I do not think
the Minister is going to reply to the remarks
of the hon. member for Sudbury.
Could the Minister tell the House just how
much money taxpayers in Ontario pay toward
actual subsidization of housing in the prov-
ince; that is, public housing, Mr. Chairman?
The latest information in print appears, I
believe, in the public accounts for the prov-
ince for 1966-67. I see there only several
items of expense that could not be considered
overhead but could be considered direct sub-
sidization. These are the interest paid on the
advances to the corporation for federal-pro-
vincial projects and Ontario housing projects,
which in 1966-67 amounted to $1.4 million.
But the interest that the corporation earned
on projects, both federal-provincial and On-
tario housing, totalled $1.6 milhon, which
left the corporation only $200,000 behind.
The loss on operations, which I assume is the
total of the costs of administering and main-
taining federal and provincial projects,
amounted to $412,000.
Excluding the overhead expenses, Mr.
Chairman, it seems to me that just short of
$700,000 was spent in 1966-67 by the tax-
payers of Ontario on the subsidization of
public housing. That was all that was spent
that could not be recovered from rents and
interest on the projects.
I wonder if the Minister could tell me if
I am correct in making that assumption?
Would he bring me a little more up to date
on the amounts of money that are being put
into subsidies for the so-called low income
units in later years?
Hon. Mr. Randall: While my associates
are looking up that figure, I will say a word
to my friend from Sudbury.
He talked about the 177 units approved by
the board on June 5 after discussion with the
authorities in Sudbury. They will be meeting
with the Sudbury officials for the approval
of the plan next week. If they approve the
plans, they will get underway.
Now as you know, they can reject the plans
if they do not want the buildings, but I do
not think that we are going to have any diflB-
culty along these lines.
Mr. Sopha: Well the problem is this: There
has always been a matter— your Mr. Suters
I
JUNE 17. 1968
4555
will tell you I am sure— there has been a
matter about the provision of services that
has been a stumbling block to agreement.
The city feels it is being heisted on the
stopping-up of streets, the provision of streets
and the services. They feel that the burden
on them is just too great to bear. I hope this
will not be fatal to the actual sound of the
hammers and saws in that area, I hope— and
I say this seriously— this summer or early
fall at the latest.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I was wonder-
ing if the Minister was giving any considera-
tion to change of policy in treatment of
tenants, first in the payment of rents.
In the various speeches that have been
made on this estimate there have been com-
plaints about tenant treatment. I am among
those complaining, and the member for Wind-
sor West set out what he considered a bill of
rights for tenants. Certainly the bill of rights
for the tenant is needed not only for OHC
but for tenants throughout the province. I
would like especially to draw to the attention
of the Minister the matter of how the rents
are set.
I know they have been geared to income,
but of course rather stupid and ridiculous
situations arise. I pointed out one instance
of which I knew where a teenager, when she
finished high school and started work, left
home because the rent would go up too
much; it was cheaper for her to leave home.
I have a number of questions on this, but
so that we do not wander too far from the
point, has the Minister any intention of
changing the present programme on the way
the rents are set?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would like first to
answer the question from the hon. member
for Windsor West. The subsidy in 1967
was $1,050,000, the net subsidy; and it is
anticipated that this year the subsidy will be
$1,586,000.
In reply to the hon. member for Parkdale,
who said because the income of a child who
starts work is added to the family income
OHC is forcing children to leave home be-
cause the parents cannot afford higher rental
rates; is this what you are referring to?
Mr. Trotter: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Randall: The first $75 of a work-
ing child's income was taken into account in
calculating rentals. Assuming the child
earns $75 per month or more this would have
the effect of increasing the rental of a unit
by an amount ranging from $22 to $32 per
month, depending upon the tenant's position
on the rent scale. It does not seem unreason-
able that a working child should contribute
between $5 and $7 per week toward the
rental of accommodation which may well be
subsidized by a taxpayer.
Now our feelings there are that if they
have got that kind of income a child could
not live away from home for $5 or $7 a week.
So I do not think it is a—
Mr. Singer: How heartless can you get?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are not heartless; we
deal with the taxpayers' money. What do you
want to do?
Mr. Trotter: Here is the principle behind
this, Mr. Chairman; and I think it is what the
Ontario housing corporation had in mind and
it is a principle with which I agree.
The idea was that public housing was to
be a temporary gap, an opportunity for
people to save money and then move out into
the market to buy a home. Because the
general market has become so overpriced it
is diflScult for people to move. The average
tenant in your public housing stays there
seven years, and yet the average family in
Ontario moves once every five years. You are
obviously failing in your purpose. And again
I emphasize that one of the reasons why you
fail is because the system, the present system
of setting rents, is out of date.
I think when it was originally put into
effect the system for setting rents geared to
income was a good idea. But you have got
to change your system. I think it is heart-
less, though, with regards to a child. But
there a number of examples where men
refuse to work overtime— not because they
do not want to work, but because the in-
crease in income will raise their rent. Some
women could go to work part-time, but under
the present system they can actually end up
losing money. By the time they pay the
income tax and the increased rent, they can
actually lose money.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
another question. Has the Minister given any
consideration to a scheme that has been sug-
gested from many sources? That is if people
are paying an increased amount of rent as a
result of the money they make— and in some
cases it goes to a high as 30 per cent of their
income— is there any possibility of a certain
proportion of the increased rent being put
into a fund then refunded if they wanted
to move out and buy a home?
4556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In other words, I am asking for a pro-
gressive policy where people are encouraged
to save, encouraged to work and to get out
in the private market. Is there any indication
that such an idea would be acceptable to the
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, there is no plan
at the present time. But as you know, we
have discussed with central mortgage and
housing, the freezing of the present ceiling.
There will be no increase until we can get a
programme worked out with central mort-
gage and housing after June 25. It is a
difficult question to answer, because the
people living in public housing are already
being subsidized. The original idea was that
they go into public housing in order to have
decent accommodation. If they are in public
housing and somebody else is footing the
bill— maybe the neighbour next door— and
they say: "Well, I would like to stay here
at a reduced rent so I can save up for a
dowm payment"— what is the attitude of the
fellow across the road? I think it is a rea-
sonable assumption that the man across the
road would say: "Look, I earn the same kind
of money. I have got two youngsters and he
has four. Because he has four, I am having
to subsidize him so he can save for a down
payment."
One of the things we would like to see
done, of course, is a ceiling placed on rents
so that they are not paying more than market
price. As I told our friend from Windsor
West and some others who met with me, we
are working with central mortgage and hous-
ing corporation to provide a ceiling which
would be, perhaps, 5 per cent under market.
There has been a great deal said about
this 30 per cent that people have to pay. We
have heard it in Windsor, we have heard it
in Lawrence Heights— we have heard it all
over the place.
Let me give you some factors here. In
O'Connor Drive, for instance, 73.4 per cent
of the families pay less than 25 per cent of
their gross income for shelter; 25.4 per cent
pay between 25 and 27 per cent of their gross
income; and 7.2 pay over 27 per cent of
their gross income. But none of them pay
30 per cent.
Now in Lawrence Heights, which my friend
from Downsview got so excited about the
other day, 78.1 per cent of the famihes pay
less than 25 per cent of their gross income for
shelter; 19.2 per cent pay between 25 and
27 per cent; and 2.7 per cent pay over 27.
There is only one, I believe, in there paying
30 per cent. Alexandra Park is another good
example; 65.2 pay less than 25 per cent; 29
per cent between 25 and 27 and 5.8 pay over
27 per cent.
I think the rental scales are very fair and
a reasonable scale for people today, regard-
less of whether they have some other income
through overtime or the wife goes to work. I
can appreciate that if they increase their
income, it seems like we are penalizing them.
But on the other hand, look at the other tax-
payers' position. There are many thousands
of people in this country earning the same
kind of money who do not depend on the
state for subsidies.
Now it is all very well to say the state
should look after everybody that wants to
get into public housing. As far as I am con-
cerned, we have got to continue to provide
public housing and housing for senior citi-
zens, but I would hope that we would place
more emphasis on providing a means whereby
these people can buy public housing. This
is what we are trying to do by placing the
emphasis on the HOME programme so that
with the kind of incomes they have and the
mortgage arrangements we can make, these
people should be able to look after them-
selves.
I do not think we are helping these people
or helping the economy by continuing to say
that, if their incomes are at such a level, they
should automatically go into public housing.
From my experience, most people want a
home of their own. They want a fix on their
rent and the only way they are going to get
a fix, in my estimation, is to buy a home of
their own and we would make it possible
through the HOME programme. I think
there are many of these people now living in
public housing that are quite capable-
Mr. Trotter: How in the world are they
going to get-
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, they are quite
capable of doing it.
Mr. Peacock: Who? The Minister just said-
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, no. I think you are
wrong. I think you just have to have a little
more faith, a little more confidence. I have
got complete faith that we can work out a
programme where many people earning be-
tween $5,000 and $9,000 can eventually own
a home of their own. If we continue with
condiminium—
Mr. Trotter: Is it $9,000?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I said between—
JUNE 17, 1968
4557
Mr. Peacock: You said at $6,800 they could
not afford it.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I said between $5,000
and $9,000 can eventually own a home of
their own.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Now, just a minute. Do
not get excited. Do not have a hemorrhage.
Do not get excited.
I have also suggested in Ottawa that the
mortgage terms should be 45 years and auto-
matically everybody says: "Well, look at the
interest you are paying." I suggest that if
you are going to rent for 45 years, you are
going to pay more out in rent, and at least
you have got something for the amount of
interest you pay if the terms are extended
for 45 years.
I have also suggested that the interest pay-
ments on mortgages should be tax deductible.
These are some of the things that should be
done and can be done to house the lower-
income families. If we can finance some of
these people in public housing now that they
have reached the economic rent, it means
we have got to look at the down-payment
factor. We have got to look at the length of
time they have to carry that, in order to take
care of the income they now have. I think
it was in 1965 when they said that over
13,000 people who took out NHA mortgages
were earning $5,000 or close to it.
Mr. Peacock: Or more!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, maybe more.
Sure, maybe up to $6,000. But today you
see figures that say even at $6,000 you can-
not afford to buy a home. Well, I was in
Bramalea the other day. I was up there one
Saturday afternoon and the man selling homes
up there said: "I had a couple in here the
other night. They walked in and they were
$300 shy of meeting the 27 per cent that
NHA requires for the man to get a mortgage.
They went away and he ambled back in on
the Wednesday night: 'I got it, I got it, I got
a job at a store downtown that pays me $26
more a week for overtime and now I qualify
for an NHA mortgage'."
Again, I suggest that, if these were lengh-
ened and the down payments under the
HOME programme were set, people could
make a down payment on a $15,000-or-less
home or condiminium apartment. There are
many of these people who can be housed.
They do not have to be in the public housing.
Mr. Trotter: Who can buy a house witfi
an income of $5,000 today? You said from
$5,000 to $9,000. Well I can agree from
between $8,000 to $9,000 it is possible to
carry a small house today. But can the Min-
ister give me any circumstances where any-
one making $5,000 a year could buy a home?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, I cannot give the
member any definite cases. I just simply say
that I recognize there are many people who
will never get a home if they have to qualify
on a 27 per cent basis. So what do we do?
We have to find some way to stretch the
mortgage so that their down payments are
less. We have to find some way of building
cheaper homes, which we are already doing.
I can give you an instance up in Amprior,
Ontario. We have lots up there worth $5,000
apiece, but the people could not afford to
rent the lot. We convinced the township of
Amprior that we should build multiple-family
housing there, row housing. Those houses
now are $12,700 and the lot cost us $1,500.
There are people in that area who are making
$85 or $90 a week and will be able to get
a home, whereas before on the $5,000 single
lot basis, they could never get housing.
We do not have all the answers, but we
hope to recognize the fact that if you do not
want people with an income of between
$5,000 and $9,000 in public housing, you
have to find some way to give them the kind
of home they can afford to carry— either rent
or buy.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I think the
thing we should be sure of here is that public
housing is really a last resort. The main
problem is providing homes through such
banking set-ups as central mortgage and hous-
ing corporation. This only provides for a small
amount so far as interest is concerned. I am
not for a moment suggesting that public
housing should become the major effort of
government. There are going to be certain
proportions of our population who have such
a low income that public housing is the only
answer. But I think that we should make every
effort to assist people in public housing to
help themselves. That is the major role— to
help people help themselves, and not have
them trying to live off the taxpayer for the
rest of their lives. Despite what people would
say about those who are in public housing or
on welfare living off the fat of the land, I
feel they are a very small minority.
I know there a number of people in public
housing today who are concerned because
4558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they feel they are in a ghetto. They do not
hke it for their children. Their children do
not like it. And it is unfortunate that the
policies of government today under the
present economic circumstances encourage
people to get into the private market, because
they simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately,
the Minister gives no indication of making
any changes.
I want to make one suggestion insofar as
the tenants in the Ontario housing corpora-
tion are concerned. We have heard much
about this lease that the Ontario housing cor-
poration has. This is a disgrace for a govern-
ment that should be leading the way. The
member for Downsview pointed out a number
of the items in this lease that simply should
not be there. There are a number of things
that should be changed. But there are two I
would like to ask the Minister about to see if
there is any indication of changes being made.
The one thing will not cost the government
money, but it is almost a matter of principle.
Why would they allow section 13 of a gov-
ernment lease, whereby a tenant virtually
waives any right he has to any legislation
passed by this government or any other gov-
ernment to protect the tenant?
In other words, I think the wording ends
up: "—notwithstanding any present or future
Act of the Legislature, the Parliament of
Canada." Even if we in this Legislature tried
to protect tenants, Ontario housing corpora-
tion has done its best to see that the tenant
is under the thumb. I do not think a section
like that should be in any lease in Ontario,
I do not think it should be allowed. And we
as a government simply should not tolerate it
when it has to do with any government
agency. So I would ask the Minister in the
hope that v/e might have that removed.
The second thing is that the tenant can
be turfed out of his apartment on very short
notice for many reasons. The notice is usually
about 30 days. And one of the stupidest
reasons is the matter of reporting the amount
of income that the tenant has. I realize when
the rent is gauged to income you have to keep
track of the income. But it would be far
better if the income was set as the last six
months or for that year. To have a situation
where you can literally move in on a tenant
in 30 days is wrong.
A lot of people say that it is not enforced,
tlie Ontario housing corporation is an easy
landlord and really does not enforce these
sections as they could have. But if that is the
case, I think you should have a lease that
has some common sense to it, because Simon
Legree could not have drawn up a better
lease than Ontario housing corporation has.
And if you do not enforce it, then by all
means make one that meets common sense
that you can enforce.
I would like to know if the Minister has
any intentions of changing the lease they have
now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would be delighted to
answer that question because the member is
a lawyer, and my hon. friend who conned
the House into agreeing with him a month or
two ago, did an excellent job. Forunately, I
was not here so I did not agree with him
because I was not sold at the time, not being
in the House. But let me just point out to
the member— and he would know more about
it than I do because he is a lawyer— the
present OHC lease is based on The Short
Form Leases Act and you can go down to
any stationery store and buy one. But what
happens—
Mr. Singer: Not one of those, you cannot.
Hon. Mr. Randall: After you get it, when
the lawyers get through writing it up, even
a Philadelphia lawyer would not understand
it. Now, the majority of the clauses are stan-
dard ones and a lease of this nature can be
piuchased in any legal stationery store, as
I said. As a matter of interest-
Mr. Singer: Terrible, terrible!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Now, just a minute, be
careful. I may be conning you here and you
may be on the wrong side of the fence. As
a matter of interest, the OHC lease was used
before by the Metropolitan Toronto housing
authority, which was ours, and incidentally
is used by the housing authority of Toronto.
It was drawn up many years ago under the
wartime housing czar Mr. C. D. Howe, so
it is time for a change— I agree with the
members 100 per cent.
I am not suggesting the lease is perfect.
The lease today is presently under review by
the Ontario law reform commission and we
have submitted a new lease to the law
reform commission and have asked them to
approve this for OHC. And again I say to
the member, he mentioned it himself, we
have not enforced that lease.
I know my hon. friend over here may take
exception to this, but I would like to make
him a deal. They tell me that Singer, Singer
and Cork draw up the toughest leases in the
city of Toronto. Now, if they do not perhaps
JUNE 17, 1968
my hon. friend would allow me to send a
legal eagle from that side of the House to
this side of the House to look at some of his
leases-
Mr. Singer: Any time!
Hon. Mr. Randall: And I think he will
find they are no different from the lease
operated by OHC.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Having said that, I
commend him because if he was working for
me, I would expect him to draw up a tough
lease also. But let us not assume that the
Ontario housing corporation is using any-
thing different from anybody else because
you will find that most of the standard
leases have these onerous clauses in them.
Mr. Trotter: But they are wrong.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I know, we
agree. Our hon. friend brought it to our
attention and we are checking it out.
Mr. MacDonald: Do not try to bring in
the law reforms committee. Our action forced
you to do something.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, no. The law reform
society will bring in one that I think even
the member will be satisfied with.
Mrs. M. Renwick: When are we going to
change it?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Right away, they are
working on it now. The member does not
have to worry about it, we have not exer-
ci.'ied it, nobody is thrown out on the basis
of that lease; they never have been.
My hon. friend did a good job in pointing
out the difficulties in the lease and we have
taken notice of what he said. The law reform
society is working around the clock, and all
of the departments are making submissions,
and it goes to show that we do get a good
idea once in a while from the other side of
the House.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for
Downsview asked me if I would table the
agreement between ourselves and Trent
Park development, and I will, I just want to
suggest that these are the terms of the
agreement in essence:
This offer is conditional upon Ontario
housing corporation obtaining the neces-
sary federal, provincial and municipal
approvals and/or consents which may be
required for it, to consummate its in-
tended use of the said lands as a land
assembly project. This offer is further con-
ditional upon Ontario housing corporation
obtaining from central mortgage and
housing corporation the necessary financ-
ing for its purposes on the sale lands. If
either of the above-mentioned conditions
is not satisfied on or before the date fixed
here for closing, and any mutually-agreed
upon extension thereof, and the purchaser
is unwilling to waive the unsatisfied con-
ditions, then this offer to sell is null and
void and the deposit money shall be
returned to the purchaser without interest.
Ontario housing corporation reserves the
right to enter on the said lands prior to
the date fixing for closing for the purpose
of making a survey and of taking soil
tests, and borings, provided that any
debris from such borings is moved froir»
the site and test holes refilled.
In essence they are the conditions. Now,
Mr. Chairman, the land was offered to us
by a Mr. Hardy. This is the chap you asked
me about. I understand he is a real estate
agent in Peterborough. OHC entered into
a conditional offer to sell on July 6, 1967, at
an amount of $500,800. A deposit of $100
was paid by OHC. The conditional offer to
sell was extended at the request of OHC to
expire October 31, 1967, and an additional
deposit of $50,000 was paid by OHC. On
October 31, 1967, the corporate secretary of
OHC advised the vendors that OHC had not
received tlie necessary approvals required
under the agreement to sell and accordingly
the agreement was null and void.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to table this
for the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view.
Mr. Singer: I will have some comment on
that after I have had a chance to review it.
I did want to ask the Minister a number of
questions. He said something about the
subsidy for assisted housing this year being
$1.5 million. Then he went on at consider-
able length to say that we really had to look
after the public money and this was why we
were being so strict. I tliink his word was
strict. I would say mean, Scrooge-like, un-
conscionable. I do not know whether the
Minister would agree with me or not.
4560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I will not agree
with you. I would expect you to say that
sitting on that side of the House,
Mr. Singer: All right, but the Minister
seemed to think that the $1.5 million was a
very substantial contribution out of the pubhc
purse for these purposes. I draw to tlie Min-
ister's attention vote 2312. This is a vote
under The Treasury Department and the item
there is "grants and expenses for encouraging
and improvement of horse racing in Ontario"
including research into equine medicine, and
so on. The figure there, Mr. Chairman, is
$1.8 million.
Is it not surprising that the Minister is so
concerned about the safety of public money
when it comes to helping people who need
homes and his government, yet his Cabinet
associate, the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton), is quite prepared to come to us
and ask for $1.8 million to help horse racing?
I think it is shocking and I think it speaks
well for the philosophy of this government.
The government obviously thinks more of
horse racing than it does of people who need
homes. This brings me, sir, to my very grave
concern about the whole rental formula as it
applies to the Lawrence Heights area.
I am not happy at all with the Minister's
explanation to my colleague here from Scar-
borough about the way that you assess and
penalize. I have a brief here— the Minister
has had it for a few days, he gave it back to
me this afternoon— but I am going to read it
in full. I think the brief is important enough
to read it in full into the record, and I think
it should be there. We are seeking a meeting
with the Minister. The Minister has not had
too much notice, and he has not been able
to give us a date yet, but I hope the Minister
will be able to see the people from Lawrence
Heights very shortly and explain to them
why their rents are fixed in the present man-
ner. The brief reads this way:
The Lawrence Heights neighbourhood
association was inaugurated one year ago.
Our main purpose is for better living con-
ditions in our own community, and to assist
the people there in any way assistance is re-
quired and asked for. Our interest in ren-
tals comes from complaints of a number
of people in our own immediate com-
munity.
The Minister may well know— certainly I
know, and certainly many other people know
that there is a real concern and from this
area come a great number of complaints
about the ability to pay rental at the present
rates.
The main basis of this brief will deal
with the rent scale and its e£Fect on our
way of living. It is a known and proven
fact that the cost of living has risen 4
per cent in 1967 across Canada, and in
1968 is rising steadily. Our cost of hving
has risen with it and so have the rents.
The present rent scale is not geared to
present day living costs. This scale was
drawn up for use a year ago May, and was
three years in being prepared. The cost
of living three years ago compared with
the present income would enable people
to save and to move out of public housing
but not present income and present cost of
living.
Now there is the whole point, Mr. Chairman.
The income is so geared that most tenants
who move into publicly-assisted housing—
publicly-assisted, I repeat again, to the extent
of $1.5 million this year, while horses are
assisted for racing to the extent of $1.8 million
—the whole effect of this so-called geared-to-
income rental is to lock these people into
this kind of accommodation and almost com-
pletely prevent them from ever getting out.
This will unfold a little more fully as I go
on with the contents of this brief and inter-
polate my own remarks: "The system as it
now is leads to deceit and cheating on the
part of the householder". I say, Mr. Chair-
man, you cannot really blame the house-
holder when he is trying just a little bit to
better himself, to provide a few more ameni-
ties and maybe to put a few dollars away in
the bank in the hope that there will be
enough in the bank some day to have a down
payment which will allow him to get out of
public housing.
The labour force suffers also, as many
women cannot go out to work because of
an increase in rent. Women go to work and
do not report this to their area supervisor. I
suppose it is unfair to call the system of
supervision in there the Gastapo, but often it
is made to me to appear as though you have all
sorts of snoopers around there who are tr>'ing
to find out if and when Mrs. Jones was seen
working in the supermarket for a few hours
so that somebody can descend upon her and
say, "Ho, ho, we caught you. You were out
working in the supermarket. You were being
a cashier, or you were helping there. You
must have made an income and the records
show you did not report it. So not only are
we going to put up your rent, but we are
going to give you a penalty on top of that—
and you cannot stay unless you pay the
penalty and the increase in rent."
JUNE 17, 1968
4561
So what do you do? You discourage that
sort of an ambition. "There is always some-
one in the area ready to lend a helping hand
and be happy to be of some assistance and
report these women," In this— it is not too
veiled— the suggestion is that there is the
occasional tenant who will inform on his
neighbour and in this way the whole pro-
cedure gets into high gear and you investi-
gate and you find that Mrs. Jones has been
working for a few hours in the supermarket.
She must have added to her income. Or that
Willie has a paper route and he must have
had an extra income— so up goes the rent.
And if it has not been reported, there is a
penalty added on top of it: "Immediately
there is an increase in rent and a penalty
rent is assessed also". Could there be any-
thing more heartless, Mr. Chairman? Could
there be anything more cruel? Could there
be anything that illustrates less real concern
about people than this kind of a system of
enforcement? Even if the woman quit work-
ing so that the rent would not increase, the
penalty rent is assessed nevertheless and must
be paid. There is no hope of the family
being able to save enough money for the
down payment on their home elsewhere, or
even saving enough to go into the open mar-
ket with sufficient funds for the two or three
months' advance rent asked for in a private
apartment dwelling.
Adding the fee of $75 to the family income
for a working child is a real hardship in
many cases and my colleague from Parkdale
touched on this earlier. What happens?
Johnnie goes out and gets a newspaper route,
or Johnnie goes out and he goes to the super-
market and becomes a parcel boy on Satur-
days. As soon as it is discovered by the
housing authority that he is making some
extra money, up goes the rent.
What happens to the parents who are
really living in difficult circumstances in any
event— otherwise they would not have been
in public housing in the first place? They are
forced to go to Johnnie and say: "Too bad,
Johnnie, you are making some money, and
we know you are saving it up for your edu-
cation." Or, "We know you are saving it up
for a vacation trip, we are going to have to
take a pretty good chunk of that from you
for room and board." Then what happens?
Johnnie gets unhappy. He is perhaps not
happy at school. He is perhaps not happy in
the crowded circumstances under which he
is forced to live. He has gone out to work
for the first time in his life and is earning an
extra few dollars. It is an awful job keeping
him at home any longer. He says: "If I am
going to have to stay here I am going to have
to pay a fair sum of money for room and
board."
So he moves out. You have perhaps helped
to make him a school dropout and you have
added to the kind of difficulty that we have
in our community about keeping youngsters
in school. But this is what your system en-
courages, Mr. Chairman. This is what the
system of fixing rents in OHC and adding to
rents in this way actually does. This is the
point that my colleague from Parkdale and I
are so concerned about.
You have no real feeling for people. You
say: "Well, we are giving them $1.5 million,
what more can they ask? You have got to
expect they are going to be policed. $1.8
million for horse racing is all right, but $1.5
million for people— we are doing them a big
favour and let them all be grateful and bow
down six times to the great white father who
sits in the front benches of the Tory gov-
ernment."
This, in many cases, leaves a child to be-
coming a burden on the government— or an
unwed mother. This happens, not only with
Johnnie— it happens with Susie; a juvenile
delinquent becoming a ward in a detention
home and generally becoming a burden on
society.
Mr. Chairman, I can give you documented
instances of a number of children who live
in places like Lawrence Heights who become
this kind of problem and I suggest that the
Ontario housing corporation scale of rental
is a substantial cause of these unfortunate in-
stances. The basis of rent, as it now is, is
defeating the purpose that it was originally
intended for.
Public housing, as originally started out,
was for emergency use. Therefore, hopefully
there would only be transient occupancy. As
it is now, emergency housing has become
permanent housing. The feeling of being
locked in, Mr. Chairman, is the feehng that
bothers so many of these people because as
soon as their income goes up a little bit-and
maybe they are in a position to put away
a few dollars— you penalize them, and you
destroy any initiative that they might pos-
sibly have.
Their recommendations are these: Because
of the cost of living rise in the last year and
because it appears to be rising again, the
rent scale based on present percentage sys-
tem is outmoded. Income should be higher
before the percentages apply-that is, a rate
of income of $490 per month, presently 30
4562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
per cent of the income, is applied to rent.
They suggest an increase of gross income
to $690 before you get to the 30 per cent
and that the other rents be geared down
accordingly.
The figures that the Minister read us a
few minutes ago really are not that signifi-
cant. He says only one person in Lawrence
Heights was paying the 30 per cent but he
read his figures too quickly. There are cer-
tainly a substantial number or proportion of
the people who live in Lawrence Heights
who are paying between 25 and 30 per
cent of their income. I had always under-
stood that a reasonable economic rent stopped
being reasonable when it exceeded 25 per
cent. As I say, I missed those figures and
I would think there are 30 per cent to 40 per
cent of the people in Lawrence Heights,
which the Minister gave us, who are paying
about or more than 25 per cent. I would
say that whatever that percentage was, it is
unreasonable and you are unreasonably lock-
ing these people into that type of housing
accommodation.
They recommend that a man's regular pay
be the criterion for rent and that any over-
time or bonus should not be calculated in the
rent structure. This is more incentive to save
and there is also more incentive to work
harder and to try and get out of there.
Mr. Peacock: The date of that brief?
Mr. Singer: No, the date is quite recent. It
has not as yet been presented. It has been
written in the last two weeks. The complaints
are long-standing but the brief is quite
current.
The fixing of rent on overtime pay or on
bonuses and so on— could there be anything
more unfair, Mr. Chairman? I do not think
so because here is a man who has a job. He
has an opportunity to work overtime. He is
ambitious. He wants to make as much money
as he can to put some aside to put it in the
bank, to get a down payment for his house
and what do you do— you find out about it
and you grab it for rent and if by any chance
he has neglected to tell you about it, you
add a penalty on in addition to the extra
rent.
The gross income of a working wife, here
is another penalty that you add. The man is
working and occasionally the wife is able to
go out and work. As soon as she goes out to
work, you add her income on too, on top,
so you penalize again. Now the suggestions
in the brief are quite modest. They are far
more modest than L would have made had I
written the brief.
They suggested the income of tlie working
wife should be increased to more than the
present rate of $250 a year. They want an
earning power of $3,000 gross income per
year before the rent becomes applicable and
surely, Mr. Chairman, in a home where both
the husband and the wife go out to work,
they are doing it not because they enjoy it,
they are doing it to get a few extra amenities
for their family. When you look at the diffi-
culties that so many of the people in Law-
rence Heights have, they are large families,
die great incidence of one parent families,
when recognizing the desire that these peo-
ple have to look after their children, one
would think that we would lean over back-
wards not to penalize or to discourage. This
is what oiu: rent structure is geared to do.
Then I have already dealt with the penaliz-
ing to the extent of $75 per month in rela-
tion to the working children.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister
to be able to present himself to this House
and to the people of the province not as a
Scrooge, as he appears to be. He is not a
bad fellow but I would like him to explain
why he is so concerned about the keeping
of tliis subsidy down to the $1.5 million fig-
ure that he talked about when his colleague
in Treasury is quite prepared to come
blithely in and say we will give $1.8 million
to horse racing.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, the $1.5
million I am talking about this year is the
net. The gross is $2.8 million and that repre-
sents 42.5 per cent, the provincial share, and
as you understand, our friends at Ottawa
stand 50 per cent also of the losses— so
theirs would be greater than that— and there
is 7.5 per cent borne by the municipality.
Tlie losses shared by the three levels of gov-
ernment could be roughly $7 miUion last
year so it is not—
Mr. Singer: We are just talking about your
figure.
Hon. Mr. Randall:-it is not a niggardly
amount I can assure you, and it is not our
intention to penalize anybody in public
housing. You wrestled off these percentages
very nicely but you overlooked the fact that
for a rent that geared-to-income scale, they
get heat, hot water, stove and a refrigerator.
Now, if they were living on their own, they
would have to go out and buy these. They
would probably be paying some finance
JUNE 17, 1968
4563
company 12 or 15 per cent interest on these
appliances. Now they are all included and
when you talk so goodly about people pay-
ing no more than 25 per cent of their
income, I think you will find most of these
people, 99 per cent of them in public hous-
ing, are within the 25 per cent.
Mr. Singer: Not according to figures.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well we are very close
to it.
Mr. Singer: No.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure.
Mr. Singer: No. For 25 per cent and up—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will give you the
per centages again. Sure. On O'Connor
Drive, 73.4 per cent pay less than 25 per
cent, 25.4 pay between 25 and 27, and this
includes all their facilities, and 7.2 pay over
27 per cent but none are paying 30.
Mr. Singer: All right, so you have got 32.6
per cent.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let us get into Law-
rence Heights; 78.1 per cent paying less
than 25, 19.2 paying between 25 and 27 and
2.7 paying 27 per cent. You get into Alexandra
Park; 65.2 less than 25, 29 per cent between
25 and 27, and 5.8 over 27 per cent. Only
one family in Alexandra Park is paying 30
per cent. Now I think—
Mr. Singer: All right. Well, in one case
you have got 32.6, the other case you have
22-
Hon. Mr. Randall: It depends on the
people.
Mr. Singer: Bearing in mind that you have
got a great number of people in there who
are on welfare and who cannot pay a nickel,
bearing in mind that you have got a whole
bunch of old age pensioners in there who
swell up your figures and who cannot pay
a nickel, bearing those things in mind, you
have got to—
Hon. Mr. Randall: The city pays their rent.
That is all taken into account. It is no
burden on them.
Mr. Singer: No?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. The city pays it.
It is in their welfare payments. Their rent
is deducted from the welfare payments be-
fore it goes to them so that there is not an
increase in their rents. If they are on welfare,
the welfare stays the same. That is where the
subsidy comes in. Let me answer these other
questions if I may?
I pointed out the difference in the subsidy
rates-50, 42.5 and 7.5, the first $250 of part-
time earnings of a wife are not included.
Now I admit $250, perhaps, is not a major
figure but if a woman is going out, as you
said, working in a shopping store for Satur-
day afternoon, the chances are that the kind
of money she would earn for doing that
would not be included in the rent. Earnings
of children still at school are not included.
You talk about us driving the kid out of
kindergarten and he has got to go on the
streets because he has got to make a con-
tribution. Whatever a working child's earn-
ings are, the most it will add to the rent is
from $6 to $7 a week. We say a working
child, but bear this in mind, if a couple are
60 years of age and they have got a youngster
who is 35 and he earns $500 a month, they
only pay $6 or $7 more for rent, so I do not
think that the scale does. Now, regarding
the brief that you just read a few minutes
ago, and which pointed out that people say
they had to do a little deceiving or cheating.
I think that most people are honest but you
have got to have some kind of regulation.
You cannot just run it-
Mr. Singer: Now you forced them into it—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Oh, no. We did not
force anybody. When they are not paying—
this brief says that they are paying 30 per
cent of $490, every week, it is a mistake.
They are not paying that. They do not start
to pay 30 per cent until they make $561 per
month and as I have told you, we have frozen
that for the time being to see if we can
work out a new deal. Now, when you talk
about the funds, and the amount of money
that the province is contributing to housing,
I think that you should reahze what we have
done. In 1965-66 the capital budget was
$9.75 million; in 1966-67 it was $14.25 mil-
lion, and in 1967-68 it is $47.5 million. In
1968-69 it is $62,374,000, and at the present
time that $62 million represents 10 per cent
of what the federal authorities are prepared
to put in.
I have aheady said that they are putting
in over $400 million this year, and this rep-
resents a 700 per cent increase in the last
three years. I do not think that we have
been diflBcult to get along with, or that the
Provincial Treasurer has been difficult to get
4564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
along with when it comes to getting money
for housing.
Mr. Peacock: Is not your increase this year
$8 milhon?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, it is a $15 million
increase, and that means that we get the
$62 million, and the federal authorities put
up 90 per cent. How much more do you
want? I do not think that you can use that
kind of money in one year.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, is not this
year's increase for the OHC $8 million com-
pared to $24 million in 1967-68?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No! It has gone from
$47.5 milhon to $62,374,000.
Mr. Peacock: The Minister is talking about
the total-
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Only one
member can have the floor at one time. Does
the member have a point of order?
Mr. Peacock: No; I am sorry, Mr. Chair-
man.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Keep in mind that every
time that this government puts up $1, we
get $9 more from the banker in Ottawa; and
keep it also in mind that we have to pay it
back.
We are the best credit risk in the country.
We pay it back and the federal government
takes their 50 per cent of any losses and we
take 42.5 per cent and the municipality takes
7.5 per cent; so I do not think that the prov-
ince is doing too badly in putting up the
money for housing.
I just want to say to you again that money
is not always the answer to get housing
started today. It takes time to start and time
to get them completed. But the funds are
there. We are putting the money where I
think that it does the most good.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
lx)rough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister when this rental-
geared-to-income chart was made up and on
what basis these percentages were figured?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The last changes were
made in May of 1967 when we lowered the
rent income schedule.
Mrs. M. Renwick: By what means was it
lowered?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am informed that we
went up to Ottawa with a rental scale we
thought would be acceptable. It was gradu-
ated slighdy upwards by CMHC. We finally
both agreed on it and it was put into effect
in May, 1967.
Mrs. M. Renwick: On April 23 a represen-
tative group from the Green Meadows tenants'
association in Guelph, Ontario, visited the
Minister. The purpose of their visit was to
request that the rent-geared-to-income be
figured on a more realistic basis than it is at
the present time.
I am wondering if the Minister has any
idea of the budgets of the people in Green
Meadows, to know if this was a warranted
request? We seem to have a lot of research
coming out in this particular vote. I think
that it is quite fair to ask if there is any being
done to determine if this was in fact a neces-
sary measure?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am informed that the
average rent at Green Meadows was $86 a
month. We did meet with the people from
Guelph. At that time there were two consid-
erations with reference to the purchasing of
the rented accommodation and the geared-to-
income scale. As a result of that, we have
already stated that we have frozen the rents
as they are at the present. There are no fur-
ther increases at the 30 per cent level and
we are hoping to get a new adjustment but
of Ottawa when the election is over.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say to the Minister, very clearly,
that in my travels canvassing and my knowl-
edge of ridings that have OHC projects in
them, the tenants are in fact having a very
difficult time managing on the percentage of
rent based on the gross income; which is first
of all very unrealistic.
I think the important thing is that the Min-
ister determined this fact when the Green
Meadows group came here. I asked for some
sample budgets to learn for my own use what
the problem is. I would like to read into the
record about three sample budgets of the
many that are here, just to ask the Minister
if it is not unacceptable to continue on the
present percentage basis?
Exhibit A: Gross pay, $477.91; net pay,
$398.32; rent, $143.00.
Now you see, Mr. Chairman, that the aver-
age of $83 is not anything but a red herring.
It is not a realistic answer to the problem or
the question.
Hydro $12, telephone $5, groceries $200;
a total of $360. And a note was added at the
JUNE 17, 1968
4565
end: "Plus $12 per month for bus fare, $5
for cable"; and I presume that that is cable
TV.
Now that total family budget is $377 of
the $398.32 net income, leaving the family
$21.30 a month. The family consists of six
children; one in university, one in high school,
one looking for work and three in the ages
of 10 to 15 years.
I think that this is a very important type of
research, Mr. Chairman, that must be carried
out by the Minister's department in order to
realistically review the percentages.
Family two: Three children in the age
group 10 to 16, and a six-year-old and a
daughter age five. Gross wages $458.78; net
wages $388.70. Expenses: Rent, $101; gas-
this is rental of a gas burner in one of these
units where the tenant rents it— $2.95 per
month.
I would like to raise with the Minister
later how they have worked out this par-
ticular arrangement and the deductions for
burners that are rented sometimes or some-
times supplied by tenants and sometimes by
the corporation; but the balance shows a
budget for heating over a ten-month period
and the gas item, was $17.95; not an unrealis-
tic figure when you take off approximately $3
for the burner.
To continue: hydro and water, $14; gro-
ceries, including milk and bread, $203.50—
approximately $47.50 a week for 4.5 weeks,
based reasonably accurately.
Now the balance of pay left after expenses
is $52.55 per month. This does not allow
anything for drugs and any other necessities
of life whatsoever.
The third one is a two-bedroom home. This
one has five children. Rent, $111 per month;
oil, $20; phone, $5; cable TV, $5; milk, $25;
hydro and water, $10; oil burner, $2.50; gro-
ceries, $140; total, $318.50. This family
allowed $20 off some current debt. The total
here was $338.50, from a budget of $381.50,
leaving $43 per month for clothing, dentist,
and so on, for two adults and five children.
The last one, Mr. Chairman: One month's
earnings $379; net income $343. Budget:
Rent, $88— now this is closer to the Minister's
average figure but we cannot be unrealistic
about these things and we must look at the
fact that $86 is not an overall figure; heat,
$15; light and water, $12; food, $180; family
plan life insurance, $16; telephone, $4.50;
for a total of $315.50, leaving $27.50.
This family writes:
This balance has to cover clothing, drugs
and other expenses that will come from it.
We also try and run a 1960 car for my
husband's transportation to his job. This
has to support two adults and six children.
This is just the beginning, Mr. Chairman.
I might say that what has passed in the two
days previous is merely scratching the surface
of the real housing problem. I submit these
budgets because I feel it is time that some-
one came to grips with reality in the Ontario
housing corporation as to the percentage of
rents.
I understand these people have various
heating arrangements, and I think that there
was a letter went into Mr. Whaley regarding
this. I would appreciate it if the Minister
could comment sometime on their action or
reaction to the letter to Mr. Whaley asking
about the burners and the oil, the methods
of heating and the deductions from the rent
for that type of service, which was some-
times supplied by the tenant.
I had one other budget in which the
family figured on a three-month basis and I
think-
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member would
keep the remarks until after we convene
again.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It is now 6 o'clock. I do
now leave the chair and we will resume at
8 p.m.
It being 6:00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 122
ONTARIO
Hegiglaturc of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, June 17, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, June 17, 1968
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, continued 4569
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4602
4569
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
AND DEVELOPMENT
(Continued)
Mr. Chairman: We are still considering
votes 407, 408, 409 and 410 together, for
purposes of debate.
The member for Windsor West.
On vote 407:
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Chairman, at adjournment when we rose at
6 o'clock, we were talking about the amount
of subsidization that the taxpayer of Ontario
puts into the Ontario housing family and
senior citizen units.
The amount for 1968-1909 was $1.5
million and the member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer), I think, very effectively pointed out
the relative commitment of this government
to the provision of housing at a cost that
people can afiford.
I want to remind the Minister that, in his
meeting with tenants of Windsor housing
authority on May 29, he told them flatly that
though they were earning better than average
incomes for people in Ontario housing— up-
wards of $6,885— they could not possibly hope
to afford to purchase those same units that
they were occupying under the HOME plan
or under any other programme; that they
Were just too expensive for them; that the
monthly carrying charges would be too high;
and the budgets of these families inadequate
to support those kind of carrying charges.
Yet he told them in the same breath, he
reminded them rather firmly I think, that they
were being subsidized to^ the extent of $73
a month on the average in those same units
in the Fontainbleau development in Windsor.
I say to the Minister that he cannot dwell
as much as he does on the extent to which
the corporation is subsidizing tenants, and at
the same time tell them that they have no
hope of becoming homeowners themselves.
He has got to accept finally that the housing
corporation has got to—
Monday, June 17, 1968
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): I do not think I told them
they could not become homeowners. I said
they would probably have to go into mul-
tiple family living to become homeowners
in an urban area.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, what I said
was that they could not hope to become
homeowners in those units they were occu-
pying. I think that statement is correct.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I did not say that.
Mr. Peacock: Well, my recollection, Mr.
Chairman, is that the Minister told the dele-
gation they could not become owners of those
Windsor housing authority units in the Fon-
tainbleau subdivision that they were then
cccupying, and that their only hope of home
ownership would be in some kind of multiple.
Yet over a year prior to their meeting with
the Minister, they had been told that one of
the reasons for their selection as tenants in
that subdivision was their interest in home
ownership, because those same units would
ultimately become available for sale to the
tenants occupying them.
What I want to say to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, is this. He cannot both dwell as
much as he does on the extent— and I think
it is a very small extent— to which the tax-
payers in Ontario are subsidizing accommo-
dation for families and senior citizens, and at
the same time put his home ownership pro-
gramme so far beyond the reach of families
like these in Fontainbleau. He has got to
accept the necessity for the corporation not
becoming a supplier of last resort.
As the member for Parkdale (Mr. Trotter)
has suggested, public housing should be, or
once might have been, an integral part of our
current housing stock and one which will be
occupied for a much longer period of time
than the member for Parkdale says is the
average period of occupancy of pubhc hous-
ing in Ontario now.
I think on both sides of the House, Mr.
Chairman, we have heard this afternoon
statements of reluctance by members on both
sides— by the Minister speaking for the gov-
ernment, by the member for Parkdale, and
4570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon)—
to commit either of their parties to the prin-
ciple that pubhc housing ought to be an
integral part of our housing stock.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Oh, non-
sense!
Mr. Peacock: Yes, they did. The member
for Parkdale in his opening remarks on this
vote said that there still remained a kind of
stigma around public housing. He pointed
out how the housing corporation had desig-
nated public housing units in a mixed or inte-
grated subdivision by planting maple trees in
front of those units.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): I was opposed
to it.
Mr. Peacock: Well, I think that is going a
bit far, Mr. Chairman. I think the member
for York Centre was going a bit far too, when
he suggested that the private market ought
to be left to measure the need for housing. I
think that neither the members to my right
nor the members opposite are really fully
committed to policies to provide the quan-
tity of public housing that we need at the
moment.
Mr. Singer: That is nonsense!
Mr. Peacock: Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask
the members why the federal administration,
which is being run by their party at the
moment, has allowed interest rates on con-
ventional and NHA mortgages to climb as
high as they have. I asked the Minister on
Thursday evening why the corporation was
building only another 400 units for family
and senior citizens this year compared with
last.
The House leader says it is a ridiculous
suggestion that I am making— that they are
not committed to a policy of providing the
public housing that is needed when only
7,500 family and senior citizen units are going
to be built this year, 400 more than last,
Mr, Chairman, the ridiculousness of the
situation is formd opposite in the ofiFering
of the people of Ontario such an abysmal
policy, and I have dwelt on that before.
I want to ask the Minister to revise down-
ward the rent geared-to-income scales that
have been proposed to him earlier this
atfernoon, Mr. Chairman. Before we ad-
journed on Friday, I discussed a number of
ways in which I thought the corporation
could improve its landlord-tenant relation-
ship. I just want to return to those for a
few moments.
The member for Parkdale and the member
for Downview have already dealt thoroughly
with tlie nature of tlie present lease that the
corporation is using, but I just want to give
you an instance of the powers of the local
housing authorities under this lease, Mr.
Chairman.
One of my constituents on January 30
received this letter, and I will not read it
in full, but it refers to sections of the lease,
and says later:
Pursuant to the above-
that is the quotation of the relevant section
of the lease,
—we hereby terminate and cancel your
lease as of the 29th day of February, 1968.
On or before such date you will deliver up
vacant possession of the premises at Bloom-
field Road, Windsor. Your liability for pay-
ment of rent to the date of vacating is not
in any way affected by this notice or your
compliance therewith.
Nowhere in that letter, Mr. Chairman, is
there any suggestion whatsoever of the cause
for which the tenant is to be evicted, none
whatsoever. No reasons need be given, Mr.
Chairman, and none were offered in the
letter by the local housing authority.
Another tenant who was similarly affected-
he was laid off from his job and there was
a strike at the same company which came
on tlie heels of the layoff— received this letter
about the same time. It is a form letter and
the spaces are filled in:
Your rent is now 12 days past due.
Then in capital letters
This is Most Unsatisfactory.
If these arrears are not paid in full by
February 16—
four days after the date of the letter—
—we shall turn your account over to the
bailiff for collection. His minimum fee for
rental collection is $25. Further difficulty
in rental collection will result in a notice
to quit. Yours very truly,
Project manager.
This particular tenant, Mr. Chairman, had
gone to the Windsor housing authority office
on a number of occasions, he had also tele-
phoned to explain the situation that he found
himself in, that he had been laid off for a
number of weeks and at the time of his
visits to the housing authority he was on
strike and his income considerably reduced.
But because of the policy of the corporation
no rent reductions are put into effect because
JUNE 17, 1968
4571
somehow the corporation would see that as:
a partisan act on its part, the taking of sides
with the people on strike. But it does not see
at all that it is not taking sides when it refuses
to change the rent it is entitled to.
Leaving that aside for the moment. Just
before receiving this letter, this particular
tenant had discussed the situation with the
housing authority and had gotten a verbal
agreement from the staff of the housing
authority that he could make up the arrears
of rent in small pieces over the coming
month. Yet within a matter of days following
that conversation with the authority, he gets
this notice that he is going to face a $25
collection fee and will face eviction if he
does not pay up by February 16, four days
after the letter is received.
Mr. Chairman, constituents of mine have
come to me and said: "My application has
been filed with the Windsor housing authority
for one year, two years, three years. Every
time I call up I cannot get any answer as to
why my application has not been processed.
I see one family after another go in ahead of
me and I cannot find out why. I keep the
housing authority informed of any change in
my circumstances for the worse or for the
better, and yet I am still no further ahead
than when I first applied. Is there any way
I can find out where I stand?"
And there is not, Mr. Chairman. The hous-
ing authority officials do not have to give
reasons to applicants why other applicants are
moved in ahead of them. The housing
authority does not go out of its way to deter-
mine from the applicant whether there is any
other information that the applicant might
put on the application that would assist him,
or her, in getting accommodation more
quickly.
The housing authority does not send out
its staff to interview prospective applicants
until there is some possibility of that appli-
cant being housed. And very frequently, Mr.
Chairman, I have found that tenants who
do not think to put down full information
on their application, virtually every detail of
their circumstances that they can think of—
medical evidence, income situation, division
of the family, or sharing accommodation
with others, any factor at all, Mr. Chairman,
that might assist them— are simply out in
limbo until a unit that will be adequate for
their size of family happens to become
vacant and the housing authority sifts
through its applications and happens to spot
that one.
Mr. Chairman, the member for Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha) says that justice is served by a
housing authority applicant coming to him
and pointing out the situation, and he in
turn relates it to the housing authority and
manages to get that applicant housed. When
a tenant comes to me and does it, Mr. Chair-
man, it certainly gives me a great deal of
pleasure, but not for long, I am reminded
that justice is not served, because for every
person that comes to me, Mr. Chairman,
there must be countless others who never
reach me or the member for Sudbury, or
any other member of the Legislature, when
it comes to getting their applications pro-
cessed.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Well, what
would you have us do? Should we unite?
Mr. Peacock: We should not do nothing,
Mr. Chairman. Of course we should take this
up with the housing authority, but I say it is
not a just way of treating appUcations from
people.
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, would you suggest we abolish
the housing authorities completely?
Mr. Peacock: I think we should make
some radical changes, Mr. Chairman, in the
way the housing authorities are constituted
and in the way in which they operate.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Tell us about the peo-
ple that are happy with the housing authori-
ties. You must have a few of those.
Mr. Peacock: Many of those who perhaps
have obtained accommodation are happy. I
want to talk a little bit further on— I will
not do it all at once Mr. Chairman, about
how unhappy some of the tenants successful
enough to get into housing find themselves.
For the moment just let me say a few more
words about the manner in which the hous-
ing authority admits tenants to its units.
I tliink it is a most unjust thing, Mr.
Chairman, that some tenants should find
their way to their members, bring their
story out that way, and perhaps the member
can be successful in having them housed.
But very often he cannot, because there
simply is not enough accommodation, or the
member, perhaps has not had the same rela-
tionship with the housing authority that
other members, or federal members of Par-
liament, have had.
It is not an open proposition, Mr. Chair-
man. There is no way the applicant can tell
4572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
why he was admitted, why he was not
admitted, why he has to wait such a long
period of time when other famihes can move
in ahead of him. I think the point system
that the corporation uses» and under which
certain number of points are assigned to
family applicants depending on their appli-
cation, is much too secretive.
I think that in the point system much too
much weight is given to the suitability of the
tenant, and not to the need of the tenant for
housing. I think in many projects, Mr. Chair-
man, that housing authorities very carefully
screen out certain tenants, and for certain
other projects, Mr. Chairman, they very
carefully select what they think are the most
suitable tenants.
I think the Minister's statistics this after-
noon gave us some indication. He spoke of
the Alexandra project when he was talking
about the proportions who were paying up
to the 30 per cent of their income, and I
thought it was significant that the largest
proportion of those paying under 25 per cent
were in that downtown project. In the city
of Windsor similarly I believe that the high-
est proportion of low income families find
themselves placed in the downtown project.
I find that the families with higher incomes
are not placed in the downtown project, they
are placed in other areas of the city and in
scattered units. I think that there is much
too much arbitrary decision-making on the
part of the housing authority staffs.
I think there is a demonstrative housing
need for a process of appeal by applicants as
to why they are not admitted. They can be
told extremely curtly that there is no place
for them, there is no place for them in an
Ontario housing project. They have abso-
lutely no way of finding out why there is no
place for them, and they have no way what-
ever of challenging the decision of the local
authority manager or his staff. We would
like the Minister to comment on that point.
I put it to him last Friday and put it to him
again in some further detail tonight.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am just waiting to see
what the Chairman wants to do here. Do
you want me to—
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Minister should
reply to these questions because they are
ranging all over the place.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, the questions
from the hon. member for Windsor West are
ranging tco.
First of all, let me make it clearly under-
stood that ill a meeting we had with your
people from Windsor, we pointed out to them
that they were up to discuss the difference
in the increase in the rents because of the
increases they had got through wage parity.
That was the reason why we were there.
When they came in we pointed out to
them that we did not discuss the fact that
they could buy their homes right there and
then. We did not promise them anything.
They were not selected as people that could
buy their homes. They came in to discuss the
rent scale, and during the course of the rent
scale discussion we said if their rents had
reached such a figure, perhaps they could
buy their homes, and we outlined what We
were trying to do with central mortgage and
housing corporation.
Now> insofar as the authorities are con-
cerned, we admit that there are 41 authori-
ties. You are bound to get the odd person
who will perhaps have difficulty with a ten-
ant—but I can assure you that there are a
good many tenants who are difficult to deal
with too.
I think you mentioned Alexandra Park a
few minutes ago. The tenant relation ofiBcer
of the city of Toronto had something to do
with selecting those tenants. It was not en-
tirely the Ontario housing corporation. If we
have an authority down in Windsor, we hope
that the authorities will use their good judg-
ment, based on the information they have.
As far as the individual you were talking
about who got notice to get out or pay his
rent— if he reads the book, a lot has been
written and said about rental. All you have
to remember is: Pay your rent on or before
the day it is due, and if for any reason you
cannot pay, contact your housing manager
immediately. Now, if they do not go to the
housing manager and they are in default with
the rent, then naturally they are going to get
a notice. It is a standard procedure used by
anybody who is collecting rents. Why should
the people in public housing be any different?
Now, insofar as the open registry, I think
we had better put that to bed right now. All
applications for family housing in Metropoli-
tan Toronto, and elsewhere, are filed with the
housing registry of Metropolitan Toronto or
the local housing authority and the cost (rf
operating the registry is borne by the muni-
cipality—in this case. Metropolitan Toronto
and the Ontario housing corporation.
Al applications for family housing are
passed to OHC. If an applicant has resided
in the city of Toronto proper for not less than
one year— and thus meets the Toronto hous-
JUNE 17, 1968
4578
ing authority's residence requirements, the
ftpphcation is forwarded by the registry to
the housing authority of Toronto. Applica-
tions filed with OHC are first classified as to
bedroom requirements, allowing no more
than two persons to a bedroom— with segre-
gation of the sexes at the age of six. Within
these bedroom classifications, applications are
point-rated with points being allocated for
factors such as: inadequacy of present accom-
modation, total income, rent paid as a per-
centage of income, notice to vacate for
reasons other than cause, members of the
family living apart through lack of accom-
modation and health conditions aggravated
by present accommodation. Now, if you have
got any others let us have them.
Applicants state a preferred location, which
is usually dictated by the area of employ-
ment, type of transportation used to get to
work, or other considerations such as special
educational needs of the children and prox-
imity of the development to a hospital or
clinic, where there are particular health fac-
tors.
In view of the large number of develop-
ments which the corporation administers in
all parts of Metropolitan Toronto— and this
again applies to Windsor— this is a prime
consideration in selecting tenants as vacancies
occur. It is impractical to operate the wait-
ing list on an open register basis or on a
numbering system. Insofar as an open regis-
try is concerned, applications contain a con-
siderable amount of confidential information
concerning the applicant families, and this
should not be made public knowledge.
The system of allocating, on a number
waiting list basis, is not the proper criterion
for allocating housing. It may be perfectly
in order for persons standing in line in a
supermarket to be dealt with on a first-come,
first-served basis. But it is the policy of this
government to allocate accommodation on
the basis of need on the part of the applicant,
rather than on the basis of the date on which
the application was made. I said that here
the other day.
To demonstrate the impracticability of allo-
cating on a number basis, applicant Number
501 may, because of his family circumstances,
require a four-bedroom house— and he has
requested a location in northeast Scar-
borough. Conversely the 501st unit avail-
able could be a two-bedroom unit in a high-
rise apartment in southwest Etobicoke. In
other words, the applicant and the unit just
do not match. A numbering system would
also mitigate against the OHC providing
houses in cases of unseen emergencies. Again,
in the case of applicant Number 501— who
may be within 20 places of receiving accom-
modation when he last checked the registry,
the incidence of three or four emergency
families, who must be housed immediately,
would have the eflFect of changing his posi-
tion three or four places in the line.
This would undoubtedly cause resentment.
Apart from emergency cases, the circum-
stances of applicants are constantly changing
in terms of income, size of family, and place
of employment. Their point rating is thus
being constantly changed to reflect their
current status, and their position on the wait-
ing list changes accordingly. It all boils down
to a measurement of need, and this is the
only measurement that makes sense. If any-
body has a better idea, submit it to us and
we will look at it. But so far, we think that
this is the only system that can work here or
in Windsor.
Mr. Peacock: I would like to think that
the system worked on the basis of need, but
in my own experience in Windsor, it does not.
There are too many cases of applications, that
have been brought to my attention, where the
need was obvious. It was not just because
of a lack of accommodation that the applicant
did not obtain a unit from the Windsor
authority. I could suggest some other rea-
sons, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if the
Minister would comment on them?
The member for Parkdale referred on Fri-
day to this 20 per cent rule under which 20
per cent of the units and no more are made
available to public assistance applicants. Mr.
Chairman, I think that this is one reason why
many people who come to me do not get
housing in Windsor, or other Ontario hous-
ing, because by the time that they come to
me, or by the time their application is on file,
the 20 per cent share of the units has already
been filled up for pubhc assistance tenants.
I would hke to suggest to the Minister
another reason why some of the people who
come to me do not get into the Windsor
housing, even after a long wait, and that is
that they are female heads of families. They
have great difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in get-
ting into Ontario housing.
I want to suggest that if there is any
suspicion-and it does not need to be more
than suspicion-in the minds of the staff of
the housing authority about the morals of an
applicant, that applicant is not given housing
in Ontario housing units.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that there are just
too many areas of discretionary authority in
4.374
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the hands of the staflF of the Ontario housing
local ojBBces for us to let this situation con-
tinue without placing over it some kind of
public scrutiny. One of the ways, and it
does not need to interfere with the con-
fidentiality of some of the information on the
application, is to tell the tenant clearly,
simply and courteously— I want to stress-
that the circumstances in which that family
finds itself awards it so many points, and that
there a certain number of families in the
same point category ahead of the family.
But there always must be a certain num-
ber of units withheld for emergency cases.
Of course, these days virtually every tenant
who approaches a member falls into an emer-
gency category, so it is really a meaningless
reservation.
No unit in today's market should be going
to a family unless it is an emergency circum-
stance. I do not find the Minister's explana-
tion of the reasons against eliminating some
of the secrecy about the way tha:t applications
are handled, very, very convincing, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Why do you not let us
have the specific cases? It is all very well to
talk hearsay.
I have a pile of folders here a mile long
about the compliments of how these people
are handled by the OHC. I could stand here
until 11 o'clock and read off all the compli-
ments that we get from people who are happy
with the service from the OHC. If you have
a specific complaint, send it in and we will
take a look at it.
Mr. Singer: I can match each compliment
with a complaint!
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is all very well to
criticize, but let us be specific. Send it in
and let us look at it. Now, before I sit dovra,
maybe I can cover this point about the single
parent families. The member asked a ques-
tion and I have the answer here.
OHC does not have a hard and fast regu-
lation concerning the number of single par-
ent families being allowed in any one
development. Tlie corporation in the same
manner as the metropolitan Toronto housing
authority before it has a yardstick of roughly
15 per cent. We cannot control the 15 per
cent because after the people get in there
the husband may desert the wife and children
and she becomes p. welfare case. They do
not throw her out because the husband left.
It should be obvious that the OHC has no
rigid control over the number of single par-
ent famihes in any one development, and the
status of a whole family may change to that
of a single parent family at one time, which
it often does. The yardstick is merely a
guideline which the corporation endeavours
to adhere to in the interest of good manage-
ment.
We are sometimes accused of putting too
much public housing in one particular area.
We are also accused of putting too many
welfare families in a public housing project.
So we try to balance it out, and in the main
I think we are successful. But if we are not
we will take a look at it. Just make a sug-
gestion, we are willing to sit down and dis-
cuss it.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentwortli): Mr. Chairman,
the Minister asks for suggestions as to how
we might assist in relieving the problem.
Perhaps if we built more public housing we
would relieve the problem to a great extent.
This might just help somehow.
Interjections by hon. members. .
Mr. Chairman: Order! The member for
Wentworth has the floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back for a moment to
the problem of purchasing the house owned
by OHC. The reason most of these people
are in these houses is because they did not
or do not earn enough money to buy a
home. They go in there and the rent is
geared to income, it is geared in such a
fashion that they are unable to save any
money.
Then you propose to sell these homes, but
in the main the people who are hving in
them will not qualify to purchase them
because they will not earn sufficient money,
they will not have had the opportunity to
save the down payment. What they do earn
will not he enough to pay the payments at
the inflated prices for which you are going to
sell the homes.
The first question I want to ask of the
Minister is this. Why is it necessary to sell
these homes at the market value? Wliy can
the homes not be sold to the people at the
price tliey were built at? Why must they be
sold in competition with all the others? Why
can they not be sold at the price they were
built for at a time the homes were placed
there?
JUNE 17, 1968
4575
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, it is very simple.
People have been in these homes, they have
been subsidized for many years at the
expense of the taxpayers. Now, if you sell
them a home today at the book value, what
is to prevent them tomorrow turning around
and selling it at the market price and walk-
ing away with a capital gain? I think it is
a very simple procedure. We are looking
after the taxpayers' interest as well as look-
ing after those who need subsidization, but
I do not think that anybody in his right mind
would sell these houses at book value.
Mr. Deans: Can I ask the Minister a ques-
tion that is not related to housing just at the
moment, but it ties in somewere along the
way? I heard the Minister speaking not too
long ago about the money made available to
industry which needs it, and over five years
you can give it to them and write it off. Why
can tliis not be done for homeowners? Why
cannot the people of this province benefit
from some of this money that you are giving
away? The one problem here is that you are
not assisting in any way to reduce the cost
of homes. You are doing nothing to bring
down the price of land. Just what are you
doing?
Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): The
member has a one-track mind.
Mr. Deans: I have a one-track mind? I
agree with the member, if I may say so, a
one-track mind— to help the people of this
province. I may be one of the few people
who has that one-track mind, there appears
to be about 20 of us.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): Why do
you not give the Minister a chance to speak?
You are repeating yourself over there.
Mr. Deans: I will repeat myself as often
as I have to in order to get it through your
thick skull.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Deans: The housing programme in this
province is doing nothing to assist the prob-
lem. You are not building enough homes to
make any difference. Those that you do
build you gear to the cost of the private
market.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): What
about Quebec?
Mr. Deans: My friend from Hamilton
Mountain says "what about Quebec?" Per-
haps he ought to go and live in Quebec.
Mr. Singer: That is very relevant to this
debate.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Maybe
that is where you should go.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth
has the floor. Would he please address his
remarks through the chair.
Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
will.
I would ask, those people who are living
in the homes I discussed this afternoon will
not qualify to purchase them; they have been
unable to save the money because the rents
are too high, and even if they were able to
borrow the money they would not be able to
pay the inflated value of the home; what
does the Minister intend to do to bring about
a reduction in the cost of homes hi this
province?
Hon. Mr. Randall: If the member had been
listening to the presentation I made the other
day with reference to the public housing pro-
gramme, senior citizens, and the HOME pro-
gramme, he would know what we are trying
to do. We are not spending $400 million just
to go through the exercise. Here is a press
release from the member's own newspaper.
Maybe he will believe this if he will not
believe me, this is the Hamilton Spectator,
February 17, 1968, by Mr. George Far-
quharson:
The Ontario housing corporation is
Canada's only big league provincial agency
waging an all-out attack on the housing
shortage. It has made greater use of
federal funds for the poor, the aged and
the student than all the other provinces
combined. It has pioneered with its own
land rental scheme designed to reduce
housing down payments for lower middle
income families.
Now, I think the member's question is like
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
There is no answer to that question.
Mr. Deans: What has that done to reduce
the price of homes in this province? What
has it done to make accommodation available
that will enable people to buy?
Hon. Mr. Randall: What would the mem-
ber do?
4576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Deans: If the Minister had listened, I
offered it to him.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, there was a
point in the letter read by the hon. member
for Windsor West that makes me wonder a
bit. This is a letter written by the project
manager of the Windsor housing autiiority,
and I presume he comes under the jurisdic-
tion of the hon. Minister and/or the Ontario
housing corporation.
He says: "If these arrears are not fully
paid we shall turn your account over to the
bailiff for collection."
I hope the Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs (Mr. Rowntree) is listen-
ing, because this part of it comes under this
authority as well. His minimum fee for
collection is $25.
Now, I have had occasion, Mr. Chairman,
on a couple of instances recently to investi-
gate bailiffs' fees, and I can tell you with
some substantial authority— and I have
checked with the officials belonging to the
Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs— that the minimum fee is less than
half of the $25.
I would like to know on what basis an
official of the government of Ontario writes
a letter, a threatening letter, to a tenant
who is in arrears of rent and tells him that
he is going to be charged double what the
bailiff's minimum fee is unless he pays up.
When the Minister's estimates come before
us I am going to have several suggestions
to him about the use of private bailiffs. But
for some time, bailiffs in this province-
private bailiffs in this province— have been
abusing to a tragic extent the statute under
which they work and the tariff of fees which
is set down for them.
I am just shocked and dismayed, Mr.
Chairman, that bailiff, apparently employed
by the Windsor housing authority— or some-
one purporting to speak for the Windsor
housing authority— would suggest that the
minimum fees of the bailiff are going to be
$25 when the minimum fees are less than
half, if you look at the tariff of fees.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of
Financial and Commercial Affairs): Mr.
Chairman, I think I should point out to the
hon. members that at no time has the mem-
ber for Downsview ever brought any of this
information to my attention. I have had no
communication from him whatsoever, and
if there is any wrongdoing in the area of
bailiffs, which are licensed by the govern-
ment through my department, I would be
glad to hear about it, and the complaints
will be investigated and acted upon by my
office.
Never once have I had any communication
from the member for Downsview about any
of these matters.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let me suggest
to the Minister that he talk to his registrars
and he will find out.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I am talking to the
member as a member of this House who
stands up and talks about it now. He has
kept it to himself and then he raises it
when the House is sitting.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
would listen, as he so seldom does, he would
have heard me say I had brought these
matters to the attention of his department.
Mr. Trotter: That is what he said.
Mr. Singer: That is exactly what I said.
Now if the Minister would just sit— Mr.
Chairman, he is out of order again; just let
him sit down.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister
had listened he would have heard me say
that I had brought the matter to the atten-
tion of his officials. If he wants, we can
bring those officials here and ask them. If
the Minister is suggesting this is not so, the
Minister is suggesting an untruth. And I
say that definitely, and absolutely, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: On a point of order.
I am not suggesting any untruth. I heard
the hon. member say he had dealt with
junior officials in my department. My point
was that he has had this information in his
hands, and has never communicated with
me as the Minister in any respect to ray
department.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I can
say to that foolish nonsense is this. Surely
one can expect that when one has an official
in charge of bailiffs, and when you bring a
matter to the attention of the official who
is supposedly in charge of the bailiffs, that
he has certain responsibilities. It is not really
necessary to take everything to the Minister
in charge. I say that if the Minister was on
JUNE 17. 1968
4577
top of his department he would have found
out, as I repeat tonight. Here is another
example of it, the bailiffs are badly abusing
the right that they are given under the
statutes of the province of Ontario. It is
just as simple as that.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Get back to the matter of
housing.
Mr. Singer: I would like to know from
him the basis on which one of his ofiBcials
sends out a letter saying the minimum bailiff
fees are going to be $25 when the tariff of
fees calls for less than half of that? On
what basis is this being done? And why
should not the Minister in charge of housing
have spoken to the Minister in charge of
baihffs, and why should not the two of them
met together and acted within the law?
Mr. Sopha: A modern Simon Legree.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Snapping at our heels
over the ice cubes. Well, Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the hon. member for Downsview.
I do not know anything about bailiffs' fees.
It is the first I have heard of it tonight. I
will be very happy to have an enquiry made
by the housing authorities, to find out
whether it was a $25 charge, and why it
was $25. If there is a case, I will send a
copy to the hon. Minister of Financial and
Commercial Affairs, and a copy to you, sir.
Mr. Sopha: You should take that act
down to the Coliseum, it would be more
entertaining.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West.
Mr. Peacock: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
if at the same time the Minister is making
the enquiry, he would also enquire as to
the necessity for this kind of action on the
part of the housing authority. Now, I know
that the staff at the housing authority— who
dealt with the particular tenant that the
member for Downsview has just referred
to-reached an agreement with that tenant
over the phone, or in their office. They
deserve to be recognized for that kind of
flexibility. But I see no reason-
Hon. Mr. Randall: Could you provide us
with the name of the tenant?
Mr. Peacock: There were a number of
tenants.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, give us the name
of the one specific tenant that you talk
about.
Mr. Peacock: All of these persons were
put in touch with me following this occur-
rence with the housing authority. What I do
want to stress to the Minister, again, is that
there should be absolutely no need for this
kind of precipitate and arbitrary action on
the part of the housing authority. It appears
to me that—
Hon. Mr. Randall: If I may catch the
names and addresses. Give me the names
and addresses, and I will check them out.
Mr. Peacock: If the Minister will check
Hansard, he will note that I have inad-
vertently put the address of this particular
tenant-that both the member for Downs-
view and myself referred to-into the record.
I can give the Minister, outside the Legis-
lature, the names and addresses of the other
tenants involved. There are a large number
of them — a large number of them. I again
repeat that there should be no necessity for
the housing authority to act in this manner.
And I raise the matter, Mr. Chairman, not
to work through a particular case in these
estimates with the Minister, but to illustrate
for the Minister how indicative this is of
the attitude on the part of many of the
staff in the housing authorities toward their
tenants.
That is the point, Mr. Chairman— not the
amount of the bailiffs' fees. I appreciate
the member for Downsview raising that
matter though, because it does add some-
thing to the case. The actions of the housing
authorities, in many respects, take absolutely
no account of the tenants' right to dignity
and some sensitivity of feeling and privacy.
I want to raise another instance with the
Minister while I am on my feet. Recently,
a young man who is the head of a family
of five came to me, or rather contacted me
by telephone, from the psychiatric ward of
a hospital where he was receiving treat-
ment. His children were in the hands of the
children's aid. His wife was in the psychi-
atric ward of another hospital receiving
treatment. The housing authority had
learned of the medical condition of the
mother and father, and the removal of
the children by the children's aid. When the
mother returned to the house, after the
father had reached a point of nervous col-
lapse—and throw up his hands— she also
threw up her hands, and in effect both
4578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
parents abandoned the children. The chil-
dren's aid came and removed the children.
Now, the stay of both parents in the hospital
was anticipated by tlieir doctor to be rather
short. They would reach recovery after a
relatively short period of time in the local
psychiatric ward, witliout having to be sent
to an Ontario Hospital for further treatment.
Yet, once the housing authority had learned
of the medical condition of both parents—
and the removal of the children— the parents
were asked immediately to give vacant pos-
session to the housing authority. I pointed
out to the tenant that he should have his
doctor write to the housing authority, and
tell the housing authority that he expected
the patient would be released from the
hospital shortly, that he would be returning
home, and that he would like to get his
family back together again in the home that
they had occupied for several years.
But the housing autliority said: "No, you
are not going to be using tlie home for the
space of a month or so, and we have need
of that unit, so therefore we are going to
ask you to give us vacant possession as soon
as you can possibly move out your furnish-
ings." And this from tlie hospital, Mr.
Chairman, "When you are released from the
hospital, and your family is once again
united, we will put you at the top of the
list and give you priority for a unit, as
soon as one becomes available."
Well, Mr. Chairman, if I were in that
person's position— on the point of being re-
leased from hospital, and going out to face
the prospect of not having shelter for
my family — I certainly would not feel
very bold stepping out into the everyday
world again. I think that that kind of action
by die housing authority— although it took
some account of the family's needs by prom-
ising an alternative unit as soon as one was
available— again points up the shortsighted-
ness of administrative staffs with no social
service background whatever. These people
could not see that this was the very time
that that family had to be assured of
accommodation that it could move right
back into, and that there was never any
need to have them removed and their fur-
nishings stored. A homemaker or some other
kind of service could have been provided for
the care of tlie children.
The Minister, to the extent that he does,
sees housing only as a matter of bricks and
mortar. Perhaps, rather than affirming it
myself, I will ask him how many persons on
his staff have any kind of social service or
sociological background, who are familiar
with the field of social services and the
integration of social services into a public
housing project— who can provide the kind
of assistance that this family needs or any
other problem-family needs? And in line
with that, Mr. Chairman, has he any plans—
as I asked him on Friday, but there was not
time for him to answer— to associate such
social services, or at least train some of his
staff in the local housing authorities on how
to use community resources, such as the
social service agencies, to put tenants who
have problems in touch with those agencies.
And is he prepared to undertake, in associ-
ation directly with his projects, such services
as day care centres for tlie children of
mothers who are working, and children of
mothers who are the heads of the families—
the mothers who so desperately need a little
bit of that kind of support.
Mr. R. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a point of order. Are we discussing The
Department of Social and Family Services
or housing?
Mrs. M. Ren wick (Scarborough Centre):
That is housing.
Mr. Chairman: We are discussing housing.
Mr. R. M. Johnston: It just sounds like
The Department of Social and Family
Services.
Mr. Chairman: The member has no point
of order. The member for Windsor West
has the floor.
Mr. R. M. Johnston: If I may say this,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Is the member on the point
of order?
Mr. R. M. Johnston: Still on a point of
order!
Mr. Chairman: What is tlie point of order?
Mr. R. M. Johnston: If we are going to
talk about building houses, then we had
better get off the sociability.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The member for Windsor West has related
his remarks to housing, and I must rule the
member for St. Catharines out of order.
Mr. R. M. Johnston: Sorry, Mr. Chairman,
I do not agree with you.
Interjections by hon. members.
JUNE 17, 1968
4579
»
Mr. Chairman: This Chairman is staying
right here.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
I could comment on the question posed by
the hon. member for Windsor West. In the
first place, I recognize that my responsibihty
is to provide housing. This is what you have
been talking about for the last hour or two—
we are not doing it enough, we are not doing
it fast enough, we are not getting up the
bricks and mortar fast enough— so my first
responsibility is to get housing built. And
I think we are doing an excellent job regard-
less of what the Opposition may think.
Insofar as that gentleman you talked about
-whose wife is having psychiatric treatment
and who is going to go in for psychiatric
treatment, I think there are three stories
here. There is yours, what I would think,
and the truth. I think, if you talk to the
medical authorities, you may find that he is
not coming back in that house as quickly
as he probably thinks.
Now, the housing autliority, I think, took
the steps that it should have taken. The
authority told him he would be number one
on the priority hst when he needed his
house, and when his family was gathered to-
gether. What the circumstances are, with
reference to getting his family back, I do
not know. Perhaps, in the minds of the
people down there, the family may be some
time before they are back as a family.
Mr. Peacock: Why does the family not
know that?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I do not know.
Maybe they have talked to doctors. How do
you know?
Mr. Peacock: I talked to the doctor.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not know. You
have one story, I have got another, perhaps.
But I would say this. You asked how many
in the housing authority have any back-
ground of social work. We have Dr. Albert
Rose on the board-
Mr. Peacock: He is on the board.
Hon. Mr. Randall: He is on the board.
He knows something about housing. Surely
you would give him credit for that. You
have Mr. Brady, Mr. Whaley, Mr. Suters,
they have all had 25 years' experience in
dealing with these kinds of problems. We
have eight or nine members of the board
who have had a great deal of experience in
these matters that you referred to. We are
not entirely dumbwits when it comes to
handling people, believe me; we have had a
lot of experience. I do not like to think
because you can bring in the individual case
here that this is the run of the mill problems
that they have with the housing authorities.
It is not because we are going to have
people in housing authorities that naturally
people in public housing do not get along
with. I can assure you in most cases that
the matters are brought to our attention
through the housing authorities. We will
take a look at it. If it is wrong we will
correct it, but lots of these things we do
not know anything about. If you knew about
this some time ago, you should have come
to us. Bring it to us.
If you do not get any satisfaction in
Windsor, come to us. I want to say this, that
there is an appeal board. If people do not
get satisfaction tlirough the housing authority
they can write directly to the Ontario housing
corporation. We have had people go down
and investigate all these situations.
You sat in my office the other day and
Mr. Suters offered to go down and talk to
some of your tenants down there that you
brought in. We make visits to the areas
where there are difficulties of any kind. We
are not ducking the problems. We are work-
ing on them as fast as they come to our
attention. But we do not know anything
about lots of things you bring in the House.
I do not know how we can solve them if we
do not know about them.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, if I might
pursue the Minister's answer for just another
moment. I know the member for Sudbury
will appreciate having a chance to sit.
I would like to say to the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that it just is not possible that he
himself or his board of directors of Ontario
housing corporation deal with every appeal
from every tenant who feels his application—
or his eviction— has not been handled properly
by the local housing authority. It just is not
possible to say that there is an appeal pro-
cedure, that the tenant or the applicant can
always write to the Minister or write to the
Ontario housing corporation.
The Minister knows, or he ought to know,
tliere is not the kind of equity in this prov-
ince that is supposed to exist. I am sure the
member for Sudbury can elaborate in much
greater detail than I can about the kind of
appeal procedures we would have if every-
one appealed to the Minister, a political
4580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
officer of the Crown, instead of an adminis-
trative tribunal set up by law as an appeal
board.
Now the housing corporation board of
directors is not an appeals board, Mr. Chair-
man, and should not even be represented
as one by the Minister.
I suggest to the Minister that what I have
related to him tonight, has been put before
the local housing authority, has been raised
in some instances with his staff in Toronto
but that these examples are in fact represen-
tatives of a situation. If the Minister would
like, I will take him to one other area, it
is the matter of maintenance. How can a
tenant, who feels that the maintenance of a
unit that he occupies has not been under-
taken as it is supposed to be undertaken by
the housing authority, get redress?
Here is an example.
Twice in the last three years, I have
gone to the Windsor housing ofiBce to
apply for a paint voucher and I was told
that my husband was earning too much
money now to live in one of these houses
and that we might be told to vacate at
any time or these houses might be geared
to income and we could not possibly afford
to pay the geared-to-income scale.
And I would only be able to get this
voucher by signing a statement saying that
they would not be held responsible [I be-
lieve that is by Windsor housing] if I was
asked to move after the paint had been
apphed.
The letter does not have a date on it, but my
reply is in mid-March so I assume it was
written to me early in March.
This tenant was put off by the authority
from obtaining the paint voucher because
again, Mr. Chairman, and this all ties in
again, she was informed of the possibility of
sale of these units over the previous two or
three years, and there is still no word. There
is still no word as to when those units in
Bridgeview will be sold and I find that this
kind of reason offered by the authority just
does not stand up.
Mr. Chairman: Votes 407, 408, 409 and
410.
The member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, looking
at an OHC survey result, the survey which
went out towards the latter part of last year
reduced the number of applicants on file con-
siderably. The implication was that the need
was nearly as great as reported because from
10,150 applicants there were retvums from
only 48.5 per cent.
Now in the first three months of this year,
Mr. Chairman, apphcations flowed to the
amount of 3,235 which pretty well has
brought this figure up again. I think it is
very wrong for us to assume that the old
applications simply were non-existent when
they did not have a return because 10 per
cent of these applications had been on file
since 1965 or earher and 30 per cent of the
applications had been on file since 1965. It
is not much wonder, Mr. Chairman, that they
had given up hope and had, perhapw, not
answered because of the long delay in any
sort of action of any land.
I think from the new figure, which must
be roving between 9,000 and 10,000, if not
higher by now, that perhaps it is worthwhile
to draw once again to the attention of the
Minister that this has become so unwieldy
now that something must be done, Mr. Chair-
man, to cut down the number of applications
in the beginning. I drew to the attention of
the Assembly and to the Minister, I believe
on March 18, that flagrant rent increases in
my own particular riding, Scarborough
Centre, were accounting for a great number
of OHC apphcations that I was aware of.
I am now travelling around that riding
again and finding that the same sort of thing
is prevalent. One-third of my riding, Mr.
Chairman, is apartment dwellers, about 6,000
families, so I know of what I speak when I
say that surely we could begin to cut downn
the number of apphcants to OHC by having
a rental review board, where the people could
take the problem which is facing them, thus
forcing them out of the apartment into the
files of OHC.
We are not asking for rental control, Mr.
Chairman, which is quite a different thing.
But the number of cases that would come to
a rental review board would, in fact, build
pubhc pressure which would insist on action
from this government.
One of my most recent canvassing trips
around Scarborough Centre produced the fact
that the apartments are not being operated
necessarily on a good business-like basis. This
does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that all land-
lords are vicious or dishonest. It simply
means that a lot of people on the files at
OHC do not have to be there, and are there
because we do not have any sort of place
where we can examine the kind of operation
that the apartment is flagrantly profiteering
on, from the shortage of housing. When we
have a place where this can be examined,
JUNE 17, 1968
4581
I am sure that the legislation will flow.
This particular case that I am going to
isolate tonight— and I would just like to re-
iterate, Mr. Chairman, that on March 18 I
expressly isolated three specific cases showing
flagrant rent increases in my riding, to the
tune of $35 to $40 a year over an 18-month
to two-year period, whereas in a first-class
operated apartment complex, such as the City
Park apartments, the rent increase in the
same period was just $20.
I present, Mr. Chairman, that this is an
abuse; it is a merciless thing which is hap-
pening to the tenants because they have no
place to go, they have no place to expose the
flagrant profiteering in apartment rentals and
they, in turn, become applicants to OHC.
Now, the flagrant profiteering is usually
written oflF to tax increases. In my maiden
speech I carefully pointed out that none of
the buildings had any noticeable tax increase.
They had $400 to $500 a year. In fact, one
year of the three years for those purposes of
that study, the tax rate had actually gone
down. The mill rate had gone up, but the
assessment had gone down, so they are fla-
grant increases that the people have the
right to come and expose to government; at
present they have no rental review board,
they have nowhere to go.
In Scarborough, at 35 Trudell Street, one
of five low-dividend housing units are called
Chelsandy Developments Limited — and I
would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, to
the Minister why these two people are in
need of housing and one of the two ended
up on the file of OHC. The other one did
not know about OHC.
Chelsandy Developments Limited— I would
like to read into the record two notices to
vacate. These were two of approximately
six or eight in this particular building. The
notice to vacate has no address at the top of
it, Mr. Chairman, it has no telephone num-
ber. The address and telephone number on
the letterhead has carefully been x'd out by
a typewriter, so there is no reason to believe
that they were not well aware when they
sent this notice that there was no place for
the tenant to turn to. It reads:
Without Prejudice.
Mr. Thomas Cribbon, 35 Trudell Street,
Apartment 207, Scarborough, Ontario.
Notice to Vacate.
Dear Sir: This is to inform you that your
lease will not be renewed, and you are
hereby requested to give up vacant pos-
session of apartment 207, located at 35
Trudell Street, in the Township of Scar-
borough, Ontario, now occupied by you,
on or before the 30th day of June, 1968.
Yours truly,
Chelsandy Developments Ltd.
Per M. Wayne, Property Manager.
Now, the only person that this tenant has
contact with is the superintendent and the
superintendent just pretends he knows noth-
ing about the notice.
I would like to describe this family, Mr.
Chairman, because I think it is very impor-
tant. This is a man and a wife who emi-
grated here from Ireland. They sat on deck
chairs in their hving room until they earned
enough money to buy furniture. The father
works at the Dominion Stores. They have
two small children, bom in our country. This
has been their home and for no reason on
this earth they are asked to vacate, the only
reason perhaps being that they do have two
small children, and in this housing crisis the
landlord can put them out and put in a fam-
ily that has no children.
Where do they turn to?
I have had Chelsandy Developments
searched downstairs for another case earlier
in the year, and from this I have some
knowledge of where to find Mr. Wayne. But
the tenant has no recourse about this prob-
lem, has no knowledge of from whence came
the notice, and certainly is not a sophisticated
enough person to come down and have Chel-
sandy Developments searched here in this
building.
The next notice is dated May 30, 1968.
Without Prejudice.
Mr. Robert C. Bums, 35 Tmdell Street,
Apartment 308, Scarborough, Ontario.
Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to say that the OHC file num-
ber for Mr. Bums is D9896.
Notice to Vacate.
Dear Sir: This is to inform you that your
lease expires June 30, 1968, and there will
be no renewal on a new lease. You are
hereby requested to give up vacant pos-
session of apartment 308, located at 35
Trudell Street, in the Township of Scar-
borough, Ontario, now occupied by you, on
or before the 30th day of June, 1968.
Yours very tmly,
Chelsandy Developments Limited.
Per M. Wayne, Property Manager.
Once again the address is x'd out and the
phone number.
The Cribbon family, when I was canvassing
this apartment two days ago, told me where
4582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to find the Burns family to whom the same
thing has happened, and a lady answered the
door. Mrs. Burns was in bed, advised by a
doctor, from a possible miscarriage. She has
had two children by perfectly normal births,
but she spent every day since May 30 going
out looking for a place to live.
She finally had just overdone it and is now
lying at this time in her bed trying to save
their third child and absolutely frustrated
beyond anybody's imagination with the prob-
lem.
I tliink that two cases are enough. There
are many more cases from Chelsandy Devel-
opments and the rest of the Trudell Court
buildings to warrant a rental review board for
the tenants who live in those five or six build-
ings in that area alone, Mr. Chairman.
These people have never complained to
the landlord. Tliere is no reason given to
vacate as you can see. They are both Irish
immigrant families and I hope with Mr.
Patrick Brady over there that might appeal
to his heart. They have come to our country.
They refer to this little two-bedroom apart-
ment as their home.
I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, that we
recognize that we have to give the citizens
of this province a place to come with this
kind of frustration before they do things
which are not so pleasant. I do not want to
think of people having to batter down the
doors of this building to get attention about
these problems.
When an apartment dweller complains, Mr.
Chairman, I have an example of what hap-
pens. She wanted something done, the win-
dows washed or the halls cleaned or
something of this sort. This one is 1 Brimley
Road, Scarborough, Ontario, Barlyn Invest-
ments Limited.
Mr. Wilhelm Blankmeyer, 1 Brimley Road,
Apartment 210, Scarborough, Ontario.
Re: Lease of apartment 210, 1 Brimley
Road, Scarborough, Ontario.
Dear Sir: In reviewing your tenancy of
apartment 210, at 1 Brimley Road, Scar-
borough, Ontario, and taking into consid-
eration the numerous complaints you have
about the management of this building and
the rent we are asking for your apartment,
we feel that you are not satisfied with con-
ditions here. Therefore, your lease will not
be renewed for the coming year and you
are herewith given notice to vacate the
above premises on or before April 30, 1968.
Yours truly,
Barlyn Investments.
Per A. D. Brazier.
Well, Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to com-
municate to the Minister is that these are
people who then turn to OHC, and if a
rental review board would prevent 50 per
cent of your applicants turning to you, or
even 25 per cent, surely it would be a worth-
while operation. Surely it is possible to look
into the flagrant rent increases.
The taxes on number one Brimley road had
not changed noticeably in three years. Mrs.
Blankmeyer dared to think that the place
should be cleaned, that the sand in the play-
ground should be clean— a child had been
infected from the sand. She spoke about
these things, and if one speaks about them
one is at the mercy of the landlord in this
crisis.
I think that it is very important that a
rental review board be established firmly,
hopefully to prevent the additional 3,000
cases as an example, in the first three months
of this year, and to cut down some of the
apphcations.
I would like to make a few comments with
regard to the need for an open public hous-
ing registry, and that also is in the record, Mr.
Chairman. I am not talking of a first-come-
first-serve basis as the Minister described
earlier. I am talking about a place where
the people can come and go as anyone in this
room who had an application in the Ontario
housing corporation would want to come and
know where am I on your waiting list, da I
have a chanoe, and am I three-quarters of
the way down on the list of the particular
classification that I fall into in your point
system?
The point system, Mr, Chairman, is the
only way to judge cases for this particular
need. It must be based on need. But I say
to be based on need, and have the people
never know how their need is in relation to
any other person or persons on the list is a
ridiculous situation.
Hopefully, I presented this in a maiden
speech, rather than to criticize some of the
operations that I felt should be criticized in
OHC. I took a copy of that speech to Mr.
Suters, to Mr. Whaley, to Mrs. Meredith—
and the Minister of course was, I believe, in
the House that day— hopefully, that someone
would realize that there is no real waiting
list at OHC.
There is a filing system and there is a wait-
ing list for priority, no doubt, concerning the
urgent cases. But there is no real waiting list.
You do not know when you have filed an
application with OHC, whether you are
500th with 12 points or 100th. I asked when
r
JUNE 17, 1968
4583
I went there with two families, one of which
was Mrs. Blankmeyer, and I asked where her
particular application stood on the waiting
list. Mrs. Meredith produced the correspond-
ing file of the corporation and said, "Well,
you have 12 points." The client asked, 'What
does that mean?" Mrs. Meredith replied,
"Well, it is not very good." I said, "Where
is the client on the waiting list?" "Well, she
is way down." We do not really know what
way down means. We do not really know
what not very good means.
If they want to say that Mrs. Blankmeyer is
one of 200 cases with 12 points, then she will
know that she should not be hammering at
the doors of OHC today at all.
So that is all I think is important about an
open housing register— so that the people can
come and see where they stand on the list.
It is not to make their personal files, as the
Minister said earher, open for anyone to come
and see. It is so the applicant— any of us in
this room, if we had to apply— could go and
see where we stand.
That is all. I do not want to lose track of
that one need, throughout all that I am going
to say, that open public housing registries are
a necessity.
What is in fact happening now, at OHC—
or at least imtil December of last year— all
placements went through the hands of one
person. As recently as March, it was my
understanding that there were three tele-
phone lines to that placement person on the
switchboard, and the practice of the switch-
board was to handle the three calls, and hold
three in reserve.
I say to you, Mr. Minister, for an office
that has between 9,000 and 10,000 clients,
three telephone lines to the placement officer
is ridiculous. I understand that the officer
now has an assistant in the person of a Mrs.
Taylor, or had at the time that I checked last
—since March. But surely it does not take
too much imagination, Mr. Chairman, to
realize that this would be a suitable operation
for a very small business; three telephone
lines, three calls in reserve and one person
handling all of the placements. I would say
very definitely that it is not geared to the
9,000 or 10,000 applications that are on file,
though it may be geared to the number of
imits that are, in fact, available.
It is only about two weeks ago, Mr. Chair-
man, that I asked the Minister what units
were available in Metropolitan Toronto,
and he said that there was none. So there-
fore, if we are only looking at the number
of apartments we have for people, three tele-
phone lines are fine. But we are not. We
have 9,000 or 10,000 files of people who are
checking— and some people have checked for
as long as every day for a week. I would
say that it is wrong to operate a $4-million
housing corporation with three telephone
lines to placement, handling three calls, and
reserving three.
I have listened to the Minister give out the
red herring that OHC has received 38,000
calls in the last year. It does not take much
imagination to realize that 38,000 calls were
not handled on those three telephone lines,
and therefore a lot of them never got
through to placement. I had many com-
plaints from constituents that they could
never get through to OHC placements. They
have no interest in any other section. They
are only calling OHC for placement, these
people. They can get to the switchboard, but
they cannot get through to placement.
I instructed the young lady in our research
department. Miss MacDonald, to check and
advise me if this was in fact correct. So she
ran surveys where she called every ten min-
utes—and some of these are every 15 min-
utes. She ran a survey on April 19, 1968, of
30 calls between 9:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
and, again, of 30 calls on April 22, 1968,
between 9:30 in the morning, and 4:45 in the
evening.
Many of the calls are marked "busy switch-
board," I see— I would say at least 50 per
cent on that particular sheet.
On April 23 she made a total of 40 calls
between 9:10 and 3:50 and by now we were
getting concerned. It was in March that she
began the first check for me. I gave her an
actual case and asked her to telephone about
this actual case. I would like to read into
the record what happened with that case, be-
cause it was what happened that prompted
all this other testing of people trying to get
through to placement.
The research lady writes, on Thursday,
March 21:
This morning I became the friend of
Mrs. Marilyn Lund, of 495 Lauder Avenue,
to get some idea of how long the average
person would have to wait to get through
to the placement service of OHC by tele-
phone. This was done with Mrs. Lund's
permission because, if the call got through,
I was going to check on her file, which
is in our office, on her behalf.
Mrs. Lund and her two-year-old daughter
are presently living with her sister, and
4584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they have one bedroom, and they pay $15
a month. Mrs. Lund earns $85 a week.
She took a day off work to go down to
OHC.
If I might interrupt, Mr. Chairman, you see
that people want to go to an open housing
registry. In a quiet half-hour after the House
rose one afternoon I talked to the Minister
about the problem of placement and tele-
phones, and he said that a lady came with
a broken pop bottle to OHC offices one day.
Out of thousands of applicants, they are
bound to get that sort of thing. But the
majority of these people are not so inclined,
and an open public housing registry would
give them a chance to go and see where they
stand:
She took a day off work to go down to
OHC. She was told that a home visitor
would be sent to see her and that she
would be notified so that she would not
have to take another day off work. This
was March 4, and this is filed March 24,
and she has not heard anything further
and cannot get in touch with tenant
placement.
Although the period of time that she
has had to wait is not long compared with
some other cases, there is an urgency
involved because she has to move at the
end of March and she is trying on her own
to find a one-bedroom apartment, but on
her salary this is very difficult.
The first call on her behalf was made
at 11 a.m. I asked for tenant placement
and was told, "The lines are busy, dear,
try again." "When?" "Every ten minutes,
dear".
Variations on the same theme were heard
for tlie next six hours. I telephoned every
15 minutes from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. When
I was not in the office, Liz Marchand took
over and on one occasion she was asked
to hold, but had to hang up after ten
minutes. This is a total of 24 calls and
not once could either of us get past the
main OHC switchboard to tenant place-
ment.
So that is away back in March, Mr. Chair-
man, which, although I was shocked at read-
ing it, resulted in some constructive tests—
the ones in April and May.
I read the results from the tests in April.
I hope the Minister will come back and say,
"Well, we now have 12 lines to placement
and we now have six placement officers, or 12
placement officers, not one."
On March 29 the report from research
says:
With the assistance of the office staff,
97 calls were made to Ontario housing in
the past three days. We were unahie to
get through to tenant placement on 96
of these calls. The one exception was on
March 27 at 8:30 a.m.
On March 26 and 27, I was told not to
call back that day because it would be
impossible to get through. This was at
4:45 p.m. On one occasion I was told to
write a letter because they do answer their
mail.
The calls were again made at 15-minute
intervals, starting at 9:30 on March 26,
8:30 on March 27, and 10:00 a.m. on
March 28.
Now, the last report, Mr. Chairman, for
April, says:
During the past three weeks the research
department of the Ontario New Democra-
tic Party caucus conducted three separate
surveys to determine the efficiency of the
Ontario housing corporation tenant place-
ment service. Telephone calls were jjlaced
at 15-minute intervals to OHC; specifically,
to tenant placement.
During the last three days* survey, 100
calls were made. On none of these occa-
sions was the caller able to get througji
to tenant placement. This indicates the
plight of the average person who is trying
to find out where his name is on the
waiting list. He just cannot get through
to ask. There are only three lines to tenant
placement and an undetermined number
of calls coming in per minute.
When questioned, the switchboard opera-
tor suggested writing a letter because all
letters are answered. This is small comfort
to a person facing imminent eviction with
no hope other than what will be provided
by OHC.
Mr. Chairman, remember away back in
March I did not dig out anytliing like this.
I was trying very hard to convince the
people who have such a diflficult task at OHC
and tliere is no question it is a difiBcult
task; any business which has 9,000 applicants
and has a relatively small number of units
has an unbelievable task. But the thing that
would make it easier on the people who are
waiting outside would be if they come and
go from an open registry or, if they are
dependent on the telephone— as this system
JUNE 17, 1968
4585
is— they must have more lines to a placement
section, to a placement person of some
authority who can review their case and
advise them about it.
I presented this, Mr. Chairman, hopefully,
that it might urge the Minister to take the
bold and exciting steps to make the opera-
tion of this business the way he would make
it if he wanted to streamhne it, and if he
wanted* to attract clients and not let it con-
tinue as it is. As it is, it is frustrating and
aggravating and it virtually beats down any-
one who offers any criticism of the simple
handling of placement at OHC.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is wrong
in this enlightened day of improved civil
rights and it is a disgrace to have placement
of thousands of units in the hands of one
placement officer, where it can be easily
operated in a discriminating fashion. Oft-
times it is unfair, not always, Mr. Chairman—
by a long, long way, not always— but so much
so that on occasion one would wonder wliat
the real philosophy is of placement in OHC.
It is an impossible job for the person in
placement in the first place, so the quality of
the job suflFers when there is no answer to the
turmoil of the 9,000 or 10,000 appHcations
which are outside. Handling what becomes
available has to be done with a very fine
expertise.
The Gray case, Mr. Chairman, is sympto-
matic of what is wrong with placement at
OHC. The Minister is totally misinformed as
to what actually happened in the Gray case.
The reason why Mrs. Nancy Gray's accom-
modation was changed, forcing her illegally
to enter a unit, it would seem, was because
someone in placement, a placement officer,
decided to play God and not move Mrs. Gray
where her social worker had been assured
she would go because of another family, a
nearby family.
I do not want to detract, Mr. Chairman,
from the need of an open public housing
registry and the need of improved numbers
of lines of telephones to placement and a
greater number of placement officers. Those
are the three things that I think the public of
this province is entitled to. In this metro-
politan area they are at seething point of dis-
gruntled fervor and must have some sort of
alleviation on these things at OHC.
To show what can happen, I would like to
isolate two or three cases which I do not
need any notes for, Mr. Chairman, I have
them clearly in my head because I handled
anything that happened with them myself.
The first one I would like to point out
were two families, one-parent families, large
families, one with five children and one,
seven; the Elbers and Massey families. They
were to be evicted from Momingside Drive
when they first contacted me at my home.
Mrs. Massey spoke because Mrs. Elbers is
Dutch, and does not speak as well for herself.
This was in the late winter. The two families
were to be evicted.
Another operation just like Chelsandy.
The lawyer, bookkeeper— I believe in this
case it was a lawyer— for the Momingside
apartments, when I contacted him made it
very clear to me. "Look, Mrs. Renwick, I
am going to get those families out; they are
large families, I do not want them. They are
not trying to find a place to live, I am going
to get them out."
I pleaded with him on the grounds, "Well,
look, OHC just cannot take two famihes of
this size and, bingo, have places for them.
Give them three months." He was putting
the bailiflp in as of January at this point,
after Christmas, after New Years.
I said, "Give them three months and I will
talk to OHC and I will explain the situation
and they are trying to find places to live."
In a letter to Mr. Whaley, I outiined these
two cases and it was received well, I am
sure, because the reply understood what I
was trying to say— "I know this will not be
easy, but, look, we have three months instead
of one month, is not that better?" I pointed
out that the facilities, perhaps, in a garden
home type of accommodation might be better
than a high-rise for these families.
Mr. Whaley agreed that everything could
or should be done, but I guess they did not
get anything because three months later,
roughly, I learned through my secretary,
they were both being evicted. The story that
came to my secretary and to me, which I got
a little annoyed at, to say the least, when I
heard, is that the two ladies from the court
took their blue slips to OHC and asked to see
Mrs. Meredith, the placement officer. They
were told she was not there that day and was
unwell. They came back, they got a stay of
an extra day; they came back the next day and
Mrs. Massey, who was the one who spoke for
the two, intimated to the girl at the desk,
"Well, it is too bad that the lady is not here
today for me to see because I am going to
have to give the story to the newspapers."
These ladies have children, they have no
father. I know it is not easy to place large
families, but they had paid their rent every
4586
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
month— in the one case in that building, for
five years— either Mrs. Massey or Mrs. Elbers
—and the other had paid her rent every montli
for two to three years.
This goes back, Mr. Chairman, to the
rental review board. Perhaps it should have
l^een questioned whether they should ever
have been evicted from Morningside if we
had a rental review board to go to; they
might never have ended up on the files at
OHC. But the man, being determined to
evict them— and their leases had run out—
legally was quite right. My understanding is
that Mrs. Massey was given a place to live
out in the Finch-Albion Road area. She was
given it after she had mentioned the news-
papers. According to Mrs. Massey, she was
showTi into an oflBce where the placement
officer who gave her a place to live was and
asked her on her way out, would she tell
Mrs. Elbers that she did not have a place
for her.
This is just poor business, Mr. Chairman.
The least courtesy anybody could have
afforded would be to go out and speak to
the other lady and say, "I am sorry we are
able to accommodate this lady but we can-
not accommodate you."
My problem became a very simple one.
I wondered what had happened to the other
family since they had been in my file and
so on my way back from a housing meeting
I was requested to attend in Guelph,
Ontario, I went into the Albion and Finch
area and I found Mrs. Massey. That is how
I first found this whole area, I might say,
Mr. Chairman, I never knew existed in the
west end of the city. Mrs. Massey said
that Mrs. Elbers was in the shelter and that
also, Mr. Chairman, is how I found the
shelters and what was happening at the
shelters.
None of this need have happened if they
had a place to present their problem and
they would never have been evicted or, if
when they had gone to OHC, they had
both been dealt with equally. Mind you,
there is a difiFerence in the size of families.
One had five children, one had seven.
I do not understand why Mrs. Massey
was given a place and why Mrs. Elbers was
sent to the shelter but I asked my secretary,
because I was busy here in the House that
day, to call placement at OHC and ask
where Mrs. Elbers was. They did not know
and Mrs. Meredith said, "I assume she is
still on Morningside Drive." Now she could
not be if she was evicted and people at
OHC knew she was going to be evicted. So
my secretary called the two shelters and
found Mrs. Elbers down in the Dundas
Street shelter. She called back OHC because
it was a Friday afternoon and advised them
right away where Mrs. Elbers was because
she is still looking for a place to live, Mr.
Chairman. I asked the shelter for a list
three days ago and they have not sent it
yet.
This was way before I raised the question
of communication between OHC and the
shelters, so I think this was a bit of a red
herring. Obviously there had not been any
list being diecked or forthcoming from
communication to tiie shelters.
I think it is the sort of treatment that
makes members like myself doubt the real
intent of placement at University Avenue,
to pretend that the list had been requested,
when it was not. The lady in charge of the
shelter at Dundas Street said she certainly
had not been requested for a list in the
last three days, and it is very bad to me.
It would be much better if they simply said
we will try to accommodate her, let us
know where she is.
I do not want to take as long as this,
Mr. Chairman, to isolate the second case
because I do not want to get oflF the needs
of the open housing registry, the telephone
lines and more placement officers but to
show what happens, what brings someone
like myself to the point of now and to the
point of frustration for the Minister and
myself in the many questions in the past
week.
On Markham Road a lady in a condemned
house, we will call her Mrs. B. Last Decem-
ber I heard of a condemned house on
Markham Road I wanted very much to do
something about, but it was a Friday when
I heard about it and I was going to get
there sometime before Monday. I received
a call on Sunday morning from a journalist,
called Brian Dexter, with the Toronto Daily
Star.
He said: "I have been sent out to do a
story on a condemned house and I have
talked to OHC. I am advised by Mrs.
Meredith that the woman involved is emo-
tionally disturbed." He said: "Mrs. Renwick,
what bothers me is that I have spent two
hours with this lady and I do not think she
is emotionally disturbed."
Mr. Chairman, I submit that whether the
lady is or is not or was not emotionally dis-
turbed was not the question. She was a lady
JUNE 17, 1968
458";
with an application to OHC. She has five
children, a husband who is a waiter, a
condemned house with a cesspool problem
in the back and permeating through the
house and Dr. Bull in the area had almost
hesitated to condemn the house as quickly
as he should have knowing there were no
places for the family.
Now, this was in the month of December
and I went to the family in the afternoon.
The journalist was still there because his
car would not start and I met the lady, Mrs.
B. of Markham Road. I would be glad to
give the Minister this name, but because of
this emotionally disturbed reference I hesi-
tate to use it publicly.
I sat and talked with the family. The
wage earner earns $90 a week. He has five
children and the price of apartments has
just gone out of his reach. This was the
real problem, but it was accentuated by not
being able to get through on the telephone
to OHC. In this lady's disappointment or
wrath, whichever it happened to be, she
wrote the mayor of the city of Toronto.
In writing the mayor of the city of
Toronto she did not know that she was
bringing down upon her head the wrath of
OHC, because three months later OHC were
to be presenting to the Toronto housing
authority films, slides, brochures to take over
the Toronto housing authority. Even I, Mr.
Chairman, did not understand the place-
ment officer's vendetta on Mrs. B. I do
understand it fully now.
Mrs. B. was referred to in Mr. Randall's
statement in my last question about the
Gray family, and is referred to as being a
difiicult family. I present very clearly, Mr.
Chairman, the only difficulty this family
presented to OHC was that the lady wrote a
letter to the mayor of Toronto complaining
about OHC. She also, as the Minister has
outlined, refused a place to live. She refused
the 11th floor of Shuter Street with her five
children. She refused going to the west end
of the city because her husband is a waiter
in the extreme east end of Toronto, but
when she saw there was nothing else she
did in fact take the unit in the west end
and her husband is now driving an old car,
which he says v^dll give out, taking it 13
miles to and from work. Nevertheless, she
did recognize the problem that there were
no east end units; that she had a choice
between dovmtown Toronto and the west
end, and she went to the west end.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you would think and
I would think that this would be the end of
that story. But when I was checking to see
where this lady was on the waiting list, I
was told by Mrs. Meredith tlie lady Mrs B.
was emotionally disturbed. I am afraid that
I resented it, to put it mildly, and claimed
this was not what I was telephoning OHC
for. I was telephoning to find where Mrs.
B. is on the waiting list.
I refused to let the placement officer finish
describing Mrs. B. to me because it is
irrelevant. Whether she is or is not emo-
tionally disturbed is not my problem, and
it is not Mrs. Meredith's problem. Now,
this would have been fine. I once smoothed
that particular problem over as Mr. Suters
knows. I blew my top, as the saying goes,
on the telephone to Mr. Suters. I said I was
going to make a formal complaint in writing
and I never did, Mr. Chairman.
I came back into the House and asked
constructive questions I felt, until one day
I got a call from a Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Nancy
Gray, in a condemned house right across the
street from Mrs. B. Mrs. Gray's reason for
calling me was that she felt somebody should
know what had happened to her.
What had, in fact, happened to her,
according to what Mrs. Gray stated, was
that her social worker in North York, Mr.
Bellatuzzi had found for her a place through
OHC way out in the west end, but it would
be fine because her child could be trans-
ferred from the emotionally disturbed care
she was getting daily in school in the east
end to the Thistletown school. Mrs. Gray
made the mistake of saying to the placement
officer that will be lovely, I will be out
where Mrs. B. is, who used to live across
the street.
Once again, the placement officer, accord-
ing to Mrs. Gray, came back in on the
emotional condition of Mrs. B. Mrs. Gray's
understanding of why she was not allowed
to be sent to Thistletown development, after
a social worker had been assured before
Easter she would, was that she made the
mistake of saying how nice it would be to
be out there where Mrs. B. is. Mrs. B.,
whose husband is with her— Mrs. Gray's is
not— used to give clothing from her five
children to Mrs. Gray with her— I have
forgotten how many children— I never did
know Mrs. Gray that well.
What I would like to get across very
clearly, Mr. Chairman, is that we cannot
operate a large corporation with this kind
of discrimination. What Mrs. Gray says Mrs.
Meredith said to her was: "If I put you in
4588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Thistletown near Mrs. B. you will be in a
mental institution in six months." Now, this
is the third time and I say, Mr. Chairman,
I did not do anything about it the second
time, I did not do anything about it when
the journalist drew it to my attention, but
how can anybody expect a member to hear
this kind of thing coming out of a corpor-
ation and do nothing about it?
If I have to document it with documents,
I will do so. I do not think that this is
necessary. I think that the philosophy for
placement can be changed and taken out of
the hands of one or two people, put on a
larger businesslike basis where this sort of
thing does not happen.
Mrs. Gray said to me: "I intend to move
into the units out there, because there are
several empty."
On April 26 I tried to interest the TV sta-
tion CFTO, or any station where I knew
someone, in filming the units at the comer
of Finch— the San Francisco development, the
one that Mrs. Gray finally moved into, what-
ever that development is called. When I
drove in there from Guelph to see Mrs.
Massey, I was astounded to see 20 empty
housing units at least, with the papers still
flapping on the windows that had never been
occupied from the time that they had been
built.
The red herring that comes out of OHC
is that these are all assigned, or they are
leased. They cover up and stick together. It
cannot go on forever.
I did not know the names of those units—
the first question that I sent to the Minister
even had the wrong name on it— let alone
know that these were the units into which
Mrs. Gray would move.
The point is that the units were sitting
there and Mrs. Gray was supposed to get
into one.
Once again we get this personal decision
of what the Action Line of the Toronto Tele-
gram calls the miracle worker at OHG, Mrs.
Meredith, and I say she has a lot of nerve to
play God and interfere with the care of emo-
tionally disturbed children by saying: "Yes,
we will drive the child from the other devel-
opment," to keep the one family away from
the other and they were not even that close
friends, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. B and Mrs.
Gray.
With this pushed into the lap of the Min-
ister, perhaps he will comment on why this
happens. I think that one reason is the
people at OHC having to make decisions as
to where they are going to put people, and it
is not done on an open public housing regis-
try basis. I think that it is time that it was,
and it is time that anyone making statements
from December to April about a person being
emotionally disturbed was stopped. Espe-
cially when they are not emotionally dis-
turbed.
Writing two letters to the mayor complain-
ing about the service of OHC does not,
surely, constitute emotional illness? I would
urge the Minister to look seriously at what he
would do about that business on University
Avenue— as if he wanted to attract clients to
it. I can assure you, for one thing, that
people would come and go on the main floor.
We are not asking for anything more than a
fair, well-run, sophisticated waiting-list system
for OHC— an open public housing system of
registry.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Now, Mr. Chairman,
perhaps I could speak on some of the matters
raised by the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre. Let me say first that it is obvious,
with the type of telephone canvassing that
your party has had on the telephone system
at University Avenue, that it is difiBcult for
customers to get in. I pointed out to you
some time ago that we took something like
35,000 calls last year from members of Par-
liament, and social agencies, to say nothing
of the people that called in. Now, so that
you will realize that we have done something
about your complaints, I am delighted to tell
you that as I talked to you six weeks ago,
we had a system we were looking at, which
has since been approved. It is being put into
188 University Avenue and is called Centric.
It is an automatic filing system. Eight tele-
phone operators will handle calls direct from
bona fide applicants, and not from people
calling up to say: "I represent Mrs. Brown,
tell me all about her case."
We will find out who is going to make the
calls and we will give the information to the
applicants. We can handle one call every 60
seconds with this system. Now, if we are
going to get these telephone blitz' from the
NDP office, there is not an office in this gov-
ernment that can handle them and operate.
As far as the point system is concerned, we
intend to continue this system and we are
not going to go onto a time system as you
suggest. Because, if we do, we throw away
the emergency system of housing for these
people.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Minis-
ter listened very patiently and carefully and
JUNE 17, 1968
4589
surely you can let him reply. He is replying
to the questions put to him.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I listened very carefully,
and I think that you should listen to me and
let me rebut some of these statements. I
have accepted some of the things that the
hon. member stated, but there are others that
I just cannot accept. For instance, last year,
as I pointed out some time ago, there were
2,025 families housed in Metro Toronto. And
1,014 of these, or 50.1 per cent, were under
notice to be evicted immediately. So we are
handling emergency cases.
Now, let me also cover some of the other
people whom you talked about. I think that
in one of the cases, you were referring to the
emotionally disturbed, and that perhaps all
of the people at OHC are not as bright as
they should be. But, believe me, I think that
you would have to go an awful long way to
get a better staff than we have down there.
If there is a personal vendetta going on, as
far as I am concerned, it does not get any-
where with me. This Mrs. Benadetto that
you are talking about, she originally regis-
tered in January of 1967, and was first offered
accommodation at 918 Fir Valley Avenue
Courts, Warden Woods, in Scarborough, dur-
ing March 1967. This accommodation was
refused. Our second offer was on January 4,
1968, and this was a new house at 128
Jamestown Crescent, Etobicoke. This waS
also refused. On February 15, 1968, we made
a third offer— on this occasion at 14 Leavens
Place, South Regent Park. This was also
refused.
Mr. Sopha: She was choosy!
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure she was choosy.
We were aware that eventually she had to
be housed, and eventually she wound up at
30 Orpingdon Crescent, in the Thistletovra
development. We have received notice today
that she has given us two weeks notice. She
Ls going to vacate again. Now, I do not know
how you can deal with the kind of people
who jump from one house to another, and
will not take any kind of accommodation be-
cause they are that choosy.
Let me also point out that some of the
information that we get is not entirely cor-
rect, so if we make a mistake once in a
while, perhaps it is the member's fault. I
have her letter here written to Mr. Suters:
I am writing in regard to a family that
has come to my attention and has requested
assistance. The name of the family is—
such and such— and they live on the third
concession, RR 1, Pickering — telephone
such and such. The Howsons have eight
children ranging in age from 6 to 18
years, and the family lives in an old farm-
house which is also occupied by another
family of four. Their drinking water
facilities are not sufficient, and I would
appreciate your help.
Well, we went out to investigate, and we
wrote back saying:
On May 23, 1968, you wrote me con-
cerning this family. One of my staff phoned
this house and spoke to Mrs. Howson, who
advised them that she has four children,
not eight, and they are buying their house
and do not share it with another family.
In addition, it is not an old farmhouse.
So there appears to be some conflict of
information. Now, this is only one of many
hundreds that we get with the wrong in-
formation, I do not think that it is done on
purpose, but these things should be checked
out. So, we cannot be right all the time.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order. May I just ask if that is
supposed to have been a case of mine?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You wrote the letter.
The letter is from you. It is signed by
Margaret Renwick. I would be glad to let
you have it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: No, Mr. Chairman,
what has happend— what is the date of the
letter, please?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The date is May 23,
1968, from 351 Parliament Buildings, signed
by Mrs. Margaret Renwick, NDP for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I certainly apologize for what I presume was
misinformation. During a day or two, when
I was ill this month, I had my secretary
handle whatever mail came in. I believe that
I was absent from the House on Thursday,
Wednesday, and Tuesday, for three days.
When I was away I asked my secretary to
handle the mail. I will take a look at it if
the Minister would like to send it to me.
I would like to take it up immediately. That
is the sort of thing that I hke to get at
right away. And may I say that if I got that
sort of confirmation from the other side when
I had something that has gone wrong, I
4590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
could go home and sleep— knowing that I did
not have to get up and handle 15 more cases
tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will be glad to send
the letter over. I would just like to point
out that this is one of many thousands that
we get with incorrect information— plus the
phone calls that are incorrect. I do not think
that it is done on purpose, because I do
not think that people realize how much
checking has to be done to get the facts.
Now, I am trying to answer all the questions,
and I do not think that I wrote them all
down. But let me discuss the number of
applications that I said we had at December
31, 1967. Family housing was 10,247. And
you are right, the applications received in the
first months up to March 31, was another
3,235-that is 13,482. Included in the number
that we made the survey on were a number
of people who did not answer, and some had
other types of accommodation. We took off
5,434 people so that the list is down to
8,048 at the end of March 31, 1968. This
does not include senior citizens, because we
do not house senior citizens in Metro, as
you know.
Now, the point that I want to make here
is that over 50 per cent of the 8,048 are
people that require one and two bedrooms—
that is, either single persons, childless couples,
or couples with one child. So, you can see
that we are down to about 3,518 family cases
—what we would call real family cases.
During the last month or two we have had
a survey going on with the Metro planning
board. They are carrying out a survey of
housing needs along with us. We have hired
a company called Patterson consultants. This
is financed by central mortgage and housing
corporation, the Ontario housing corporation
and Metro, and we expect this report will be
available at the end of June. Metro council
wall, by that time, we believe, request addi-
tional housing. At the present time we think
they are well covered, but if this new survey
indicates that there should be more housing,
Metro will meet and ask for more housing,
and we will see that they get it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that some
comments were jnade with reference to the
Ontario housing corporation making a presen-
tation to the city of Toronto to take over the
Toronto housing authority. I can assure you
we did no such thing. We made no slide
presentations, no brochures. We were
approached by the mayor, and his coimcil,
some time ago— last fall— and asked if we
would take it over. We said we would be
glad to take it over, if it could be arranged,
and we finally worked out the details. But
we made no pitch to take over the T,oronto
housing authority. If they want to carry on
on their own they are perfectly welcome to
it, but as you know if we do take them over,
they save something like $1 million a year in
subsidies that they are now paying, so the
taxpayer in Toronto will get a break when
that is taken care of.
With regard to these personal cases, I have
said before, I vdll say again, if you will let
me have them and you do not get satisfaction,
I will see that you get satisfaction, but I want
to make sure that both sides of the story are
told. Because so often you get a story that
probably does not let you get the appUcant's
story. By the time we check out the facts
you may have been cormed also. Now these
people are honest in the main; they will tell
you the facts of life. But there are a lot who
will not, and we deal wdth a lot of people
who will tell us anything to get into housing.
They will blame the housing corporation,
they will blame their member, and what we
are prepared to do is check out any case that
would indicate that they are not getting
service.
I can say this, as far as the housing people
are concerned at 188 University, I do not
know of any unit in this government or any
other government that is perfect. We may
have the odd person who assumes that they
get the wrong kind of treatment; usually
people get exactly what they ask for. I find
if I go in and ask for information in a pleasant
manner, I get it, but if I go in pushing my
weight around, and trying to dictate to people
they reply in kind.
If there is anybody not getting the kind
of treatment they want, I hope they will get
in touch with me or Mr. Suters. We will
check it out for them. But as far as I am
concerned, I think the housing corporation
are well versed in dealing with the public
at large, and with the kind of people who
sometimes are typical. Because they are, as
you know, people who are maybe having
financial problems, or physical problems, or
mental problems, and we have to deal with
them.
You mentioned the lady who came into the
office down there the other day— she was
mentally deranged, and broke a bottle on the
counter. She went after tlie girl behind the
counter, and had never seen the girl before
in her life. We had another fellow walk in
and punch a girl in the stomach. Now we
I
JUNE 17, 1968
4591
have a retired policeman down there and I
hope he is big enough to punch somebody
else back if he lays a hand on the staff, and
he has my instructions to do so.
I think tliat we have covered the most of
the questions that you ask. I can only say
that if there are any other matters that you
want to discuss with me at the housing cor-
poration I would be glad to sit down with you
any time. But I do not think we are going
to get anywhere making a blitz on the tele-
phone. You have proven one point, that if
you put enough telephone calls in there,
nobody gets through.
We have improved the telephone system.
We put in a new system to talk to the people
directly, to get them the information they
want, and we recognize we are going to have
calls from other social agencies, and other
people. But in the main, I think that the
system we are going to put in will handle
most of the work. We have had it analyzed
by experts, and I mean experts. I am talking
about the Bell Telephone Company. They
know what the workload is down there, and
it is my opinion that when we get the system
in, some of the difficulties and the frustrations
you bring up will be taken care of.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I thought the
Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs
is—
Mrs. M. Renwick: I am sorry, I had the
floor, did I not?
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
member that no member has a monopoly on
the floor; the member for Downsview was on
his feet first. If the member for Downsview
will yield to the member for Scarborough
Centre?
The member for Downsview had the floor.
Mr. Singer: If the young lady will sit
down, I will gladly now sit down and yield
to her.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to thank the member for Downsview for
the opportunity to ask two or three pertinent
questions. I would like to ask if I am correct
in understanding that what the Minister said
was that there are now eight lines to place-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not yet. They are being
put in now.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Eight?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Secondly, is the place-
ment still being handled by one person or one
with an assistant, because this will be the
same bottleneck; if you have got eight lines
going in, there will be a wait for one person,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It was never handled
by one person. There are 12 people in that
department; they can get any one of 12. Mrs.
Meredith is the lady in charge of that de-
partment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, am I
correct in understanding that there are 12
people who can, in fact, release suites to
people? Mrs. Meredith has in the past made
the statement to the secretary of our leader
that all apartment releases go through her,
and this seems to me a severely small bottle-
neck at the top of this large corporation.
Hon. Mr. Randall: There are three tliat
release the equipment. There are 12 in the
department. There are three who can assign
housing accommodation.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am not
all that familiar with anyone beyond Mrs.
Meredith, because that is the only person I
have dealt with so far in placement. But are
the other two Mrs. Taylor, and perhaps Mrs.
Schipper?
Mr. Sopha: I would like to know what
does it matter?
Mrs. M. Renwick: It matters because they
operate in a different way.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mrs. Taylor and Mrs.
Lang are the two senior people in that
department, as well as Mrs. Meredith.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to put on the record that any
people with whom I have talked, and who
have dealt through a lady called Mrs.
Schipper, whom I have never met, have felt
they had very careful courteous service. I
would like to ask a couple of questions now
about the operation of the housing units
themselves.
I went out to attend a brief meeting this
evening, and I was presented with a small
signature hst of approximately 40 families
at 3190 Kingston Road, and it reads this
way:
June 16, 1968
The parents of 3190 Kingston Road are
concerned over the dangerous situation of
4592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the cement flower containers and of the
hazards they bring to the many young
children in this area. The flower pots,
which were originally designed to beautify
the area, have had no flowers for quite
some time, and are now left filled with
dirt. Because there are little or no play-
ground facilities, the children often amuse
themselves by climbing the containers.
There is a 15 foot drop on to concrete
from the container adjacent to unit num-
ber 25; the other is not quite so dangerous,
but already this year there have been
several accidents, one which left a child
unconscious.
We are hoping for improvements to
eliminate this very dangerous situation
and furthermore a safe playground to
ensure that the children will be kept
away from any other hazards which may
be present.
Thanking you, the tenants of 3190
Kingston Road.
I would go on record as saying there are
60 signatures on that small petition. Now,
Mr. Chairman, all I hope to draw to the
Minister's attention is that—
Mr. Peacock: Is that an OHC project?
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is an OHC proj-
ect. One can feel pretty isolated out in an
OHC project if there is no one to turn to.
Would it be sensible to make certain that
superintendents are in charge or on the
grounds? This is a 90 suite unit; it is a
small imit compared to some, easily man-
aged compared to some. They are all
garden homes south of where I live. And
I know that in Flemingdon Park there are
large windows— four by three feet, roughly—
and that the pliofilm and the wood have
been kicked out and the small children, if
they go through there, will drop down in
front of the cars in the underground.
I think that these things are hazardous
and you are going to have headache after
headache, no doubt, as you multiply the
number of units. But could we ask, is there
someone on these units to whom the tenants
can turn, who has the power to do some-
thing about these problems; or even could
relate to an individual at University Avenue
to come out quickly?
The problem of the open four or five
foot by three foot air vent drops into the
garages at Flemingdon Park have been there
off and on all spring. It is just by luck
that no small child has gone down there
in front of a car. They are big enough for
a three- or four-year-old child to fall into.
So I ask, since we are going to have more
and more of these, Mr. Chairman, that we
try to operate them in an efficient way,
particularly where the safety of children is
concerned.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would just say, Mr.
Chairman, in answer to that; for instance,
the one that you are referring to, we have
a good Dutch superintendent in that build-
ing, a unionized superintendent of that
building, and we have never had any com-
plaints from him. As I understand it from
Mr. Whaley he is one of our better super-
intendents, and if we get into smaller units
it is obvious that we do not have managers
on the property, if we want to get smaller
units broken up in public housing imits
around the city. In Flemingdon Park, of
course, as you know, we have an office up
there and if there are difficulties, such as
you described, if the manager does not see
this, I am sure Mr. Whaley and his staff on
their occasional checks will run into it and
correct it.
I know you would not mind me reading
tonight one compliment we got— the housing
corporation— we have not had many com-
pliments tonight so here is one that I think
you will appreciate. This is a note from a
satisfied tenant.
Will you please convey my gratitude
to all who were so kind during our move
to our new home in Regent Park South.
We owe so many so much and the only
payment we are able to make is our heart-
felt and deepest thanks.
Our home is one to be proud of. When
we work we can see what we have done
and we do not fear opening windows any
more for fresh air. The air may be as
polluted as before but at least it is not
as unhealthy as it was on Trefann Street.
Another thing we are thoroughly enjoy-
ing is the inexhaustible supply of hot
water. The quick heating of water for
coffee and tea and the lack of dampness
in the building. I find that I do not curl
up like something from Frankenstein's
lab when it rains or when the basement
gets clogged with water. I also find
myself with more time than ever before.
I no longer have to replenish a wood
box to light a stove, or stoke a coal
furnace for warmth. The worst thing that
I
JUNE 17, 1968
will happen to me here is that I will get
callouses from all the push buttons on
our electric stove. What has the Queen
got now that Sissons have not got? Very
damn little and you had better believe
it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I en-
joyed that letter as much as the Minister.
I think it is very important that the Minister
understand very clearly that we do, too,
have letters of compliment. It is simply that
if we bring all those as well as what we have
already brought, you will be here much
longer. We do have letters of compliment.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Bring the compliments,
will you?
Mrs. M. Renwick: And they are the most
grateful people in the world who finally
get a self-contained housing unit very often
after waiting some long time. So I do not
wish to imply to the Minister that it is all
the way this is.
I simply think that if the talent in the
department were directed to making this a
more realistic operation where people can
come and go, where it is not bottled up on
to a switchboard, or letters— and the talent
that is there can do it, Mr. Chairman,
and that is what I think is important— if
they can deal with it, come to a more real-
istic operation, there will be no more prob-
lems of our bringing all these dark stories.
I turn to what seems almost an irrelevancy
in comparison, and ask, Mr. Chairman, if
the Minister ever saw fit to answer my
question— or do I have to put it on the
order paper?— about the moneys and the
time that is spent producing the magazine
known as The Ontario Housing Corporation?
Then I think I am pretty well—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, I have
that answer in the Legislature. When the
member was not here I did not read it off,
waiting for the member to be in the House.
Here is a copy of it.
The salary of the editor of Ontario Hous-
ing is $140.50 per week. As well as editing,
writing, and dealing with the printer in
regard to the magazine, this employee is
also responsible for arranging corporation
displays for use at the CNE, trade fairs,
conferences and conventions. Other duties
include writing of press releases and feature
material for other corporation publications,
and the preparing and placing of advertise-
ments for personnel and property manage-
ment. This employee is a permanent civil
servant. His position is classified as public
relations officer 2 by the civil service com-
mission and their rate of pay falls within the
established salary range of $130.50 to $152
per week.
Second question: the magazine is distrib-
uted to approximately 5,000 individuals per
issue. It is circulated across Canada and 22
other countries with the bulk of the circula-
tion in Ontario being to elected representa-
tives—members of the 41 housing authorities,
planning boards, educational institutions and
libraries.
Question 3: Six issues of the Ontario Hous-
ing are pubHshed each year and the approxi-
mate cost per issue, including mailing and
tax, is $3,800, and this is broken down as
follows: printing, $2,800; mailing, $210; tax,
$784; for a total of $3,794.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I was talking
quite some time ago about bailiffs and the
hon. Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs was complaining a bit that I had not
advised him. I would refer him to page
1038 of Hansard, March 20, and about half-
way down the page there appears these
remarks which I made. I thought I might
read them because I have not heard from
the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, could
we not deal with this under his vote rather
than on the housing vote?
Mr. Singer: No, this relates to bailiffs, Mr.
Chairman, in relation to housing. Bailiffs in
housing and their unreasonableness; my
concern about them; housing corporation's
concern about them. Had the member for
Eglinton been in earlier, he would have
noted the connection.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): I was in
earlier and I noted it.
Mr. Singer: Yes. That is why it is
relevant, Mr. Chairman. The unreasonable-
ness of the landlord speaks for itself. The
fact that he broke the law and the fact that
he evicted and distrained persons speaks for
itself, too, but was this lady going to take
him to court and ask for damages and what
would the measure of damages be, I do not
know. The bailiff's fee puzzled me, so I
attended the following morning on the bailiff
and I will tell the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) his name— neither the Attorney
General nor this Minister asked me his
name, I can still tell them— I think something
should be done about it. I said, "Mr. Bailiff,
4594
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to know how you arrived at
the $32 figure [that was his charge] would
you show me your tariff and show me how
you calculated it?" He pulled out his tariff
and he looked up and down and he said,
"I guess we made a mistake, the fee should
have been $12," Within an hour of that
interview the bailiff had despatched some-
body back to the lady concerned and
refunded the balance.
Now this happens frequently and I would
have thought that mentioning it in the
Legislature— and the second case was the
one I discussed that took place in Ottawa
with the Minister's officials that by now,
perhaps, we would have had some indica-
tion of government concern. We will pursue
this further on the Minister's estimates.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will pursue it
and you will find that I do not tolerate or
believe in that kind of conduct any more
than you do.
Mr. Singer: I was particularly incensed
about the wrong figure being quoted by the
Windsor housing authority because the $25,
I am satisfied, is just over double the mini-
mum tariff for ordinary bailiff's functions in
serving a notice or in collecting rent. Had
they done a number of things they could
build up the fee that high or perhaps a little
higher, but minimum fees certainly are not
$25 on that tariff.
Now the second point that I wanted to
deal with is this, Mr. Chairman. I noticed
in the newspaper the other day that one of
the federal candidates had been complaining
at some length about the housekeeping done
by the authority in the housing development
in Etobicoke. As a matter of fact, the
complaint ran at some length and was
featured in the newspaper concerning the
height of the grass and the uncut grass and
the weeds and so on.
The newspaper story went on to say that
within a short time after that a great number
of men with mowers and scythes descended
on that development and the grass in the
public areas of that development in Etobi-
coke were cut down and a little housekeeping
was done.
In Lawrence Heights— and let me return
again to that one— in Lawrence Heights, ff
the Minister has had occasion to walk around
as I do on frequent occasions, he would
notice that the housekeeping in the public
areas in that development is very, very badly
done. There are holes in the pathways.
There are holes in the pubUc areas. The
grass in the public areas is not properly cut.
By and large, if the Minister wanted to
compare bad housekeeping with good house-
keeping, he could compare some of the resi-
dences of the tenants who have homes in
there, rather than apartment units, with the
kind of housekeeping that is done by the
authority and by the authority's maintenance
people.
This is not just a tiny development. This
is the largest public housing development
in Canada and, by and large, the maintenance
of the outdoor areas is disgraceful.
It is some substantial wonder to me, Mr.
Chairman, that people have not broken their
legs on frequent occasions, falling into the
holes or tripping over some of the raised
water main covers, the little things that stick
out of the ground, and that those people
who suffer from hayfever do not have it
aggravated to a very substantial extent
because of the proliferation of weeds.
By and large, Mr. Chairman, if a private
landlord did his housekeeping the way this
public landlord does, there would be all
sorts of complaints made to municipal
authorities, made in this House and made in
other places.
I would ask the Minister— urge him— to
walk around Lawrence Heights, perhaps to-
morrow morning and order a little house-
keeping; fill in a few of the holes and patch
up a few of the sidewalks and so on. He
could see just how bad it really is.
I wonder why, in Etobicoke, nothing was
done until one of the federal candidates
complained about it?
Hon. Mr. Randall: How long has this
condition existed, do you know?
Mr. Singer: In Lawrence Heights?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes.
Mr. Singer: Oh, months.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Why did you not bring
it to our attention? You kept it a secret.
Mr. Singer: Oh dear, oh dear, Mr. Chair-
man. Surely—
Hon. Mr. Randall: You are not on the job.
You are not looking after your constituents.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Do
not use the telephone because you will block
it for applicants.
JUNE 17, 1968
4505
An hon member: Send carrier pigeons.
Mr. Singer: I do not know, Mr. Chairman.
I really do not know.
Here we have a Minister with a large
staff— with all sorts of maintenance people
he can send out in task forces, provided
some federal candidate has complained
about lack of maintenance— suddenly the
group descends. He says, "Why do you not
bring it to our—" Surely the Minister, if he
is doing his job, would look after these
things without any urging and instead of
reading all these complimerrtary letters,
which say, "We have a nicely landscaped
area. We cut down the weeds, fill in the pot-
holes—"
Hon. Mr. Randall: I have only read one.
You get off easy tonight.
Mr. Singer: It is a disgrace, Mr. Chair-
man, that is alil. It is a disgrace and it
should not be necessary for a member to
keep on bringing these things to the Minis-
ter's attention publicly. They should be done
automatically.
One would think that tlie Minister and his
staff-
Mr. Reilly: Should it not be done by the
municipality?
Mr. Singer: Pardon?
Mr. Reilly: Should it not be done by the
municipality?
Mr. Singer: It is not the municipality's
land. It is Ontario housing corporation's
land.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Point of order, Mr.
Chairman, they are municipal roads and side-
walks. Being an ex-member of North York
you ought to know this.
Mr. Singer: Mr, Chairman, the Minister
is again, I am sorry, misinformed.
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, I am not.
Mr. Singer: The internal paths, in the
courts, in the internal landscaping, and so
on, are not the municipality's property. The
ones I am complaining about are owned by
the Ontario housing corporation.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You said the sidewalks
a minute or two ago.
Mr. Singer: I say they are tlie property of
the housing corporation. If the Minister
wants to meet me at 9 o'clock tomorrow
morning I will go over the area with him
and show him.
There you are. The Minister complains
first of all, I did not bring it to his atten-
tion—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will be up in dry
gulch— Owen Sound— tomorrow morning.
Mr. Singer: That is a pity. When I do
bring it to his attention he says it is not his.
I invite him to come with me and look at it
and he says he is not going to be available.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will join-
Mr. Singer: Now what can you expect—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will join you at the
first opportunity.
Mr. Singer: When will that be?
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, there is one
matter that I wanted to draw to the atten-
tion of the Minister, in addition to what I
had to say this afternoon. I do so in the hope
that the Minister is able to assure us of some
amelioration of the circumstances that at-
tended this matter.
Last autumn I wrote him a letter as a
result of a visit by four ladies— housewives
who occupied on a rental basis houses owned
by tliis corporation. In that letter, which was
quite a lengthy one— it took a great deal of
time to compose and assemble a lot of sta-
tistics. Basically, it drew to the attention of
the Minister that, from the point of view of
the income of their husbands, the rent was
far too high.
Someone has mentioned here today— of this
formula that is adopted by this corporation—
unlike anyone else in the income earning
stream, these people are apparently not per-
mitted to save any money. These figures
were acquired— very legitimate and realistic,
these people being the sincere type of people
that they were.
The real point of the letter was to enquire
of the Minister whether it would be possible
to buy the houses. The Minister's reply— I
have not got it with me— rather the reply of
the manager of Ontario housing corporation,
to whom the Minister properly turned the
letter over, indicated that there was some
difficulty with the central mortgage and hous-
ing corporation who had a piece of these
houses. Because of their regulations, sale of
these houses was not permitted.
I very vividly remember one of the more
—what is the word I seek?— one of the more
4596
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
glaring election gimmicks of the Speech from
the Throne last year was the coining of the
HOME appellation for the new housing out-
burst of this government. I say the new—
when anything is regenerated, of course, with
the greatest public relations technique it has
to be given the facade of being a new crea-
tion.
I do not wonder that the Minister reads
categories of public relations people. He
identified some individual— I was not follow-
ing that, but he identified him as PR2 and
I have no doubt that that initial goes right
through the government service.
Certainly this government has assembled
unto its breast the greatest expertise in pub-
lic relations gimmickry and excellence since
Charlemagne grabbed the crown of the Holy
Roman Empire, in the year 800. One of the
outstanding productions of that Speech from
the Throne, in addition to the wild rivers—
I think that was the most captivating one.
Mr. Singer: We have not heard much about
them lately.
Mr. Sopha: They disappeared. They have
dried up. But that was the HOME pro-
gramme and, if I remember correctly, that
means home ownership made easy. It was
one of their gimmicks upon which the gov-
ernment breezed in to another triumph at the
polls. No matter how you get those ballots
in the box, the mere fact they are there, of
course, justifies all past sins of omission, com-
mission, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeas-
ance, and everything else.
But here— in spite of those ringing declara-
tions in the Speech from the Throne about
home ownership— here were four ladies who
came forward bona fide apparently with the
authority of their husbands, the income-
earners. They put the cards on the table with
the Minister and said, "We are sick and tired
of paying you rent"— and the rent, let me
inform the House— I am speaking from mem-
ory—went as high as $170, I believe, in one
case. The figures were approaching that very
respectable amount. They said, "Rather than
continue to pay this type of rent we want to
own the house."
But, no, it seems to be impossible by rea-
son of some convolution of relationship with
CMHC in Ottawa. If that be so, this gov-
ernment has been less than forthright in its
dealings with the Ottawa government. I do
not think it is any excuse on the part of this
Minister of the Crown to say we are in-
hibited from selling a house because of the
activities of another government, or the con-
ditions they superimpose. Retrospectively
that should have been thought of before the
speech writers, before Rathbun was let loose
on the Speech from the Throne last year.
Mr. Peacock: Or by the Prime Ministw
before he called the election?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Peacock: That is the only block.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, indeed, and these bars to
ownership ought to have been eliminated
from it. So that the Minister, when I, acting
as agent for these ladies, their political agent,
when I write to him, he ought to be in a
position to write back and say, "Fine, let
us cement the deal as quickly as possible and
transfer the title."
But, you see, the whole point is when he
is not able to do that, that brings discredit
on the bona fides of the government.
In other words, you have a government
saying, "We are going to do everything we
can to promote home ownership among our
people" and when called upon to produce,
the government is found wanting. During the
election campaign, of course, every Minister
of the Crown led by the first citizen himself,
swept about this province, east, west, north
and south, raving about the HOME plan. It
was at least the greatest discovery since
Coca Cola and Georgia two generations ago,
and it cannot help but add to the cynicism
generated among people when they are
caught in the snare of seeing their income
vanish and paying what they consider to be
very high rents.
In all four cases indeed they were very
high rents to pay and anyone with an ordinary
ration of economic sense had to look at that
and say, "It is in our interest to buy these
houses, to make a deal whereby we can
become the owners." In each of the four
cases— I did not put it in the letter— but in
each of the four cases, they were willing to
put themselves in hock in order to come up
with a down payment if some equity were
required, had the government reciprocally
demonstrated its bona fides to transfer the
title to them.
Surely this government caimot be com-
mitted to renting accommodation out of pure
enjoyment. It does not want to be a landlord
for the sake of being a landlord and one
would think that it ought to order its affairs
so that given the slightest reasonable— no, not
the slightest, any— reasonable opportimity, it
will get out of the landlord business and trans-
JUNE 17, 1968
4597
fer ownership to people who demonstifate
bona fides.
The really cynical thing about it is that this
government in such a vital, basic, funda-
mental need of our people will act so cynic-
ally; that is the heartbreaking thing about it
—that it will be so cynical as to actively go
out with these pubHc relations people, what-
ever grade or category they are in and gener-
ate emotionalism among the people by very
exi)ensive advertising campaigns paid for at
high pubhc cost. They will use the lips of
the Lieutenant-Governor— I sometimes think I
am the only true monarchist in the House-
but they will use his lips and his voice from
that chair to engage in their Madison Avenue
hucksterism as they did a year ago in the
Speech from the Throne.
Then, when called upon to produce, they
are just not able to and they seize an excuse
that another level of government prohibits
them. They do business with CMHC all the
time; they are like the Bobbsey twins. In
every deal that is going in the province,
OHC is there with CMHC, they are blood
brothers, Idth and kin, hand-in-hand partners
all the way in housing. I refuse to believe
that CMHC is so cold-hearted that they
would impose unreasonable restrictions on the
government of Ontario.
We are led to believe that the relations of
these two governments are always in tip-top
shape; they are deteriorating now when the
Premier is playing the dangerous game he is
playing down at the Coliseum. That will
not make for good relations after next Tues-
day, but they like us to believe that they have
good relations with those Ministers of the
Crown.
So this supersalesman who heads this de-
partment, if he can sell ice boxes to Eskimos
as he likes us to beheve, he can never per-
suade me that he cannot go down to Ottawa
and talk business with the appropriate official
down there to get these restrictions removed.
Having said all that, perhaps he is going to
get up and tell me that they have been
removed. If that is the case, then again he is
wanting because the letters are on file from
me— the names and addresses, location of the
houses in Sudbury, Madison Heights. I ought
to have been the first to be informed, so that
like the fellow in Browning's poem, I can be
the first to carry the good news from Ghent
to Aix and tell these people that all you have
to do is come up with some cash and tell
them that they can look forward to being
owners. The fact is, finally I say, the fact is
I have had numerous inquiries from tenants
who want to buy the premises in which they
are located. But I felt so discouraged about
the five— there were four in that letter and
another one, and that fellow is still paying
rent although I wrote a couple of years ago
about him, though I was promised that the
angels would descend upon him right away
to complete the deal, to consummate the
deal; he is still a tenant out in the Donlita
apartments area.
I have become so discouraged by the activ-
ity and the apparent lack of interest in these
problems that people encounter. I daresay
that Canadians feel so fiercely independent
they do not particularly like being tenants of
the government. I know I should not like to
be a tenant of the government, I would want
almost anybody else to be my landlord, other
than the government.
I daresay that most people, who are in
these houses that were bought up and
assembled for OHC for rental given the
opportunity which, of course, should flow
from the government, should not have to
write and ask "Can we buy the house?" The
emissaries of OHC should be knocking at
their door inquiring into their financial cir-
cumstances to determine if they are in a
position to buy the fee simple back from the
government. That is the way I would think
it ought to work, if the phrase "home owner-
ship made easy" is genuine, but I question
its genuine quality. You can tell whether a
thing is bona fide by its antecedents, its
birth, its genesis. In this House, coming in
such a plausible and yet phony way from the
government, through the use of the Lieu-
tenant-Governor, you had to question it from
the very outset.
It has not worked out and home ownership
has not become easy. But to be fair about
that, it is not entirely the fault of this govern-
ment. It is the fault of interest rates to a
large extent, which is a large subject which
we will all try to take up with the Minister
of Financial and Commercial Affairs when
we reach his estimates.
The point is that notwithstanding all the
bombast that comes from that side, and put-
ting aside all the letters that are read and
the complimentary nature, and looking
through to the real heart of the thing, the
evidence is overwhelming that the pro-
gramme has not met the expectations, or the
hucksterism that attended its introduction.
The cynical thing about it is that the moment
its bona fides are tested, head-on to resort to
vernacular— the put-up or shut-up technique
—the government is the first to cave in when
4598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
they are asked how, when and where do we
meet you to produce quid pro quo by which
we become the owners?
That is the phrase "home ownership made
easy." It is not easy at all, and the home
ownership is not even consummated if it is
diflBcult; in the two contracting parties, the
purchaser is the willing one, and the govern-
ment is the unwilling.
One could go into the vacant lots that the
government has assembled and I fail to see
any alacrity of the public to take them up
and build on them, but to be fair one must
consider the Shylock interest rates under
which the economy suffers right now. That
is not entirely the fault of the government,
although the government is not doing any-
thing in consonance with the other govern-
ment about it.
I am prepared to say, and I have said it
publicly, that any society— I hope that this is
too late for anyone to publish— but any society
that imposes a 9.25 per cent on a person who
wants to build a home has got to examine
itself in respect of its philosophy of human
values, whatever government is at fault. And
I do not want to get into the election cam-
paign, which is reaching a height; I did not
say any party, I said any society, that does
that. Let me just add this comment.
I took the opportunity to ask Walter
Gordon— and I rely on his word as a man
who knows whereof he speaks when it comes
to financial affairs— and I asked him point
blank if there was a money shortage in this
country. He told me that there is lots of
money in the country, but there is a con-
spiracy on the part of the owners of capital
to impose high interest rates on those who
have to borrow, be they governments, private
borrowers extending capital plants, or for any
other reason. And I very much suspect that
is so, that interest rates are high because the
large financial institutions want them to be
high.
I am not so naive after 44 years not to
believe that when it comes to making major
economical decisions in this country, such as
the interest rate, that any one president of
the five big chartered banks just needs to
make four phone calls, and the agreement
can be made. But the America that the Min-
ister loves so much, and whose enthusiasm is
only shared to a high degree by his deputy,
the Americans, of course, are way ahead of
us in doing something about the combines
and the anti-trust actions of large institutions.
We are still in the stone age in that regard
because we tolerate the insitutions making
major economic decisions. Home ownership
is never going to be encouraged in this coun-
try until interest rates come back.
If I may make one additional comment:
just recently, I sold my house and bought
another one, and I had to assume the mort-
gage on the one that I bought, so I went up
to look at the mortgage, and I see that it
now takes six pages to set out the rights.
They used to do it in three, but now they
need six finely printed, closely knit pages to
set out the rights that the mortgage company
has. It carries very little in the way of rights
of the mortgagor like myself and they need
six pages. We will draw that to the attention
of the Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs. If somebody wants a really effective
Royal commission in this country, they might
have one to examine all aspects of the hous-
ing business and particularly the financial
aspects.
Now that Mr. Justice Hall has finished the
edvication report, he might be persuaded to
make an examination of that, to see what
really ails it. So that when we find out what
really ails house-building in this country, we
can get on with the job of clearing things. It
is quite reasonable, and intelligent, rather
than having politicians running back and
forth across this country trying to outdo each
other in the number of homes that they say
they are going to build in one year; and
however grandiose the figures, they are mean-
ingless, and people are denied shelter.
That is all I wanted to say about that. But
these four ladies— Mr. Suters wrote to each
of them individually and sent me a copy of
the letters. And they called me up and in-
formed me of their despair about it. I said
that the only thing I could do in relation to
that is to raise it in the Minister's estimates.
And how lucky I am, having given my word
to do so, that this vote did not slide by when
I was away. I will be able to point to the
remarks and perhaps it will contribute in
some small measure.
It is easy as this. If it is CMHC, then
next Wednesday, the 25th, when the smoke
of battle clears, whoever is in power in
Ottawa, the Minister can start with a new
broom, with the victor next Wednesday
morning. He can call up and say, "There are
a few difficulties with GMHG here and let us
start the procedure to sweep them away.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Do that right after he pays his election
bets?
Mr. Sopha: Yes. That would assist the.se
JUNE 17, 1968
4SS9^
four families of which I speak, but it also
would contribute a good deal to restore
confidence in the genuineness of that home
programme that was announced with such
fanfare a year ago, by PR people grades 1
to 32, or however many different they have
over there. I expect it might go to about
75 grades, having been exposed to their pub-
licity for a number of years, and seeing that
the type of reports that come out are ever-
more expensive; all the publications that one
never gets time to read. You would never
attend here if you tried to keep up with
what all those the PR people put out.
But, there it is and really, the burden
ultimately lies upon the Minister, and no
one else.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Chairman, just to
comment for a second on the home owner-
ship. I do not believe anybody in this
country believes more in home ownership
than I do, and I have worked since I got into
this job to create home ownership in every
way I possibly can. The yellow book that
we put out a year ago February, at the
meeting we had with Mr. Nicholson down-
town, included a number of programmes for
home ownership and we said that just as fast
as we could get the legislation changed at
Ottawa, The National Housing Act changed
so that our other partner could give free
title to the homes, we would get into
checking-
Mr. Sopha: Has it been changed?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not yet, no. The govern-
ment has folded two or three times, gone on
vacation, had too much other work to do,
and Christmas hoHdays, and what have you,
and they have not got around to it yet. Now
you are in the legal profession, and I think
you would not have bought this house this
week if you had not got free title to it.
This government, through OHC is not in the
position to give free title to any one of these
units until The National Housing Act is
changed. Now, just as soon as it is changed,
we have a list of people who are in the
category where they can be offered their
homes. We will move just as speedily as we
can get a change, but this was, I think,
regarded by the federal government as one
of the minor changes in legislation. They
had many other problems.
We do not kick a gift horse in the face.
CMHC have had their troubles; they have
done what they can to help us, and I think
they have done an excellent job. We are
grateful for it, but when it comes to cbang-
ing federal legislation I think the hon.
member recognizes—
Mr. Sopha: What does the legislation say?
What does it say?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The legislation means
that the NHA has to give permission for
these houses to be sold. Right now they are
set up to be rented only on the subsidized
basis.
Mr. Peacock: It does not apply to the full
recovery.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It had nothing to do
with it. But the NHA as I told you the
other day, we are checking the full recovery
units now, we are having them estimated.
Some of those estimates have already gone
to central mortgage and housing corporation
putting a market price on the unit; it comes
back to us. We are quite prepared to make
a deal with the applicant, but on the housing
that is on the 90/10 basis we cannot operate
until The National Housing Act is changed.
Otherwise we cannot get free title.
Mr. Peacock: Have the Guelph-unit sales
been approved?
Mr. Sopha: What you are obliged to do?
I would think what you are obliged to do,
unless you doubt the bona fides of the
federal government in this regard, is say to
these people, "Look, you make your payments
of rent to us on time, and we shall put those
payments aside and when that legislation is
changed we shall credit those payments
against the purchase price, as in an agreement
for sale."
The only bond to you then doing what you
undertook to do in the Speech from the
Throne is some impossible attitude by the
federal government that would preclude them
from changing their legislation. But, if on
the other hand, the federal govermnent has
indicated to you that it is only a matter of
getting it before the House of Commons,
and that is a technicality only, eventually a
day will be found when that amendment can
be put through. Accordingly, I do not see
why you do not, why you cannot, start on an
immediate programme of selling by agree-
ment for sale subject to the change in the
federal legislation that would facilitate the
transfer in fee simple to be made to these
prospective purchasers.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
4600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, earlier this evening the member
for Windsor West questioned the views of a
couple of members of our party on public
housing. I want to make it very clear what
my own personal views are, and I believe they
coincide with those of my colleague from
Parkdale.
I am fully in accord with the need and the
role being played in public housing by this
province and its importance in supplying
subsidized houses for those that need it. I
also have been, in the past, associated with
one of the first companies that did, in fact,
bring public housing units or develop public
housing in an integrated fashion adjacent to
private housing. We felt that this was a very
important way for it to be developed where
it was not segregated, but it was an integral
part of a development.
My problem and my opposition to the pres-
ent programme of the Ontario housing cor-
poration is in regard to failing to persuade
the government to provide services and other
assistance required to enable the private sector
to fill the need for low-cost housing in a way
they can fill it. And they can fill it if they
are not forced by municipalities to have high
assessed homes in order to have a level of
taxation from those homes that will not
burden the existing taxpayers with regard to
education and other costs. I am very opposed
to the present lack of an integrated pro-
gramme to provide services for the private
sector. If they can be provided for the
Ontario housing corporation, as they are
going to be in Malvern and other areas, they
should be doing it in other areas for the pri-
vate sector as well, and let them show what
they can do, which I am sure they can do
better.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton
East.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr.
Chairman, I have a feeling that you and
some of the members across the way feel that
this vote has had more than adequate dis-
cussion.
Mr. Chairman: Is the member directing his
remarks to the chair or to the Minister
through the Chairman?
Mr. Gisbom: To you, sir.
Mr. Chairman: To me personally as Chair-
man?
Mr. Sopha: He never in any way intended
that.
Mr. Gisbom: Let us not kid ourselves. If
there is any affront to the Chairman, I apolo-
gize. What I said was I have a feeling that
you, sir, and all the members on the other
side of the House have felt that there has
been adequate discussion on this vote.
Mr. Chairman: In no way.
Mr. Gisbom: I have a feeling that you feel
this way; if you have not, then you have not.
But nevertheless I want to say that the dis-
cussion—two full sessions on this vote— has
been most enlightening in regards to the
most serious problem of providing low-cost
public housing for the peoples of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
No one will forget that in the House for
the last 10 years I have had a running con-
troversy and conflict with the department and
with the administrator of housing. The low-
cost housing project in Hamilton, and the
problems that arose, are similar to some of
the problems that I have listened to in the
last five or six hours— the sort of arrogant
approach of the administrators, and the ad-
ministration and management policies in the
projects. For 10 years I have been faced
with at least 50 or 60 phone calls, about the
end of the session, when people began to
get their notices to vacate— because they had
earned more than the allowable income to
stay in the project.
I was requested, each year, to attend meet-
ings. In most meetings 75 per cent of the
tenants were in attendance, putting their proj-
ect problems to me. I am sure that kind of
controversy and conflict has done some good
in the Hamilton area. Now, I do not know
why, this year, I have not had one telephone
call or complaint from that Hamilton proj-
ect. I do not know whether it is because
there has been drastic change in the manage-
ment policies or whether the people have just
given up complaining. I hope it is the former
—that there has been a drastic change in the
outlook, in the administration policies in
Hamilton. They were, for many years, similar
to those that have been presented by the
member for Windsor West and other mem-
bers in the House.
I have the feeling, Mr. Chairman, and I
say this to the Minister through you, that
there is an attitude by the government, by
some municipal councillors, and by real estate
boards' spokesmen, that some time the need
for low-cost public housing will dry up and
our problems will be all over. I want to
assure you that we have to recognize this will
not be the case, that we are faced with a
JUNE 17, 1968
4601
need, an ever-increasing need, for subsidized
low-income public housing and we have to
begin to face it in a businesslike and more
humane manner.
In the past year, in Hamilton, there have
been six public meetings sponsored by vari-
ous churches in various areas of Hamilton,
hi attendance were spokesmen from the
urban renewal committees, from the social
workers, the children's aid societies, and the
officers from the municipal welfare depart-
ment. The main issue this year has been the
lack of accommodations for large families.
The strongest concern and protest came
through the officers of the children's aid
societies— their biggest problem and headache
was trying to keep families together. They
could not do it because of the lack of ade-
quate housing— because there was no housing
available that had enough rovom. Either the
rents were too high, or there was not enough
money to pay for the accommodation and
they had to split up the families.
What I noticed following each one of these
sessions after the press wrote their story on
the need for more public housing, particu-
larly for large families in the low-income
groups, it would be followed by a statement
by a spokesman from the real estate boards.
Their line would be that there was no need
for getting concerned about a crash pro-
gramme in the low-income public housing
field. They— the free enterprise builders-
would look after the problem if they could
get the government to see the light and they
were given the proper initiative— and so on,
and so on.
The last one was not long ago and it was
a statement put out by the president of the
Hamilton real estate board. He talked about
the great numbers of houses hsted for sale
with the real estate people in Hamilton and
he even went on to say that they ranged
from $6,000 to $31,000. But, on investiga-
tion, we found that there were only about
six between the $6,000 and $8,000 bracket,
and all the rest were in the $25,000 to
$35,000 area. Of course, this is not going to
rectify our problems a bit.
The other thing that concerns me that we
have to be aware of— I have noticed it in the
Hamilton area— it is not just the young mar-
ried couples who are being forced into high-
cost, high-rise apartments. I am finding now
that many of our old-age pensioners are being
conned into going into high-cost apartments.
When I was canvassing last October, dur-
ing the election, I noticed a chap ahead of
me also knocking on doors and speaking to
the people in the homes. This was in a pre-
dominantly low-income area; most of them
are pensioners. I caught up to him and I
asked him who he was canvassing for. "Oh,"
he said, "I am not in the political field. I
am trying to buy homes." I said, down in
this area most of these people are retired and
they are low-cost homes. He said, "We have
a market for them, if we can buy them."
I said, "What kind of a pitch are you
using?" He said, "Well, I am telling them
that they had better sell now as they will get
the best price, because if they wait till the
Carter commission report is implemented,
then they will have to pay a capital gains tax
on the money they receive for their home."
I said, "That is just a little bit phoney, l)e-
cause it is not the truth." He said, "It is a
good pitch anyway," and he and I got into
quite an argument at that point.
I have noticed the many "sold" signs that
are going up in these low-cost home areas. I
have traced four of them and I find that they
are now in apartments paying from $140 to
$170 a month rent, and I found that they
have sold their homes anywhere from $7,000
to $10,000. I just wonder if they realize how
long that is going to last and the kind of a
situation they are going to be in when that
little bit of a nest-egg they thought they had
is gone.
Why I say we ha\e to pay a lot of attention
to the need for low-income public housing
is also based on the report that was requested
by the municipaUty of Hamilton. I think it
was finished in February, 1967, and it is what
makes me think that the government is not
giving the right kind of attention to the need.
As we have criticized this department over
the years for the lack of low-income public
housing in various areas, we have been told
by the Minister— and I suppose in technical
terms he is right— he has sort of excused him-
self by giving as a reason that the initiative
has to come from the municipalities. "They
tell us what they want and give us the go
ahead, and we will provide the homes for
them."
I have always said, and I think this side
of the House has always said, that this is not
enough-that the government has to take the
initiative, give the encouragement, and use
more persuasion in the areas where we need
low-income public housing.
This survey was carried out by the Minis-
ter's department and it appears to be a splen-
did survey. It starts off with recommenda-
tions, introduction, location, and no. 1-
economy of the areas. And it goes down
employment in general: employment, principal
4602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
employers, employment capital investment,
employment index numbers, incomes, popula-
tion, past and current trends, age distribution,
households, housing market factors— and there
are 15 various aspects to that section— they
have done a splendid job. What they say in
their opening remarks — recommendations:
The results of this supplementary survey in-
dicates a demand for additional Ontario hous-
ing in the city of Hamilton. The analysis of
the 578 applications for family housing and
741 applications for senior citizens— a total of
1,319— revealed an effective demand for 436
family housing units and 611 senior citizens'
housing units. Now that totals 1,047. The
difference between 1,319 and 1,047 I take it
are those they found that did not have
enough income to l>e eligible for application.
Or were already living in suitable accommo-
dations. It goes on to say:
This recommendation is based solely on
the effective demand represented liy the
pending applications for Ontario housing
on file with the Hamilton housing authority
at the time of the survey. It does not
attempt to predict the total eflective de-
mand for Ontario housing at this time in
the city of Hamilton, nor does it attempt
to forecast future demands brought about
by a continuation of industrial and com-
mercial expansion or demolition of existing
properties as a result of urban renewal.
It is no wonder that we are not going to
catch up with the backlog and start to pro-
vide the kind of housing we need if this
government takes this attitude.
I would have thought that on the basis of
the research that was done they would have
put in a further paragraph and said because
of the 3 per cent anticipated in the nor-
mal increase in population, l^ecause of the
continued industrial expansion in that area,
because we have now zoned a one-mile by
five-mile mile industrial zone in the city of
Hamilton that you are going to need so many
houses in the next five years. We knew that
we needed this many houses two years ago,
and we have not been able to get the thing
off tlie ground yet, so that we have adequate
housing.
This is why I say the attitude of the gov-
ernment seems to me to relate to the same
attitude that some of the municipal councils
have and the real estate board people— that
they hope that some day tlie need for low-
income housing in our province will dry up
and the situation will be solved.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Carried!
Mr. Gisbom: Is the hon. member for Lon-
don South trying to indicate to me that the
House leader would like to get the floor?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee rise and report progress and ask for
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Ghairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks for
leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow afternoon we will deal with certain
matters on the order paper, and the after-
noon, I presume, will be largely occupied
with that situation. In the evening, we will
continue with the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Trade and Development, and there-
after with The Department of Lands and
Forests.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 123
ONTARIO
?.egiglature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
TORONTO
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
Mine rescue team competition, statement by Mr. A. F. Lawrence 4605
Control of odours from meat-packing industries, statement by Mr. Dymond 4606
London board of education, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 4606
Mining operations, questions to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Shulman 4606
Civil service morale, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 4607
Instructions to Metro Toronto ambulance drivers, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 4607
Laboratory services in Ontario, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 4607
Committee of supply debate on a motion by Mr. MacDonald, seconded by Mr. J. Renwick 4608
Recess, 6 o'clock 4645
4605
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature, and today we
welcome as guests, students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery students from
tlie public and separate schools at Spanish;
in the west gallery from Dalewood senior
public school, St. Catharines, and from
Naughton public school, Naughton.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
The Minister of Mines has a statement.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday saw the conclusion of
an activity that I think warrants the attention
of hon. members. Each year, the mines of
Ontario conduct a series of competitions in
the various mining districts to select the best-
trained and most efficient mine rescue team in
the province.
These teams are made up of working miners
who, as an additional activity and mainly on
their own time, undergo a special course of
arduous training in rescue work and the use
of self-contained oxygen breathing apparatus
in the event of fire or other conditions under-
ground which make such equipment neces-
sary. Fortunately, occasions on which this
training has to be put into serious use are
rare, but it is comforting to know that if an
emergency does arise there will be men
available to cope with it.
The training programme and the equip-
ment used is co-ordinated throughout the
province so that teams are readily inter-
changeable between mines and districts. The
co-ordinator of the provincial programme is
Mr. George G. McPhail of my department,
and full-time superintendents are employed
at each of the eight mine rescue stations
throughout the mining regions of Ontario. I
think I should point out that the total cost
of this extremely valuable work is defrayed
entirely by the mining industry itself, without
direct charge to the taxpayer.
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
The competitions are divided into two
parts. First all teams in each of the districts
compete among tliemselves, and then the
district winners are presented with a simu-
lated, but very realistic set of emergency
situations. The team which, in the opinion
of the judges, best copes with the problem
is adjudged the provincial winner and is
awarded the mine safety trophy.
It was my pleasure yesterday to send a
congratulatory telegram to the general super-
intendent of Algoma ore division of the
Algoma Steel Corporation at Wawa inform-
ing him that his team had been chosen as
winners of the provincial mine rescue com-
petition. This is the provincial championship
here. Second place went to the team repre-
senting Mclntyre Porcupine Mines Limited
in the Timmins area, and the Falconbridge
mine team of Falconbridge Nickel Limited
placed third.
When it is considered that 300 miners,
representing 45 mines in the province were
entered in the competition, the standard of
performance was very high and final victory
was no mean achievement, and on your be-
half, sir, and on behalf of the members of
this House and on behalf of the public, I
hope, of Ontario, certainly northern Ontario,
I would like to very warmly congratulate
these teams.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
I think a question is permitted after these
statements.
Does the Minister agree that the enthusiasm
of the government for these competitions is
rather recent in origin? Does he recall that
last year the government was asked to finance
the expenses of one of these teams to take
part in a national competition during our
centennial year, and the government refused
to do so?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: No, I do not remem-
ber that, Mr. Speaker. I remember it this
year, though, and the reasons were quite
valid and sound and they can be discussed at
a more appropriate time.
Mr. Speaker: Might I point out to the
members that the questions following a Min-
ister's statement are for the purpose of
4606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
elucidating the statement and not for ancillary
matters. The Minister of Health has a state-
ment.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I think you and the hon. mem-
bers of the House would be interested to
know that in co-operation with the air pollu-
tion control division of my department,
arrangements ha\'e now been made with the
two largest meat packing industries in the
Keele-St. Clair area to undertake the control
of obnoxious odours. Both Swift Canadian
Company and Canada Packers are presently
installing control equipment and we belie\e
when this is completed a great deal of the
offensive odours will be removed from this
area. After we have had an opportunity to
assess the value and success of these, further
requirements will be made of these and other
industries in the area.
Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Opposition
has a question from yesterday,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier,
notice of which was sent to his office yester-
day.
Has the Premier received a communication
from Mr. Neville Ross of London appealing
the decision of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs not to hold an investigation into the
relationship between previous boards of edu-
cation in London and its school architect's
office? And two, whether or not such an
appeal has been received, does the Premier
contemplate further action in this matter?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I received no such communication
and as far as I am concerned, the matter
rests where it is at the moment.
Mr. Nixon: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the
Premier knows of any alternative that the
hoard of education of London might have in
conducting a furtlior investigation of this
matter, independent of the government of
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The key to the whole
matter is that the board of education of its
own volition, by a vote, refused to exercise
the powers that it has. The chairman of the
board then chose to write in his personal
capacity to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. McKcough).
i^nt I woud point out to you that the board
itself refused by vote to exercise the powers
which it has.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the member for Sudbury
East (Mr. Martel), I have been requested to
put several questions to the Minister of Mines,
if this is all right.
Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order.
Mr. Shulman: Question No. 1 is: Who is
doing the mining at Crean Hill open pit?
lion. A. F. Lawrence: Carman Construction
Limited.
Mr. Shulman: O^c^ti^^" No. 2: Is the Mc-
Isaac Company operating at Maclennan Mines
at Rolands Bay? Is the property producing
ore? Are they carrying out standard mining
procedure, and how long lia\e they been
working this propertx?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: I think the hon. mem-
ber is getting his spontaneous question mixed
up with the written question. That last one
was not included in the list of questions that
I received.
Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Minister
for a minute. The last question, which is on
the copy which the Speaker has and which
is No. 685 and initialled, says: "How long
have they been working this property?" That
should be on the carbon cop>- which reached
the Minister's office.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The answer to Uie first
part of that question— is the Mclsaac Com-
liany operating at Maclennan Mines at
Bolands Bay?— is yes.
Is this property producing ore? The infor-
mation of the department is that it is not at
the present time, while shaft deepening is in
progress.
The next question: Are they carrying out
standard mining procedure? The answer that
I have is yes.
And I am sorry that the information regard-
ing how long they have been working this
property is not available to me today. I will
have it for the hon. member tomorrow.
Mr. Shulman: Finally to the Minister of
Mines:
Is the Dra\o Developing Company doing
the mining and hoisting at Clarabell? Does the
Dravo Developing Company use its trucks to
dump the ore it mines into the open pit? Is
the Minister aware that a Dravo official said
at an inquest that his company is presently
JUNE 18, 1968
4607
rngaged in mining on five different proper-
ties in the Sudbury district?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: The answer to these
questions, Mr. Speaker, is that Dravo of
Canada Limited are operating the Copper
ChfF north mine adjacent to the Chiral-K'll
open pit.
The next question: Does the Dravo Devel-
oping Company use its trucks to dump tlie ore
out of the mine into the open pit? The answer
to that is yes, at the dumping sites near the
No. 2 shaft.
The next question was: Is the Minister
aware that a Dravo official stated at an in-
quest that this company is presently engaged
in mining on five different properties in the
Sudbury district? The information in the
department is, yes, they are at present operat-
ing at Copper Cliff north, Copper Cliff south,
Little Stobie, Stobie No. 9 and KirkM'ood.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, sir. I have a
fiurstion for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister intervene directly
lo improve the poor morale of the civil ser\ ice
as revealed in a release by the civil service
association June 13, stating that the govern-
ment was bargaining in poor faith, that em-
ployees were disgusted, and that "many of
the respresentatives would have preferred
more direct and stronger action in the place
of arbitration hearings"?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, these
arbitration proceedings are just about to com-
mence, and therefore I would not personally
interfere in these matters. There will be
representations made by })oth sides under
the procedures as set out in the statutes. So,
in direct answer to the question— no, I will
not be personally interfering in this process.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Prime Minister
allow a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Prime Minister aware
of tlie circumstances and are the allegations
made in this release correct?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
read the release. I could only say that this
is a form of collective bargaining which is
just commencing. Possibly there will be
various positions taken and statements made
about which I would probably have nothing
to say. I could say this— that what is being
arbitrated is the January 1, 1968 cycle; the
civil ser\ ice association did not make its
representations in regard to this particular
matter until some time in March.
One other comment that I could make is
that I think all the arbitrations arrived at to
date have been arrived at imanimously. In
other words tlie representatives of the civil
service association who have been present in
dealing with the arbitrations have agreed
with the decisions that have been handed
down, so I find it difficult to believe that
the process is about to break up. There arc
always statements made in the beginning of
negotiations of this type. I would hope tliat
these remarks may be in that category.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Prime Min-
ister. I have a question for the Minister of
Health, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister
believe that ambulance drivers should
attempt to do breech deliveries and other
such activities such as pushing the mother's
uterus up into her abdomen, as suggested
in the instnictions handed out last week to
ambulance drivers working for Metro
Toronto?
Is the Minister of the opinion that an
ambulance driver is qualified to determine
when a tracheotomy should be performed
by himself in order to save a life, as sug-
gested by instructions handed out last week
to ambulance drivers working for Metro-
politan Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I do not know about
these instructions but if they do contain
statements or suggestions such as that out-
lined by the hon. member, then my answer
is no.
Mr. Shulman: W'ill the Minister allow a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymiond: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister contact
the proper authorities in the Metropolitan
Toronto department of health to clarify the
situation and perhaps see that wiser instruc-
tions are sent out?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would like to be
assured, Mr. Speaker, of the existence of
these so-called instructions. I have no knowl-
edge that they were issued as official instnic-
tions.
Mr. Shulman: I will send a copy across to
the hon. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day; the hon. member for
High Park put a six-part question to me
4608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
last week which I took as notice. I would
hke to answer that now. The question can
be found in Hansard, and I shall not repeat
it.
The statistics quoted by the hon. member,
I now learn, have been extracted from a paid
advertisement inserted by Dr. Hannah, man-
aging director of associated medical services
incorporated, in the May issue of the Ontario
Medical Review. I have no knowledge of the
source of the statistics, nor do I have any
knowledge of the standard set in this special
study by Dr. Hannah; therefore it is impos-
sible for me to comment on them.
It is very true, for a number of reasons,
that the number of tests in Ontario have
increased, as have the costs. There are many
more beds and a much greater population.
There have been great advances in medical
techniques, as the hon. member well knows,
and great advances brought about by auto-
mation. Whether these tests are necessary, of
course, is essentially a matter of medical
judgment, since all of them must be ordered
by the attending physicians.
I would point out, as I did in the esti-
mates of my department, that all of these
matters, which are the source of hospital
costs, are the subject of ongoing study and
review. If, after thorough investigation, it is
deemed that unnecessary tests are being
made, I can assure you, sir, steps will be
taken to change the pattern.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, what I have to say I hope will
facilitate the business of this House.
Last night as a result of a question from
the hon. member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer), the Minister in charge of Ontario
housing corporation was asked to table the
offer to sell between the Trent Park develop-
ments limited and the OHC. The document
that was tabled is not the final document
as stated in tlic Minister's own statement in
this House yesterday afternoon. This par-
ticular document is one that expires on
August 18. By tlie Minister's statement, the
expiry date of the offer was October 31.
The amount of money placed on account
with the OHC was $100 and, by the Min-
ister's statement, on the final ofi'er the
amount was $50,000.
I am sure that tonight we do not want
to have a delay in securing this final docu-
ment. I hoped that by bringing this up on a
point of order, the Minister might be able
to table the final document this afternoon.
so that there will be no delay in passing
his estimates.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I was unaware
that there was a second document. If there
is I will check, and I will have it for you.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY DEBATE
Hon. J. P. Roberts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the House resolve
itself into the committee of supply.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick), that
the motion that the House resolve itself into
the cx)mmittee of supply be amended as
follows:
That this House concurs in the historic
words of that renowned statesman, the late
Sir Winston Churchill, that, and I quote:
The Conservative Party is nothing less
than a deliberate attempt on the part of
important sections of the propertied classes
to transfer their burdens onto the shoul-
ders of the masses of the people, and to
gain greater profit for the investment of
their capital by charging higher prices.
And that among other things:
(a) By failing to control exorbitant in-
creases in consumer prices through a prices
review board, and by failing to establish a
floor in family income through adequate
minimum wages and guaranteed incomes;
(b) by cancelling out the pre-election
promise of the $50 saving per family
through the basic shelter exemption by a
post-election hike in regressive taxes, in-
cluding hospital premiums, of $125 per
family;
(c) by rejecting universal medicare, which
would permit a 50 per cent reduction in
medical premiums;
(d) by failing to protect farmers from
corporate exploitation of all kinds and by
failing to insure them a fair share of pro-
vincial income;
(e) by failing to develop the full poten-
tial of northern Ontario by not requiring
the processing of its rich resources at home
and by not providing conditions which will
attract other secondary industry in order
to diversify the economy of the north,
increase employment opportunities and
JUNE 18, 1968
4609
reduce the high cost of living which result
from an under-developed economy;
(f) by pursuing housing and urban re-
newal policies in conjunction with the fed-
eral government based on a philosophy of
socialism for the rich and free enterprise
for the poor, amounting to a denial of
the government Throne Speech promise of
adequate housing at reasonable cost for all
Ontario residents;
(g) by failing to protect tenants from
soaring rents and unfair lease terms through
the establishment of a rental review board
and the revision of archaic landlord and
tenant law, including provisions for the
standard lease;
The government has forfeited the con-
fidence of this House and the people of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacDonald moves an
amendment—
I would be delighted if the House would
take the amendment as read; otherwise, of
course, I must read it.
S(Miie hon. members: Agreed!
Mr. Speaker: Agreed? The member for
York South has the floor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously
we have struck home by the reaction that is
emerging from the government benches.
This resolution lists some of the govern-
ment's major sins of omission and commission.
It is certainly not an exhaustive list. Some
of these sins are of long standing, others are
new ones that have emerged in this session
of the Legislature. I want at the outset to
emphasize that it is not my purpose to re-
hash what has already been said in this
House on these issues, but rather to repeat
it only to the extent necessary to draw to the
attention of this House and the people of
Ontario the overall impact, because some-
times in consideration of the details one can
lose the impact.
And I do so in the context of an historic
observation by Sir Winston Churchill. Admit-
tedly, as the hon. members on the opposite
side of the House have noted, he made this
statement in his younger years, while he was
still a Progressive and before he became a
Conservative, but that does not alter the
vahdity of what he had to say. What he had
to say, and this is the context of my remarks,
so I repeat it:
The Conservative Party is nothing less
than a delilserate attempt on the part of
important sections of the propertied classes
to transfer their burdens onto the shoulders
of the masses of the people, and to gain
greater profits for the investment of their
capital by charging higher prices.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I find that statement com-
pletely acceptable with the exception of one
word which I think must be brought up to
date. In the day in which it was made, the
term "propertied classes" was more appro-
priate perhaps because wealth was usually
represented in property held. I would think
it might be more accurate today-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, are you
aware of what has the Minister of Mines (Mr.
A. F. Lawrence) so disturbed? I thought
perhaps that if you knew you might have a
sedative of some sort that might help him to
relax in his seat again.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister perhaps is
making up time.
Mr. MacDonald: What I was attempting
to say when the jack-in-the-box efiFort facing
me interrupted was that there is only one
word that I would suggest must be changed
to bring it up to date. Otherwise, the state-
ment is almost incredibly appropriate today.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Incredibly
is right!
Mr. MacDonald: Incredibly appropriate. It
is incredible for the hon. member, but it is
very, very appropriate for most of the people.
I would think moneyed classes might be
more appropriate, but who am I to try to
change the historic words of a man like Sir
Winston Churchill?
Interjections by hon, members.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Mr. MacDonald: And therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I am quite willing to accept his
phraseology for today.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, orderl
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the only
thing I can conclude is that all this noise is
appropriate to the fall of the government
when this vote is taken.
Interjections by hon. members.
4610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I trust that
you will note by your stop watch all the
time that my opponents are taking from my
20 minutes, so that perhaps I can add it on
at the end.
In introducing this resolution, I want to
concentrate on the impact of the Tory
approach on our tax structure, and the striking
extent to which it bears lightly on the proper-
tied classes while falling heavily and in-
equitably, on the lower income groups. Other
members of my group here will deal with
other ramifications of this magnificent assess-
ment of Tory approach as the debate pro-
ceeds this afternoon.
Since we live in a federal state, Mr.
Speaker, what the province does itself, or
what is done by its creatures, the municipali-
ties, cannot be weighed separately from
federal action. The province's action forms
just part of the overall impact, and it is
significant, therefore, that the Smith com-
mittee deliberately avoided any detailed study
of income and corporate taxes, despite the
fact that a large proportion of Ontario's
revenues come from this source. They left
that job to the Carter commission implication
—and this is stated in the Smith report— the
Carter recommendations were accepted as a
companion piece, so to speak, to the Smith
committee report.
Now, the Carter study documented the
extent to which the propertied classes were
freeloading— the insurance companies, the oil
and the mining companies, the quick profiteers
on the stock market and land speculation—
to the extent of $600 million in taxes. Now
despite revenue needs, Mr. Speaker, the
government at Ottawa has refused to move in
and to raise tliis extra $600 million which is
there for the taking. By raising it, your
would introduce greater equity into die tax
structure.
I want to take note at this point, Mr.
Speaker, of a repeated interjection of the
hon. Provincial Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton)
when we were discussing this issue earlier
in the session.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer): I may have a few more later on.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, he will? Wonderful.
If we can get the hon. Minister up talking
on this issue that will be an achievement. He
has not done so for two years, though the
documents have been sitting around. This will
be a real achievement.
But I do want to acknowledge that the
Provincial Treasurer has said it is wrong for
us to suggest that $600 million would be
available to be spent at will, so to speak.
The net amount available to the Treasury
would be only $222 million, said the Provin-
cial Treasurer, and he is right.
But he is right, Mr. Speaker, because Carter
suggested in order to introduce some equity
into our tax structure $400 milHon of the
$600 million odd should be ploughed back
into reducing the income tax to the lower
income groups. This through a 10 per cent
reduction in income tax for those earning less
than $5,000 and a 7 per cent decrease for
those earning between $5,000 and $10,000. In
short, Mr. Speaker, what Carter has recom-
mended is some of the tax load should be
shifted from the masses of the people to the
propertied classes and thereby establish a
more equitable tax structure.
This government has said little or nothing
about the Carter commission. We have the
prospect, with the Provincial Treasurer's inter-
jection, that he will say something later this
afternoon, even though this government shares
in a very substantial way in the inequitably
applied income and corporate taxes in this
country. The Liberals at Ottawa and the
Conservatives at Queen's Park not only
tolerate but deliberately maintain a situation
in which the burden has been transferred in
Sir Winston's words, from the propertied
classes to the masses of the people. There-
fore, Mr. Speaker, it becomes equally appro-
priate in Canada to interchange the term
Liberal with Conservative in examining this
historic statement of Sir Winston Churchill.
The Robarts government, Mr. Speaker,
acknowledges the inequity of the tax burden.
But let us examine the government's approach
to shifting that burden.
Their pre-election promise of the basic
shelter exemption amounts to tax relief
approximating $50 per family in this province.
But consider their post-election performance.
Before the $50 saving has been passed on,
and indeed it has not yet been passed on,
the budget has imposed more inequitable
taxes weighing most heavily on the little
people. The gasoline tax, the tobacco tax,
fishing licence, hospital premiums, and so on,
to the extent of $125 per family. So, in order
to put $50 into one pocket of the average
family, the government has taken $125 out
of the other pocket. What a magnificent
example of Tory relief.
With the basic inequity of the tax structure
untouched, the government has made a bad
situation worse, and in doing so has illus-
trated anew the tnith of Sir Winston's obser-
JUNE 18, 1968
4611
vation about the Tory party. More of the
tax burden has been shifted onto the shoul-
ders of the masses of the people.
But this is Only one example, Mr. Speaker,
of the far-ranging nature of the pattern that
is so magnificently summed up in Sir Winston
Churchill's comments. T,here are many other
examples. What I want to do now is just
briefly sketch through some of these examples
and to set a context within which my col-
leagues will later provide more material.
First, the government has refused to estab-
lish a prices review board, to check the actions
of those who seek, in Sir Winston's words,
"to gain a greater profit for the investment
of their capital by charging higher prices".
The Liberals at Ottawa have now accepted
the idea of a prices review board, and the
Premier of this province has written to
Ottawa immediately indicating that he is will-
ing to co-operate in the effort to make that
board operative. But it is interesting, Mr.
Speaker, that when they finally acknowledged
tlie validity of a prices review board, they
have altered the concept of the approach to
a prices-wages review board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to
a prices-wages review board, except that it
reveals the bias of the Liberals also accepted
by the Tories.
A prices-wages review board, if it is going
to be balanced, would be a prices-wages-
profits review board, because prices are the
fruits of labour, and profits are the fruits of
management, and wages and profits contri-
bute to make prices.
So, what is magnificently illustrated in this
one latest move by the Liberals at Ottawa,
supported by the Tories here, is once again
an effort to get at the problem of prices by
focusing public attention on wages and by
ignoring the whole contribution of profits. In
short, once again to focus attention on the
masses of people and the wages being earned,
rather than the fruits that are going to the
propertied classes, if I may borrow the great
statesman's terminology.
On housing policy, mortgage money has
been made available, for the most part, to
the middle and the high income brackets. In
the words of housing experts— and these are
not the words of New Democrats, these are
acknowledged experts in the field of housing
—it has become socialism for the rich and
free enterprise for the poor. The overwhelm-
ing proportion of the mortgage money
available has been to people earning in excess
of $8,000. u M
On the basic shelter exemption that this
government has introduced, the propertietl
classes once again benefit.
I do not object to homeowners benefiting
since in our society we have gone some
direction, some distance in the direction of
everybody being able to have a home and,
therefore, being a member of the so-called
propertied classes. But it is interesting to note
that the government could not draw the line
between basic shelter, their home, and cot-
tages which are certainly an acquisition of
propertied classes. They have gotten away
from the basic shelter exemption concept, and
they even refuse to draw a line separating
out foreign-owned cottages. They are asking
the people of the province of Ontario, through
the provincial Treasury, to subsidize the tax
of foreigners, whereas the government, for
example, has refused to consider subsidizing
people who happen to live in public housing
in the province of Ontario. They balked at
it because it is, in their terms, a double sub-
sidy.
Well, here is one other example of action
in favour of the propertied clas^ses, without
acknowledging the interests of the masses of
the people.
The government has refused to enter
national medicare, though it could bring
about a 50 per cent reduction in premiums
for Ontario citizens. The Canadian Press has
taken a survey across this country from
authoritative sources who have suggested that
if national medicare was entered into by this
province it would actually cost the province of
Ontario less than we are now spending.
The answer to that riddle is not difficult
to find. This government is now subsidizing
low income groups— the people on pension
and those earning less than $2,000— so exten-
sively that there has already been contributed
to the expenditure of medicare that subsidy
that would have to go into a universal plan.
By having a universal plan as in the
Canadian Press survey, the overall expendi-
tures could be reduced from $365 million to
some $350 million. But the important thing,
Mr. Speaker, is that by refusing to go into
the national plan and, therefore, getting a
subsidy from Ottawa, this government has
made it impossible to pass on to all of the
people of Ontario, the people in what might
be called the lower-middle and the middle
income brackets, a 50 per cent cut in medical
premiums at a time when there is a desperate
need to assist in the growing cost of Uving.
4aj2
ONTARIO I.EGISLATURE
In the mining communities, both the
Liberal and Conservative governments,
federally and provincially, have granted ex-
emptions to corporations, while shifting the
burden of taxes, at the municipal as well as
the senior levels of government, to tlie
workers who make up the great proportion
of the mining community population.
This is perhaps the most flagrant example
of Liberal-Tory favouritism on the side of
the propertied classes, the mining corpora-
tion, so that tlie little person, the home-
owner, the worker, the miner in a mining
community has to pick up the tab on behalf
of the mining corporation. For years this
has persisted.
The Carter conmiission, at one level, has
decried this favouritism and says it is un-
necessary. This government, at another level,
protected a discriminatory tax set-up for
years in spite of growing protest in the
mining communities in this Legislature.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): I have been
complaining about it for years, and never
got any support.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member has
changed his policy since 1960, as we will
one day put on the record, just to indicate
just what the change is.
Mr. Speaker, while a provincial Tory gov-
ernment publicly worries about welfare costs,
and the new federal Liberal leader calls for
an end to what he chooses to describe as "this
free handout stuff", the Ontario develop-
ment corporation hands out amounts up to
$500,000 to encourage corporations to estab-
lish new plants in the underdeveloped areas
of this province.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, welfare for
the propertied classes is commendable and
engaged in by this government. But welfare
for their urgent humane needs is increasingly
a matter to be deplored. In short, Mr.
Speaker, you have, if I may quote the
wisdom of Sir Winston Churchill, an
acknowledgment of the fact that there is
class consciousness on the part of people,
and no government is more conscious of the
propertied class and their interest— than this
government.
A genuine democracy demands that this
government should be the handmaiden of all
of the people of the province of Ontario, not
a guardian of the interests of the propertied
classes, who do not carry a fair share of the
tax burden, and who are assisted by this
government in uncontrolled price increases
to boost the profits in their investments.
In the face of this solid documentation, I
call upon this House to vote no confidence in
this government in its inequitable poUcies
when we have a vote later this afternoon,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on
the amendment made this afternoon by the
hon. member for York South.
You may be aware, sir, that funds made
available to Opposition offices will give the
hon. member an opportunity to send his
speech to all parts of the province if he so
chooses. I had the distinct impression that it
was made in anticipation of that endeavour
this summer, rather than for the enhghten-
ment of this House.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the hon. mem-
ber in proposing the amendment, said that
he did not want, in his words, to rehash
what had already been said. As we, I hope
approach the end of this session, I must in-
form him that it has been a considerable
rehash of views that he has expressed pre-
viously. I would say, however, sir, that
if you will permit me, I would like to recall
some of the historical circumstances sur-
rounding the quote that has been made
famous over the years, of the late lamented
Winston Churchill. I understand that it was
made about 1904, at the time when Winston
Churchill was in his Progressive stage. His
decision was brought upon him as he sat in
the Conservative benches and he was in
opposition to the tariff preferential system
that was emerging as Conservative policy in
those days.
As a matter of fact, the leader of the Op-
position, Robert Borden, and the Prime Min-
ister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were
involved in this in some small measure them-
selves, because seeing that here was an op-
portunity to trade with the Empire in a way
that they had not had an opportunity up
until that time, they sent a telegram to
Great Britain approving of it.
When it was read in the House of Com-
mons, it was Winston Churchill, then a
young man just returned from the Boer war,
who got up to speak against Empire prefer-
ences, particularly as it affected the cost of
food. It is in the particular connection, I
think, that it has some connection to the
debate this afternoon, since we are con-
cerned with rising prices, not directly as a
result of preferential tariffs, but perhaps, the
hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.
Stewart), would say, in the absence of some
of the tariffs.
JUNE 18, 1968
4613
It is interesting that the young politician,
Winston Churchill, as he rose to speak, looked
around at the Tory benches and found that
80 of his former colleagues rose and left the
House, and, I am told by those who have
done some research in the history for me,
that under those circumstances, he actually
broke down in the House.
When he next entered, he came in through
the main door, walked to the Bar of
the House, looked to his former friends in
the government on the left, and turned to the
right, and sat down beside Lloyd George and
entered the Liberal phase of his career. As
you all know, this was a passing period of
clarity in the gentleman's thinking as far as
pohtics was concerned, but no one in this
House has any doubt as to his overwhelming
ability as a leader and a statesman.
There were one or two comments that he
made in debates earher that year that have
some interest, at least in this House. I
understand that he crossed the floor May 31,
1904, and during the next few weeks he was
really a thorn in the side of his former
colleagues on the Treasury benches. As a
matter of fact. Prime Minister Balfour found
that the business of the House was going
rather slowly and he was trying his best to
achieve an adjournment by August 16
when, as I understand it, grouse shooting
began. In order to achieve adjournment,
he put a resolution before the House calling
for the House to sit after midnight four
nights a week and after 5:30 on Fridays.
So you can see that government leaders have
had their difficulties over the years since
then.
While that resolution was being debated,
Churchill said the following, and I quote:
There is one thing on which we must
congratulate the Prime Minister, after all
we are nearly at the end of the session,
and here is the Prime Minister still. The
procedure of the House has been muti-
lated, but never mind,
I interpose here that perhaps he did not
hke to sit late into the evening either.
A great quantity of money has been
expended, never mind.
It would have been interesting to compare
that quantity with the sum that we expend
here.
No legislation of any value has been
passed, never mind. But here is the Prime
Minister at the end of the session, a great
deal more than many people would have
expected or hoped for. I offer to the right
honourable gentleman, most sincerely, my
most humble congratulations on his
achievement.
And even this afternoon, when the future
of this very government is at stake, our
Prime Minister is not in attendance, and he
was not here yesterday either. He arrived
in the capital, I am told, only in time to lead
three cheers for the leader of the federal
party, for that handful of the faithful who
gathered in the Coliseum last night.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is hardly
covered by the ambit of the resolution, but
you permitted the hon. member for York
South to stray a bit. I am told that there
were more Liberals attending the nomina-
tion convention for Davenport constituency
in that hall, than attended the meeting in
honour of the leader of the party last night,
for the whole of Metro Toronto. And this
does not augur well for the success of the
Conservatives. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if
you would permit this as coming under the
amendment, that the Liberal Party is looking
for a tremendous sweep at the elections just
one week away.
There is at least one other quote that I
would like to bring to your attention, sir:
the one from Mr. Churchill that is included
in the body of the particular amendment,
because it does deal with the Conservative
Party. And there is another one that deals
with it, perhaps not on a class basis, which
is the one that my hon. friend from York
South selected, but one that is realistic
even today.
During the election campaign of 1908 he
referred to the Conservative Party as being,
and I quote:
Filled with old doddering peers, cute
financial magnates, clever wire pullers, big
brewers with bulbouls noses. All the
enemies of progress are there— weakhngs,
sleek, smug, comfortable individuals.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this is lan-
guage that you would hardly permit in the
development of parliamentary procedures as
we experience it here, and yet many of these
adjectives do describe the attitude toward
public responsibility that has been taken by
members opposite, and sometimes by the
members sitting to our left.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the position of
opposing the government. We do not feel
that we are with the NDP, we are far ahead
of them. But I would say to you, sir, in tiw
4614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
clauses of this particular amendment, the
member for York South has dragged out all
the old political chestnuts that he has been
roasting in the fire for so many years. He
has seen fit, as a matter of fact, to curry
our support by not being so vicious in his
attack on the federal Liberals as he was
perhaps in his comments here a few moments
ago.
It is for this reason that we on this
side, since we are opposed to those "bulbous
nosed" politicians sitting opposite, are able
to vote in favour of tlie amendment as a
matter of no confidence. We are concerned
with some of the provisions of the amend-
ment.
The member for York South has once
again referred to the need for a rental
agency review. And I must say that I was
much struck by the comments made last
night by the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick) when she was
describing in some detail the straitened
circumstances that some of the people in her
constituency have experienced in recent
months. I know that you are aware, sir,
tliat most of us as members of this House
have had put upon us the responsibility to
deal with these individuals in similar circum-
stances.
I know it would not be acceptable for all
of us to bring to your attention, the indivi-
dual cases, but I think that it is very worth-
while when someone like the member for
Scarborough Centre is constrained so to do,
and I believe tliat she made a very good
point to the housing debate that we engaged
in last evening.
A rental review agency is, of course,
sometliing that would be of definite value in
the circumstances that we find are being
experienced in our communities right now.
The difficulties that consumers in every
community are having in meeting their bills
and simply putting meals on the table, let
alone a roof over the heads of the family,
are something that we are all aware of.
We perhaps complain about our own
indemnities and we sometimes complain
about the length of the sessions of this
House keeping us away from some of our
other enterprises. And yet we know that we,
along with the member for York South, are
very much in a privileged class as far as
meeting the family responsibilities as indivi-
duals. We must never forget that we are
here to speak for those much less fortunate
than ourselves.
It is very much incumbent upon us tliat
we are aware of this responsibility and that
we do not feel that the phrase, the affluent
society, refers to everyone that comes under
the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario
or the government of Canada. And so I say
that these review boards could serve a useful
purpose. As a Liberal I feel that we must
be careful that we do not impose heavy
government bureaucracy upon tlie individual
liberties tliat we hold so dearly as Canadians
and as citizens of the West.
The member for York South is right when
he says that he is prepared to accept a wages
review board, because if we are going to have
guidelines in the community, they must en-
compass all the activities of the community.
The hon. member has a list of review boards
that is extensive, and it is obviously a pro-
pensity of the socialists to regulate and control
every aspect of the community.
It may very well be the proposal that we
put before the House was long before the
proposition that the member for York South
finds so attractive this session— that the stand-
ing committees of the Legislature be given
some continuing responsibility to review
changes in the economy that come about by
changes in the price of the food, and in the
fees and charges by professions such as doc-
tors, lawyers, teachers and others; that the
premiums required for automobile insurance
and other insurance rates should certainly
come under the review of those who carry
upon their shoulders the responsibility of
the public interest.
If this responsibility would be too onerous
for my friend to the left, then it may very
well be that some sort of a situation can be
developed where a more objective board
would have this responsibility.
But my view is held very strongly, sir, that
we do not want to encumber our economy
with needless bureaucracy which is always
so attractive to the socialists. But beyond
that, we must accept our responsibility in
seeing that the citizens of this province do
l:)enefit from what we like to call the just
society.
Mr. Speaker, we believe very definitely that
if there is going to be a wages review board
in conjunction with the other emanations of
government that have been proposed here
today, they cannot be brought into the scene
when positions have hardened, when a strike
is imminent or perhaps in progress, but that
all of these matters can be used to represent
the public interest in a much more effective
way than it has been proposed.
JUNE 18, 1968
4615
We know very well that in this nation and
in this province we face at the present time
serious challenges to our understanding of
modern labour negotiations. We have seen
the united auto workers, many of them my
own constituents, who have been out on
strike in an effort to gain their point in oppo-
sition to that held by Massey-Ferguson; the
strike has gone on now for more than a
month. We see the position taken by the
seaway workers, which could very well result
in a strike tying up the whole St. Lawrence
system.
The Metro members of tlie Canadian union
of pubhc employees, we are told, are going
to withdraw their services on Friday of this
week which may very well, according to the
Metro chairman, result in the garbage piling
up, no water being made available and sew-
age disposal not functioning.
This is a matter of great concern. A matter
in which a wages review board should have
l)een of some assistance before the situation
reached this particular point. I would say that
these matters are of great importance, not
only to politicians, but to tliose who want
to see our province and our nation move
ahead on a fair and equitable basis; a just
basis; a basis in which all sections of society
can take part in our growing economy.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the time is going
on. There are at least two matters of specific
concern that I want to bring to your atten-
tion.
The first, has to do with northern develop-
ment. You know, sir, that we on this side
have had a resolution on the order paper for
some time dealing with this in detail. It is
my hope that my colleague, the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), in the Budget
debate, when that order is called some time
in the future— you know that we have not
had access to that order of business for many
weeks— will be able to put our position in
more detail. But we do believe, as the hon.
member for Sudbury's resolution provides, in
the increased activity on the part of this
government in seeing that our natural re-
sources are developed here and that the
manufacturing takes place within the confines
of our own province.
I was interested to read the dilemma tlie
Minister of Mines finds himself in in this
very matter. He was rather plaintively sug-
gesting to one of the reporters for the Ghhe
and Mail that he wished the appointment
could have been postponed for a year so that
these difficult matters would not be before
him. But I can assure him, sir, that we on
this side are prepared to support his efforts
to see that the manufacturing of our natural
resources does take place within our own
boundaries and that we no longer export our
birthright from this particular source of
wealth.
Mr. Speaker, it has been our view that
the Ontario development corporaHon should
have been taking a more effective means, or
or applying more effective methods, in pro-
viding a channel for public funds in the
development of our northern resources.
The Minister has said that he is prepared
to use private funds as well in this particular
responsibility. We hope that we can have a
change in policy that will bring this into
effect, but when we talk of the association
that the Minister of Trade and Development
(Mr. Randall) has, we must of course, come
to something that is a looming problem but
has not been discussed in this House for
some years. That is the problem of unemploy-
ment, which was predicted in the Budget
papers brought down in this House some
weeks ago by the Treasurer. We are in-
formed already that unemployment in Canada
is approaching the 4 per cent level and
while it must be much less than that in
Ontario, we can say—
An hon. member: We have full employ-
ment.
Mr. Nixon: Well 3.1 per cent of our work
force is unemployed in Ontario-the hon.
Minister equates that with full employment.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in
one segment of our work force there is
probably 60 per cent unemployment and I
am talking about the student work force,
about which nothing has been done by this
government and for which everything should
be done.
Mr. Speaker, only a few of our educa-
tional institutions have a summer programme.
Ryerson is an outstanding example, whereby
our young students who do not have an
opportunity to go out and employ themselves
gainfully for a few months, can, during the
summer period, continue with their courses
there so that time will not be wasted. I
suppose some of the members remember a
far different day when students used to lan-
guish on the beaches of this province and
elsewhere while they were waiting to return
to university, but I do not believe that is the
case now.
I would think there are between 70,000
and 100,000 young people who are searching
for employment in Ontario and who are un-
able to find it. As has so often happened in
4616
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the past, this government is prepared to say
that the national employment responsibility
should look after this. But I would say to
you, Mr. Speaker, that the government of
Ontario, through The Department of Labour
or The Department of Education, should
have a co-ordinated programme whereby the
efforts and abilities and idealism of these
young people can be harnessed for the
development of our own province.
I would say to you that before these young
people get enmeshed in the machinery of
big business and big industry that they should
have a taste of community service. We should
be prepared to employ them in this province
for two months or perhaps longer, seeing that
they get $400 or $500 for that period, so
that they can put that towards their con-
tinuing education.
I believe in this way we can provide the
kind of service, Mr. Speaker, that the Min-
ister of Health (Mr. Dymond) is looking for in
the Ontario Hospitals, that the Minister of
Agriculture and Food is looking for on our
farms, that the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Gomme) and the Minister of Energy and Re-
sources Managament (Mr. Simonett) are look-
ing for in their expanding responsibilities
having to do with education and the provision
of an expanding economy.
I see that the time that I have at my dis-
posal is drawing to an end, Mr. Speaker, but
I would say that this is an area of growing
challenge as far as Ontario is concerned. This
is one particular challenge that we can meet
in this province and in which we are failing
the young people that come under the pur-
view of provincial responsibihty specifically.
I do have one quote remaining from Sir
Winston Churchill that was made during his
period of enlightenment, when he was sitting
with the Liberals in the House of Commons
and in those days they were emerging into a
three party system. As you know, they have
reverted in Great Britain to a two party
system, but during that particular period this
man, who was making some comments about
Conservatism, also left his pearls of wisdom
for those who have come after concerning
socialism. This was, as I say, while he was
supporting Liberahsm and I would like to
bring these comments to your attention, Mr.
Speaker, and I quote as follows:
Socialism wants to pull down wealth,
Liberalism to raise up poverty. Socialism
would destroy private interests. Liberalism
would preserve them in the only way they
could justly be preserved by reconciling
them with public rights.
Socialism seeks to kill enterprise. Liber-
alism seeks to rescue enterprise from the
trammels of privilege and preference.
Socialism assails the maximum pre-eminence
of the individual. Liberalism seeks to build
up the standard of the masses.
Socialism attacks capital. Liberalism at-
tacks monopoly. The socialists have a creed
of universal self sacrifice, but preach it in
tiie language of spite, envy, hatred and
uncharitableness. They desire to reconstruct
the world, but leave out human nature.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is with these comments
that I would say that we intend to vote
against the government on the amendment.
I believe the amendment is more of a colle-
giate debating vehicle than any other, but I
am glad to have had an opportunity, sir, to
put before you my views on this important
matter.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to
do quite as much research into the old
writings of the then young Mr. Churchill as
my hon. colleagues on the other side of the
House have been able to do.
I did think though, as I read the quote
entered in the amendment to the resolution
by the hon. member for York South, that he
really was reaching. I tell you, Mr. Speaker,
that if ever I saw an example of the devil
citing scripture, this is it. I also recognize,
of course, that they have not read as carefully
the writings of the late Sir Winston Churchill
—the writings that shall be remembered long
after these which have been quoted today
have been forgotten. Indeed, I would suggest
to you, sir, that some of them may outlive the
Psalms of David, if I may be heretical enough
to suggest such a thing. But there is another
thing that they have missed in Churchill's
character, sir.
Churchill was one of the first to pubhcly
apologize on many occasions for the irresponr
sible statements and actions of his youth,
because he lived to a ripe old age when he
became extremely mature, when he learned
through which political party he, and anyone
who had the concern of his country and the
world at heart, could make the greatest con-
tribution.
It is to the everlasting credit of the late
Sir Winston Churchill that he was bom a
Conservative, he strayed for a few moments
—as has my hon. friend here, the memfcer
for York South— you know at one time, sir,
he was headed to be a Conservative, but he
JUNE 18, 1968
4617
got oflF the track, and he has not Hved quite
as long as Sir Winston Churchill yet, but I
suggest to you, sir, that he will come back
on the track, too, because they are headed
in that direction.
I have never lost hope for my hon friend,
the leader of the Opposition. He really is, at
heart as his venerable father vv^as. Conserva-
tive; interested in the development of this
great province and this great nation of ours.
Sir, could you give the hon. member for
York South some of that sedative you were
to give somebody on our side a few moments
ago?
The hon. member for York South interests
me and intrigues me. You know, sir, as I
read this amendment, I could think of him
as an ultra-modern artist. Now I do not know
if you understand modern art. I do not.
As I look at the broad swipes he takes on
the canvas I thought he used a stable broom
but I believe what he does is he turns on the
fan and then he throws the bucket of paint
—or whatever is in the bucket that he is
going to throw— and, of course, it gets spread.
Now this is a broad, all-embracing, irrespon-
sible, kind of picture he paints, Mr. Speaker.
One only has to look at the economic
reasoning of the socialist party and it is as
irresponsible and as pointless as many of the
other things they say and do. We as the
government, responsible for the business of
running the province, must put the facts
before the House, and I am going to deal only
with one phase of the amendment— that
relative to medicare.
In the hike in taxation that our hon. friend
speaks about, he includes hospital premiums.
I wonder if, in this way, he is accepting the
thesis put forward by hon. friend from Sud-
bury, who persisted during the presentation
of my estimates that premiums are a form of
taxation. In my view the very opposite should
obtain— that actually the taxation, which is
imposed upon the people, to pay for medicare
and other health schemes, is really a form
of hidden premium. If premiums are taxation
then what about the prices and the costs
of all other goods?
From the arnendment of the hon. member
for York South, one is led to believe, or led
to think, he is inferring tliat the increased
hospital premium is to be used for other
things, for other expenditures in government
.services, which of course is quite wrong. At
the inception of the plan, as he will remem-
ber because he and I came into the House
at the same time, it was the policy of the
government that this should be a three-way
partnership; that the cost of hospital services
insurance would be divided as closely as
possible in three even parts— the two govern-
ments each assuming responsibility for one-
third of the cost, the remaining third to come
from premiums.
This obtained for a little while but it, too,
got astray, and we got completely out of
balance. All we have sought to do in keeping
with escalating costs, Mr. Speaker, is to
bring our programme back into line with the
policy first laid down. This fiscal year, for
instance, as I pointed out a few weeks ago
the estimated cost for hospital care and other
related services— among those services are the
home care programmes, certain outpatient
services, certain ambulance services— will be
about $744 million.
Of this amount, out of provincial revenues,
we are to find $250 miUion. You will see,
therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeking
to get this back into the balance that was
originally set up.
Now the sociaUsts have another jjecuHar
thing and in this, I think, they are imique
Sometimes I think our Liberal friends try to
point this out but not quite as blatantly as our
sociahst friends. They seem to think and to
convey the impression that only they have
any concern for people; they are the party
who cares— bunk! Mr. Speaker, there is no
political party in this country that has a
comer on the milk of human kindness. Far
less this party than any other, for I say to
you that they are not only willing but ready
and anxious at every time to exploit any mis-
fortune of any individual to gain their own
political ends.
I point to you, sir, the experience of every
country that is governed by a sociahst party.
Everywhere, if you study carefully the
political history of those countries, you will
see them either stagnating or dying. These
people tried to impose this on a province in
Canada on one occasion, sir. For 20 years-
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Why
does the Minister not show proof?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: The proof is there as
clear as anyone wants to have it. For 20-odd
years tlie province of Saskatchewan slowly
died; in many phases of its hfe it was com-
pletely stagnant. The people were even leav-
ing the province and you know, even when
they finally woke up and replaced this group
of socialists they did not go all the way— they
did choose a Liberal government.
4618
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
But even tliey have been able to inject a
little life into that province which was slowly
but surely dying as a result of socialist mis-
management over 20 years. In spite of all of
this, in spite of the fact, sir, that all the
evidence is crystal clear before us, the
socialists persist in their views.
Only they are right; they will listen to
nobody else's opinion; nobody else knows
anything about social services whatsoever.
Only their narrow doctrinaire philosophy is
any good; only that will work in spite of the
fact that it has not worked anywhere. I repeat,
sir, it has not worked anywhere, and social-
ists all over the world are turning against
their own philosophy.
Again I repeat to you tliat their mind is
made up and this is typical of their attitude.
They do not want us to confuse them with
the facts.
In 1959 when tliis province entered into a
hospital insurance programme it became evi-
dent that there were serious gaps in certain
of our otlier health care services, particularly
in physicians' services. The province of On-
tario immediately set about finding a pro-
gramme that would fill these gaps. I shall not
go into the details of the evolutionary process,
sir, it is well known to all the members of
this House.
We did, however, come to certain basic
philosophies. We determined that medical
services insurance should be available to all
of our people regardless of age, their state
of heath, or their ability to pay. It is on this
basis that OMSIP has been developed and I
say to you, sir, with a great deal of pride,
that OMSIP has been successful. It meets
the requirements of the people of the prov-
ince. In combination with other plans that
have been brought about through employ-
ment, through labour contracts, and so on,
OMSIP insures that virtually every person in
Ontario has access to medical services insur-
ance and is therefore provided protection
against the potential financial catastrophe of
major illness or accident.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. S. J. Randall ( Minister of Trade and
Development): Turn the fan that way!
Hon. Mr. Dymond: OMSIP, Mr. Speaker,
is a demonstration of the policy of this gov-
ernment as I enunciated on April 25, 1963:
The provision of health care is an in-
dividual responsibility and the individual
has the right to determine whether or how
he will discharge that responsibility.
All of us, I think, know something about the
development of national medicare. There is
no such thing as national medicare, Mr.
Speaker; what, in fact, does exist is a federal
proposal, a proposal of the federal govern-
ment by legislation, which makes certain
financial grants or makes certain moneys avail-
able to the provinces which would become
effective if the provinces meet a specific set
of conditions laid down by the federal gov-
ernment.
These four principles are well known. They
are— to be eligible for this federal assistance,
the programme must provide comprehensive
physician services, all physician services;
there must be universal— according to the
federal interpretation that means compulsory
—coverage; it must be publicly administered
and, of course, it must be portable, trans-
ferable throughout Canada.
The government of Ontario, I say, sir, as
has been stated clearly by the hon. Prime
Minister of this province on many occasions,
has no doctrinaire aversion to a sound scheme
of publicly financed medical care. Indeed,
we believe that every responsible government
must assume responsibihty for essential social
services, including the provision of such serv-
ices when and where necessary.
The government of Ontario insists that
any publicly financed medicare programme
be flexible, be capable of implementation in
an orderly manner, meet the expressed needs
and priorities of the people to whom it is
responsible; and be within the scope of their
ability to pay. We must keep in mind at all
times that even the most desirable of social
programmes will not succeed if its cost is
such that the people cannot afford to pay
for the programme.
The government of Ontario rejected the
current federal proposals for these reasons:
they are excessively expensive; not consistent
witli our priorities; unfair to those provinces
unable to afford to participate; and they
tamper improperly with matters which are
constitutionally the direct responsibility of
the provinces.
There are fundamental weaknesses in the
programme put forward by the federal gov-
ernment. Only two of the ten provinces have
agreed to participate when the programme
comes into effect this summer, Rejection has
been most emphatic by eight provinces. And,
in spite of the fact that included in those
provinces are governments which are per-
suaded to believe in the policies of the
present, or the now dying government at
JUNE 18, 1968
4619
Ottawa, the federal government has paid no
attention even to them.
This is a dramatic demonstration of the
serious concern throughout the whole of
Canada about the abihty of our country to
finance the cost of medicare as now defined.
And I submit to you too, sir, that it is evi-
dence of concern by the provinces that the
federal government completely and totally
ignores its provincial priorities.
The history of the development of national
medicare is well known to everybody, I have
not the time to rehash it here. I only want
to point out to you that a great deal has
been said about it being a federal-provincial
co-operative programme. During the bring-
ing about of this programme, a great deal
was spoken about co-operative federalism.
Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to sit in on
many of those meetings and I came to the
conclusion that if tliat is co-operative
federalism, I had to develop a new name
for it. In my view it was federal coercion.
The Prime Minister of Canada of the day
came to us with a programme already made
out. There was no question of consultation,
there was no question of provincial involve-
ment. In spite of all we tried to suggest—
Mr. Stokes: Tlie Minister had already
made up his mind.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: —they, like the social-
ists here in Ontario, had their mind made
up. They did not want it confused with the
facts.
About the costs, Mr. Speaker. Again I
cannot begin to understand the economies of
our socialist friend; they are totally beyond
me.
It is quite true that we will not get 50 per
cent of the cost. Ontario would qualify for
something like 44 per cent of the cost
because of the fact that Ontario provides 46
per cent of all of the revenues that go into
the federal coffers at Ottawa. Here again is
a fault, a very great fault, with this pro-
gramme, because this is not a prograntmie of
equity. We are in this programme subsidiz-
ing-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, if they
would just keep quiet a little while then
they would understand that the province of
Ontario has been one of the leaders in
advocating a policy of support for the
so-called "have not" provinces.
I say to you, sir, that history will yet
record that no province in this nation has
provided as much to support the so-called
"have not" provinces as has this province of
Ontario. And no province, I say to you, sir,
has complained less about it than has this
province.
We believe, sir, and we have put tliis on
the record, that if there is to be equaliza-
tion of financing and opportunity it should
be on the top of the table and not handed
out in this oblique underhanded way.
The Canadian people should know what
moneys are being expended for the support
of those provinces that need it. Therefore
I say to you, sir, that this method— the
financing of a so-called national medicare
plan, is entirely the wrong way of going
about this sort of thing.
May I, just in closing, give you the facts
about the costs? Suppose we took this—
$147 million is what we would qualify for
in this year if we were to go into this
programme July 1. This would allow us to
bring a single premium to $3.55. But the
additional tax that every Ontario person
would have to pay to help pay for the pro-
gramme in the whole of Canada would call
for the addition of $4.19, or a total of $7.74
a month. This against the OMSIP premium,
which provides more— I emphasize, sir, pro-
vides more— than is called for by the federal
proposal; the premium for that is $5.90—
$5.90 for OMSIP now against $7.74, which
it would cost the individual in Ontario.
For a couple the cost would be $15.48,
against what they now pay for OMSIP,
$11.80. For the family unit, those about
whom they are shedding great crocodile
tears, Mr. Speaker, their cost would be
$19.36 a month, as opposed to the present
cost of OMSIP, $14.75.
And I emphasize OMSIP today provides
more than the federal programme would.
And I also point out that the $230 million
a year that the Ontario people would have
to find to finance the other provinces would
include an annual subsidy of $83 million
to the operation of universal medicare in
other provinces. Here again, sir, I say to you,
that if the province of Ontario were being
charged what it costs them we would have
no objection, but this is a wrong programme
in every way.
My hon. friend, the leader of the Opposi-
tion, made a very good statement in closing
but he did not go far enough. He said that
the Liberals are far ahead of the NDP. I
4620
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
suggest to you, sir, that we in the Progressive
Conservative Party are far ahead of both of
them. For 25 years we have led this prov-
ince; we continue to lead Ontario. I make
bold to predict, sir, that not only will we
continue to lead Ontario, but we shall con-
tinue to lead Canada ahead to that great
destiny which is hers.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in
support of my leader's motion of want of
confidence in this government.
First, let me say that I appreciated that
the leader of the Opposition, in commenting
on it, did manage to speak about some matters
of substance in the motion, after a discussion
on the background of the quotation which
heads the motion of want of confidence.
He concluded his remarks, however, Mr.
Speaker, by referring to another quotation
of the right hon. gentleman, which inveighs
against socialism and socialists.
I just want to suggest to you why the
leader of the Opposition chose to do that,
because I think in the light of what is to
take place a few days from now, it was a
very understandable action on his part. At
the time the quotation was made— the words
were delivered— the threat of socialism was
certainly looming large on the horizon of the
Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Churchill.
In a period of industrial unrest, Mr.
Speaker, the foresight for which the right
honourable gentleman was credited so often
told him that the Labour Party was going to
sweep away the last vestiges of the party
that the hon. leader of the Opposition now
has the temporary honour to lead' in this
House.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Did you ever read
what he said about Attlee?
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Speaker, I think that the
leader of the Opposition's reference to that
quotation was apt because, on June 25, the
people of Canada will have an opportunity to
sweep away the last vestiges of an adminis-
tration which, for the last several years has,
equally with the government in this province,
contributed to the transferring of the burdens
of the property classes onto the shoulders
of the masses of the people by gaining greater
profits for the investment of the capital in
charging higher prices.
The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,
I believe referred— with some nostalgia, per-
haps-to the fact that the Rt. Hon. Sir
Winston Churchill left the ranks of his party
at that time in 1904, when his leader of the
day was trying to adjourn the House. The
leader of the government here, in this Legis-
lature, would like to do that in the very near
future.
I suggest to the leader of the Opposition
that after June 25 he will no doubt want to
spend more time reading in history, because
he might be turning to the history of those
days in 1957 and 1958, to look for the
parallels that led to the defeat of the current
Liberal administration at Ottawa on June 25.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution— this motion of
vote of confidence— is extremely timely, be-
cause while the people of Canada will have
an opportunity to express their disdain for
the federal government on June 25, the only
way in which the people of Ontario can act
to bring about the downfall of this govern-
ment, as properly deserves to happen to it, is
through this motion of want of confidence
that is put before the House today.
It is extremely timely, Mr. Speaker, because
it comes in juxtaposition to that election at
the polls on June 25. It is also in itself a
great summation of what has taken place in
this session of the Legislature, a summation
of the failures of this government to deal
with the great issues that are set out in the
motion of want of confidence.
One of these I want to deal with while I
am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, is the question
of the government's failure to establish a
prices review board, and to boost the level
of the minimum wage and provide for guar-
anteed incomes to the citizens of this prov-
ince who do not share in the afiluence enjoyed
by those sectors of the population that the
motion refers to in the quotation.
Mr. Speaker, prices in this province and in
Canada in the last four years have gone up
twice as fast as they did on the average in
the previous ten-year period from 1953 to
1963. Many costs have gone up and I want
to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that even
as costs have gone up in our industrial and
commercial sectors, the price increases which
have been put into effect have, in many cases,
exceeded the increases in costs, and have been
well beyond anything that could be possibly
justified by rises in labour costs as well.
For example, recently the Ford Motor
Company of Canada increased its prices in
1968 model cars by an average of about $90.
Its unit sales in 1967 increased by about one
per cent. But while its prices went up at the
end of the 1967 calendar year on its 1968
models, arid its sales went up only by one
per cent on a unit basis, the company's
JUNE 18, 1968
4621
profits after taxes in the calendar year 1967
almost doubled.
Mr. Speaker, there could not be a more
appropriate example of how the corporations
in a price leadership position use their
domination of the market to illustrate the
words of the Right Hon. Sir Winston
Churchill where he said: "They are gaining
greater profits for the investment of their
capital by charging higher prices."
The corporations to which I am referring,
Mr. Speaker, are doing that in a much more
subtle and sophisticated way than they could
possibly have done in the days of Sir Winston
Churchill.
These corporations, Mr. Speaker, do not
go to the bank. Some of them do go to the
Minister of Trade and Development opposite
for amounts of up to $500,000, but I suspect,
Mr. Speaker, that they do not go to the
Minister of Trade and Development because
they are in any great need of the funds that
he supplies to them on a non-interest, non-
repayable basis. They go, as the Minister
has suggested, because there is $500,000 to
be made.
But the money they are really making, Mr.
Speaker, they are taking out of the pockets
of consumers through higher prices. They do
not require the traditional sources of funds
in the money markets that they once needed
for capital expansion and the purchase of
equipment and development of new products.
These funds, Mr. Speaker, for research and
technological advance and capital expansion
now come out of the prices paid by the
average consumer, and in that way, Mr.
Speaker, the profits of these corporate price
leaders in our private economy are enhanced
by charging higher prices even where, as in
the case of the automobile market, the com-
pany sales rose only by one per cent, yet their
profits doubled.
How do they achieve this? Well, they do
it through a formula which they establish at
the beginning of their model year or some-
time before, and it is a formula which I am
sure has been adopted by many other indus-
tries. It is not a formula under which the
company determines what the market will
be in coming years and how prices ought to
be set so that the volume of sales within
that market which is forecast by the com-
panies' economists can be the largest volume
possible.
That is not the way prices are determined
or profits are determined. What is determined
first, Mr. Speaker, is how much money that
corporation would like to earn on behalf of
its shareholders; what size of return it wishes
to maintain or move up to on its shareholders'
equity in the coriJoration.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the volume of produc-
tion and the price per unit of production is
set in order to provide the corporation with
that level of return after it has paid oflF its
taxes to the government and paid for its
materials and labour. That is how prices are
being set and that is how higher prices, Mr.
Speaker, are increasingly enhancing the in-
comes of the managers of these corporations
and the shareholders.
When a corporation has decided on that
formula it then knows how much production
it needs out in that given period of time in
order to reach its profit target.
There is a very thorough discussion of the
way in which profits are set and how prices
result from this profit-setting formula, Mr.
Speaker, by a well known sociologist, Daniel
Bell in the magazine called Discent. He goes
into a very thorough discussion of the way in
which large corporations, particularly those
with price-setting power, use such a formula
to maintain, even in the face of a declining
market, a very substantial return for them-
selves and for their shareholders. How they
refuse to acknowledge the traditional law of
supply and demand, and refuse to acknowl-
edge that the consumer should in any way
share in the savings that these firms can
achieve through the increase in their produc-
tivity and the increases in the technological
methods of scheduling their work and im-
proving their product.
There is no other way, Mr. Speaker, I
suggest, despite the comments of the leader
of the Opposition, to come to grips with this
matter other than by the adoption of the
suggestion of the leader of my group in his
motion; for the establishment of a prices
review board.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to join in this debate and I
am going to attempt, if I can, to set the
hon. Minister of Health straight on a few
facts.
He and I, over the years, seem to end up
tangling over this subject of medical insur-
ance. I did not realize that he was going to
be the speaker for the government immedi-
ately preceding myself, but at least it gave
me an opportunity to change some of my
remarks and to try to put the emphasis where
I think it should be put.
I think the editorial in the Toronto Daily
Star of today rather suits the hon. Minister
of Health as well as it does the hon. Minister
4622
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Trade and Development. There is an
editorial in the Toronto Daily Star on Mr.
Randall talking about whacking a straw man.
It said some Ontario Cabinet Ministers can
whip up a vision or whack the stuflBng out
of a straw man at the drop of a speaking
invitation. Of course, they talked about Mr.
Randall on housing; not being able to build
houses, but doing a lot of talking.
I find that the hon. Minister of Health is
again whacking a straw man when he tells us
of tlie tremendous economic cost that the
national medical care scheme will be.
I know that time and time again we have
discussed this subject in this House in various
stages. There have been bills at diflPerent
times, and the subject must be getting mono-
tonous to a great many people in public life.
But if you look back over the records and
over the years, slowly, ever so slowly, the
government has been forced to give way.
At one time when the hon. Minister of
Health was campaigning for the leadership
of the Tory party, he said there would never
be any public care programme in the province
of Ontario. He was against it. Yet if we look
at the record we can see that we in this prov-
ince are not too far off being in a position to
accept the offer made by tlie federal govern-
ment.
It is a great pity, Mr. Speaker, that at this
stage in the game, the Tory government is
still fighting a very obvious need, and that
is the national medicare scheme.
I want to emphasize this. We are told that
there is going to be a tremendous increase
in the cost of health, and it is not the
increase in the cost of health, it is merely
spreading the cost across the various incomes
that people have. I believe, that the total cost
of medical care in Canada will not increase
more than 10 per cent. We already are spend-
ing about 90 per cent of the cost and this
is going to probably increase about 10 per
cent when the scheme across Canada comes
into action. Two provinces already that we
know of are going to accept this by July 1
of this year.
But what is so important to tliis country
and to this province is that in Ontario, what
we do— being the banner province— is very
vital to the country as a whole. But this gov-
ernment, I think, Mr. Speaker, lives up to
this quotation that the hon. member for York
South quoted from Sir Winston Churchill—
that the Conservative Party is nothing less
than a deliberate attempt on the part of im-
portant sections of the propertied classes to
transfer their burdens to the shoulders of the
masses of people.
This is exactly what is going on in the cost
of medical insurance today. For every $1.30
collected by private insurance companies, $1
goes back to the people. The other 37 cents
is kept by the company; 7 per cent is for
the cost of administration, which is about
what it costs the government to run the
scheme. Thirty cents out of every $1.37 is
kept by the company as private profit. Would
it not be far cheaper, would this not reduce
the cost, Mr. Speaker, if this 30 cents was
in a government operated scheme?
I say that even regardless of using the
federal grant as suggested by Ottawa, we
would be saving the people a great deal of
money. We are losing, and I know the figures
vary because they are more or less estimates
for this year, but we are going to lose
approximately $116 million a year. I think
the total cost of medical insurance for Ontario
for this year will be approximately $350 mil-
lion, Tbe federal share is $160 million and
it us up to us in this province to find $190
million.
Whether we had a scheme or not, the
provincial government already spends about
$70 million in subsidies, and we in this prov-
ince would have to find $120 million in
premiums. Our people today are already pay-
ing $175 million in premiums in this province,
so that it is quite possible for us in this
province to save on the cost of premiums,
$155 million, I think that these figures are
quite reasonable and quite practical.
The hon. Minister of Health will say you
have to get the money from somewhere;
where are you going to get it? Here is one
matter of principle on which I thoroughly
disagree with the hon. Minister and with the
Conservative government and it is tliis.
Premiums are taxation; they are taxation of
the very worst kind. They are a regressive
taxation; they make the family man, who can
least afford it, pay the same amount of money
as the man who has got a million dollars. In
other words, if a man is earning $4,400 a
year— I think tliat is the approximate break-
off figure— and he has a family, he is paying
the same premium as a man who is making
$50,000 a year, I say that any scheme we
have for raising funds for health purposes,
for medical purposes, should be based liter-
ally and progressively on our income tax.
It is my personal view that I would like
to see the cost of medical insurance put on
our income tax, in the same way that the
JUNE 18, 1968
4623
cost of our Canada pension plan is put on
our income tax form. In other words, we pay
the premium as we pay our income taxes.
This is, I think, the only proper and pro-
gressive way to pay these taxes.
These things cannot come to pass until we
accept the federal scheme. I am not going
into details— we have heard it so often and
we do not have the time— about the impor-
tance of the portability, or the importance of
being comprehensive, and universal. Again I
emphasize it must be government-oriented,
government-controlled, because private profit
has no business whatsoever in matters of
health.
They say if the government takes over this
scheme completely it is going to cost the
government, or at least it is going to cost
the people, more because whenever the gov-
ernment runs anything— and Leslie Frost used
to say this— cost goes up. The Minister may
want to remark that I am going to confuse
you with facts. I may confuse him with tlie
facts, but I do not know if it is the result
of universal medical care in Saskatchewan, or
because of the good Liberal administration
in Saskatchewan, but in the province of
Saskatchewan during the last few years the
medical insiu-ance has gone up only 4.9 per
cent per year.
Across Canada it has gone up 7.9 per cent.
In fairness to a government-controlled scheme
in Saskatchewan this is the situation in Sas-
katchewan.
Mr. Speaker, today, in the Toronto Star of
June 18, 1968, this is what the Canadian tax
foundation is quoted as saying about the cost
of medicare. It says "Medicare costs not
alarming, say tax experts. The net eflFect of
the federal medicare plan on tlie taxpayer
would not be alarming, says the Canadian tax
foundation."
In the Canadian Tax Journal, the founda-
tion's bi-monthly publication, satistician David
Perry says Ottawa's share of national medi-
care compulsory government medical insur-
ance would amount to 5 per cent of the
federal government 1969-1970 revenues.
They go on in some detail to explain this,
but I want to, in concluding, emphasize that
this government has incessantly and con-
tinually defended the interest of the private
insurance companies to the detriment of
every man, woman and child in the province
of Ontario and across the country from sea to
sea.
It is a disgrace to this province that the
province of Ontario has acted as a road-
block to the federal plan. It is certainly a
national plan, what else could it be? It has
been slow enough in coming, and far too long
in coming, and all the more it is a disgrace
that it has been continually held up by this
administration and by the present administra-
tion of the Minister of Health.
I wish the Minister would show far more
enthusiasm for a very just and legitimate
claim that it is a national medicare plan,
than he has shown in trying to oppose it.
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to enter into the debate on this
resolution of the hon. member for York
South, and will direct my remarks mainly to
that portion of the resolution dealing with
the housing policy of the government of
Ontario.
In my riding of Halton East, we are quite
conscious of the shortage of adequate housing
in many areas of this province of Ontario
as being located in the heart of the Golden
Horseshoe and on the fringes of Metropolitan
Toronto, and we are one of the areas that
is suffering from a shortage of adequate
housing. I would say that up until four or
five years ago, adequate housing at reason-
able cost was available to the citizens of my
area, as I believe it was to most areas of
Ontario. However, with our rapid industrial
expansion and the many desirable features of
our area as a place to live, a housing short-
age now exists at this time.
Some few years ago, a need was observed
in the town of Oakville for adequate accom-
modation for senior citizens. This need has
been taken care of as it has developed by
the construction of senior citizen housing
units, sponsored by a local service club— the
Oakville Rotary club— along with financial
assistance from the central mortgage and
housing corporation, the Ontario housing cor-
poration and a great deal of co-operation of
the municipal council of the town of Oak-
ville. This organization now operates over
100 senior citizen units, and it has just now
again this year become obvious that further
units will be required.
Some two years ago a need was acknowl-
edged for low rental housing in this area and
as of last Thursday afternoon, June 13, the
Ontario housing corporation completed the
first OHC project and families were busy over
the weekend. This new accommodation
which was immediately made available to
them upon being turned over by the con-
tractor to the authority and the houses were
turned over by Thursday afternoon. Last
fall a further need was recognized by the
4624
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
community for additional low rental housing
as well as additional senior citizen units, and
the Ontario housing corporation are presently
calling tenders for a second development in
this area.
Mr. Speaker, if I may now carry on to dis-
cuss the broader basis of the programme of
the Ontario goverrmient in meeting the hous-
ing needs of our citizens throughout the
whole province of Ontario. There is one
comparison which I feel best indicates the
record of Ontario housing corporation which
was organized less than four years ago, and
that is that by tlie end of this year, the
corporation will have provided housing for
the population equivalent to the entire popu-
lation of the province of Prince Edward
Island. As of December, 1967, the OHC had
under management almost 14,000 rental units
in 64 municipalities, housing 70,000 persons.
Completions anticipated this calendar year
of 1968 will provide accommodation for a
further 30,000 people. I would point out
that as of the end of 1967, OHC had under
management, construction, or development,
almost 30,000 housing units. The ratio of
family housing units to senior citizens was
roughly nine to one. This, Mr. Speaker, does
not include student housing.
The Ontario student housing corporation
was created in the fall of 1967 and already
has under construction or development over
12,000 units for 12 universities and post-
secondary educational institutions. The
launching of a programme of this magnitude
in such a short space of time is indicative
of the way in which Ontario housing
corporation works with the building industry
and has thus been able to produce the most
significant results.
From just under 1,200 starts in 1965,
OHC's programme climbed to more than
12,000 last year. As indicated in the CMHC
annual report for 1967, this represented 81.9
per cent of all public housing starts in
Canada, and utilized 96.3 per cent of all
federal money available for these purposes.
In addition, 4,000 starts were undertaken for
universities by the Ontario student housing
corporation for a grand total of 11,000 starts
in 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put these
figures into their proper perspective by using
the United States' housing programme as an
example. When we relate the United States
population to the Ontario population, and
compare our respective public housing pro-
grammes, we find that on a per capita
basis, Ontario housing corporation, in 1966
started twice as much public housing as our
United States counterpart, and using the
same yardstick for 1967, Ontario started four
times as much per capita as did the United
States. President Johnson has recently
announced an accelerated housing programme
for tlie United States. On a per capita basis,
our 7,500 starts this year and plans for
family and senior citizens housing, and
exclusive of student housing, will be nearly
three times the accelerated United States
programme.
I would like, for a moment, Mr. Speaker,
to mention the land development programme
inaugurated last year and known as the
HOME plan. During 1967, the corporation
made service lots available to prospective
homeowners in ten municipalities, and it is
currently active in land development in more
than 40 municipalities. In some of these,
large areas of land has been purchased or
secured under option, the largest today in
any one area being more than 2,000 acres.
By the end of last year, the corporation had
placed on the market sufiicient land to
permit the building of 1,200 dwellings. The
current year programme will produce enough
service land to permit development of
another 9,000.
The total amount of land currently under
development is approximately 7,500 acres,
and the corporation continues with its pro-
gramme for the acquisition and servicing of
land. To date, over 86 per cent of all lots
disposed of by OHC were on a leasehold
basis, on a monthly rental, based on a net
cost to the corporation at an interest rate of
7.25 per cent. The HOME plan programme
is not oriented or set up for the selling of
lots on a cash sales basis. It is wholly
oriented to leasehold of agreement of sale,
with an option to purchase when the home-
owner's economic circumstances permit, after
the first five years. At that time, the market
price per building lot when the lot was
leased is the selling price. If land values con-
tinue to rise, as no doubt they will, then
the lessee enjoys the appreciated value when
he exercises his option to purchase the lot.
Mr. Speaker, the introduction of con-
dominium legislation last year will provide a
climate in which private enterprise and gov-
ernment can collectively work toward meet-
ing a housing need. I believe it is a fact
that if housing on an ownership basis is to
be made available to our modest income
families, then they must be prepared to
accept individual ownership of units in
multiple developments.
JUNE 18, 1968
4625
Recently, Ontario housing corporation
invited proposals from builders on the first
condominium type development sponsored
by the corporation. I am sure home seekers
in towns all over Ontario will shortly be
able to secure this type of accommodation
in their area.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the equally important
problem facing our homeowner today, as
well as the availability of accommodation, is,
of course, the end cost of such acconmioda-
tion. First, the purchase price for the new
homo is high, and secondly with the inflated
interest rates that we are encountering today,
the end cost and the monthly carrying
charges are of serious concern.
One way which I feel the cost of actual
construction of homes can be decreased is
by the adoption by this province of the
national building code as a standard code
for all construction in every area of the
province. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on
March 4 earlier in this current session, I
presented a resolution to this Legislature
calling for this action and I was very pleased
recently to hear the hon. Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) announce that
this proposal was being very seriously studied
at this time.
The adoption of this standard code would
streamline the construction industry and
would allow our merchant builders who are
responsible for the major portion of the
housing construction in Ontario, to organize
their programmes on a businesslike basis. The
adoption of this code would also help to
bring about the standardization of the modu-
lar building system which again would create
further economies through the more orderly
manufacture and distribution of standard
building components.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of this govern-
ment, I am proud of the action and the
programmes that have been undertaken so
promptly by this government when it became
obvious a few years ago that a housing
shortage was looming on our horizons. I am
sure that with the progress that has been
made in these early years and in the plans
for extended programmes in the immediate
future, that we will soon proudly be able
to say that the housing shortage for our
citizens has been dealt with in a most satis-
factory and economical fashion, as have the
other needs of the residents of this province
been looked after by this government in a
just manner over the past 25 years.
Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr.
Speaker, the situation in northern Ontario is
a perfect illustration of Sir Winston Chur-
chill's famous remark. The financial estab-
lishments in large corporate enterprises, with
the sanction and protection of successive
Progressive Conservative governments, have
exploited and raped the natural resources of
the north so that they have realized huge
profits at our expense. This is borne out by
a paragraph or two in this morning's Globe
and Mail. It says:
Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. of To-
ronto has traditionally shipped its concen-
trates for refining in Norway. Most of the
iron ore produced in Ontario is shipped to
the United States in ore or pelletized form.
Many industrial minerals are exported in
unprocessed or semi-processed forms. The
ores from Texas Gulf are sent to Quebec,
United States, Europe and Japan.
On the other hand, by comparison, these
companies have put back into the north
precious little in social capital. Those
people who have worked to bring about
the present state of development of the
north have not received their fair share of
the wealth they hope to accumulate. What
they do get is a considerably higher cost
of living, while the average northern in-
come is below the provincial average.
The northerner pays about $200 a year
more for the basic essentials than his
counterpart in the south even though his
income is actually lower.
Recently the hon. Premier of this province
talked about how Canada should have a
billion dollar development fund which would
be used to help overcome some of the basic
regional inequities which have haunted Con-
federation since 1867. Now, if he were to
take just a small portion of that billion dol-
lars and earmark it for a regional develop-
ment programme that would really bring
growth to the north, he would be making a
concrete contribution to unity within this
province.
However, Mr. Speaker, he is not likely to
do so, since he does not wish to interfere
with the monopoly of exploitation of his free
enterprising corporate supporters who arc
determined to perpetuate the present in-
equalities as far as tlie north is concerned.
I have mentioned on a number of occa-
sions, in this Legislature, the reasons govern-
ment intervention is necessary in the location
of Texas Gulf smelter to process the ore from
the Kidd Creek mines near Timmins. I have
even introduced a private member's bill to
make such intervention possible by the
4626
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Minister of Mines who says, without it, his
hands are tied.
However, the Minister of Mines will not
intervene in this situation. As reported in the
Timmins Daily Press of May 31, 1968, the
hon. Minister said, in effect, that any steps
Ontario takes to bring about smelter construc-
tion will not discriminate for or against the
Texas Gulf Sulphur Company.
In other words, he said the company can
go ahead and do what they like and the
government will not interfere.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence ( Minister of Mines ) :
That is not what he said.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Pretty
close to it.
Mr. Ferrier: He said the same thing in
this morning's Globe and Mail.
It is obvious that the Texas Gulf Sulphur
Co. has gotten to the Minister, has pulled
the strings and, like a dyed-in-the-wool Tory
that he is, he has fallen into line. The ex-
ploitation of these natural resources and
others in the north can continue as far as this
Minister and the government of which he is
a member is concerned.
In fact, after his performance it is difficult
to persuade the people of the north that the
Minister of Mines is anything other than a
typical Bay Street boy acting to protect their
interest.
They also believe that there should be
further development exploration in the north
and that this could be done through private
or through public capital in a SOQUEM plan.
Many of these mines are phasing out around
communities such as Geraldton and explora-
tion and development needs to go on there.
The private capital and such does not seem to
be available. If it is not available, then the
public should do it.
If northern resources are to be processed
in the north, Mr. Speaker, so that secondary
industry can grow up and employment op-
portunities be expanded, it is necessary that
adequate supplies of cheap power be avail-
able. The Adams mine near Kirkland Lake
would not have come into production had
there not been adequate supplies of natural
gas readily available.
In order that the possibilities of employ-
ment and development be expanded in the
north our party pleaded with this govern-
ment to carry out research and present a
well-documented brief to the national energy
board to ensure that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines
would build a second pipeline through tlie
nortliern part of Ontario.
By looping the present route part way and
then branching oflF down the communities
along the north shore of Lake Superior might
have natural gas and such communities as
Rainy River, Fort Frances, Atikokan, Schrei-
ber. Terrace Bay, Marathon, Heron Bay,
Manitouwadge, White River, Wawa and Satdt
Ste. Marie would all have abundant supplies
of natural gas. The jobs created by the pipe-
line being built through the north, the boost
to Canadian industry in supplying the ma-
terials and the subsequent assessment bene-
fits, as well as preserving Canadian
sovereignty over our own natural resources,
were all telling arguments in favour of an
all-Canadian route. But this government did
not want to protect the people's interest.
They were more concerned that the corporate
interest of the gas and petroleum companies
be guarded. As a result, no studies were made.
It was a further illustration of this Tory
government's desire to let big business do
what they like for profits. If this government
had carried out the various studies required
and had pressed for the welfare of the people
of the north in particular, we might have had
the northern route.
Moreover, James M. Cameron, general
counsel of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd., in
a letter to Marion Bryden, research director
of the New Democratic Party caucus, has
stated, in part:
I wish to advise that Great Lakes Gas
Transmission Co. told us that the actual
direct cost of constructing phase 1 of the
Great Lakes line amounted to $175,400
per mile.
This compares with estimates given to the
national energy board and the federal power
commission of $155,000 per mile. This is an
increase of approximately 13.2 per cent. If
this government had protected Ontario's in-
terests we could have had the all-Canadian
route proceeded with probably a year earlier
and the cost of construction could very well
have been equalized on this basis. TJius the
possibilities of growth and development of
the north shore Lake Superior communities
would be greatly expanded.
In fact, this government should take a long
look at its energy pohcy and seriously con-
sider extending its policy concerning hydro
for adequate supplies of hydro power at cost
to the field of natural gas. It would mean
that all areas could be serviced as quickly as
possible, that the people could receive natural
JUNE 18, 1968
4627
gas at a more favourable rate, and wasteful
advertising between natural gas and hydro
could be largely eliminated. It would again
put people before profit, but alas the Tories in
this government are not much interested in
this principle.
It is interesting to note that the Ontario
development corporation makes forgivable
loans of up to $500,000 to industries under
its equalization of opportunity programme.
Such indutsries as Allied Chemical received
such loans at plants they are establishing at
Belleville and Falconbridge, although it is
wortliy of note that the plant at Falconbridge
is dependent on the sulphuric acid byproduct
from the Falconbridge smelter for its opera-
tion. Its likelihood of locating anywhere else
is rather remote, so that one wonders if this
money is always well spent.
However, if we ask that the ONR grant
favourable freight rates and not raise its
rates on copper concentrates and the like on
small and marginal mining companies so that
they may continue to operate and possibly
expand to create more jobs in our areas, the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement states that we must not subsidize
the mining companies. It is all right to sub-
sidize large industries in other parts of the
province, but the hon. Minister has scruples
about such when it comes to a whole area of
the north. Surely the ONR must be con-
sidered as a development railroad. If favour-
able freight rates are required in order for
secondary industry to locate in our part of
the province and to operate, then I believe
the ONR must grant such and operate at a
loss if necessary to necessitate development
of the north.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to take part in this proposed
amendment to the supply motion— that the
Conservative Party is nothing less than a
deliberate attempt on the part of important
sections of the propertied classes to transfer
their burdens to the shoulders of the masses
of the people and to gain greater profits for
the investment of their capital by charging
higher prices and among other things failing
to protect farmers from corporate exploita-
tion of all kinds and failing to ensure them a
fair share of provincial income.
During the last few years the agricultural
industry in this province and prices paid
to farmers for agricultural products have been
going down. The net return to the farmer
after a year of operation is not reasonable for
his work or money invested. The purchasing
power of the farmer is dwindling and if prices
of farm products do not increase to the pro-
ducer, industries, manufacturing, agricultural
machinery and agricultural products will be
closing their plants. This will have an adverse
effect on the whole economy of our province
and the country.
We have in this country the farmers com-
plaining about the low prices of agricultural
products and on the other side the consumers
complaining about the high prices they have
to pay for food. The price spread between
the farmer and the consumer is too great and
the farmer should receive more of the con-
sumer's dollar.
The Ontario food council reports that the
Wisconsin statistical reporting service says
that the index of retail prices for home foods
has risen 30 per cent over the last 20 years
but the index of prices received by the farmer
for all commodities was 2 per cent lower
than 20 years ago. We also have in Ontario
the threat of corporation exploitation of the
agricultural industry, corporations in the
turkey industry, the broiler industry and the
hog industry, and now we read that it is
quite possible that meat-packing corporations
do not own feed lots in a physical sense.
However, there is httle doubt that at least
one large processor has a finger in the pie.
It is reported that the packer operates through
a front organization headed by a prominent
western Ontario farmer. It is reported that
this group handled up to 50,000 slaughtered
cattle last year and the main attraction is
that the corporation arranges an easy supply
of credit. It is further reported that in some
cases there are no interest payments. Appar-
ently the corporation likes the farmer's face
so much that the 7.5 and 8 per cent interest
rates are forgotten. But that is ordy what
the signer to the agreement thinks and the
packer gets back his investment either by
short-changing the farmer when the cattle
are delivered or by using the cattle along
with those from other satisfactory farmers to
depress the market price of cattle, when he
decides.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, in the United
States I read in a publication that one big
corporation is building a feed lot at the
present time that will produce 100,000 cattle.
We also read in publications that one great
big feed company in the United States pro-
duced 4 million hogs last year. That is half
the number of hogs produced in all of
Canada, so two feed companies could pro-
duce all the hogs that are required in Canada.
This is a threat to our whole economy. It is
a concern to the farmer and I must say if this
4628
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
continues, Mr. Speaker, they will control the
price to the consumer.
Also, the Minister of Agriculture and Food
has warned us in Ontario, in his opening re-
marks of the estimates of his department in
the Legislature this year that American cor-
porations are eyeing Ontario agriculture for
a take-over.
The farmers in the province are not satis-
fied with the prices of farm products and they
are concerned about the future of agriculture.
Two or three years ago we saw tractor dem-
onstrations on our highways and still we read
that farmers are threatening to take some
action if the government does not take action
to improve their income.
A few days ago I read an article in the
press, which impressed me greatly, entitled
"Governments' Planning Basis of Discontent,"
and I will quote a part of this article:
In the United States much of the recent
violence reflects an angry belief that gov-
ernment has failed and does not care much
and that it has failed to make life tolerable
economically for a vast and growing num-
ber of citizens. These citizens are as frus-
trated as the poet who asked for bread
and received a stone. What they receive is
one report after another. These reports are
largely devoted to demonstrating the mar-
vellous accomplishments of state economic
planning. It is unfortunate that so many
of the poor are economic illiterates, who
are not impressed by demonstrations. All
they are interested in and all they can
understand and even then only dimly, are
results at the individual level. This must
be very frustrating for the planners who
are making so many sacrifices in order to
promote national economic efficiency, and
equally it must be very difficult for those
politicians who conceive that it is their
duty to protect the people from their own
ignorance and impatience.
In the United States and Canada not
only those who are accustomed to poverty
are not content to wait any longer for
something more tangible than statistics
dealing with national economic accounts.
Increasing numbers of the economic middle
classes are becoming angry too, as state
planning edges them closer to the poverty
line.
In countries which pride themselves in
having a particularly well trained and
integrated group of state planners, with an
unusual amount of authority, it is more
obvious than elsewhere that from the
uneducated mob's point of view, the basis
of the difficulty is that while the rich get
richer, the poor get poorer. Only nowa-
days it is the state that wallows in wealth
and boasts of their accumulation of wealth.
Elsewhere it is little use for the politicians
to say that the rich are being evicted from
their mansions through taxation, when
their wealth merely is, or seems to be
transferred to government and the poor
cannot afford a home.
Although the poor probably do not
rationalize it, in effect governments nowa-
days have succeeded to the unpopularity
that once pertained to great private
estates. While welfare departments in the
guise of the former Lady Bountiful, dis-
tribute aid and homilies, other adminis-
trative departments play the role of the
estate agent whose business it is to pro-
mote economic efficiency, not to listen to
tales of individual hardship. Meantime the
politicians, like the absentee landlords, are
sorry but they cannot interfere with their
agent in whom they have full confidence.
In brief, some of today's troubles, and I
venture to suggest a good deal of them,
point to the failure of government planning
to serve the people. It is replacing a system
founded upon individual economic enter-
prise, which certainly had abuses but which
equally certainly, where practised vigorously,
vastly reduced the incidence of comparative
poverty. Moreover, under that system those
who were aggrieved felt they could appeal
to government to correct abuses. Today one
can see so clearly that grievances are against
government itself, the highest authority and
the only appeal they are beginning to believe
is mob violence.
This article from which I have quoted,
reminds me of the agricultural industry as
it now is in the province of Ontario, with
prices to the farmer for agricultural products
going down and the prices of food to the
consumer going up. I will quote just one
illustration. In southwestern Ontario we pro-
duce around 70 million bushels of corn. Com
is quoted as of today at $L20 for 56 lbs., or
£1/8 cents a lb.— this is dry com. Cornflakes
are made from this com and one 12-ounce
box of cornflakes sells to the consumer for
45 cents. The farmer receives 2 cents for
the com in a box of flakes that cost 45 cents.
This is unfair and too great a spread between
what the farmer gets and what the con-
sumer has to pay. Mr. Speaker, if the farmer
could receive another 3 cents for the com in
a 45 cent box of cornflakes, then he would
receive a fair return for his work.
JUNE 18, 1968
4629
This is only one illustration, and I will
add that the government gives grants to
build silos and buildings to encourage the
hard-pressed farmer and this helps consider-
ably; but what the farmer wants is not
handouts, but a fair share of the consumer's
dollar.
I must say that this government has failed
to deal with corporate exploitation of all
kinds in Ontario and also has failed to
ensure the farmer a fair share of the pro-
vincial income.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to speak to tlie amendment
to the supply motion dealing with section
(d) re argricultural aspects brought out by
the hon. member for York South— after his
glib tongued oration— his pious platitudes
about the agricultural industry— I felt that
I should just bring him up to date on a
few things the province of Ontario is doing
for the agricultural people of Ontario.
As I mentioned earlier this year, Mr.
Speaker, I think we must evaluate any
criticisms concerning agriculture made by our
socialist friends in the light of their inexperi-
ence with the problems involved. As we
know, not a single member sitting on the
socialist benches has had any personal
experience with tliis subject and is really
therefore unable to appreciate what is hap-
pening today on the farms of Ontario. I
would like to place on the record some of
the initiatives which have been taken by
our government and which have placed
Ontario in the forefront among all Canadians
provinces in relation to farm policies.
In dealing with marketing, one of the out-
standing examples of positive programmes
to raise farm income is provided through our
marketing legislation. As the Minister of
Agriculture and Food stated, in introducing
his 1968-1969 estimates to the House, "Our
Ontario farmers are today making greater
use of marketing legislation than those in
any other jurisdiction in North America and
perhaps the world." During this session, we
have seen several important extensions in
this particular field.
Legislation was introduced this session to
iricrease the amount of money available to
the Ontario beef improvement association
from around $20,000 to, more, than $100,000
per year. The funds accumulated as a result
of this legislation will be used solely for
the purpose . of financing the activities of tlie
Ontario beef improvement . association and
improving the marketing of beef cattle in
the province.
Another amendment was introduc-ed to The
Farm Products Marketing Act which will en-
able tlie Cabinet to establish an apple mar-
keting commission. This commission will
facilitate the orderly marketing of Ontario
apple production which is an increasingly
important facet of our province's agricul-
tural economy.
The pool quota policy for fluid milk in-
troduced by the milk marketing board is
another important development. Previously
farmers who were unable to find a market
for their fluid milk had no hope of obtaining
the top price for their produce. Now, all
dairy farmers will be able to share in the
fluid milk market, regardless of their loca-
tion. Under the pool quota system the prov-
ince is divided into six areas or pools. Farmers
will be treated alike, regardless of their
location. At the same time, qualified indus-
trial milk producers may enter the fluid
milk pool as soon as they are able to pass
government inspection and have proven they
can produce high quality milk.
These marketing programmes are, of
course, only a portion of the story. The gov-
ernment has initiated many other pro-
grammes designed to assist our farmers in
this period of cost-price squeeze.
I refer to the capital grants programme.
Under this programme $129 million will be
made available to farmers over the next 12-
year period. The programme is designed to
provide financial assistance to farmers who
wish to improve their facilities and modern-
ize their operations. The programme is
aimed at making the family farm a viable
economic unit and to enable enterprising
farmers to better use their time and capital.
In the 12 months ended March 31, 1968,
13,249 grants were made under this pro-
gramme amounting to a total of $7,163,000.
Of these 9,502 grants, worth $6,246,000,
were for farm structures, while the remaining
3,747 grants were for farm water snippUes
or field enlargements.
Last year our government embarked on
a farm enlargement programme under ARDA.
Under this programme, farmers who are
hindered by uneconomic units can be given
assistance in acquiring adjacent acreage. As
of March 31, 1968, the Ontario government
had acquired 355 farms, totalling 50,683
acres. These lands are then leased to inter-
ested farmers for a period of five years, with
the option to buy at any time within that
4630
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
period, or to renew the lease for a further
five years.
This programme enables farm families to
build economic units without heavy capital
commitments during the period of adjust-
ment.
Ontario, in co-operation with the federal
government, has gone further in the develop-
ment of a comprehensive crop insurance pro-
gramme for its producers than any other
province. In less than two years, the Ontario
crop insurance commission has been able to
provide protection for the growers of all the
key crops of our Ontario farms.
Before insurance became available, our
farm producers had to rely on handouts from
the public purse or temporary programmes,
such as guaranteed and subsidized loans, to
aid tliem in periods of crop losses. Now every
farmer can insTire his crop just as he in-
sures his buildings or his car, and his home.
As further evidence of the deep concern
of this govenment with the agricultural and
food industry, we have the establishment of
the farm income committee. In this connec-
tion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote
from the Globe and Mail of Thursday, Janu-
ary 11, 1968, as follows:
In Ontario, the special committee on
farm income has commissioned a $500,000
study of Ontario Agriculture by Hedlin-
Menzies and Associates Limited, of Winni-
peg. Roger Scliwass, director of the project,
says that the report, which is due in
December, will propose "rational policies
for the food industry, which will lead to
the development of fully economic farms
capable of producing low-cost food and
capable of returning a fair income to the
commercial farmer."
This same article mentions the five-man
federal task force on agriculture which is to
project national goals and recommend policies
to meet them and is due to report in Decem-
ber of this year.
With the publication of these reports, we
can anticipate further substantial strides to
improve the competitive position of the agri-
cultural industry of this province.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario
government acting alone cannot satisfactorily
solve the problems facing Ontario farmers.
Our government cannot prevent cheap imports
from entering this province from outside and
reducing our farmers' income by undercutting
the price which our growers must receive if
they are to maintain reasonable income levels.
The importation of agricultural products
from other countries or provinces can, and
does, adversely affect our producers, even
though they may be operating under provin-
cial marketing machinery.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Food
stated in his estimates speech, "Because of
the limitations placed on us by the constitu-
tion, it is impractical for us as a province to
attempt unilateral solutions to many of our
acute farm problems within our own provin-
cial boundaries. We must co-operate with the
federal jurisdiction and, through such agencies
as the federal task force, seek to either
modify these firm and rigid jurisdictional
boundaries or influence national policy."
I would therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that
the record clearly indicates our government
is taking, and has taken, vigorous steps to
insure that farm incomes rise in proportion
to other sectors of our economy and to pre-
vent corporate exploitation of our province's
farmers.
Just one further comment, Mr. Speaker. I
notice that the various parties in these forth-
coming fisticufiFs that are going to come to
their conclusion next Tuesday have been asked
about their farm policy. From what I read in
some of our agricultural magazines, as I
already stated here, it seems these people do
not have any farm pohcy, because they do
not know anything about the agricultural
business. It is for that reason that I intend
to vote against the amendment.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr.
Speaker, in no area do Mr. Churchill's re-
marks have more pertinence than in the
housing market today. When only those with
incomes of over $8,500 a year can aflFord to
buy houses, and when three-quarters of the
people are excluded— and they are the people
that need housing the most— then this is a
gross case of socialism for the rich and free
enterprise for the poor.
We all know the roles played by various
financial agencies and others in supporting
the present structure. I think of the speculator,
and I think that it can be said in all fairness
that the speculator as he operates in Vaughan
township and in Ontario is nothing but a
parasite.
As far as the land speculator is concerned,
he makes a positive contribution and I think
that, on the whole, the developer's costs are
not out of hne, nor are his profits overly
great, in most instances. There are other fac-
tors that are operating in the spiraUing costs,
as far as he is concerned. We have the role
JUNE 18, 1968
4631
of the trust and loan corporations, and I think
that in their field they are not altogether to
be dismissed as blameworthy in this regard,
on the contrary.
As things stand this afternoon, in institu-
tional lending throughout this provice, the
rate that is being granted on ordinary loans
is between 9.25 and 9.75 per cent. The
average mortgage company will not lend any
money in excess of a period of five years at
the present time.
How can the homeowner face the prospect
of liquidating that sort of loan in that short
a time? None of these mortgages, or very
few of them, contain any privileges in the
form of prepayment or otherwise to make
these things easier for the individual.
I have a number of points to make. First,
it always bemused me somewhat the way in
which moneys being advanced through gov-
ernments for mortgage purposes and land
development is considered. These moneys are
not giveaways, they are not welfare expendi-
tures. They are a form of capitalization pro-
gramme on which the government or whoever
does the lending derives a usufruct in mighty
proportion for die amounts of money loaned.
In other words, this money is in the form
of an investment, and it may be recapitalized
in any number of forms. The mortgage
money or the ownership of the land can be
used as the background for the guarantee of
a new issue of debentures for bond holding
or, even if the government would consider it,
a remortgaging of the mortgages concerned,
thereby always having, so to speak, a capital
bank in the form of mortgages with which to
do future borrowing on the capital market.
As to die availability of such capital, if
this government or the federal government
were not so sunk in their several sloughs of
despond, they very well might, without coer-
cion and through their present friendly rela-
tionships—as was pointed out by the hon.
Minister of Trade and Development in touch-
ing on the university residences— with the co-
operatives, and the insurance companies,
pension funds, and mutual funds in the prov-
ince, persuade or, if necessary, pass permissive
legislation of no great restrictive intent, re-
quiring that a certain investment or per-
centage of sinking funds reserves and capital
accumulations in the province be directed
into the mortgage market. This would have
the effect right off the bat of substantially
reducing the interest rate across the board on
the mortgage market in the province.
If it was necessary, and if that type of
measure which you have not really availed
yourselves of in any great extent were proved
not too feasible, then there is no reason in
the world that you yourself could not go into
the first mortgage field. Again, the threat to
do so would have a great effect on the
economy, and the actual going in would har-
vest numerous benefits. The benefits, if the
government would consider this sort of thing,
would be in terms of perhaps the American
model, where the amortization schedules and
the repayment clauses in mortgages could be
strung out over a much longer period than
is at present envisaged or actually done in
this country.
At the present time in United States, the
period is very often 35 and 40 years. And
even, in cases of veterans' housing in some
places in the States, the mortgages of the
amortization schedule, to make it easy for
returning soldiers, is 60 years.
I suggest that you can actuarially compute
on an average in principle and adjust your
mortgages from time to time to give a fair
return on the investment to the lender— in
this case, to the government itself— over
against the market. I think this should be
considered and some work done towards
working out the possibilities of that situation.
I would like to mention, as my fourth
point, that the government should very well
consider there is enormous resistance to it,
again by the hon. Minister of Trade and
Development, with respect to a direct tax, a
capital gains tax. They are saying that it
discourages economic activity in this prov-
ince, as I have heard too often in this House.
I can hardly believe that the province of
opportunity, such as you claim this to be,
vi'ith the resources available which are avail-
able nowhere else in the world, with our
developing economy, will not attract capital.
They are used to tax being imposed— they
are used to having capital gains at home,
because practically any other nation in the
world has it. I would not want it on any
great scale but, taken together with the
moves that were made in this House a few
days ago as to The Planning Act, it would
have a very beneficial effect in suppressing
speculation on land, and bring some benefit
into the province in the process of doing so.
The probably, the prime cause of the hous-
ing shortage at the present time, is that the
municipalities themselves are starved for
funds. They cannot even provide the services.
This is completely beyond their monetary
competence. Much less in municipalities bear-
ing the cost of the educational burden. Willy
nilly this has to be removed. I have little
4632
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
doubt that this government will come to it
and very shortly, much as they may resist
their recognition of having to life that educa-
tional burden, at least in substantial part.
As a result the municipalities are throwing
up all kinds of blockades, slowing down,
tlirowing in red tape, and not allowing sub-
divisions or new building developments to go
ahead. They simply do not want new homes,
and this is causing enormous difficulty because
of an antequated theory of taxation that is
presently operating in the province.
I wanted to say one word about land
assembly. We are talking, but doing very
little, about leaping over the inflated areas in
order to assemble land. This can be done at
no overwhelming cost to this government,
insofar as there are federal funds also avail-
able in this regard. This would place the
speculators and those sitting on land and pay-
ing agricultural taxes in direct competition.
Immediately it would have again the effect
of forcing down the price of these lands
which are being taken out of cultivation and
are simply waste land so far as the province
at this time is concerned, and also standing
in the way of development.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make
mention of the page in the Toronto Telegram
today in which a certain Mr. Stanfield says,
"Plans for aid to homebuyer" and it goes on
down and says: "Conservative leader Robert
Stanfield last night became the first party
leader to promise specific dollar and cents
help to relieve homeowners trapped with soar-
ing interest rates."
What a perversion. What a piece of yellow
nonsense. My party and this group in the
House have for years had in our party pro-
gramme, federal and provincial, a scheme of
subsidization and various other ways of help-
ing the homeowner. If any of these govern-
ments would seize the nettle and bring
themselves to doing so, then the problem that
we face today on the housing market would
not exist.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak
on this resolution.
Several weeks ago when the students and
labour in France were joining together to try
to overthrow the government of that country,
we all took it most seriously. So, of course, do
I take this moment very seriously, because
obviously there is a movement afoot to over-
throw the government of this province. I
welcome the opportunity to join in this effort,
although sortiewhat reluctantly.
I feel that this government, in many ways,
has recognized problems in northern and
northwestern Ontario and has tried to do
things about it, but believe me, Mr. Speaker,
if the government members opposite think
that they are doing enough I have got news
for them.
Perhaps they will say the people are never
satisfied. I think that the people of northern
and northwestern Ontario have been satisfied
with too little for too long.
I pride myself as having been an adopted
son of northern Ontario. I was bom and
educated down in this part of the province,
and I enjoyed that very much. But one day
I saw the opportunity to go north to seek
my fortunes and seek to participate in the
development of something very great, to be
involved in a great adventure. The longer I
stayed there, the more I liked it and eventu-
ally became completely involved, as I am
now.
Certainly as a news editor I have had the
opportunity to observe very closely that part
of the province and to observe what govern-
ments were doing about it. I am absolutely
amazed how little this government really
knows about northern and northwestern On-
tario, because it seems that if they really
realized and understood what was up there,
they would be doing far more about it at this
time.
For example, we should have a department
of northern affairs, or surely at least a fund
for northern development. But this govern-
ment seems to have a theory: "We do not do
anything special for any one part of the prov-
inve except Metro Toronto." Of course, we
saw that last Thursday, when the Premier,
in his big transportation study, underlined
some very serious problems here in Metro
Toronto. So here something special has got
to be done, but northern Ontario? No. We
have got to be careful not to do anything
special up there.
I propose to authenticate these remarks.
These are not just rash charges. Not too long
ago the hon. member for Thunder Bay rose
in the House and asked the Minister of
Municipal Affairs why he could not put back
the June 28 deadline for submissions on the
Hardy report. The Minister, it seems to me,
if I remember correctly, the Minister said,
"Well, we do not want to set a precedent.
There are other regional studies going on,
and if we turned around and extended this
submission date for the Lakehead, well then,
we are going to have to do it for other areas."
JUNE 18, 1968
4633
We do not want to be treated the same as
other areas. We have problems of our own.
We are 900 miles away from Toronto, and
it is cold and it is isolated, to some extent.
We have special problems, and I think this
business of blanket legislation— the policy
that this government has pursued for many
years— has got to be changed. We have got
to come up with some tailor-made legislation
for specific areas, and I think this govern-
ment has got to bear the responsibility for
that. I recognize that through this regional
government system what I am alluding to is
is going to be solved to some extent, but I
think this government itself has got to recog-
nize this.
The hon. Minister of Highways admitted
in the House, during the estimates of liis
department, that the standards of highway
construction are the same in the north as they
are in the soutli. There is an example of
blanket legislation. The same everywhere.
Yet everybody knows that the climatic con-
ditions in the north are not the same as in
the south.
I think that the hon. member for Rainy
River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has pointed out to
this House another problem we have. We
need doctors and nurses up there. We have
asked for special incentives— some kind of a
programme to attract doctors and nurses up
there, but we have not got the nod from the
government on the other side.
I mentioned isolation a moment ago; that
seems to be our biggest problem. The only
cure for it is transportation, and yet I see
nothing. I see no special effort on behalf of
this government to solve our transportation
problems. This government prefers to say,
"Well, that is the problem of the federal
government."
All right. In areas where it especially
applies to the federal government I would
expect a big brother at Queen's Park to go
to bat for us. I would expect big brother to
knock on the door in Ottawa and say, "Look,
we will help. Let us do something special
about breaching this transportation gap that
those people up there in northern Ontario
have." The high freight rate, for example-
the demurrage problem that we have in our
seaport there at the Lakehead.
The other day I called to the attention of
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Bales) the fact
that we have quite a labour problem develop-
ing up in the Lakehead right now, and in
northern Ontario, where elevator work and
woods work seems to be our two big indus-
tries. I found that the Minister of Labour
sort of sloughed that off, he did not recognize
the big problem.
I understand that this week 1,300 ele-
vator workers are threatening to go out on
strike, and shortly after them the workers in
the woods industry are going to come up
with legitimate problems and request a wage
increase. I bet you there is going to be a
strike there too, and there just does not seem
to be effective action on the part of this gov-
ernment.
When it is northern and northwestern
Ontario it just seems to be too far away for
anybody to really understand the problems.
Another thing that has caused me no end of
resentment is the fact that I stand up in the
House and bring very serious problems to
the attention of this government— I have just
been dying to do this for several years now—
and from the other side all I get is jeers and
catcalls. So I am very happy to support this
vote of non-confidence because I am not at
all satisfied with the answers or attention that
I have had on behalf of my people.
When I stand here I feel I am 60,000
people strong. Those are the people who
sent me here, and the problems that I bring
to your attention are not the result of my
conjuring up something to lambaste your
government with. These problems come to
me from the people that I represent. I have
been hstening to them for about nine years.
So I certainly support item 5 in this
resolution because I just feel this government
has not taken strong, ejBBcient, courageous
action on behalf of northern and north-
western Ontario. It is a different part of the
province. Our problems are different and
blanket legislation is not the solution.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort Wilham): Mr. Speaker,
I feel sure we have had enough borrowing
from the words of Sir Winston Churchill, but
it is gratifying to me that after 20 years of
frustration as a Liberal, Sir Winston re-
turned and remained as a member of the
Conservative Party, and never saw fit to
change his view or join the socialist party.
But in answer to the hon. member for
York Soutli, as a member for Fort William I
am more anxious and concerned to see the
development of northern Ontario speeded up
than the member for York South. But I am
unable to agree with him that this—
Mr. Stokes: You said everything was rosy
up there.
Mr. Jessiman: Is that moonlighting mem-
ber from the north shore of Lake Superior
sounding off?
4634
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Stokes: That is who it is.
Mr. Jessiman: Back to your railroad!
Mr. Stokes: You spoke at Lakehead Uni-
versity and did not even know the name of
the riding which I represent.
Mr. Jessiman: Would you like me to bring
my speech over to you?
Mr. Sopha: You know the dog barks but
the caravan passes by.
Mr. Jessiman: All together, fellows.
But I am unable to agree with him that
this government has failed in the manner
suggested in its efforts to develop the north
or that it has forfeited the confidence of this
House and the people of Ontario. The fact
that I am here as a government member in
this House, the first Conservative member
from Fort William since 1959, is evidence
of the confidence of the people of Fort
William in this government.
In that period from 1959 to 1967, I might
add, the residents tried representatives of
both Opposition parties before they saw the
wisdom of returning to the Conservative
fold. Federally, of course, Fort William has
been Liberal for many, many years. Port
Arthur, on the other hand, was Conservative
provincially, and Liberal and NDP feder-
ally.
I mention these facts merely to make the
point that responsibility for the present state
of affairs in northern Ontario does not rest
with the members of any one party, but
must be shared by members of all parties;
by the residents of the area themselves, by
the private sector of our economy, as well
as governments at the municipal, provincial
and federal level.
Similarly, the full potential of this area
will never be developed by the provincial
government acting in isolation, but only
through the concerted and co-ordinated
efforts of all those who are concerned with
the problem. It is, of course, easy for the
socialists to complain and find fault. But the
residents of northern Ontario are not unaware
of the experience of Saskatchewan, where the
difference between socialist theory and prac-
tice was so badly demonstrated.
Another Utopian thought conveyed by this
resolution is that our base minerals should
be translated into finished products here in
Ontario. I would like to ask the hon. mem-
ber for York South why we do not apply
this theory right across the board.
If we did, our wheat to Russia and China
would have to be exported in the form of
flour or better still, as the breakfast food of
champions. Our barley and rye could be
exported only an underproof firewater, and
our forest resources as tissue, crying towels,
which our hon. friends across the way
require so frequently.
And what about our exports of oil and
gas? Should we also insist that these be
manufactured into the full range of chemical
products which can be produced from crude
oil and natural gas? But why go on? It
simply is not in the economic scheme of
things that 20 million Canadians or seven
million Ontarians, with our immense heritage
of natural resources, can either consume their
potential or export this potential in com-
pletely finished or even semi-processed state.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the
alleged failure of the government to provide
conditions which will attract other secondary
industry to the north, as mentioned in the
NDP amendment. In answer to this charge
let me state some of the most important
measures and plans which have been initi-
ated recently by this government.
First, there is our progranmie for the
equalization of industrial opportunities in
Ontario. Under this programme, nearly $2
million in direct loans have been made
available in northern Ontario. In addition,
through its advisory services of ODC, the
government has enabled industry to obtain
$1.2 million from regular lenders and $1.7
million in continguent financing, for a grand
total of more than $4.7 million.
These funds have either created or main-
tained more than 1,000 new jobs in northern
Ontario. In addition, a further 10 loans under
the EIO programme, involving a further
$1,7 million, are now being processed and at
this particular time I would mention to the
member for Port Arthur that there is a team
at the Prince Arthur hotel investigating and
interviewing prospects for more industry in
the north country.
Transportation, Mr. Speaker, is a major
factor in developing our north. In the past,
railways opened up new resources for exploi-
tation. Today, the Ontario government is
undertaking an active roads-to-resources pro-
gramme, to provide access to proven mineral,
forest and recreational wealth in many
remote area in northern Ontario.
Our Department of Transport is actively
engaged in a programme to develop new
air corridors for wheeled aircraft, with
JUNE 18, 1968
4635
special priority being given to two corridors;
the first, from Fort Frances north to Kenora
and Red Lake and the second, from Sault
Ste. Marie northeasterly to Wawa, Chapleau
and Timmins.
The Department of Energy and Resources
Management is financing a detailed survey
on the supply and industrial requirements of
energy in northern Ontario projected to the
year 1980. I must also mention the full scale
socio-economic survey of northwestern
Ontario announced by the Minister of
Agriculture and Food in Port Arthur on
April 19 of this year.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): After fed-
eral urging!
Mr. Jessiman: This programme is launched
and on the way.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Jessiman: One aspect of this extensive
multi-purpose study will be a survey of the
entire economic base for northwestern On-
tario. Another part of the study is designed
to develop ways and means of improving
living standards of Indian people in the re-
gion. An examination will also be made of
the development policies of all departments,
both federal and provincial governments,
with a view to maximizing the efficiency of
public investments, and to better enable the
northwestern Ontario regional development
council to establish priority objectives in con-
formity with the development plan.
When this study has been completed, and
the information assessed, assistance will be
sought from the federal economic develop-
ment fund, the FRED fund, for its imple-
mentation.
The Department of Lands and Forests is
also heavily committed with programmes and
studies aimed at resource development and
witii a priority first being conducted in the
Nipigon area at this present time. There is
the joint federal-provincial Canada land in-
ventory programme under which land capa-
bility is being assessed and mapped for
agriculture, forestry, recreation and wildlife.
When completed, this inventory will be of
inestimable value for making policy decisions
relative to land use and natural resource
management.
Special fisheries management units such as
those at Lake-of-tlie-Woods and Fort Fran-
ces have been established to provide better
management of this resource. Additional units
are also in the planning stages.
Our government has also been a major
participant in the sea lamprey control pro-
gramme in Lake Superior, and as a result
the fishing industry is now well on the road
to recovery.
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have made no
mention of the resource development being
carried out by the private sector of our econ-
omy. The government of Ontario cannot, of
course, claim all the credit for the.se develop-
ments by the private sector, but we can
claim to have establislied and maintained in
this province that climate of confidence and
co-operation which has been a hallmark of
relations between the private sector and suc-
cessive Conser\'ative governments throughout
our history.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I had the very
great privilege of being present at the open-
ing of the $62 million Griffith mine and pel-
letizing plant at Red Lake. I met a federal
member up there by the name of Reid. And
I believe the opening of the Griffith mine is
but the first major siep in the rapid expansion
of the population and economy of the Red
Lake area. This project is of particular rele-
vance to this debate, for it fulfils Stelco's
objective and ours of developing a major
source of iron ore here in our own province,
and it increases the company's self-suffici-
ency in the raw materials required for its
expanding production.
Mr. Stokes: All you need is a steel com-
plex at the Lakehead.
Mr. Jessiman: We will leave that to the
member for Thunder Bay.
The Griffith mine is pro\'iding new em-
ployment opportunities for over 350 men
and has an annual payroll of over $2 million.
New employment is badly needed in this
area at the present time because of tlie diffi-
culties facing the area's hard hit gold mining
industry. With ore reserves estimated to
be sufficient for 30 to 50 years of production,
the operation of the mine is naturally creat-
ing a continuously expanding need for local
supplies and services.
Mr. Speaker: Order! May I draw to the
member's attention that he is now encroach-
ing on other time and I would ask that
he bring his remarks to a conclusion.
Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the catcalls and the interjections from tlie far
side. It was a pleasure being up there at the
4636
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
opening of this wonderful new mine; the
total production of the Caland and Steep
Rock and new Griffith mine will come down
to the Lakehead as a new industry, be
shipped on to Hamilton and refined at Ham-
ilton. It is very wonderful being on the right
side of a good government that helps these
people settle in Ontario. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The debate has
reached this position and I would like to
have the views of the members. In order to
have the windup; we have about 13 minutes.
There are three more speakers and if each
one would take only five minutes we can
have these three speakers. If not, then I think
we should give this extra time to windup
speakers. Are we agreed that we have three
more speakers at approximately five minutes
apiece? And I would say to the Ministers,
there are two of them who wish to speak
from the government side. They might make
up their minds as to which of the two would
have the five minutes, the Provincial Treasurer
or the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
The member for Brantford.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): Before I
touch on the farm portion of this debate, I
want to make something clear, although it has
been mentioned before. When Sir Winston
Churchill was referring to the Conservative
Party, in his case he was referring to one
particular Conservative Party. In Canada,
the conditions are slightly different. We have
two Conservative parties, the difference being
a matter of labelling and nervousness. The
one sitting on the right is more nervous.
It is significant to note that the federal
Minister of Agriculture of the other Conser-
vative Party does not dare run in a rural
area but is looking for greenery in the
cement at Niagara Falls. As far as farm
policies are concerned, both parties have a
dismal record. Both federal and provincial
parties have failed to protect the farmer from
corporate exploitation. Churchill's statement
that propertied classes transfer their burden
to the shoulder of the masses of the people
to gain greater profit for investment of theii-
capital was demonstrated very blatantly in
the recent closing of the sugar refinery at
Chatham.
Here you have a giant corporation, its
fingers reaching into every comer of the
world, deciding that it would gain greater
profits by closing the plant, despite promises
that it would continue operation; despite the
fact that close to 1,000 farmers depended on
it for their Hvelihood; despite all this it
closed, because it would make higher profits
some place else. And what did the two levels
of government do? They had get-togethers,
they went through the motions. They tried to
impress on the farmer that they were con-
cerned, but the end result was a shutdown.
At this time, one stands and wonders as to
who exactly is rurming this country; is it the
government of this province or the country,
elected by the people, or is it being run, as
in this case, by Tate and Lyle, a giant cor-
poration?
The point, Mr, Speaker, as was so well
demonstrated in the closing of the plant, is
that when the old parties are faced with the
choice of protecting the farmer or the cor-
poration, they have demonstrated where they
stand, and that is on the side of the corpora-
tion.
The farmer's share of the consumer dollar
is declining. His share of the economic pie
in all its aspects is also declining, despite what
the members opposite tr}' to tell us. The
reason for this is that the two Conservative
parties in this country and the province are
not prepared or willing to interfere with the
manipulative practices of their corporate
friends. To them, profit is paramount, people
are the means to the profits.
Why is this so? The corporate interests
and the two Conservative parties are really
the same thing. It would be interesting to
see how much Tate and Lyle has contributed
to the campaign funds of both political
parties, a proven method of ensuring that the
burden remain on the shoulders of the people
and will continue to remain there as long as
we have our two Conservative parties in
places of power.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Despicable is t&e
word!
Mr. MacDonald: It cuts pretty close to the
bone.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, in this debate I would especially
draw to the attention of the House that
portion of this resolution which deals with
the plight of certain tenants in Ontario.
While this resolution calls for a rental
review board whose powers of publicity and
moral persuasion may be useful, it is even
more important for this government to re-
write in simple terms The Landlord and
Tenant Act. My text for today is written as
section 42 in the 206th chapter of the Revised
Statutes of Ontario, "Distress shall be reason-
able".
JUNE 18. 1968
4637
This is indeed a careful viewing by this
government of the entire problem of the
tenant in today's society. The distress referred
to is the ancient and dishonourable practice
of entering into a premises and seizing items
to cover the overdue rent for a property. To-
day the phrase must mean the distress of a
tenant who wishes to read and understand
this statute or his own lease and that
supposedly must be reasonable.
Surely the 79 sections of this Act are not all
reasonable. Surely a real distress signal would
be sent out to an unresponding administration
by any unlettered tenant who tried to plough
through the two lengthy paragraphs of sec-
tion 37 which deal with bankruptcy liens and
assignees' rents.
In Ontario we all labour under this statute
which is so out of date that it has become
partially dignified and ennobled with the
adjective, archaic. But, Mr. Speaker, distress
amongst tenants because of the statute con-
tinues, and their distress is of an unreason-
able kind which this legislation cannot cover.
This is not to say for a moment that all ten-
ants are harmed and wronged every day and
that all landlords are villains. Many land-
lords are fair and reasonable and seek to
make a fair profit from their investments in
buildings, and this is entirely circumspect.
On the other hand, many tenants are wil-
ful and uncaring and destructive. But the
proper function of government here is surely
to set out the adaptable ground rules which
are fair for both parties, and to create a
standard and mutually fair lease.
It is only when we have an abundant
supply of housing and apartments that the
present pressures on rental prices will be
eased. The long term reaction of the market
place to the factors of supply and demand
will tend to stabilize and then perhaps to
reduce rents, but until this happens, I believe
that this government has a responsibility
which it is shirking.
A recent report to the city of Kitchener by
the Ontario housing corporation has brought
forth problems which must be settled now.
One hundred and fifty low rental housing
units were suggested by this report, but city
council says it needs 250. Ninety senior citi-
zens' units would come in 1969, but the
council says it needs them now. Land as-
sembly schemes are not to be started until
the regional government review is completed.
But city council properly and correctly rea-
lizes that the review has absolutely no intelH-
gent relation to any of the aspects of the
current housing problem today.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, this same report
in April of this year stated that we needed
1,800 more units per year, half of them to
be owner-occupied, and half of them to be
rented. All this is being admitted while the
land assembly scheme on which to build
these homes is refused.
In the city of Kitchener we have immediate
problems of sub-standard dwelling units, and
of units with shared facilities which are found
in converted houses. As our planning direc-
tor, Mr. William E. Thompson, wrote in a
report to the Kitchener housing authority,
and I quote:
This lack of apartments for lower income
and larger famiHes poses two problems.
These famihes have the immediate diffi-
culty in finding a suitable place in which to
live at a price they can afford. There is
also the long-range problem that the more
they are forced to pay for suitable rental
accommodation, the less money they will
be able to save toward a down payment
for a house, or spend on food, clothing or
to have other necessiites, besides very little
on luxm-ies which tends to cause family
dissatisfaction and in some cases both
broken homes and broken spirits.
Comparisons in the tables presented in this
report are very interesting. They probably
recite a scheme of items that is a common
one to all the urban areas in the province.
First, 30 per cent of households rent. Sec-
ondly, over 50 per cent of the households
renting make $4,000 per year in income or
less. Third, of the renters, 30 per cent have
four or more children. Foinrth, about 60 per
cent of the renters with four or more children
are in apartments or above stores or in
crowded older homes. Fifth, 25 per cent of
all dwellings in the city are over 45 years
old. But, as we are admonished by the good
book, distress must be reasonable.
The distress of those without proper accom-
modation can no longer be reasonable. The
distress of the members of this House who
are daily faced with these problems in urban
areas can no longer be reasonable. This
government has not moved to have land
assembled and then to provide building lots
for low rental homes with the speed and
decision that is required for 1968.
Assistance in planning to replace the con-
ventional grid of a sub-division with cluster
zoning to provide green spaces for community
breathing room is also needed, for we have
an obligation not only to build houses, but
also to help create homes. The animals in
the zoo respond best to cages that resemble
4638
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
their natural habitats. Our citizens surely
deserve no less. They, too, will respond best
in living areas that are planned communities.
Our tenants and our landlords can both enjoy
their roles if leadership is given. Positive
action to change ancient law and to encour-
age modem practice is required now if these
matters are to be resolved to benefit all the
clitizens of Ontario.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the New Democratic Party has referred to
the farm vote in Ontario and to the people
of Ontario, verily, by saying that this gov-
ernment has failed to protect farmers' inter-
ests from corporate exploitation.
I refer him to the speech that was made
by the hon. member for Ontario South a
few moments ago, when he referred to what
has been done for the farm people of this
province by this government. I would com-
pare that with the record we have of the
only socialist government that Canada has
ever known. For 20 years in Saskatchewan
it never did one single thing for the farm
people of Saskatchewan.
They were there for 20 years and they
never brought in one single marketing plan
to do one thing for the farmers of that prov-
ince. Had it not been for the government of
R. B. Bennett— the Conservative government
of R. B. Bennett, Mr. Speaker— they would
not have had a wheat marketing plan in the
three western provinces.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let us just go one step
further to include our Liberal friends across
the aisle. Mr. Speaker, we only have five
minutes and I would like my hon. friends to
listen to what I have to say, because I think
they will learn something. When my hon.
friends across the aisle talk about what they
would do for the farm people, we think about
what the Liberal premier of Saskatchewan
said when they took the only vote that was
ever held in Saskatchewan on the hog mar-
keting plan. He said to the farmers of Sas-
katchewan, if it is voted in, I will not approve
it. That is what he thinks of farmers' mar-
keting plans in Saskatchewan.
These people talk about the things that
we have not done. You know, Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon when this resolution was intro-
duced I could not help but think of Stephen
Leacock, that great Canadian who referred
to socialism in saying this, "Socialism won't
work except in heaven where they do not
need it, and in hell where they already have
it." And you know there is an awful lot of
truth in that.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I could not
help but think, as well, of the words that
have been said about socialism this after-
noon when they said a socialist is an unsuc-
cessful person who figures his last chance to
get something is to get a part of yours. That
is socialism in action, and that is about what
this resolution says.
When the leader of the New Democratic
Party this afternoon talks about the lack of
confidence in this government, I just want
him to note that the very rural paper. Farm
and Country, formerly known as the Rural
Co-Operator, published a series of question-
naires. One of them had to do with medicare.
This paper recorded the farm feehng in
Ontario as saying that, and I quote, we do
not want medicare, Mr. Pearson, not now, not
ever. The rural people of Ontario voted 93
per cent against medicare in that survey. To
me those are pretty significant figures.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, just who our hon.
friends represent? They say they have no con-
fidence in us. Who do they represent? We
are here by the majority of the people, and
they are over there by a lack of the majority
of the people of this province.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: And then, Mr. Speaker,
just a few days ago, the Globe and Mail
recorded a report of a speech that was made
by the Prime Minister of Canada for two days.
Mr. Trudeau who was in Saskatchewan where
he referred to the agricultural policy of
Canada by saying, "Free trade is the answer
for Canadian agriculture." My hon. friends,
free trade for Canadian agriculture! Do the
farm people of this county realize what free
trade would mean? Do we not remember
what cheap Irish pork did to the only decent
price Canadian farmers ever enjoyed for pork
in this country? It was let into this country
by the Liberal government in Ottawa.
We are in favour, Mr. Speaker, of this
policy that we beheve has real meaning for
the farmers of Canada. That is where the
farmers of eastern Canada are able to do
something about designing the agricultural
policy that will have real meaning for them
in preserving eastern agriculture. When we
recognize that one-third of the total agricul-
tural wealth of Canada is produced in the
province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and when
we recognize that this government put up
$500,000 to help the farmers themselves find
the answers, and that we had met the real
p
JUNE 18, 1968
4639
problem of the people of this province— to
which the leader of the New Democratic
Party himself approved in conference at
Kemptville— then I think we are doing some-
thing for the farm people of this province.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, there are perhaps two attributes
which can, I think, be remembered about the
Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill; one was courage
and the other was foresight. He saw in the
1930"s the rising cloud of Nazism, sir, and
the rise of Hitlerism, and he tried to warn the
people of England about what was happening.
It takes a great deal of foresight in a period
before war, and even more foresight to see
what is happening in a society in peace time.
And if you look at the society of Canada
today you can see a country in which the
majority of people can no longer own a
home, where resources are wasted and pol-
luted, and human resources are squandered;
where there is certainly no priority, in terms
of values, when we build oflfice buildings but
can find nothing with which to build homes.
The advantage in a democracy is that dur-
ing wartime it can act, but during peace-
time it is very slow to act. Unfortunately this
is an economic problem and in economic
problems, too, a democracy works very slowly.
We in this group beUeve that in a democracy
you need foresight, in economic democracy
as well as political democracy. We think that
it is ludicrous for us to be elected to rep-
resent the people of Ontario and make a few
peripheral decisions while the main decisions
are being made a couple of miles south of
this building.
I was greatly disappointed today when the
leader of the Opposition labelled as an exten-
sion of bureaucracy any effort on the part of
this party to gain some control over the
meaningful decisions. Well, what is a bureau-
cracy? It is a scare word. A bureaucracy is a
group of skilled, intelligent people who can
put into effect what we wish for the people
of Ontario, and what they wish for them-
selves.
We put a man in jail for taking advantage
of others, and then in a shortage of housing
we allow rents to go up and allow people to
take advantage of others. We ask for a rent
review board, and we ask for a prices review
board, and we put people in jail for stealing
and yet we are unwilling to put any pressure
on those who are wilhng to take unjust
profits from a decent society. You know, we
have an amazing pattern going on in this
society. I wonder if you have noticed it, Mr.
Speaker?
What happens is that the New Demo-
cratic Party puts forward a policy, and then
turns to the people and asks the people to
support tiiat policy. The people then put a
great deal of pressiu-e on the government.
The governments, of course, Conservative
or Liberal, are not willing to act, so what
we have then is a Royal commission. It does
not matter about the subject; it can be
medicare, education, taxation, foreign owner-
ship. The government puts into the Royal
commission the elite of the establishment-
individuals who will come up with the de-
cision which they are expected to come up
with.
Unfortunately, tliey forget about the magic
of human rationality. After these gentlemen
sit and listen to the arguments of those who
come before them, and they have a chance
to reflect, they come down with what was
essentially the New Democratic Party's pro-
posal. You only have to look at the Carter
report on taxation, the Hall commission re-
port on medicare, the Watkins report on
foreign ownership, the Hall report on edu-
cation.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Pitman: Where do we get it from?
We get it because we regard politics as an
exercise in rational thinking and placing that
thinking into effect.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Pitman: Politics is also an exercise in
compassion for the people at the bottom of
the economic ladder instead of all those at
the top. Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the
people of the province will come to the de-
cision that they would rather have their re-
form firsthand, because while they wait they
suffer. We have the worst taxation system in
the western world, and what have we got in
this session? We have waited for the Provin-
cial Treasurer to give us the taxation reform
that he has promised. We put our taxes on
the lower income. In other words, while we
wait for reform, you suffer! Right down the
line.
We have sales taxes, gasoline taxes, all
the way down the line. Mr. Speaker, one
only has to look at the federal election cam-
paign to see the distraught state of our
political system. We have two Conservative
parties, one even a reactinary party. Mr.
Trudeau goes about now talking about bal-
anced budgets, a slogan from the 1930's;
no scholarships for university students; stop
4640
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the handouts. Now we have the Globe and
Mail, that last resort of every reactionary
pohcy, soHdly behind the Liberal party and
Mr. Trudeau.
Their support for this motion this after-
noon will condemn them out of their own
mouths. This afternoon reminds me of a quo-
tation from Benjamin Disraeli, who said:
"The closest thing to a Tory in disguise is
a Whig in power."
Mr. Speaker, at the same time we have
seen the other reactionary party nailing down
planks and quickly pulling them up. In the
first few days of the campaign, we had a
minimum wage suggested by the leader of
the Conservative Party, and a few days ago
it was suggested that what he meant really
was not a minimum wage at all. And here
I thought that there had been almost the
opening of paradise for our friends across
the aisle, that they had finally see the
light, and finally we could stop this hor-
rible counting of people's pennies and stop
using people to provide all kinds of services
which would help them. But no, we are back
down on the handout basis, and that is
the end of what I thought was a new dimen-
sion in the Conservative policy of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying
that we will fight to have this kind of en-
lightened society. One only has to read the
Premier's speeches from the beginning of this
session to see how often the word planning
comes through, and only six or seven years
ago all planners were very dangerous social-
ists. We will have a department of urban
affairs and housing, and we will have a land
assembly; we will have decent public hous-
ing, and we will have medicare soon, and
we will have a just system of taxation. Here,
Mr. Speaker, for the Provincial Treasurer,
who seems to be quite activated at the
moment, is a petition from literally thousands
of people:
We the undersigned are angered by
pyramiding attacks on our pocket books
by provincial on top of federal govern-
ment, while industry and financial institu-
tions, and insurance corporations, mainly
foreign controlled, and high income citi-
zens are continually given preferential
treatment which increases their share of
the profits in this growing wealth. We call
on your government to legislate a capital
gains tax immediately to secure revenue
from tliose now protected, and to ease the
staggering burden on the common man by
removing taxation on necessities and pleas-
ures, and employment. This increase,
forced on us by your government, and an
additional amount equal to 5 cents per
hour out of our pay pocket on the average
worker, along with federal increases on
the common man, is not in keeping with
the type of taxation to help the economy
at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I call on all those who have the
courage of Mr. Churchill, who crossed the
floor, and had the foresight to glimpse
the future— I call on those to support this
amendment.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that I cannot speak with
the eloquence of some others this afternoon
on this amendment that has been proposed
by the leader of the NDP, but I do agree
with the contention that the policies of this
government have resulted unfortunately in
socialism for the enrichment of the rich in a
way that not even the rich care to have it
occur. Also it has caused an unnecessary
burden on the poor.
On this matter of a prices review board.
There is no question that a prices review
board could do a great deal. It has been seen
before that an exposure of factors and
well-presented and well-balanced facts in
relation to rent; in connection with groceries;
in connection with manufacturing pricing;
and in connection with wages, do have a
very beneficial effect on decision of business,
or unions, or whatever, is involved. A prices
review board that considers all these factors
would certainly be, as my leader mentioned,
a very worthwhile introduction, if it were
to involve all these factors.
The second matter is in the programming
in the north that my worthy colleague from
Port Arthur mentioned. So many of the pro-
grammes that are introduced by the govern-
ment seem to forget the real needs as decided
and as desired by the people living there.
They are designed here in Toronto and not
in the north. And so much of what is
wanted, when they get dowTi to it, is not
charity, but the opportunity to do a job. The
government can provide the catalytic addi-
tion that will mean that they can stand on
their own feet and progress in a way that
they have not been able to do in the past.
In the field of agriculture, the policy of
the government with regard to the sale of
milk is very unsatisfactory in relation to the
policy that the government has followed with
regard to beef marketing, for example. There
JUNE 18, 1968
4641
is the latter, it has given incentive to a
branch of agriculture to develop its own
mark(>t, to develop a higher standard of
quality and therefore improve the prices it
can get for its product, rather than trying
to bring all down to the lowest common
denominator.
In tlie field of medicare, the policy of this
government in not adopting it has meant
that tliere is a continuation of a very costly
procedure in processing of payment of
accounts, because you have to consider con-
stantly the matter as to who is entitled to
free OMSIP and who is not. The amount of
red tape and delay that has arisen as a
result of the present policy has been
incredible, and is not a good form of medi-
care.
A ver>' good example of the poor pohcies
of this government is particularly seen in
the field of housing. We see the remarkable
confusion and discrepancies that arise when
the government tries to get on both the side
of socialism and free enterprise, and forgets
the real role of the government.
We know from basic experience in busi-
ness, and in all fields of life, that supply
and demand are what makes markets. The
government tries to interfere and control and
decide when development is premature or
otherwise. It is also putting all sorts of road
blocks in the way of developers, so that they
are not able to get land processed into build-
ing lots and on the market.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Do you want to
abolish the zoning bylaws?
Mr. Deacon: We listened to an excellent
treatise— that I wondered at— by the member
for Windsor West, when he mentioned Ford
could control its price in the markets. I
keep on wondering if he has had much
experience in actually going out into the
sales field and trying to sell a product.
It is interesting that those of us who have
had much experience in selling find it very
diflBcult to predict what we will sell and at
what prices. Very seldom do market condi-
tions go in our favour, as the government
of Ontario has enabled it to go in the favour
of those that own land.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Your price control
board will not fix that.
Mr. Deacon: If you had a free enterprise
open development of land, where everyone
could develop a lot who wanted to— or to a
great degree, within reason— so that there
is an excess of supply over demand, then
we would see the difficulties in price control
and a weakening in market occur, that we
see in regular business.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: What would your
review board do?
Mr. Deacon: This matter of big business is
always coming forward. It is interesting to
note that only one of ten leading New York
stock exchange stocks of 1928 is still in
existence. Big business suffers from this
matter of markets and difficulty of keeping
alive, as does small business, and the men-
tion that people on the left made abotit the
big business is just not so.
What we want out of government is an
opportunity for freedom and responsibility.
That is what everyone wants, regardless of
their role in life. They do not want govern-
ment controlhng every decision they make;
they want service from government. They do
not want bureaucratic supervision. The result
of the timid and the traditional and un-
imaginative attempts of this government to
please everyone, Mr. Speaker, is not
pleasing anyone at all, and is causing great
increase in cost. Waste is as bad as profit.
But the policies of this government have
been causing both waste and profit.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. II. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
may I enter this debate on behalf of the gov-
ernment side and refer to the resolution
which has been sponsored by the leader of
the New Democratic Party, sometimes
referred to in this House as the socialist end
of the House.
It is also a very lengthy resolution. It is
a well doctored-up group of words, probably
trying to achieve an aura of respectability
by embracing the aura of that very great
world stateman, Mr. Churchill. That is a
great way to cover up the nature of the
debate. The truth of the matter is that we
are here today enjoying a debate which is
on socialism. That is the whole matter of it,
and they are trying to get Mr. Churchill's
support for it.
But as usual, our friends do not give all
of the information. In all of their credit
material, which is sent out at the expense of
all the people of Ontario from this building,
with the use of the frank, and so on, only
part of this story is told. But let us proceed,
Mr. Speaker, and have a look at some of
4642
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these situations which have been disarmed at
length today.
The amendment, which is actually more of
a socialist election manifesto than an amend-
ment, covers an extremely broad and complex
area. This is just the point, it is a self-serving
resolution. Mr. Speaker, though it suggests
that Ontario should at once establish a prices
review board and a guaranteed annual wage,
it in no sense indicates that restraint should
be shown by other than one side of the
labour-management dichotomy.
In effect, the socialists are saying, "Control
prices and at the same time boost the mini-
mum wage and establish a guaranteed annual
income." They do this, Mr. Speaker, at a
time when their admitted allies, the paid
union leadership throughout Canada, have as
one voice refused to countenance any thought
of restraint in wage demands, and have told
the federal government that they will have
nothing to do with such a programme.
Let us have a look at the ambivalence of
the socialist position, which is obvious, as is
the intent of the amendment now before the
House.
As far as the prices review board is con-
cerned, I have often, in this House pointed
out that, though the regulation of prices is
under provincial control constitutionally, in
a practical sense, no single jurisdiction in
Canada could intelligently contemplate such
a programme, I refer to that independent
recent Royal commissioner. Judge Madden,
in the very able report that she presented.
When socialist politicians glibl>' infer that
such a course of action is not only possible,
but would be relatively easy to accomplish,
they mislead and they deceive.
Only yesterday the Toronto Star exposed
the fallacy behind this socialist scheme when
it discussed the offliand promise being
parroted all across Canada by the NDP and
its federal leader.
The promise, as reported, is to the effect
that a socialist government, "would set up a
national prices review board which would
operate, with the concurrence of the provin-
cial governments, to check profiteering and
hold down price increases."
The Star pointed out how imlikely this
type of concurrence would be in coming,
stating, and I quote: "So anj- hope of unani-
mous provincial concurrence in i^rice controls
is a pipe dream."
This is right in the Daily Star. Tliere it is,
and the Daily Star, while it is known as a
great supporter of the Liberal Party, is also
known as being a friend of yours. Now let
us have a look. He says that Mr. Douglas'
idea is a pipe dream.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I guess it is biting,
eh? Let us go on: "Thus any attempt by an
NDP government in Ottawa to control prices
would be doomed before it was started. But
no one would ever suspect that from listening
to Mr. Douglas' campaign speeches."
Let me just digress for a moment— I will
show you. There we are, there is the editorial
right there— let me read it. I know, but let
us just look at it. The writer says there are
only two ways that a price review board
could operate. One is without any controls or
any power.
Then the editorial writer says tliat will not
work so the other alternative is if the govern-
ment would have to— I presume an NDP
government— would have to put teeth in it.
Now let us see what they say about that
point. Let me just read it— let the members
of tlie House hear exactly what the Star said
about your national leader's ideas.
Or does Mr. Douglas contemplate a
board armed with powers to impose price
controls? If so, then he is kidding the
public. Short of declaring a national emer-
gency, it would be virtually impossible for
a Canadian government to control prices.
There we are. Then it also went nn and said:
The positive and assured manner with
which the NDP leader approaches national
problems during an election campaign is
impressive. But it rests largely on his habit
of disregarding obstacles and pretending
they do not exist.
It was not m>' original intention to discuss
this matter in the context presented here, and
I do not necessarily agree with the Star con-
clusions about the feasibility of a prices
review board. I do agree that such a board
could not be established without the greatest
degree of preparation and co-operation
possible between the provinces and Ottawa.
I think, moreover, that it is misleading and
out of place in the context in which it has
been brought before this House.
Just a short word about medicare, and I
want to give you a quotation. Here is a
quotation, something from a man by the
name of Douglas Houghton, who is now
chairman of the parliamentary Labour Party
in Britain and formerly was the Minister in
JUNE 18, 1968
4643
charge of Health and Welfare. This is a
socialist party and I want to just tell you
what he says:
—the poor and the needy it is said, ^et
inadequate help because of the costly and
wasteful spread of higher benefits over all.
Universalism is certainly on the defensive.
It is being attacked on economic as well as
social grounds; even on moral grounds it
can be contended that judged from the
standpoint of the quality and efficiency or
the adequacy of the services we arc now
getting the worst of both worlds.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Against the back-
ground of Churchilliana— and I do not think
any one of us would want to ignore that aura
and that atmosphere, that climate, which the
member for York South tried to set— I should
like to continue in that vein. But instead of
quoting the old cliches of 50 or 60 years ago,
I want to quote from Sir Winston Churchill
since the last war in his most mature years
and at a time when he had achieved his great
success as a Tory.
There is more to this NDP amendment, of
course, than the way they talk about a pre-
dictable socialist pie in the sky. One would
think, on reading the amendment, that Sir
Winston Churchill was some sort of a blatant
socialist. Sir Winston was, as is well known,
and as has been repeated here today, a one-
time Liberal in the British House of Com-
mons. As a matter of fact, I am surprised at
the leader of the Opposition has declared he
is going to support the amendment. You
would think, out of courtesy to Sir Winston
Churchill they would carry it on and on this
day in honour of his memory. But not the
Liberal Party, not them.
I was reminded, as I read this NDP attempt
to embrace Sir Winston— you know it is a
little bit like the left-wing Liberals in the
Canada debate, they are trying to eml>race
everybody— for its own purposes, of words
spoken in this House by an apostate Tory on
the occasion of the great wartime Prime Min-
ister's death.
He, being the hon. NDP leader opposite
said, and I quote:
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest
that in the fullness of history— this is his
tribute to Sir Winston-I think it also will
be recognized that Winston Churchill was
not a party man, even though in his latter
years he became firmly associated with one
political party. He was a man of fierce
and rugged individualistic tendencies.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief
that Sir \Vinston will be rememl)ered as one
of the greatest of all Conservatives, an acco-
lade that I am sure would please him more
than the attempted misuse of his alleged
words by the NDP.
As a matter of interest, the socialist invo-
cation of an alleged quotation from Sir Wins-
ton so intrigued me that I took the trouble
to try and authenticate it.
After much searching, it turned out that
tliere was no record in the standard texts
dealing with Churchilliana in the British
House of Commons or in any of his well-
known speeches-though to l^e sure, the rec-
ord showed passages against Conservatism
made by Sir Winston in his youth.
This particular quote, however, had a
strange genesis as near as I can tell. It is
part of a book called "Parliament and Mumbo-
Jumbo", that is the name of the book.
Mr. Speaker, if this is the only source ol
the statement, then it is shallow indeed, as
shallow as the resolution before us. Of course,
without proper authentication we will iie\er
know.
However, such is not the case with many
things said by Sir Winston. With the per-
mission of the House, I would like to mention
just a few here. With respect to the quote
used by the NDP, supposing that it can some-
how be proven to be the words of Churchill,
I call the attention of the House to a state-
ment made by Sir Winston on April 21, 19-i4,
in the House of Commons. He said:
I have no intention of passing my re-
maining years in explaining or withdrawing
anything I have said in the past, still less
apologizing for it.
Well, typically Churchill. He later said:
The old radical campaign against ex-
ploitation, monopolies, unfair rakeolls and
the like, in which I took part in my young
days, was a healthy and necessary correc-
tive to the system of free enterprise. But
this grotesque idea of managing vast enter-
prises by centralized direction from Lon-
don can only lead to bankruptcy and ruin.
He said:
Those who believe in the creation of a
socialist state controlling all means of pro-
duction, distribution and exchange, and
are working towards such a goal, are sep-
arated from those who seek to exalt the
individual and allow freedom of enteri^rise
under well-known laws and safeguards.
The vote-catching election cry "fair
share for all"— now this is Churchill on
4644
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
socialism— should not deceive keen-iniiKled
men and women. It is meaningless unless
it is also stated who is to be the judge
of what is fair. But what the averag(>
socialist really means when he speaks of
"fair shares for all" is equal shares for all.
E(iual shares for those who toil and those
who shirk. Equal shares for those who
sa\e and those who squander. No reward
offered to the skilled craftsman. No incen-
ti\e to the industrious and experienced
piece-worker, no reward for rnterprise,
ingenuity, thrift and good housekeepivig.
"l',(|ual shares for all", that is what tiic
socialist government really mean.
lie referred later to the era of nationalixa-
tion—
—which among socialists was the cur(>-aM
for social and economic difficulties. Now
keep this to yoinselves— he said at Mar-
gate one day— there is a general feeling
that the whole thing is now a flop.
That is plain language, Churcliillian language.
Hiere is no doubt that nationalization has
been proved a failure. All this is an illustra-
tion of the inherent fallacy of socialism as
a pholosophy. In conclusion, I am astounded
to come here in this House, today, Mr.
Speaker, and hear the leader of the Opposi-
tion announce his support, but some cor-
roboration of tlie support being given 1)y tlie
(official Opposition in this House to the
socialists and their resolutions on several occa-
sions may well be found.
It may be some corroboration of a rumour
when Mr. Thomson was tlie leader of tl;a(
party; there was some discussion, certainly
popular in the halls of this building, that
the Liberals were anticipating a union with
the NDPs. It was my understanding tliat the
present leader of tlie Opposition was tlie
negotiator and maybe this is why.
The Liberals over there are all sociali.sts.
I had a looks at some of them today and
made some notes, but there are some Liberals
left. Let me just say you know who the
Liberals are in your party. I will tell you,
there are about six or eight of them.
There is the hon. member for Sudbiny.
There is the hon. member for Humber (Mr.
Ben). And there is the hon. member for Kent,
and I think there is the hon. member for
Wellington South (Mr. Worton), the hon.
member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator). I
would say the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr.
Bullbrook), the hon. member— well, he is not
here. I think die hon. member for Kitchener.
Those are the real Liberals. The rest of you
are socialists.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I say this,
that is has always been my desire to try and
facilitate the handling of the business in the
House, that when suggestions are made by
the other two parties, we would agree and
go along. And it was rather my hope that
when it came the NDP turn to have this go
on a confidence motion that we would be
able to join with them in a meaningful con-
tribution to the work of this Legislature.
But I am sorry, having looked at its socialistic
tendencies, we on this side must reject out
of hand any support of that resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the Speaker
do now leave the chair and that the Flouse
resolve itself into committee of supply.
Mr. MacDonald moves an amendment and
it is the pleasure of the House that reading
of the amendment be omitted.
The House divided on the amendment of
Mr. MacDonald, which was lost on the
following vote:
Nays
Ayes
Braithwaite
Breithaupt
Bukator
Bullbrook
Burr
Davison
Deacon
Deans
De Monte
Edighoffer
Farquhar
Ferrier
Gaunt
Gisborn
Haggerty
Innes
Jackson
Knight
Lawlor
MacDonald
Makarchuk
Nixon
Paterson
Peacock
Pilkey
Pitman
Reid
(Rainy River)
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Allan
Apps
Auld
Belanger
Bernier
Boyer
Brunelle
Carton
Connell
Davis
Demers
Downer
Dymond
Evans
Com me
Hamilton
Hodgson
(York North)
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
JUNE 18. 1968
4645
Ayes
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough Centre)
Ruston
Shulman
Singer
Smith
(Nipissing)
Sopha
Spence
Stokes
Trotter
Worton
Young-40
Nays
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacNaughton
Meen
Morin
Momingstar
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Newman
(Ontario South)
Potter
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Randall
Reilly
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Ayes Nays
Smith
(Hamihon Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
White
Winkler
Yakabuski
Yaremko— 53
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the ayes
are 40 and the nays 53.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The motion now is that Mr. Speaker leave
the chair, and the House resolve itself into
committee of supply. It is the pleasure of
the House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
It being 6 of the clock p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 124
ONTARIO
It^islatmt of ([Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
Estimates, Department of Trade and Development, Mr. Randall, concluded 4649
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 4683
Errata 4683
r
4649
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
AND DEVELOPMENT
(Concluded)
Mr. Chairman: On vote 407. The member
for Hamilton East.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, when the House adjourned last eve-
ning, I was referring to what I considered
to be the most fatuous report that I have
ever read. It was compiled by the Minister's
department on a request by the city of
Hamilton in January, 1967, and it was pre-
sented in February, 1967. It certainly was
done in good haste. The Minister might tell
me later on what has come about from this
report, but the main point that I started to
make was that the opening remarks of the
report tell us that the results of this sup-
plementary survey indicate the extent of the
demand for additional Ontario housing in the
city of Hamilton. They base their effective
demand on the present applications in the
hands of the Hamilton housing authority—
namely 578 for family housing and 741 for
senior citizens' accommodation. They came
up with the recommendation of 436 family
housing units and 611 for senior citizens'
housing.
Some of the pertinent part of the report
is on the first and second pages. I will again
put it on the record to add some continuity
to my opening remarks. This recommendation
is based solely on the effective demand repre-
sented by the pending applications for
Ontario housing on file with the Hamilton
housing authority at the time of the survey.
It does not attempt to predict the effective
demand for Ontario housing at this time for
the city of Hamilton, nor does it attempt
to forecast future demands brought about
by the continuation of industrial and com-
mercial expansion or demolition of existing
properties as a result of urban renewal. On
page 2 it says:
Howe\er, it is highly probably that the
effective demand for Ontario housing will
Tuesday, June 18, 1968
increase as a result of economic expansion
in future years, and it is recommended that
a comprehensive housing study should be
considered in order to fully investigate the
extent of the present and future demands
for Ontario housing in the city of Ham-
ilton.
On page 3 it says this:
This report is divided in two sections.
The first part deals with the need for On-
tario housing in Hamilton as re\'ealed by
an examination of the general economic
and housing conditions in the municipality'.
That is a fairly good statement. The balance
of the report provides statistical evidence,
lays the ground work, for the kind of .survey.
The second part of the paragraph sa\s this:
The second section is a comprehensive
analysis of all applications on file with
the city of Hamilton housing authority at
the time of the survey.
That part relates to the fatuous results of
this examination. I think, myself, Mr. Chair-
man, through you to the Minister, that I
could have come up with the first three
pages of this report in about two days' time.
We have applications on file with the Hamil-
ton housing authority, and in the applications
is the necessary information— the income, the
number in the family, their pres(>nt accom-
modation, and their needs— and from this we
get this kind of recommendation. I just can-
not understand it.
If we go through the report we find that
on page 4 it gives us the geographical lay-
out of the city of Hamilton, the physical
make-up, the labour supply, the power poten-
tial, and air, water and highway facilities.
On page 5 it gives a pretty good picture of
the growth potentiality. On page 6, there is
the labour force by occupation and sex, and
this is taken from the DBS figures, the 1961
catalogue. It is all good information. On page
7 we get a table which gives us 30 of the
principal employers in Hamilton and the
numbers employed, taken from the Hamilton
industrial index of manufacturers, obtainable
at the city hall in Hamilton. On page 10, we
get table 3, the employment index in num-
bers of the citv of Hamilton, taken from
4650
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
DBS figures, employment and payroll cata-
logue 72002.
In table 5; on page 11, we get the wages
and salaries, heads of families, and family
earnings, 1961, for the city of Hamilton,
province of Ontario, this is taken from the
DBS figures catalogue, 1961. On page 5 we
get another table of index— the payroll index
numbers— they are also from the DBS em-
ployment and payroll catalogue. On page 13
we get the population for the city of Hamil-
ton, in the province of Ontairo from 1961-
1966, and this is taken from the assessment
department files that are complied by the
Minister's own department from the Ontario
Statistical Review, Department of Economics
and Development, government of Ontario.
On page 14 we get table 7, age distribution
of population of the city of Hamilton, taken
from the assessment department, in the city
of Hamilton. We get the housing factors on
page 16, and this is taken from the 1961
census as outlined in a previous report and
survey on the city of Hamilton.
On page 17, we get another table giving
us the number of occupied dwellings, the age
of the structures of the cit>' of Hamilton for
1961, the province of Ontario, and this is
taken from DBS figures. All very good. We
get, on page 19, what is going on in urban
renewal, demolition of houses for the urban
renewal programme; this is taken from the
assessment department of the city of Hamil-
ton. On page 20 we get th<' sales market
and general market conditions, and this again
is taken from the central mortgage and hous-
ing corporation's housing statistics. The report
goes on like that page after page, and of
course, in the last section, three or four
pages, we get a breakdown compiled from
the applications that have been filed with
the Hamilton housing authoritx .
I cannot understand just what has been
the thinking of the Minister's department in
asking his officers to compile such a report.
I cannot see why, after compiling the sta-
tistics that are in the report, that they could
not have carried on for a little bit longer,
and really come up with a projected figure
of what we are going to need in Hamilton,
based on the effect of demand in regards to
the things that were mentioned— the normal
population growth; the increased population
growth; the results of the demolition of
houses and the urban renewal factor.
The fact that Hamilton has now zoned a
large portion of the northeast end of the
city as industrial in the next ten years will
bring about the removal of thousands of
homes. We could have really knowTi what we
are going to need in the city of Hamilton,
in relation to the kind of adequate low cost
public houses we are going to need. I hope
the Minister can explain this kind of a report;
that really does nothing for anyone in the
city of Hamilton; that gives no more new
information outside of the statistics that we
have already had channelled to us through
other sources.
Another area, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned
one of the serious problems in Hamilton, was
the fact that many families have been sepa-
rated because of the lack of adequate houses.
This has been verified by the various agencies
in Hamilton, and particularly the children's
aid society. I want to read a letter into the
record. I will send the Minister a copy. I
am also going to send a copy to the controller
on the Hamilton housing committee and
appeal for some assistance in this regard.
Now, when I say this is one case that I have
had directed to me— and I think it should be
given priority in regards to getting a family
back together— I would suggest that the Min-
ister send into Hamilton, and any other major
city in this province that may justify it, a
reliable officer to check with the children's
aid society and the social agencies, as to how
many families are separated because they
cannot find adequate housing. Make a crash
programme of giving them top priority in
housing.
You will find that the children's aid have
several on record, they have the children
scattered all over the city in foster homes,
living with relatives, and the father and
mother making shift the best they can.
This letter I have, says:
Mr. Reg. Gisborn, MPP.
Dear Sir:
It seems to me there is something terribly
wrong in this city when people cannot
find a house to live in. When a man, who
was born right here, and lived here all
his life, has to place his five children in
different homes, and he and his wife take
a room because there is no house for them,
this is truly sad.
Of course, being just average working
folks we cannot afiFord the ridiculous rents
that are being asked. Mr. Gisborn, there
must be dozens of people in the same cir-
cumstances, but what are we supposed to
do?
At the Hamilton housing I was told it
would be four months before they would
I
JUNE 18, 1968
4651
even look at my application. Do they not
realize, when a man has a wife and five
children, he needs shelter for them now.
The house we have lived in for seven
years at 52 Stapleton was sold, and we
had to be out on May 24. Our rent was
$75 a month.
Not being able to find a place, we put
our furniture in a friend's basement, our
two girls, Debbie, 13, and Diane, 12, went
to stay with my wife's cousin, Mrs. Daniels,
at 1377 Cannon Street east. Mrs. Daniels
has three small children of her own.
Wayne, aged 14, went to stay at my
brother's— Garry Thompson, 58 Division
Street. They have four children of their
own. Brian, aged 9, and Danny, aged 8,
went to stay with another broths, Doug
Thompson at 83 Stapleton Avenue. They
have three children of their own.
We are paying $10 a week at each of
these places for the children. My wife and
I rented just a sleeping room at Ken
Mooney's, for $16 a week. My job is at the
Skyway plaza Texaco in Burlington, since
March. The pay is gross $90, net $82 a
week. My wjfe works part-time at Triangle
Cleaners—an average of $2P. Sjlie will be
finished there at the end of June.
Now Mr. Gistorn, I ask you humbly, is
there anything you can do for us? We are
not aj^king for a big plush house to liv€ in.
Just a plain every<iay place where we can
be comfortable and all 'together. Thank
you kindly.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, J witll send a copy
of the letter to ;the Minister and if he can
do anything at all, in relation to the case, I
will appreciate it. And I will also appreciate
him looking into this particular situation in
Hamilton and other cities.
Now, we talked ^bout briefly the estab-
lishment of housing registrars in the various
cities, and the Minister mentioned that they
had one in Hamilton. I interjected— and I
checked the Hunmrd script^the interjection
was there. I irrterjeoted Ihat you should try
and find them sometime.
I telephoned 15 times in the past year
since that so-called registrar was established
in the city hall of Hamilton, I have never
once caught them in. I believe his name is
Mr. Crumb and his assistant, Mr. Parry. I
might be wrong in that, but I think those
are the names of the two gentlemen.
I understood, when they established that
registrar in the city -qf Hamilton, that the
purpose was going to be th»t be would be
there, available for people to call and find
out what the housing availability was in
the city. He would have a list of all available
housing, apartnaejats and so oo, and we could
get that information wberj we had problems.
The Minister's answer to my interjection
—from Hansard— -was this:
We give hira an o£Bce aad a coatfaanger; tell
hun to ke^ his head under, and remixMl him not
to be there; go out there in the field; we do xKrt
want him sitting a^o^n4; we want him out on the
job.
What the Minister means by this, I do not
koow, but maybe he can clear up just what
he means. What is the housing registrar
doing in the city of Hamilton? He has a
telephone there; when you call the switch-
board and ask for the city housing registrar,
they put you through to another hne. The
girls says, "Hello", and you ask for so-and-
so, but he is not there. If this is the case, I
think we should do away with the fagadc
of having somebody there to give us info^-
njation. The Minister can answer that c^ues-
tion at his convenience.
1 would like to raise a question in regard
to the Hamilton building trade council in
Hamilton. The hon. member for HamiltoB
West (Mrs. Pritchard), Hamilton Mountain
(Mr. J. R. Smith), Hamilton Centre (Mr.
Davison), Wentworth (Mr. Deans) and my-
self were invited to attend a meeting this
morning with the building trade council in
Hamilton. In general, their ccanplaint was
the high unemployment in their particular
trade— about 1,600 out of work— 25 per cent
of their tradesmen in Hamilton.
I want to deal specifically with theii
complaint about the method of contracting
out jobs under the Ontario housing corppra-
.tion. I think their requests are reasonable
and I think, maybe the Minister has had
some correspondence from them. Maybe he
has given them an answer. I am not sure.
But what they would like to establish in
Hamilton, is that when the advertisements
are made to receive proposals, designs or
projects— I do not know just how that works,
whether it is a firm contract, but neverthe-
less, they are taken up— what they tell me
is that invariably a Toronto developing firm
gets tlie major contracts. Then he sublets
out to subcontractors and the subcontractor,
in turn, hires his own group and his own
tradesmen. They bring their people from
Toronto and they work on the Hamilton
jobs, while we have the tradesmen unem-
ployed in Hamilton.
4652
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What they request, is tliat the Minister
include in his contract that, where they do
projects in a locahty stipulating they should
hire local tradesmen, they should stipulate
that they be union tradesmen.
I know that the Minister may not be in
favour of that kind of a request, but I assure
him that it would be an improvement. I
found out there is no conflict between the
union and those who are organized in this
field. If they hire union work, it makes no
difference to the cost of the project when it
is completed. I imderstand there is a dollar
spread in the carpenter field and in the brick-
laying field, between the organized brick-
layers and carpenters and the unorganized.
This is not reflected in the finished price. If
they hire the unorganized tradesmen for $1
an hour less, somebody gets it— either the
contractor or the developer. And you, in
most cases, get shoddy work. I would ask
the Minister to give some consideration to
this kind of protection. I think it would be
an improvement.
In conclusion, I might add in relation to
that subject, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit
of the Minister, that they did make some ref-
erence to the project. I am not fully conver-
sant with it, but I understand the department
is taking on the Martinique project at Jackson
and Hess Streets. Is that correct? That new
development, the one that has been standing
empty for so long, is being taken over for
senior citizens* apartments. They tell me that
the contractor and developer, Kat Key Con-
struction Limited, is from Toronto, all the
subcontractors on the job are from Toronto
and each has brought his own work crew
from Toronto.
As you might be aware, the building trades
council in Hamilton tried to persuade them
to hire Hamilton help and they were not suc-
cessful. They put a picket line up to try and
be more persuasive and, of course, there was
an injunction issued and they lost out.
But I hope the Minister will give some
consideration to their request, which will
relieve the high unemployment in the build-
ing trades in the Hamilton area. It is going
well in other areas. Hamilton has a peculiar
s'tuation because the high industrial con-
struction that goes on most of the time at
the Dofasco and Stelco plants has been re-
duced by about 75 per cent in the last few
months. This quickly affects the building
trades in the Hamilton area. I will have more
to say about that in The Department of Pub-
lic Works estimates.
I would just like to support the suggestion
that was brought up by my colleague, the
member for Windsor West (Mr. Peacock). I
would hope that the Minister would give a
lot of consideration to his nine-point pro-
posal in regards to the management policy of
the housing projects— in particular the one
that asks for the establishment of a tenants*
council, so that they can carry their com-
plaints with some right and dignity to the
management of the housing projects. I think
it would do something for these projects.
I do not think they should have all of the
rights that some might suggest. But I am
convinced that, if they were recognized as a
committee to have some right to look after
the grievances of the tenants, they could help
keep the projects in better shape. Through
the friendly persuasion that kind of an or-
ganization could give, they would get a feel-
ing of belonging to the community. They do
not have that feeling now. I would like
consideration of that section anyway. Of
course, I dealt with the need for housing
registry and I hope the Minister will tell me
what he thinks about the housing registry in
Hamilton and just what it is supposed to be
doing.
Mr. Chairman: On votes 407, 408, 409 and
410, does the Minister wish to reply?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman.
First let us get the gentlemen straightened
out in Hamilton. Mr. Crumb, the gentieman
referred to, is an employee of the city of
Hamilton, not the Ontario housing corpora-
tion. I have since been advised he was re-
leased from his duties there recently, but
he is now an employee of the Ontario hous-
ing corporation, and they run their own
registry over there, we do not run it. The
other gentleman I was referring to when I
asked him to keep his hat on was our man,
Mr. Alaven, and he was there to get on with
the precise jobs we had lined up for him.
Since he got them underway in the city of
Hamilton, he is now back in Toronto doing
other work. So I hope I have made myself
clear on these two gentlemen the member
brought up.
Insofar as the work being done in Hamil-
ton is concerned, we did receive a letter ask-
ing us to give consideration to employing
local people and this is a letter written by
our corporate secretary to the city of Hamil-
ton. We say:
Your letter of April 25 last, addressed
to Mr. Suters, vice-chairman and managing
director of this corporation, relating to the
use of Hamilton building and construction
JUNE 18, 1968
4653
tradesmen on OHC projects in the city of
Hamilton, has been referred to the writer
for reply.
It must be pointed out that as the tax-
payers of the province of Ontario and
Canada at large are providing the capital
resources to finance the housing develop-
ments in the city of Hamilton and in other
municipahties, Ontario housing corpora-
tion cannot reasonably take the position
of requiring its contractors to confine their
hiring of tradesmen to local tradesmen in
your city. However, this corporation is
sympathetic to the problems within your
municipaliity, and although it cannot re-
quire its contractors to engage only local
tradesmen, Ontario housing corporation
will urge its contractors to use local trades
wherever feasible.
Perhaps I could give the member a rundown
on what we suggest to all contractors in
regard to labour on Ontario housing corpora-
tion projects. On all projects carried out by
OHC or OSHC the classification, the wage
rates and the hours are laid down by The
Ontario Department of Labour for the muni-
cipahty concerned, and in each proposal docu-
ment issued by either corporation there is a
section dealing with wages which reads as
follows:
The proponent and all subcontractors
employed by him shall pay or cause to be
paid weekly to every workman employed
in the execution of the work covered in
the proposal, the minimum province of
Ontario fair wage scale for the area in
which the work proposed is to be carried
out, as set out in the "fair wage clause,
new construction" of this document and
as amended from time to time. Wherever
possible and where capital local labour is
available, the proponent and all subcon-
tractors employed by him shall make every
eflFort to employ such local labour on the
works covered in the proposal.
The schedule of labour conditions which is
laid down by The Ontario Department of
Labour forms part of the proposal document.
This document clearly states that:
All persons employed by the contractor
or subcontractor shall at no time be paid
less than the rates of wages stipulated by
The Ontario Department of Labour. The
working hours of all persons employed are
also stipulated by The Ontario Department
of Labour and shall not exceed eight hours
per day or 44 hours per week. Changes in
working hours in cases of emergency must
receive prior approval of the corporations.
Whatever overtime is approved in excess
of eight hours per day or 44 hours per
week, the rate shall be not less than 1.5
times the wage rate required to be paid
under the contract. The corporation does
not require union rates and conditions, but
the labour conditions for each contract are
stipulated by The Ontario Department of
Labour for the municipality concerned.
With reference to the Martinique project, this
is not Kat Key Construction; you must have
been misinformed there. The contractor is
Martinique Apartments Ltd., of Hamilton,
and has no association whatever with Kat Key,
so it is a local contractor that is rebuilding or
refurnishing or refinishing this Martinique
project. I thought perhaps you would like to
know that.
Dealing with your comments on the report
that you have just read from, that was a quick
survey requested of us by the city of Hamil-
ton to get on with some immediate projects.
They said, "We would like a long-term survey
but will you give us a quick survey so we can
get underway. We did this, and I will read
ofiF to you in a few minutes what we are
doing in Hamilton. But they have also asked
us now for a complete comprehensive survey
of the Hamilton housing needs, and this is
underway and we anticipate that within the
next 30 or 45 days this also will be available
to discuss the problems of Hamilton.
Out of that quick survey perhaps I should
point out that we already have under man-
agement in Hamilton: 202 senior citizens*
units and 1,254 family units. Under con-
struction we have 92 family units at the
present time and 557 senior citizens' units.
Construction about to commence includes 250
family units, and another 397 senior citizens'
units. I think you will see from that report
that we did take action and it was in co-
operation with the city of Hamilton.
We have been able to act on that report
perhaps more quickly than we would have
had we gone for a long-term comprehensive
report. But, we agree with you, with the
land assembly projects and the programmes
we have for Hamilton, we would like to
know what the long-term needs are for the
city of Hamilton. I think this is one area
where our survey will give us much informa-
tion we can probably use in other areas.
I think I have answered, Mr. Chairman,
most of the questions that the hon. member
asked. If I have not I will be glad to dig
up any further information he wants.
4654
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Gisbom: Mr. Chairman, just a couple
of brief questions. When will the present
development at Roxborough Park be ready
for occupancy?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am informed that
tlie one that are started now will be ready
before the end of this year.
Mr. Gisbom: They seem to me to be com-
pleted now. They are putting in the drive-
ways at Roxborough Park and certainly they
will be ready for occupancy before the end
of the year.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I say they are going to
finished within the foreseeable future. We
think they will all be finished this year.
Mr. Gisbom: Just one remark in regard
to that project. It seems small but the only
complaint I have had is that the contractors
are leaving the streets in that area in an
awful mess. If you have any influence— or
somebody gets in touch with them— they
should be starting to clean them up. The
streets four or five blocks away from the
project are covered with clay.
In regard to the Roxborough Park survey
in general when we talked about the possi-
bility of purchase of some of the units in
there, I think the Minister told this Legis-
lature that they were making a survey on
how many could be purchased and when
they might be ready. Have we found out how
many might be sold to the present tenants
at this time?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are using the esti-
mates of the Guelph project to get an under-
standing with OHC, and that has not come
back from Ottawa yet. When we get the
Guelph estimates back then we will be able
to proceed with those others. They are on the
old programme, not on the one that you are
referring to.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): I won-
der if I could pursue for a few minutes the
question of the land deal in Peterborough
last fall. The Minister very kindly tabled the
offer to sell and the statement that he made
on June 30 when this agreement was made.
It expired on August 18. A $100 deposit
was made on that date. Apparently, on
August 29, the expired offer to sell was then
dealt with, but some days after it had ex-
pired. At that time, the board of directors
approved the purchase. In fact, an order in
council of authority was given on that date,
and on August 31, the closing dale was ex-
tended to October 31. At that time a $50,000
deposit was made on that particular offer
to purchase. This particular arrangement was
done by letter and tliat has been tabled
today.
Further to our telephone conversation,
please find attached hereto our cheque for
$50,000 bringing a further deposit on the
purchase of the above property, bringing
the deposit up to $50,100.
I wonder if the Minister could explain a
jump in the deposit from $100 to $50,000 in
just those few days.
In consideration of the additional de-
posit, Trent Park Development Limited
hereby do agree to the extension of the
closing date of this transaction to October
31, 1967. All other terms of said offer
to purchase remain unchanged.
Then the conditions, I assume, go back to
the expired offer to sell of August 18, and
the conditions are very few and very simple.
This offer is conditional upon Ontario
housing corporation obtaining the neces-
sary federal, provincial and municipal ap-
proval or consents which may be required
for it to consumate its intended use of
said lands for a land assembly project.
It goes on to say that CMHC must provide
the necessary financing. CMHC indicated
that it was willing to consent to financing,
and so far as the federal consent is concerned,
it would seem that all is clear there. So far
as the provincial— well, this is the Minister
himself and his influence on the provincial
government. As for municipal approvals, no
attempt was made to secure municipal ap-
proval.
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member
has made an incorrect statement here. CMHC
never indicated that they were prepared to
go ahead in any correspondence that we had.
They never commented at all. It was a time
when they were waiting to see if they had
any money for many of our projects that we
had in mind.
Mr. Pitman: So what the Minister is saying
is that the federal authority did not turn
down the project: this is the important thing.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is in limbo. They
never approved it either.
Mr. Pitman: It is in limbo, but I think that
the point is that for some strange reason, this
JUNE 18, 1968
4655
company was willing to give back the $50,000,
even though no attempt had been made to
carry out what were essentially the conditions
of this offer to sell. This is what appears to
be entirely baffling, to say the least.
B When the Minister made the following
statement— and . I want to comment on this
because this has caused a tremendous amount
of concern in the area which I happen to
represent, and indeed the whole housing pro-
ject has been delayed by carfuffles of this
nature. When the proposed transaction be-
came known and the centre of a political
controversy— that is, of course a euphemism
because the Minister himself announced that
proposed transaction— it was obvious that
local resistance could result in the delays in
obtaining the necessary rezoning. What de-
lays? What local resistance? There was no
local resistance at all that was formed in
regard to this project, so how is it possible
to suggest this? How would this create or
negate any advantage over the terms of time
over the corporations* other holdings?
This has been a major problem because,
as the Minister knows, the other 183 lots
v/ere delayed and have not been built on
during this summer. The fact that we have
22 units in Peterborough as of June, 1968, is
a result of this kind of delay and confusion
which seems to emanate from this office. In
an interjection when I read this yesterday,
the Minister said: "The price of land went
up!" But it was the Minister himself who
announced the price of land and it was the
department that announced the increase in
the price of land. So if there is any influence
on the price of land, this department is re-
sponsible for it. I think that the final state-
ment was that the provincial authorization for
the OHC to proceed with the purchase was
withdrawn. I find it entirely baffling that this
kind of action would be taken.
There are tliree things that baffle me.
First, that in this kind of agreement, the
Trent Park Developments would not even ask
the Minister to comply with the conditions of
the offer to sell and secondly would hand
back the $50,100 without having the agree-
ment complied with whatsoever. Thirdly, of
course the whole basis of this final agreement
is extremely baffling. I think that, too, it is
very unfortunate of the Minister to stop a
project which his own department seemed
ready to go through with because of some
kind of nebulous political controversy.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not consider it
nebulous political controversy. Perhaps I
could read back some of your statements the
minute that we made the announcement. You
made it your business, in order to get your
election promises ahead, to make some very
definite statements that created most of the
difficulty. Let me read back a few of your
statements so we know where we are. Here
is one of them:
The area east of the Trent canal, which
OHC would pay $500,000 for, ranks last
in five areas surveyed by the city engineer-
ing department for residential development,
Walter Pitman said Thursday. Mr. Murphy
said he was sick and tired of hearing NDP
criticism of PC housing policies. He took
a swipe at the city planning board of which
Mr. Pitman is a member for doing nothing
towards getting land for public housing.
He is referring to you.
An area of land had suddenly become an
area of housing, although never once had
an OHC official appeared at a planning
board meeting, an incredible lack of con-
sideration, said Mr. Pitman.
I hear the word incredible from you about
15 times a day, so it is a standard procedure
for you to find everything incredible.
If the OHC goes through with its plans
to purchase-
Mr. Pitman: Twenty-two units for 50,000
people.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I know that it is, but
we are successful, you hate success. If you
would get out of the way, we would get
more of them built, but you do not want
housing. Here is your last statement:
If the OHC goes through with the plans
to purchase the 292 acres and build
houses, it would mean a complete distor-
tion of the present plans for tlie city, and
it means a complete reversal of priority in
relation to buildings, water, sewers, and
educational services.
Mr. Pitman: Right, and look at the map—
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is the opinion of
the hon. member for Peterborough and it
was not the opinion of a lot of other people
who were interested in that area. If you want
to know what the political impUcations are,
there they are.
Let me deal with the other two points
that you brought up here. There was nothing
wrong with making a down payment of $100
or a $1 bill to have a look-see. We are doing
that every day of the week. When we show
an interest, we have to come up with greener
money, and so we came up with more money
because we did have an interest. We made
4656
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an ordinary commercial transaction, which
we do every day of the week, with nothing
insidious about it. It is done by everybody
in the land development business. If we are
going to deal with these people and the kind
of competition that we are up against, we
have to follow the same practices, so we put
up the $50,000. There is nothing wrong with
that. After we had a look at the property,
and we listened to the criticism that we had
up there, we realized that we were not going
to be able to service it. It was definite that
we could not get service there any quicker
than to any of the property we already owned
so we decided to pull out.
We pulled out. The taxpayer has not lost
a dime, and we have our money back. We
will take a look at other properties in the
city of Peterborough. In fact, just so that we
get the facts straight, we are looking for land
in Peterborough and are still looking. Per-
haps if it comes to the board, you will help
us this time. We had an oJBFer of 18 acres in
the city of Peterborough for $295,000, ap-
proximately $16,000 an acre. That was April
28, 1967, and, of course, we refused it. This
is like buying uranium property. On May 15,
1968, we had an offer of 185 acres in the
city of Peterborough at $3,000 per acre and
this land was in the city of Peterborough. On
May 16, 1968, we had 93.5 acres in the town-
ship of Smith, bordering the city of Peter-
borough, offered at $2,500 per acre. We are
still looking at these last two deals I men-
tioned and perhaps they are good deals. What
may be a good deal for us may not be a
good deal for a private developer. As I told
you the other day, when we move in we
are trying to buy as much land as we can, so
there is a sell-off. If there is a sell-off, we
will have a profit to put in the community
centre, or the school if possible, and lower
the cost of lots that we put into public
housing.
We have no intentions of going in and
taking X number of acres and putting only
$15,000 homes in there any more than any-
body in his right mind would put in only
$35,000 homes. We may have to operate a
little differently to the ordinary developer,
because of the fact that we are Ontario hous-
ing corporation. We may have to look a little
further ahead.
Perhaps in some cases we may be accused
of paying a little too much, but we know
what we are going to do with the property
when we get it. As far as we are concerned,
the Peterborough deal is a closed book. But
we are still looking at land in Peterborough,
and there is nothing insidious about what we
did with the deal. You have the documents.
We have not taken anything then shoved it
under the counter. You have had a look at
everything we have.
Mr. Pitman: I did not realize that I could
have so much influence on this government
But all the things that the Minister just read
back are completely true. They can be found
in the planning department, they can be
found in engineers department, and it seems
incredible to me that— and I use that word
again in all of its meaning— the Ontario hous-
ing corporation would march into a com-
munity with the amount of co-operation which
it showed and pick up this piece of land,
and of course, the cost of the land, the Min-
ister did not mention the degree at which the
value of this land rose after the Ontario
housing corporation got control of it. I sub-
mit, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think
Ontario housing corporation has any intention
of carrying out a housing project on that
land. It was an election gimmick all the way.
I think it is a disgraceful way to carry on
the government of this province.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You killed the deal. Let
me just say to you right now—
Mr. Pitman: Baloney.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Our people did have
discussions with city officials in Hamilton, but
they do not go to the planning department
and the engineering department and advertise
that they are in the market for land. This
would be the worst thing to do. I said the
other day, why should the government take
in the taxpayers' money and send a band-
wagon ahead to advertise, "Here comes the
government; get your prices up." When we
are going in for land, we are going in as
quietly as we can; we are going to pick the
land up at tlie right prices. We are not going
to advertise the fact that it has taken tax-
payers* money, "Come on and hook us.**
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I listened with a very great deal
of interest to the explanation and the revela-
tions with regard to the details of this whole
project in the last couple of days, and I
want to—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I said you would not
see it our way, so go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I was listening for
the facts, I was not particularly interested in
your way. When I get the facts then I will
revise my opinon if necessary, but I have not
foimd it necessary to revise my opinon. I will
JUNE 18, 1968
4657
say right now, Mr. Chairman, that. this was
not an arm's length deal. It now becomes very
obvious that it was not an arm's length deal.
And this is, again, an incredible proposition
that an agency of the Crown should be play-
ing games in this fashion. Let us take a look
at a couple of aspects of this whole proposi-
tion, Mr. Chairman. According to the con-
tract, they had to obtain the necessary federal,
provincial and municipal approvals. Now
what is the record? You have never heard
from the federal government. The Minister
at the moment is hiding behind the fact that
the government did not approve. The im-
portant thing is that the federal government
did not disapprove of it.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, did I not approve
it?
Mr. MacDonakI: Just a minute now— they
take even longer sometimes than you do to
make up your mind. The Minister has been
sitting on offers that he had dating back to
April, 1967, so you do not move like light-
ning. The Minister is going to do something
for housing, yet he is sitting on property
offered back last year.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am not sitting on any
offer from 1967, we turned that offer down.
I said that a few minutes ago. We are not
sittting on the offer of $16,000 an acre in
the city of Hamilton, We turned it down, I
told you that.
Mr. MacDonald: You said also tliat there
were offers at $2,500 an acre and $3,000 an
acre. You ended your discussion by saying
you are still considering these,
Hon. Mr. Randall: Made in May of this
year.
Mr. MacDonald: They did not make it
until this year?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure, we got two offers
in May of this year,
Mr. MacDonald: May of this year? Well,
let's not get side-tracked on that. Let us
deal with the issue here: The simple fact
of the matter is that you have never had any
disapproval, or cancellation, of the support
from the federal government. The Minister
at this point is rationalizing the matter by
saying you did not get approval. You did
not ask, you did not try to push the deal,
to find out whether you could get approval.
As for the municipal end of it, you never
sought any approval. The Minister is now
saying that he is proven to be wise, in hind-
sight, because subsequently the planning
board was refused the right to rezone it.
Once again, that is irrelevant. The simple
fact of the matter is— and this is what the
Minister who is a businessman, who presum-
ably knows something about the operations
of die businessmen— that he suggested that
they made an offer and that the government
had the right to withdraw from the offer just
by having his "right arm" say that his "left
arm" could not go ahead with the deal.
The Minister is a member of the Cabinet.
The whole thing started with an order in
council approving the proposition, and the
whole thing came to an end with the same
provincial government withdrawing its ap-
proval of the project. Well, this is playing
games. And, Mr. Chairman, my colleague
from Peterborough is dead right when he
says it was playing games for political pur-
poses during the election campaign. I draw
to your attention that it was the Minister
who made the announcement on September
23— in the body of the election campaign
so to speak— and some two or three weeks
after the election was over, it was the Minis-
ter who then announced that they had with-
drawn their offer and that the whole proposal
had collapsed. This is just proof that you
were playing games. You had control of the
whole situation.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is a fiinal
question that the Minister should speak to,
and give some explanation of. If you were
dealing at arm's length on a bona fide trans-
action, what group of people, when given
$50,000, is going to back out of it and re-
turn the $50,000 to the government?
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): That is a
good question.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, what group of busi-
nessmen? If the Minister is a businessman,
if he entered a contract and was offered
$50,000 and there was no disapproval from
Ottawa, there was no disapproval from the
municipal level, there was just the govern-
ment playing games by withdrawing its ap-
proval on something it had originally
approved, what businessman is going to hand
back the $50,000? Mr. Chairman, I have a
question to put to the Minister, What was
the deal— when a group of people handed
back $50,000? Are they on the string for
another sale of land to the government at
some stage later? Because it is an open
secret that everybody knows, tiiat this land
value had been pyramided in a period of
4658
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
three or four years for something like $100,-
000 or $140,000 to $500,000, and one of
the key men in the process was the then sit-
ting member from the Legislature.
Mr. Trotter: A Tory.
Mr. MacDonald: A Tory. Right, a Tory.
Now, if the government backed out of it,
please do not blame the hon. member sit-
ting for Peterborough. The people down at
Peterborough were not going to have any-
thing more to do with this kind of a game
that the government was playing. A group
of people who were in the process of mak-
ing some three to four times the value of
land, by sales from a series of agencies—
indeed in one instance there were one or
two sales within the same day— so that the
value of the property went up by some tens
of thousands of dollars. T,he government now
tries to blame the hon. member for Peter-
borough as being responsible for it.
This Minister was involved in a messy
deal. That is what he was involved in. He
was involved in a messy deal which he
cooked up for election purposes. He an-
nounced it in the election, and he killed the
deal shortly after the election was over. Do
tiot try to kid anybody else as to what the
exact nature of this is. We have been play-
ing games with it long enough, and if this
is the kind of deal that Ontario housing is in,
in the name of the Minister, or the Minister is
in, in the name of Ontario housing, then cer-
tainly the time has come for us to look
very closely at the operation of this arm of
the Crown.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You are entitled to your
opinions. I heartly disagree with you, and I
do not expect you to let your man oflF the
hook either. It is always this side of the
House that is in difficulty, and I say this
to you: In this Legislature, your people
have done more to delay a home-housing
programme in this province than anybody
else I know. You are always looking for a
scandal. If a man has anything to do with
the government he is a crook, everybody who
has ever been in politics on this side of the
House. We are not supposed to buy a nickel's
worth of goods from the man once he has
served in here, and if he leaves you cannot
give him a job, you cannot hire him as a
lawyer, you cannot buy from him because he
is a crook. I do not know what is the matter
with your kind of mentality when you put
everybody in that category.
Let me just spell out for you one thing,
and one thing very clearly. This is a standard
condition on every offer to sell that we have,
and I do not care whether a man gets $50,000
or $200,000, if those conditions are not met,
then the deal is cancelled. This is a standard
form that we use at the Ontario housing cor-
poration and we will continue to use.
We make these conditions because we have
no assurance whatsoever when we make a
deal here first. We are the bird dog, we
ferret it out. When we get it and send it to
Ottawa, we do not know whether they are
going to accept it or not, and last year Ottawa
told us they had no money for many land
deals, they had no money for buying instant
lots. They wanted out at the end of 15 years,
once the cow pasture was serviced. We
agreed to bail them out at the end of 15
years.
In October of last year they owed us $40
million on deals they had made, and Mr.
Suters had to go to Ottawa, sit down with
Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Hignett, and say,
"Look, we have made deals. They are sit-
ting in Ottawa. You say you are going to
approve them. We want the $40 million."
This is the kind of a basis we find ourselves
in, in making land deals, and we are going
to make these kinds of deals now and from
hereon in, and if we—
Mr. MacDonald: You do not have to buy at
inflated land values.
Hon. Mr. Randall: And if we put the right
conditions in, we have every right to cancel
out if we feel we want to cancel out the con-
ditions and the money is not there. And this
is exactly what we do.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: The conditions were not
met. We did not get the CMHC money. We
never got the approval.
Mr. MacDonald: You did not ask for the
approval.
Hon. Mr. Randall: How do you know we
did not ask for it? Were you there?
Mr. MacDonald: You did not—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Were you there?
Mr. MacDonald: You did not get a refusal.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Were you there?
Mr. Pitman: No, and neither was the Min-
ister. You never got it. You never asked
for it.
Mr. MacDonald: In fact, you are mislead-
ing this House.
JUNE 18, 1968
4659
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, I am not.
Mr. Pitman: If anyone is responsible for
the brealdown of these negotiations, and the
lack of that land, it is the Minister himself.
Because the Minister announced that during
the election campaism and he had no need
to announce it at all. Did he? There is no
reason why it had to be announced. It was
not consummated. It is not, as the Minister
himself has said, the policy of the Ontario
housing corporation to make announcements
of this sort. It is certainly not the policy of
the Ontario housing corporation to make
announcements about the price of the land
they are buying. But the Minister himself
did this.
Furthermore, are the newspapermen across
this country completely without blame? Was
there a headline Scott Young wrote under in
in the Globe and Mail?
Hon. Mr. Randall: They got—
Mr. Pitman: Harold Greer wrote about
it in several other newspapers across this
province.
Hon. Mr. Randall: You went and got—
Mr. Pitman: It was public knowledge—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Who got them? You
fed them.
Mr. Pitman: Oh, baloney! Do you think I
got my election campaign to feed the news-
papermen across this province? You are out
of your mind.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is
one point that I wanted to deal with. The
Minister indicated that we are calling every-
body who happened to have some association
with this government as a crook.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Sure you are.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the record
is very clear that the hon. gentlemen had a
few tens of thousands of dollars involved, and
the rest of it was mortgages. It started at
$140,000, and in three years it was pyramided
to over $500,000, which this government is
willing to buy.
Hon. Mr. Randall: How many times has
that happened on other-
Mr. MacDonald: I do not care how many
times it has happened.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. MacDonald: And there now is the
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment (Mr. Simonett) saying that this is defen-
sible. The proposition that a group of local
Tories should be inflating land values which
should then be bought by the Ontario hous-
ing corporation, and should be built into the
rental charges that people have to pay-this
is the problem in Ontario.
It is one thing for the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) and others, to get up and lament
about the high cost of land, but it is another
thing to examine who is building the high
cost of land. And when it is a group of local
Tories who are skyrocketing the land prices,
and then you are buying it up— I say to the
Minister once again: this was a messy deal
that even the Minitser could not remain
associated with. So he is blaming central
mortgage and housing. He is blaming the
municipality. He is blaming the hon. mem-
ber for Peterborough. But he should blame
himself.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I will make you
an offer. If you find any land that belongs
to its original owner, will you bring it into
the Ontario housing corporation, and we will
pay you a commission. Because the owners
of land today are maybe a half a dozen re-
moved from the original owner.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, go out and dig-
do not ask me to do your work for you.
Hon. Mr. Randall: If you find some original
owners bring them in, because we would be
glad to do business with them.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say a word in regard to the Peter-
borough property. I have had an opportunity
to see the contract that was tabled, and also
the letter of August 31, 1967. It has already
been referred to.
There is no question in my mind that this
is a real can of worms. I have listened to the
hon. Minister on this matter. I think for a
certainty he is covering up for somebody. Or
either there has just been a major bungle on
the part of—
Hon. Mr. Randall: What have we got to
cover up? All the money is back and the
taxpayer has not lost a dime. What are we
covering up?
Mr. MacDonald: Just because you were
scared out of the deal-
Mr. Trotter: The whole background of this
transaction is such that it is utterly ridiculous
for the Minister to blame the present mem-
ber for Peterborough for this deal falling
through.
4660
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: He is here because of the
reaction of the people.
Mr. Trotter: What went on in that election
—certainly those of us who were following
what happened in Peterborough— is probably
the reason why the NDP is now representing
Peterborough, it is because of the background
of this deal. It has been known for some
time that this land increased in value three
or four times in a short period of time and
the former Conservative member for Peter-
borough was involved in the transaction.
I would think it is the responsibility of the
Minister to table what correspondence he
would have with central mortgage and hous-
ing—either on Ontario housing corporation
asking for approval of the transaction, or
secondly, where central mortgage and hous-
ing has turned them down.
I frankly do not believe that such letters
exist. It would appear to me, having listened
to what has gone on, that the government
entered into this transaction as an election
gimmick in order to make it appear they
were going to do something. Either that or,
because the deal was so smelly, tliey became
afraid of it and backed off.
My own personal view, from what I read
in the newspapers and from what I have
heard in this House and other places, is
simply that it was not an election gimmick.
I think it was so smelly that they had to back
off because of the press it was getting.
When the Minister has been questioned
by the member for Peterborough and the
leader of the New Democratic Party, he has
come back with answers that are completely
evasive. He says they have the right to check
into these deals or certain conditions, they
have the right to cancel them, that they go
to central mortgage and housing, and central
mortgage and housing sometimes approves
and disapproves.
Well, he talks about some deals but the
Minister never talks about this particular
transaction. I am of the opinion— and again
I repeat it— that the Minister never made any
attempt, either with the municipality of the
city of Peterborough or with the federal gov-
ernment, through its central mortgage and
housing corporation, to have this deal ap-
proved. He has used it as an excuse. And
the people involved, the Trent Park Develop-
ments Limited, gladly gave up the $50,000
because, being friends of the government,
they simply did not want to get involved any
further in a deal which had become a can of
worms.
No doubt, the same group of people behind
Trent Park Developments will be befriended
again in some way— probably more successful
—by this government in the hope that the
Opposition, or the press, or the public does
not get wind of it.
But there is no question in my mind— and
I am sure in the pubhc's mind— that there is
a lot here still to be uncovered. The whole
behaviour of the Minister indicates that he
has a lot to hide. I would suggest, through
you, Mr. Chairman, that the fault may be not
so much with Ontario housing corporation
but with the politicians in the back room
some place who concocted this transaction in
the first place.
This is where the real mystery lies. Not
in the offices of Ontario housing corporation,
but in the back rooms of certain individuals
of the Tory party who were looking for a
pay-off. Here the pay-off fell flat. But I
would like to ask the Minister this. Would
he table in this House— either now or within
the next few days— any other correspondence
involving this transaction, particularly where
central mortgage and housing is involved
and where approval would be requested of
the city of Peterborough? Would you table
those or do you have them?
Hon. Mr. Randall: This is a letter from
CMHC addressed to Ontario housing cor-
poration, attention Mr. J. F. Metcalfe, land
assembly section, 35A, Peterborough Ontario.
We wish to acknowledge receipt of
yours of the 6th requiring additional land
under section 35 for a land assembly proj-
ect under HOME programme at Peter-
borough. At the present time, we are hold-
ing 40 lots in phase four of the land as-
sembly for the HOME programme and
hope to have 183 lots in phase five serv-
iced by late fall.
This will leave approximately 600 lots
in phase five to be developed within the
next two or three years. We would there-
fore appreciate receiving from you, a brief
summary of the findings of your planning
and research department and the recent
survey of need and demand and approxi-
mately how many lots you are considering
for the 35A HOME programme for Peter-
borough before we can approve authority
to investigate acquisition.
Yours truly,
Regional Supervisor,
Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, Peterborough.
Mr. Trotter: Well, that is not turning down
anything or, if I—
JUNE 18, 1968
4661
Hon. Mr. Randall: You asked me if we
ever made an application to central mortgage
and housing. We did. We make it with the
local people first.
Mr. Trotter: Again that is very evasive.
Even the letter is very general, and secondly,
it certainly was not—
Hon. Mr. Randall: You asked me a ques-
tion, "Would we table any further corres-
pondence?" I will be glad— this week, next
week or the week after— to give you any
further correspondence. We have nothing to
hide, as I said yesterday.
Mr. Trotter: Well, I am glad to hear it.
Anything you have on that file pertaining
to-
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will be glad to.
Mr. Trotter: Pertaining to Ashburnam
Road property in Peterborough?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Be glad to.
Mr. Trotter: I would like to see it tabled.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Frustrating, isn't it?
Mr. Trotter: Well, there is no question—
for three or four years there has been hanky-
panky going on in regard to this land and I—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Trotter: Well, it suits you people very
well. I have stronger words than that for
you people-
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.
Mr. Trotter: See, I am in a Parliament, I
just have to hold my tongue.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Trotter: They would be well placed.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for
Sudbury.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to seek a piece of infor-
mation from the Minister.
My recollection of the press reports at the
time seem to indicate that the former mem-
ber for Peterborough, Keith Brown, sold the
property in question to a corporation and
he got, if my memory is correct, $125,000
on that sale. Is it a fact that, notwithstanding
what happened in the ultimate stages of the
transaction, Brown received that considera-
tion to himself in any event in respect of
the sale of this land?
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is a private market
deal. Brown is privileged to .sell it to any-
body he wishes to sell it to. The people that
came to us were Trent Realty-whatever
their name is— they were the ones that came
to us with the deal, not Mr. Brown. We had
nothing to do with Mr. Brown. Trent Realty
came to us after the deal was sold to them.
Mr. Sopha: Well then, I assume it is
correct.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are not aware that
Mr. Brown even owned any property up
there.
Mr. Sopha: Then I assume it is— and I
want to put on the record that I assume-
to be correct. So anyone can quarrel with
it if it is not correct. I assume that Brown
as an entrepreneur in dealing with this land,
entered into a transaction with some other
person— a company— and he got a considera-
tion, which memory tells me, was in the
neighbourhood of $125,000. Subsequently,
the purchaser from him, or a subsequent pur-
chaser, entered into a transaction with On-
tario housing corporation whose transactions,
ultimately, by agreement of the parties, was
rescinded.
Thosis are the facts that I assume to be
correct. In that case, it is clear to me, enter-
ing this debate at the late stages— it is abso-
lutely clear to me— that what there ought
to be, is a judicial enquiry.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): If I may-
Mr. Sopha: Just a moment.
Mr. White: I will not be a minute.
Mr. Sopha: No, no. I am not through—
The Premier of this province, acting under
the prerogatives he has— and I hope that
Hansard will record the last of that remark,
because I was perfectly serious when I made
that proposition— on September 5 last year,
acting on the prerogative vested in him, the
Prime Minister dissolved the House, and on
that day Keith Brown was a member of
this House. He ceased, on tliat day, to be a
member. Who would beUeve that between
September 5, when he ceased to be a mem-
ber of the House, and some time later in the
fall, when the deal with the OHC came to
an end, that that was the first involvement of
Keith Brown with the deal?
4662
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What the judicial enquiry ought to attempt
to ascertain, was what the activities of Brown
were, in respect of this land before Septem-
ber 5, because if it was intended that this
land, ultimately be a housing development,
under the aegis of OHC, then there is more
in the suggestion or suspicion that Brown
was in conflict of his interest as a member.
He was playing the part in the creation of a
set of relations that would ultimately benefit
Brown, as a member, from the public Treas-
ury of the province, no matter how it was
obscured. If that was the intent and the gov-
ernment in those circumstances, having lis-
tened to all this debate—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: You are having a
pipe dream.
Mr. Sophs-: The government should not
hesitate to institute a judicial enquiry in order
to reveal all the details of this transaction and
if-
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Say that outside the House and let Brown
tell you a few good words.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Sopha: Listen you—
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.
Mr. Sopha: I say this to you because I
get tired of that about outside the House—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I do not think it
is seemly or proper conduct for any member
to say "listen you" to any other member.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
is aware of the procedures as well as the
Chairman. I ask him to observe those pro-
cedures.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister of Health— a
medical man— should not provoke a member
over here so that the backlash gets our
friend, the Provincial Treasurer, into a state
of hypertension; the top of his head might
blow off.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Stop playing the gallery and
get to it.
Mr. Sonba: So I ask the Minister of Health
to lay off him.
Mr. MacDonald: There is a lot to play.
You are all very disturbed.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Despicable.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for
Sudbury may proceed.
Mr. Sopha: Is that not terrible? Is that
not terrible conduct on the part of the Min-
ister? I am ashamed for you. I am ashamed.
Mr. MacDonald: They are caught red-
handed.
Mr. Sopha: I am ashamed for you—
Mr. Chairman: Vote 407?
Mr. Sopha: Here we are, the guardians of
the public interest, and we come upon this
set of circumstances; and when we start to
enquire into it, in proper place, and in the
proper body of Ontario, you get a little fool-
ish person like that, start to talk. "Say it out-
side the House." I hope you maintain
silence.
A typification of complete irresponsibility.
Mr. MacDonald: Political bluff.
Mr. Sopha: All right, let us put it this way,
now that the matter has been unravelled here
—and the way it has. If the Ontario housing
corporation and the Minister of Trade and
Development have nothing to hide, and with
the evidence that we have, of the involve-
ment of a member of the House, while he
was a member of the House— if all that is
innocent, then put it in the hands of a proper
body in order to demonstrate to the people
of Ontario that they have no grounds for
concern. Finally, I say that I thought we
were entering an era— I was optimistic enough
to believe that we were entering an era—
when politicians rigidly separated their pri-
vate affairs from their public responsibilities.
That would be a cause for great enthusiasm
in this democracy.
That member, as I knew him, loved to be
a member of this House. He used to go to
great expense to bring his people to the
galleries, he would bring busloads of them
here. I was very surprised when he did not
run again. I suspect that the reason he did
not run again was because of his involvement
with this Minister.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, this is out of
order, this attack on a previous distinguished
member—
JUNE 18, 1968
4663
Mr. Sopha: What is he nattering about, I
did not hear him?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member would
return to the vote.
Mr. Sopha: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I say
to this Minister: We lay down the challenge;
we toss the gauntlet; or any other way you
want to put it. If you have nothing to hide
—we have nothing to hide. Let us have an
independent enquiry to find out what involved
that member while he was a member of the
House. Notwithstanding all this other folderol
about our conduct over here, in drawing this
to the attention of the public in this way,
ultimately we have our responsibilities and
if it involves taking the type of abuse to
which we are subjected, from such people as
the Minister of Health, and the member for
London South, then we have got to bear that
abuse with all the fortitude we can muster.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: So the whole debate would be
the launching pad for that judicial enquiry.
He could take this debate, and everything
that has been said here from this side, and
from the Minister's own lips, and with that,
begin to enquire. If that member was free
of all blame or guilt of involvement; if he
was indeed like Caesar's wife; then the
people of Peterborough will be indeed the
first that will be glad to hear it. It was said
here to the Minister tonight— and this is note-
worthy—that the reason the member is not
here and that they have a member from a
new party is because of the activity of this
Minister.
So the conscience of this Minister ought
to be ruffled to the extent that he would be
among the very first to go to the first citizen,
the president of the executive council, and
say: "Our hands are clean, let us get the
details out into the open."
So that is the measure of the challenge.
We can assume that if that challenge is not
taken up after this debate is read, then no
doubt over the years it will leave a gross dis-
taste in the mouths of the people of Peter-
borough and others in the province who be-
come aware of it. All right, I put it this way,
so the Minister of Health will know the prin-
ciple on which I stand in this respect.
I am against, now and forever, the involve-
ment of any member's private aflFairs with his
public responsibilities. As long as I am in
public life I will make available— and be
ready at a moment's notice to make available
—any private affairs in which I am involved
myself. And being ready to do that, and
having something of an idealistic view of the
new politician in the new democracy which
we are approaching, then I am entitled to
insist upon at least that from all others I en-
counter in public life.
There is the principle and I hope the Min-
ister of Health for whom, in cooler moments,
I have a high admiration, will maybe con-
sider these words and digest them. And I
hope that, in the future, he will not spoil
what could be a friendship over the years
with this type of intemperate outburst which,
unfortunately, he sometimes gives.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Welling-
ton South? The member for Hastings.
Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings): Mr. Chairman,
there have been remarks made here tonight
concerning Keith Brown and involving a so-
called land deal in Peterborough. I would
like to say to the members across the floor
that because Keith Brown operates a private
business, there could be some jealousy. Keith
Brown happened to occupy and work out of
the same office as I have, since being elected.
The reason Keith Brown is not here today
was with reference to pleadings from his wife
owing to an episode that happened in Peter-
borough and threats on his family.
That is the reason he is not here today and
nothing else. I would hope that the members
of this House would give Keith Brown the
same oportunity— without the protection of
this House— to say the things that they have
said here tonight. I am sure he would be
amply able to take care of himself and
answer all and any questions that may be
put forth. He is not here— not because of
any land deal, but because of what had
taken place in Peterborough from threats on
his family.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, well I do not think—
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I am moved. I
had no intention of speaking on this but
I cannot help but contrast this situation—
where the government, in fact, did not spend
any money with Mr. Brown from Peter-
borough-to the situation of the NDP's Mr.
Brown, a man that we have been trying to
get in front of a committee on privileges and
elections for some months. As a matter of
fact, he avoids this House hke the plague. He
flits in and out at quiet moments. His leader
has not got the gumption, the fortitude, the
integrity, or the honour to put him in front
of a committee on—
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a point of order—
4664
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York South
will please state his point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the initia-
tive for getting before the committee on elec-
tions and privileges rests with the government,
and therefore, Mr, Chairman, I object to the
hon. gentleman getting up and questioning
my gumption. If he has not the courage of
his convictions let the government take the
initiative.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Chairman,
on a point of order, I do not think this is
properly before us at this time.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. But your man
raised it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, Order. Will the
members please be seated. Order. Will they
please revert to the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Trade and Development? The mem-
ber for Wellington South has been trying to
get the floor for some time.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Thank
you very much.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Are you ready to
speak?
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, after that—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, are you
going to allow this defiance of the chair?
Mr. Chairman: If the member for York
South will suggest to the Chairman how he
can control it, I will try to. I do not know
what to do.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Perhaps if we
just remove the member for London South
from the chamber we could get on with the
business of the House.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order. The member
for Wellington South. Order please. Will the
member for Welhngton South please proceed?
Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, as the Min-
ister knows, during the past year the Guelph
rental project and the tenants and the admin-
istrator and the board have had several
meetings and this rental development in
Guelph is getting to be quite a large project.
I am wondering if the Minister would sug-
gest tenant representation. As I understand
it, when we originally started that project
with central mortgage back in 1953, we had
an appointment of three members from the
federal government and three members from
the provincial government. I am wondering,
sir, that now that this has developed into a
unit of somewhere over 200 houses and some
70-odd senior citizens' housing units, whether
there could not be negotiations between the
federal government and the provincial gov-
ernment to see if we could have representa-
tion from the tenants.
It seems to me that there is something lack-
ing here. When these people have problems,
they do not have an opportunity to meet
with the board and get the facts on what is
taking place. I think that, perhaps, would
solve some of the liaison that is missing be-
tween the tenants, the board, and the govern-
ment. Would you give consideration to taking
this up with Ottawa after June 25?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I have some information
on that for the hon. member. Just a second,
I will see if I can find it here. I might say
that we have had this matter under considera-
tion, but no decision has been made as yet.
The same question was asked earlier and
the answer was that tenant representation on
a local housing authority appears, on the sur-
face, to be a relatively simple matter. How-
ever, it should be borne in mind that housing
authorities are dealing with confidential
matters affecting individual tenants. From
time to time, it may be necessary to take dis-
ciplinary action against a particular tenant.
For this reason it would be unreasonable that
one tenant should have access to confidential
information concerning other tenants or, for
that matter, should take part in decisions con-
cerning other tenants.
Again, any housing authority would wel-
come tenants representing the tenants' asso-
ciation for that part of the proceedings not
concerning personal information regarding
other tenants. I think you can see what we
are driving at here. If a man in that locality
was on the housing authority, it might be
difficult for him still to live there after help-
ing make a decision against a tenant— perhaps
reprimanding or evicting him. For that rea-
son, we think that perhaps they could serve
in some other capacity, but not on the hous-
ing authority. There is no immediate decision
that has been made on that there will not be.
We will take a look at it. If we can come up
with a recommendation, we will.
JUNE 18, 1968
4665
Mr. Worton: Well, Mr. Chairman, is there
a possibility of having an independent per-
son serve and adjudicate, or at least have a
liaison between the tenants and the housing
authority and the government so that they
can be better informed as to what is taking
place, and why decisions are being made or
changed?
Hon. Mr. Randall: In the first place, when
we set up the housing authority it was com-
prised of independent people in that com-
munity—you know, citizens who wanted to
serve in an independent capacity. They are
not employees. They are not civil servants,
they are not employees of the Ontario hous-
ing corporation. They are people who have
ofiFered their services. In that respect, we feel
that the people do have representation inde-
pendent of authority. If there are any recom-
mendations of how we can improve that au-
thority for the benefit of the tenants, we are
quite prepared to take a look at them.
Mr. Worton: Unfortunately, these boards
do give a lot of time and they take it very
seriously. Sometimes they are put in a posi-
tion of receiving unfair criticisms. I am try-
ing to come up with a solution that will do
away with this criticism of the job they
are trying to do.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor
West.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Chairman, I find the Minister's answer— I did
not catch all of his statement— but I find his
answer to the member for Wellington South
rather provocative. I do so for this reason:
In the brochure entitled Appointment of
Members of Local Housing Authorities, is-
sued by the Ontario housing corporation for
the guidance of its local authorities, there is
a section headed "Qualifications for Member-
ship"—membership on the local housing au-
thority boards. And it reads:
Nominees are required to be responsible
and established residents of the local com-
munity. They must be pubhc spirited be-
cause these positions are non-remunerative.
They may be representative of all walks
of life.
But Mr. Chairman, such walks of life as
bankers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, insur-
ance personnel, ex-mayors, ex-councillors, re-
tired real estate persons, welfare workers,
social agency personnel, builders, engineers,
architects, merchants and so on, is a fair-
sized category. But it hardly takes us through
the full list of all occupations in all walks of
life. I think there are two points to be made
here about the Minister's reply to the mem-
ber for Wellington South.
One is, just how does the Minister dis-
tinguish the capacity of the housing author-
ity board member in one of these walks of
life to retain confidential information which
he may receive through his membership on
the board, as against the capacity of a tenant
not in one of these occupations?
Mr. Chairman, it is beyond my compre-
hension how the Minister can make such a
distinction. It is an utterly unfair, unjust and
unfounded distinction, and I ask him to era-
dicate it from this brochure. I ask him to
sincerely consider the proposition that tenants
themselves have just as much capacity to be
responsible and established residents of the
local community as any one of these other
home-ownership interested classifications.
They have just as much capacity to serve
on a board of a local housing authority, to
handle tenants' problems— if not a greater
capacity, Mr. Chairman, than any of these
occupations hsted in this brochure. They have
just as great a capacity to keep confidential
information to themselves, and not to gossip
about it amongst their neighbours in the
tenant project. And they have the capacity
in every other respect to be able members
of a local housing authority board.
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister does not
take this step of eliminating the restraints he
has placed on qualification for membership
in this brochiu-e, if he does not include ten-
ants themselves, and the many other occupa-
tions that we can find in our community-
office workers, labourers, factory workers,
bank clerks, as well as bankers, tenants them-
selves—then he is guilty of a continuing act
of discrimination that should be outlawed
by the Ontario human rights code.
Mr. Chairman, the roles of local housing
authorities need to be greatly enhanced. The
boards of the local housing authorities do not
distribute to their tenants any kind of an-
nual report so far as I know. Tenants do
not know the names of their housing au-
thority board members. They have no chan-
nels of communication with them. The
channels of communication are entirely
through the office of the board authorities. I
suggest that extending the qualifications of
membership to cover other categories of
tenants and other occupations, would be one
fundamental way in which the Minister could
greatly enhance the prestige and effectiveness
4666
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of local housing authority boards. And it
could better the relationship between the
housing corporation's tenants and the cor-
poration.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
first of all I would like to make some com-
ment on the words of the member for London
South. It is unfortunate that he has left the
chamber. One of his interjections was—
Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with On-
tario housing corporation.
Mr. Pilkey: I recognize that, but this was
part of it and I think that this Hou e should
know what he said. Because there were
threats, they said, on Mr. Brown, he called
those people gangsters. There were implica-
tions on the whole trade union movement. I
know what he was talking about in the city
of Peterborough and this reflects on the
whole trade union movement and every
worker who is organized in this province. I
think it is rather unfair that he should use
the word "gangsters." I think they are honest
citizens with a tremendous amount of in-
tegrity who make a contribution to the whole
of this province.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Anybody who threatens a man's
life is a gangster, is he not?
Mr. Pilkey: Yet he was implying that the
whole trade union movement in that area
was gangsters.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I never heard anything
about unions. You should not have mentioned
the unions. You brought them into the debate.
Mr. Chairman: We are deahng with Ontario
housing corporation, votes 407, 408, 409 and
410.
Mr. Pilkey: If the shoe fits, wear it. Let me
say the people of this province are going to
continue to rebel against injustice in our
society.
Mr. Chairman: Do you have something on
housing?
Mr. Pilkey: I do not think there is anything
that has moved me more in my short period
in this House than a critical situation that I
experienced about tsvo weeks ago.
Tonight I am sure that I was only scratch-
ing the surface in this area of housing. There
was a young immigrant family to this prov-
ince, Scottish immigrants, and they were
being evicted from their apartment. I know
that their eviction was due to their having
five children. We made a concentrated effort
in the citv of Oshawa and the surrounding
area, and through the welfare and the presi-
dent of the real estate board, we looked
evervwhere for accommodation for this young
family.
It was not because they did not have the
abihty to pay. The husband was a sheet metal
worker earning $175 per week in Toronto, but
could find no accommodation. They ended
up in an area around Frenchman's Bay. There
should be a complete investigation by gov-
ernment of the hovels that exist in that area
in which people have to live. I went into
that home, and it was one of the better cot-
tages—a summer cottage. Most of them are
winterized, but very, very poor accommoda-
tion. This woman turned the tap on and told
me to smell the water. Let me tell you that
water was so odorous, it really stank.
That was the kind of accommodation that
these people had to live in because there was
no other place for them. I suppose that they
could have got some place for $200 a month
that they could not afford, but they could
afford something in the area of $135 a month.
I came into this House and raised it because
I thought that there should have been an
emergency debate when I saw the appalling
condition that existed in that area. I am sure
that if it is critical in that area, heaven knows
what it is like in a municipality, like the city
of Toronto. Heaven knows what it is like.
We have got to face up to this situation.
The Minister, in his opening remarks, said we
are going as fast as we can go and we must
not push the panic button. Let me say that
we are not going fast enough and there is a
need to push the panic button. We ought to
be pushing it because we have got to get on
top of this question of housing and provide
suitable accommodation for the people of
this province.
I recall this afternoon the Minister of
Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr. Rown-
tree) stood up, waving an editorial around. I
thought it was Diogenes with the lamp of
truth. The way that he was throwing that
editorial around, it must have been the
gospel truth.
Let us get at this editorial tonight. Was it
the gospel truth? "Mr. Randall whacks a
Ftraw man on housing." Is this the truth? Is
this the truth, another editorial from the same
paper saying the rent for an average house is
$279 per month, and if it is, v/ho can afi^ord.
JUNE 18, 1968
4667
it? Surely there is no working man who can
afford this. I want to suggest that the job is
just not being done, and you cannot stand up
and say you are providing X number of
houses here and X number of houses there.
We have not mobiHzed the resources of this
province to alleviate the question of the hous-
ing shortage, and I want to say that the
shortage is acute. I would suggest that we
ought to have a war on housing in this
province.
Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Want
to blow them all up?
Mr. Pilkey: You know the government said
that they could not put a medicare plan into
effect, because they were going to deal in
priorities and we could not afford this. Well,
surely this question of housing is a priority
item. Maybe we have got a measure of
coverage in terms of medicare, but we will
still have to go ahead with it. Surely if
medicare is not a priority item, then housing
should be and we ought to be doing much
more about it.
It has to be done in short term, and we
have got to do it now, and we have to con-
centrate in two areas. We have to work on a
short-term basis to get on top of the situa-
tion, to provide the housing that is im-
mediately necessary and eliminate that need;
and then we have got to do it on a long-
term basis, so that we keep up with it. Make
no mistake about it, this province and this
country are going to grow. T^e whole country
is going to grow, and we need to provide
more housing.
I am not convinced that we cannot pro-
vide the single-family dwellings necessary,
that we have got to put people into high-
rise apartments in high-density areas. Here
we are sitting in the most vast country in
the world, a country that is supposed to be
part of the aflBuent society, and yet we can-
not provide family dwellings, we have got to
put them in high-rise apartments, or in high-
density housing areas.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pilkey: I want to suggest to the Min-
ister that we should be providing that kind
of environment — a single-family dwelling so
that children can be raised with a yard to
play in. This is important, to have a yard
to play in, rather than an asphalt junde, in
which so many children are raised today. I
think that we owe it to the future generation
to provide that kind of housing. We owe it
to this generation too.
There have been a number of editorials
pointing out that the people with less than
$8,000 income-and I suspect that it is getting
to the point, with the high interest rates-
cannot afford to purchase a home today. I
was just reading an article today which
pointed out that land has been purchased
here for $500 an acre, and subdivided and
sold for $20,000 an acre, and you can imagine
the kind of profit that these people are making
on that kind of land assembly. When I say
$20,000 an acre, this is only at $4,000 per
lot. This morning I heard that you could
not buy a lot in Toronto for $4,000-that it
was impossible. A 50-foot lot is selling for
something like $12,000 for the lot, never
mind putting a home on it.
It pointed out that even if one could build
a house today for around $20,000, if this was
based on nine per cent over 35 years— l^ecause
unfortunately they could not pay it over 25
years-the interest on the $20,000 home
would be over $40,000. In other words, that
home would cost far in excess of $60,000 for
that wage earner before it would be his.
Mr. Yakabuski: Talk to Ottawa, not to us.
Mr. Pilkey: I am going to talk to somebody
about it because we must do something about
the situation. Mr. Chairman, I am not too
sure that all the brains happen to be sitting
on that side of the House, in regard to this
critical area. I am not too sure at all. If this
government is sincere, why do we not make
an all-party attack on this question of hous-
ing? For my part, if we could find some all-
party resolve for a system of attack on this
appalling and critical situation, I would not
care who got the credit for it. This govern-
ment could have all of the credit in terms of
resolving that problem, as far as I am con-
cerned, if we could find a solution and some
people went to work at it.
I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman,
that there is a solution to this problem, there
is a solution. If there was a war declared
tomorrow and we needed the weapons of
war, we could find the resources, make no
mistake about that. We would mobilize the
whole resources of this country to meet the
common enemy, and yet we have a common
enemy here. We need a war on housing to
provide it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Pilkey: I want to say something about
these slogans. The slogan of "home owner-
ship made easy" maybe is doing some-
thing. I am not confident that it is, because
4668
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
we still have a serious condition, it still
exists, and I think the government is long
on the propaganda and short on the effective-
ness of solving this problem. I say this in
all sincerity, tliat we just have to find a
solution to this problem and provide the
housing.
I just cannot say it strongly enough, with
the critical and appalling conditions that
these people have to live in today in the
province of Ontario. Frankly, private enter-
prise has not met and is unable to meet the
need, and I am convinced that where it can-
not meet the need, then the government has
to step into that vacuum and provide it, and
it has to give leadership. It is going to take
some strong leadership to provide the solu-
tion to the problem and meet it head-on.
You cannot be weak in this situation, it is
going to take some strong leadership.
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member
would permit me to say that we have already
taken that leadership he is talking about
with the HOME programme. Let us look
at the facts. We have assembled the land as
fast as we can get it. We have passed
condominium legislation to build multiple
housing in urban areas where people want
to live; they do not want to live outside the
city proper; they have to live in multiple-
family housing. Now, we have already
arranged for the HOME programme; we have
already arranged to build homes for less than
$15,000; and they are now going up.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
Minister that that is not a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is a point of order
because we are talking about "we must
mobilize our eflForts."
Mr. Trotter: The Chairman said it is not.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I must point out that
we have also, in the last few weeks, arranged
the mortgage money. Now, I do not know
what more the government can do.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister is not on a
point of order.
Mr. Pilkey: There is no question about
the growth and we do have a critical prob-
lem now. The other day the hon. Minister,
the Provincial Treasurer, made an interjection
and I remember him saying the province is
getting bigger, is getting fatter. I want to
suggest to you, sir, that there are some who
are getting bigger and fatter but there are
otliers getting thinner and a lot leaner.
These are the people that we have to
take care of— and I recognize that it is
pretty nice for us to be in this Legislature
and have a decent home. I suspect every-
one in this whole Legislature has a decent
home. It is not a question of providing
something for us, it is a question of having
some compassion and doing something for
other people.
That is how we have to mobilize our
thinking and mobilize our resources, to meet
this problem. Not for ourselves. All of us
are probably living in a rather comfortable
environment or comfortable homes, but
there are many people who are not. Until
this government recognizes that there is a
problem, there is no use of standing up and
saying that we are doing this, and we are
doing that, and we are on top of the job, and
saying to the people of this province that we
are doing a job, because, frankly, we are
not. If we are not meeting it on the basis
of the present programme, then let us try
something else.
I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
there should be a Minister of lurban devel-
opment, so he can devote his full time to
this critical situation. And if we find a
resolve, and we get on top of the situation,
and you want to disband the ministry after
that, fine, let us do it, but let us get some-
one on a full-time basis now. The Minister's
job now is to provide employment through
industrial expansion. In addition he has to
resolve this problem. Let me say to him,
sir, that both those jobs are jobs of magni-
tude. To try to handle both of these
portfolios at tiie same time must be taxing
him to a great extent.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
Minister should be relieved of one of them.
Either that or you take the trade part of it
away and concentrate on the question of
housing.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Take both
of them away from him.
Mr. Pilkey: I want to conclude by saying
that this deserves top priority with this
government. It deserves top priority, so we
can provide decent homes. Every once in
a while you pick up the newspaper, not just
in Toronto, but in other municipalities, and
in my town, just a couple of weeks ago,
you see big headlines — "Family of eight
being evicted." The welfare department, the
JUNE 18, 1968
4669
mayor, or anybody else could not do any-
thing about it that moment. Fortunately,
somebody came along and found them a
house. But we are going from crisis to
crisis all the time. This is what we have to
eliminate. We have to eliminate this whole
area of operating from crisis to crisis in
housing. As I said, it is just beyond my
imagination what is happening in these
larger cities. When you find a city like
Oshawa faced with this problem, a town
of 80,000, it must be appalling in these other
larger municipalities.
So I want to suggest to the Minister that—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are all coming
here from Saskatchewan and we have to
find homes for them.
Mr. Pilkey: We have a lot from Nova
Scotia, too.
But I want to suggest, as strongly as I
can, to the Minister that we give this top
priority and get on with the job that is
necessary to find the solution to this ques-
tion of housing.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Chairman, I
do not want to prolong this. I listened with
much interest to what the hon. member said.
I do not think anybody on this side of the
House, certainly not the Minister, has any
quarrel with the contribution he made to
the House tonight.
But one thing puzzles me, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to be very brief about this; the
HOME programme has been explained to
this Legislature time and time again. Now,
I ask the hon. member for Oshawa, because
I think he is quite sincere in the comments
he just made, why is it— and I put some
questions to the other side of the House
now— from the very day that the HOME
programme was announced in the Throne
speech, it has been treated vdth very little
but derision from the otlier side of the
House?
An hon. member: Because it is inadequate.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Just let me take
a moment on this. The hon. member for
Oshawa quite properly explained the prob-
lem of low and low middle-income classes
in acquiring homes for themselves. It is
recognized, in Metro at least, that one of
the great obstacles standing in the way of
home ownership is the cost of land. There
is no question about that. It seems to me
that it was elementary to attempt to bring
the cost of home ownership down to that
income level to which the hon. member
made appropriate reference, by taking out
the cost of the land and making this a
burden on the capital funds available to the
province of Ontario. Providing him then
with a house, a single-family dweUing if
you wish, on a basis of a low down payment,
a schedule of payments over a long amortiza-
tion period that he had some hope of meet-
ing, with the opportunity to acquire the
land after five years at market value, and
as his circumstances warranted, acquire the
land so he could, in fact, then call himself
a proprietor as far as home ownership was
concerned. Why then— and I am directing
my remarks principally to the hon. member
for Oshawa— that from the very day a
proposal was advanced from the Throne
speech to help alleviate the very situation
the hon. member for Oshawa has described,
has it been met with nothing but derision
from the Opposition benches? I ask the hon.
members to ponder that question.
Mr. Trotter: Because it is completely in-
adequate.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How do you know?
Mr. Trotter: Everything is inadequate.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Absolutely, you are
inadequate.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Well you see,
Mr. Chairman, here is what you get from one
attempt— one attempt that has not failed—
it has provided and is still providing a lot
of single-family dwellings on a basis that
the individual low income home owner can
acquire. It is doing that. It is working
better than you people will admit. Much
better.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (TJiunder Bay): EHd you
provide what you promised?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: It seems to me
that just once in a while it would not hurt
the Opposition members, if they are conscien-
tious and they believe in what they are
saying, to lend a little element of support
to a sensible attempt to makes homes avail-
able to this income level group on a basis
that may well be within their means. Good-
ness knows it is difficult enough. Everybody
on this side is aware of it; you people have
no monopoly on recognizing that this is a
problem. But here is an honest attempt,
one that is working, maybe not as fast as
we would like it, but an honest attempt to
do it. I think this is what the hon. member
4670
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for Oshawa had in mind. It seems to me that
it would be a lot more effective to deal
objectively with this very critical problem
than the type of red-herring nonsense we
have heard in the Legislature here tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the Pro-
vincial Treasurer has quite sincerely thrown
a challenge across here. I am going to
accept it.
The Provincial Treasurer said that the
government, through its HOME programme,
has been trying to cope with this real
problem; namely, the capital costs by making
the land available on a rental basis rather
than having to purchase it. What the Provin-
cial Treasurer is in effect saying is that the
grossly inflated land values and the capital
required for them is being accepted by the
public treasury so that we can make the
houses available to the people.
I suggest to the Provincial Treasurer that
the real answer is to get at the inflation of
land costs. Do something about that instead
of-
Mr. Trotter: They are doing nothing.
Mr. MacDonald: Do something about that
instead of lamenting that rents are the real
problem. When I asked a question of the
Prime Minister two weeks ago, I quoted to
him a letter that has been sent out by a
well-known trust company in the city of
Toronto. It invited people to invest in the
land just northwest of the city because the
Ontario waters resources commission had
indicated it was going to invest— what was it,
$85 million within the next few years? The
trust company was, in effect, saying: Here is
a good place to put your money. In other
words, you are g)ing to make a quick kill,
there is no capital gains tax.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tie in what the
Provincial Treasurer has raised in an earlier
debate, because in the course of the earlier
portion of this debate, we were not getting
the exact facts on the record. I am going
to quote and put it on the record. I want
to make this explanatory statement in
advance.
I am not so interested in the involvement
of Keith Brown in the deal in Peterborough.
What disturbs me with what happened in
Peterborough was the escalation of land
values in the period of three or four years
from $85,000 to something over $500,000
that this government contemplated paying
for the same land and backed out because—
and I will use the Minister's relatively unpro-
vocative term— of the political storm that
broke. But I think, Mr. Chairman, it is well
for us to take a look at e::actly what hap-
pened. I am going to quote on to the record
—it will take about five to ten minutes— but
it should be there for others who want to
read this record as well as the members of
the House who may not be familiar with it.
I am quoting from the Scott Young col-
umn, which has never been denied in terms
of its basic facts. It was found in the Globe
and Mail on October 11, 1967:
Mr. Brown said by telephone yesterday
that he is somewhat distressed by the local
publicity about the deal "because the Op-
position parties here have grabbed on to it
and are trying to make something out of
it. Apart from that I know exactly about
my part in the deal and my part is that I
do not know and never have met the
people who are trying to sell the land to
the OHC now. I had nothing to do with
it. If I had known what I know now, of
course, I would have held on to it. I sold
the land too cheap." He said that he first
noticed the land in question in late 1964—
"when it had been sitting there for 15
years open for anybody to buy. I went to
a real estate firm here in Peterborough,
Bowes and Cocks, and asked them if they
thought I could get it for $75,000. They
phoned me, I think the same day, and told
me $85,000 was the price. So I went
ahead—
I ask you, Mr. Chairman to note this:
-I went ahead and put $10,000 down and
took a mortgage for $75,000. In 1965 and
1966 I made two more $10,000 payments.
Meanwhile, I had a couple of offers for it
one at $325,000 and one at $350,000-
but both these prospective buyers went to
the city planner who ran the land dovioi so
they did not buy it. The first time some-
body came along who would pay better
than $200,000 and a^tua^v rlo ed the deal,
I sold. The somebody who came along was
Harold R. Lenhardt, real estate consultant
of Eglinton Avenue West. Mr. Lenhardt
said yesterday that his position with New
Orleans Investment was as general man-
ager.
It is delightful, if I may interj'-ct, Mr. Chair-
man, just to see the magnificent game of land
inflation, how casually it goes on.
"I was up in Peterborough last year look-
ing at another property as an apartment
site," he said. "I was dealing through
Bowes and Cocks and that deal did not go
through, but Harold McGrath of Bowes
JUNE 18, 1968
4671
k
and Cocks, who had been working on it
for me, told me about the property Keith
Brown owned. I looked it over. The plan-
ning people there told me the area was
about 1,800 apartments short of present
need so it looked attractive. The land at
that time, as now, was unserviced. But in
the autumn of 1966 the Peterborough in-
dustrial development organization, which
holds property for industrial development
on the outskirts of the city, began to build
a major sanitary trunk sewer to another
industrial property. The sewer abutted
part of the property held by Mr. Brown.
When I heard about the sewer," Mr. Len-
hardt said, "the whole game changed, the
land was enhanced tremendously in value.
Actually—
Mr. Pitman: By public money.
Mr. MacDonald: You are right. As my
colleague interjects, by public money.
"Actually, at the price I paid for it I
practically stole it." His negotiations with
Mr. Brown were under way, lacking only
the final details to close the deal, he said-
See how they line up to the right, Mr. Chair-
man?
—when a Toronto real estate salesman
named Jim Sands came to him with a client
interested in the Peterborough land. This
was Percy Wright, a Toronto builder who
in 1956 was placed in bankruptcy along
with his firm, Winston Park Development
Limited. "The fact was," Mr. Lenhardt
said, "that at the time I was ready to close
my deal with Keith Brown I had already
agreed to resell to Percy Wrieht." That
was early in 1967. Percy Wright does not
appear in the records of Mr. Lenhardt's
quick sale. On April 13, 1967, the first
letter towards setting up a company called
Trent Park Development Limited was re-
ceived at the Provincial Secretary's office.
On April 27, the deal was closed between
New Orleans Investments Corporation, that
is Mr. Lenhardt's firm, and Keith Brown
at the price of $210,000.
Now let me interject here, Mr. Chairman.
Keith Brown had put $30,000 in the property
—$10,000 originally, and two payments of
$10,000 in 1965 and 1966-on the land that
he bought for $85,000 on a $10,000 mort-
gage, and subsequently paid two annual pay-
ments of $10,000 for a total of $30,000. He
sold for $210,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is wrong with
that? *f f,»^? -
Mr. MacDonald: He got $210,000, so ad-
mittedly part of it was in mortgages. Okay,
let me proceed.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): His signature
is on the mortgage.
Mr. MacDonald: $180,000 in three years!
Well, part of it would be the mortgage, sure,
but let us take a look at the value of the land
as we go along. I pick up on the quotation:
On the same day,—
This is when Keith Brown sold to New
Orleans Investment Corporation.
-eight days after Trent Park Development
Limited received its letters patent, Trent
Park bought the land from New Orleans
Investment, for $360,799.
So in one day, the property went from
$310,000 to $360,000 by a transaction to a
new firm that had been incorporated by the
Provincial Secretary eight days before.
In all these deals, remarkably little cash
changed hands. Mr. Brown put down
$10,000 originally and added $20,000 in
subsequent payments, plus interest, leaving
a mortgage of $55,000. New Orleans
Investment paid Mr. Brown $10,000 down
assuming the $55,000 mortgage and added
a mortgage for $145,000 which Mr. Brown
still holds. Trent Park Development paid
$14,569 down assuming the two previous
mortgages totalling $200,000 and added
another mortgage of $146,230.
You see, this is a magnificent game of pyra-
miding mortgages so that in three years, the
property has gone from $85,000 to $360,000.
The cheque used by Mr. Wright to close
the deal, was from the law firm of Gordon
Keyfetz, Hall, Baker and Goodman. Mr.
Lenhardt had two things to add.
This is the delicious part, Mr. Chairman; this
is the reason why I was pleading with the
Minister to look into some of what goes on
here.
Mr. Lenhardt had two things to add:
"First, I think that if OHC is getting it for
$500,000-
Another $140,000 pyramided presumably
what OHC had offered, I do not know, I am
only guessing, it would be interesting to have
the Minister confirm it.
"I think that if OHC is getting it for
$500,000 they are getting a real bargain,
based on land transactions that have taken
4672
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
place around Peterborough recently. Sec-
ondly, I recommended to Percy Wright
that he might try to sell the land to OHC
for housing."
Mr. Lenhardt of course, was in on the deal
as he was tlie man who had bought it from
Keith Brown.
However, at the Ontario housing corpor-
ation yesterday, both Mr. Suters, managing
director, and T. E. H. Grady, his deputy,
were away from the office and unavailable
for comment. Another official, who declined
to be quoted by name, said that he had
checked with the men considering the
Peterborough purchase. He said: "We are
aware of the earlier transactions in tlie
land, but the going rate for that kind of
land, unserviced, but with services nearby,
is a fair amount higher than the price we
offered."
So here is an official for OHC saying it was
all a good deal, as a matter of fact, "We
offered much less than the going rate in the
area." It was so good a deal that the Min-
ister fled in terror from it when the political
storm broke.
You see, Mr. Chairman, the thing just does
not add up. It is indefensible. I repeat that
the important thing to be investigated by
this government is that a piece of property
that was bought for $85,000, in two years
was sold for $210,000. The same day it was
sold for $360,000 and OHC offers $500,000.
Now if you want to know the reason for the
cost of land and the problem of housing
there it is. Do not let the Provincial Treas-
urer get up and say: "We have been good
fellows in our HOME programme because
we are taking over this burden on the public
treasury so that the people can buy homes."
That is missing the source of the problem,
which is inflated land values. Instead of pay-
ing out $500,000 for a property that was
available three years earlier for $85,000, get
at that. Then you will not have to use pubHc
money to get homes for people in the middle
income bracket, to say nothing of the lower
income bracket.
I would like to see an investigation, but I
repeat that I would like to see the investiga-
tion centred on the scandal — the outright
scandal— of inflated land values which makes
it possible for people to get new companies
incorporated in the Provincial Treasury so
that they can play games. In three years they
get the value of land inflated from $85,000
to over $500,000. In one instance, they in-
flated it $150,000-from $210,000 to $360,000
in the same day.
Well, the Minister got up and pleaded
with us to be considerate. I suggest that it is
time for the Minister to be considerate of the
proposition that I put to him, because tliis is
the real problem. You want to quit playing
games and tackle this housing problem and
not say "Oh no" when other people debate it.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Nobody is play-
ing games around here. This situation has
been belaboured out of every reasonable con-
text here tonight, and I was really directing
my remarks to the sensible observations of
the member for Oshawa. While this specific
situation on its own merits, may not look too
good, generally speaking the fact that the
government has undertaken to acquire raw
land and service it, makes the property for
housing much cheaper than it would other-
wise have been. This has facihtated the
HOME plan and put homes under this pro-
gramme at least within the reach of people
who could not even have contemplated the
cost of a home before. I am sure that the
hon. member for Oshawa will agree with me
on this score, whether his leader does or not.
Mr. Pilkey: Could I make one observation
of that point? Let me say that if it is a ques-
tion of commendation you want for the
HOME programme, I for one am prepared
to give it to you because obviously it did pro-
vide something. But it has not met the need,
and just has not done the job.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: But it helped.
Mr. Pilkey: It may have helped, but it is
becoming more critical. The point I am trying
to make is that the HOME programme has
not done the job and public housing is fall-
ing behind. I was talking to a Mrs. Middle-
mass the other day in Oshawa, and she said
that sometimes it just breaks her heart to see
people come to her for housing in our munic-
ipality. As I said, that is Oshawa. Can you
irnagine what it is hke in Hamilton, Toronto,
London— these larger municipalities? She
says that we have nothing in terms of
housing. Let us find out what the national
economic council has said on this question
of housing. I know it is applicable to the
whole country, but I suspect very strongly
that it profoundly refers to the province of
Ontario. This is what they said:
Housing will have to grow faster than
all other sectors of the economy to 1970,
and perhaps even throughout the '70s. Tlie
volume of new housing in the 1961 to
JUNE 18, 1968
4673
1966 period was inadequate to meet
Canada's needs. By 1966, a housing short-
age was developing in many parts of the
country.
That was in 1966, and now it has become
more critical in 1968; so we knew about it
then, but we still have not l^een able to
resolve these problems.
This led to low vacancy rates, increased
rents, and even faster increases in housing
prices, with adverse social consequences,
and inhibiting effects on labour mobility.
A major element on this situation was a
shortage of mortgage funds at a time of
high and rising family formation. Interest
rates for home builders in 1966 reached
the highest level in 40 years.
If it was the highest level in 1966, what have
we got in 1968? It rose like a meteor. It
was astronomical. I wish we could get back
to the 1966 level. The other thing the
economic council of Canada points out is
that we need 190 new housing units per
year, between 1966-1967 a total of 750,000
units in Canada. I want to suggest to you,
Mr. Chairman, or to the Minister through
you, that we are not meeting that, we are
just not meeting it. In addition to that,
look at the homes that are deteriorating.
What are we doing about that situation? We
cannot even keep up to the family formations
with new homes, never mind looking after
those that are deteriorating in the country.
Mr. Reilly: What is the government sup-
posed to do , about it? ,
Mr. Pilkey: What are you supposed to do
about it? The point that I am trying to make-
Mr. Stokes: Make it possible for people
to buy new ones.
Mr. Pilkey: The point I am trying to make
is that we are not keeping up and yet we
are compounding the crisis. This is what is
happening. What we have to do is have an
urban renewal programme as well. The
question of just putting a HOME programme
in effect and providing new homes is not
enough— there have to be urban renewal pro-
grammes as well. As I said, private enterprise
is not going to meet that requirement. Tjiis
is the problem tliat we are faced with. I
would like to see every member of this
House go into some of these areas where
abject poverty exists, to see the type of
homes these people have to live in.
I would like every member to go to some
of the pockets of poverty that exist in this
province. I am sure that when we came
back here, we would change our minds in
terms of providing the proper environment
and the proper housing, and the proper
conditions for these families. It just needs a
little compassion for this kind of a situation.
We just cannot say that we are all right
and let everybody else look after them-
selves. That is why we are elected to this
Legislature.
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): You look
after yourself pretty well.
Mr. MacDonald: Listen to that smart crack,
Mr. Pilkey: That is why we are elected
to this Legislature, and, yes, I am looking
after a few other people fairly well too. We
just happen to have a better income in this
province-
Mr. W. Hodgson: You sure have.
Mr. Pilkey: —in our city and I just hope
that I made some contribution towards it.
But all I am suggesting to you is that this
needs some compassion too. We have to be
working in this area as we have never worked
before to find a solution. I recall back in
the '30s— and I was just a kid at the time—
I know what it is to live in these kind of
hovels, I happened to live in them.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Come on now. You are not alone.
Mr. Pilkey: You are right, I am not the
only one, but surely we moved from those
days, surely we have made some progress
in the last 35 or 40 years so that we ought
to— in this era of affluence— wipe out these
pockets of poverty, and try to provide hous-
ing. We have not been able to provide the
income so that they have a decent standard
of living, either. Surely we can house these
people properly. As I said, it needs some
will, it needs some determination, and it
needs some strong leadership. I want to
suggest to the Minister that as you tackle this
job you will be criticized, but that should
not deter you from forging ahead. It would
not be a deterrent from forging ahead. People
could be as critical as they want as long as
I knew in my own heart and my own mind
that I was doing a proper job for the people
that needed it. TJiis is what has to be done
and if you have to step on a few toes of a
few people in this province— then step on
them, and let us go forward from there,
let us get on with the job.
4674
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Mr, Chairman, I was very dis-
turbed by the intervention of the Provincial
Treasurer for a number of reasons. First,
because he is the Provincial Treasurer and
he orders the financial affairs of this province.
Second, because he speaks for the majority
party that at any moment of time can com-
mand 69 votes again 48 in order to have his
views prevail. Third, because what he had
to say reallv confuses the search for truth and
justice in this thing.
Anyone who is reasonably alert to what is
going on in this province cannot fail to
notice that the hungry fingers of suburbia—
the great metropolitan area that we are creat-
ing from Niagara Falls to Barrie, to Oshawa
on the east— are stretching in very demand-
ing fashion out into what we call suburbia
and ex urbia.
Agricultural land is going out of produc-
tion. That land is being used to meet urban
demands, and its price is becoming inflated.
So we put aside the original farmer, like my
friend from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), because
almost invariably he who tilled the land in
agriculture gets very little of the proportion
of its inflated value.
Almost invariably, middle men come along,
as in this example in Peterborough and they
reap the great harvest of that inflated value.
Now the central thing upon which one should
focus in trying to see the tru^h of this— and
which must never become obscured— is that
the increased value in land is socially created.
There is nothing that any person can possibly
do in respect of the land to contribute more
than a modicum of its enhanced value.
Society creates that value, creates it in two
ways. One is the pressure of the expanding
urban population which is a passive form of
exertion on the value of the land. Secondly,
and even more important from our point of
view as legislators, the other great contribu-
tion to the enhanced value of land is the pro-
vision of public services at public expense.
The water resources commission, Ontario
Hydro, and The Department of Highways
are the three major contributors to the in-
creased value of land from the public purse.
So, accordingly, as the metropolitan area
pushes out and inflates the value of that land,
you arrive at this position. We have the
development in our society of an entrepre-
neurial elite who control that land, its owner-
ship and its use. What they, in effect, are
saying to us is this: If you come to use it
for social purposes, then you are going to do
it only at the price that we put on it. You
must pay our price or else it will not be avail-
able to you for the social utilitarian purpose
for which you wish to develop it.
Looked at in the abstract as a proposition
at that point, without saying more, the reas-
onable human being is entitled to look at the
position of those people and say to them:
"Now, in justice, are you entitled to say to
the rest of society, you have to stand still and
wait for our agreement on the price?"
Any way you look at that proposition the
answer has got to be in the negative because
what you are doing then is creating a landed
elite to whom you are, in effect, giving over
not only a great contribution of wealth, but
allowing that landed elite to say to society:
"This is the way your social forms are going
to develop." Well, in effect, you have cre-
ated another Legislature— a Legislature that
is far more omnipotent than this one that sits
here.
What is so bad to me in mv analytical
search for the truth of the thing about the
Provincial Treasurer's intervention is this. In
the face of rising demands on government
incomes, this very year he came in here and
said, "We have to raise the taxes in areas A»
B, C and D," and they were all regressive
taxes. They were all imposed on those least
able to pay.
I said this to him last night— he was here—
and I made the proposition last night, so I
repeat it again tonight. Mr. Chairman, is it
not justice for the Provincial Treasurer to
say to those who are deriving an unearned
benefit, "You are going to contribute a por-
tion of that unearned sum back to society"?
As a matter of simple justice, who wants to
quarrel with that proposition?
Mr. Stokes: Their answer is all the more
power to them.
Mr. Sopha: Now to buttress my argument,
if it needs it, if that argument needs to be
supported, then I say this: Down at Ottawa,
we have the Carter report, which laid down
as a fundamental proposition that a dollar is
a dollar from whatever source it is derived.
This applies whether its source is capital or
whether its source is income.
A dollar is a dollar and should be subject
to the same measure of taxation. When that
report was revealed— I do not think I exag-
gerate,^ Mr. Chairman— across the whole of
this country there was a reaction of encour-
agement that finally those who were bene-
fitting from uneconomic rent or unearned
socially created value, which is all the same
thing, would plough back into society a fair
proportion of it.
JUNE 18, 1968
4675
It is to be hoped-I do not go into that—
it is to be hoped that that principle will
become a reality.
You have the Provincial Treasurer getting
up here, and if we remain silent, then we
are likely to be accused of not being able
to rebut the proposition he made. But he is
the same man who refused to go to these
entrepreneurs in land, and say to them,
"Well in the short space of time you owned
a piece of land, you could not possibly have
created very much towards its enhanced
value. Therefore, I, as the Provincial Treas-
urer, acting on behalf of society, come to
you and insist that you pay a reasonable
part of that into the public purse, back to
the society which, in the final result, created
the value."
Now I wish he had not departed the House
until I made those propositions, I dare say
I am no economist, I bow to the judgment
of others and the learning of others. But
to the Minister of Trade and Development
responsible for housing I say that if the
Provincial Treasurer approached the entre-
preneurs in land from that point of view,
and levied the proper tax on them, then the
value of land would go down.
That would have a stimulating effect to
reduce its value, because the attraction of
the large capital gain would be largely re-
moved. There would not be the magnet of
inflating the price in the way this land in
Peterborough was inflated in a short space
of time. In other words, to put it another
way— not that I think that anybody here is
obtuse in that regard— but, if they inflate the
value of land unrealistically, then at least
for part of that inflated price, they are work-
ing for the government. They are working
for society, because society is then going to
reap a goodly proportion of that enhanced
price.
That philosophy, of course, which is the
stimulus for the Provincial Treasurer's inter-
jection, has never developed in any recogniz-
able form in the Treasury board of this
province. It has never infiltrated The
Department of the Treasury and the civil
servants over there.
We have not seen a move toward the ob-
taining of social tax justice. Indeed, not
having the Provincial Treasurer here, the
only solace one can have, is that the Minister
of Municipal Aftairs is here — an important
member of the Treasury board— and to say
to him, that it is with pessimism that one
must recognize that the philosophy of taxing
capital gains never occurred to this Smith
committee. . ?s~ ♦ •
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is not correct
Mr. Sopha: Oh yes, that is correct.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is not correct,
they discussed it in the report at some
length.
Mr. Sopha: He dismissed it. They dis-
missed it.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Get back to housing.
Mr. Sopha: It was not attractive to them.
Mr. MacDonald: Will the federal Liberals
implement a capital gains tax?
Mr. Sopha: Some government will.
Mr. Chairman: Votes 407, 408, 409 and
410.
Mr. Sopha: I must conclude my remarks
with a feehng of discouragement about it.
Now we have heard the interjection of the
man who, presumably, for the next three oi
four years, is going to guide the financial
affairs of this province— the interjection of
the Minister of Municipal Affairs— and the
rehance of the government upon the Smith
report. We've heard the studies they are
making of it, the briefs they are inviting of
it, the select committee they formed in order
to evaluate it, and I am prepared to say—
and I will take the responsibility; I will suffer
all the scorn that comes to me— by and large,
weighing the whole thing, with all respect
to Lancelot Smith, that estimable citizen of
London, that when they got finished, and
after the Premier had written to them to
finish the report-it is not worth the paper
that it is written on.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): It is a
second-hand repair job.
Mr. Sopha: Yes, my friend from Huron-
Bruce says a "second-hand repair job," but
here, of course, sir, the Minister in charge
of housing and the Provincial Treasurer,
launch themselves into the debate, and in
order to distribute the blame for not building
the number of houses required to meet the
needs of our people, they point to the high
capital value of land.
Well, if they are going to rely upon that
to excuse themselves, then we have an
obligation over here, as Her Majesty's Loyal
4676
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Opposition, to get up and state the position
that we take in respect of that inhibition. If
it truly is a block toward the building of
houses, then I say to the Provincial Treasurer,
in his absence, here is what we would do.
I said this the other day, in the House, and
my leader I can tell you found no objection
to it, that if we are going to have a capital
gains tax in this country, the place we start
is with the socially created value in land.
Mr. MacDonald: Which leader, Mr.
Tnideau?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Will the hon. member allow me to ask a
question.
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am certainly inter-
ested in his proposal. I would like to know
this. Would he increase the value for taxation
purposes of all land? His lot on which his
house in the city of Sudbury is located,
which has gone up perhaps four or five times
in the last ten or 12 years? Would he tax
my lot, under my home, and the lot under
the homes of people which all have increased
four or five times in value, or will he tax
only vacant land? And would he tax the
land under industrial buildings?
Mr. MacDonald: The technicalities have
been met in other countries.
which is there and real from homes aad
other types of real property ownership.
Mr. J. Renwick: The same way they do it
in other countries.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will be interested to
hear this. It seems to me there is a problem
here and I would like to know the answer.
Mr. Sopha: That is a very germane ques-
tion and I would only remind the Attorney
General, from the outset of my remarks at
this stage, that I was really talking to my
friend in the back row there, the member for
York East (Mr. Meen), who was paying so
close attention. He will bear me out that I
referred to the socially created value in land
economic rent in tiie sense defined by
Spencer — I hope I am right — and later by
Henry George: economic rent— socially cre-
ated value. And I say to the Attorney Gen-
eral that when I speak of capital gains in
that context, I am speaking about undevel-
oped land. Not entirely undeveloped, because
Ontario water resources commission has come
along and laid mains and the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Gomme), ingratiating fellow
that he is, that nice chap from Lanark, has
built highways.
Mr. Ghairman: Order! Surely we are stray-
ing a long way from the estimates of this
particular department.
Mr. Sopha: Well, the Provincial Treasurer
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Ah, well let the hon.
member tell me, because witii every home
owner today, the thing that crosses my mind
is paying taxes, and this government is trying
to provide some exemption for it. I do not
know how he is going to bear any further
burden. It does not seem to me that one can
segregate only the vacant land that has
accrued a capital gain, when every lot imder
every home, in almost every town and city
and hamlet in this province— and I know my
own situation, the lot on which my house
is situated— has increased many times in value.
Mr. MacDonald: So in face of the diffi-
culty you sit back and do nothing.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am interested, but I
would like to know how you—
Mr. MacDonald: It is irrelevant to these
estimates.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Let the hon. member
please get my question. I am interested to
know how you segregate that capital gain
Mr. Ghairman: We are away o£F the esti-
mates, can we please get back to votes 407*
408, 409 and 419? The member-
Mr. Sopha: I am not surrendering the floor.
Mr. Ghairman: Well, the member resumed
his seat.
Mr. Sopha: Because you were speaking.
Mr. Ghairman: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: I have a couple more things to
add because I want the record to stand com-
plete about this.
The Provincial Treasurer started this and
the matter has to be finished. We cannot
walk away from our responsibility. Houses
are not being built because land has a high
value. I want to add to what I said earlier,
that in respect of the difficulties the Attorney
General mentioned— and he has given this a
lot of thought— of segregating who should pay
and who should not pay this capital gains tax,
one would have hoped that that much her-
JUNE 18, 1968
4677
aided, highly regarded report on taxation that
this government ordered and has got, tiiat it
should have examined those things in greater
detail.
But when I read it— and I ask how many,
if they were to hold up their hands— how
many have read all three volumes of the
Smitli report? It would be embarrassing. But
when I read it because of my particular inter-
est in this as it relates to housing, I walked
away from it with a feeling of disillusion-
ment, that they had not really struggled to
bare the problem and point the way to a
solution.
We are going to have a capital gains tax,
we have to have, because that government
over there, the Treasury board, which for the
moment is a terrible weak body— I have just
reviewed its membership and it is terribly
weak, the personnel— it is going to need more
money and it is going to get it through new
forms of taxation, and one of the likely
sources that it is going to get it from is from
a capital gains tax. And that is all right
with me.
Mr. D. M. Deacon: (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman-
Mr. Sopha: That is all I want to say. Go
ahead, you have the floor.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the Treasiurer
said a little while ago that at least the gov-
ernment was trying to do something. My
fear had been and still is that unless they
really take hold of this problem as a whole
and realize that we must provide not for
40,000 or 50,000, the current demand for
housing, but we must provide for, say,
100,000 lots in this province, we are not
going to solve the problem. To do that we
have to create what my colleague, the hon.
member for Sudbury, has said, socially
created values.
We have to provide revenue to support the
cost of these socially created amenities, in-
cluding the services of roads, highways,
sewers, water, schools, education and these
various things. One way of doing this, and
I suggest the government— and the Treasury
board members in particular take a very good
look at it— is taking advantage of the recent
legislation that the Minister of Municipal
Affairs had approved, whereby he does have
power over local bylaws.
Wlien they select an area which would be
suitable for satellite city developments and
they decide to provide the. services of the
various types I have mentioned to service
that area, and thus create a value that the
Minister of Trade and Development men-
tioned concerns him that enables them to
shove tlie prices up, that property that is so
serviced should be zoned residential instead
of agricultural. The value of the land would
therefore be greatly increased for assessment
purposes, and the tax revenue from that
could be greatly increased.
The approach of the municipality is not
critical although I think most mimicipahties
—if the province really wishes to work with
them— will co-operate as long as they can see
that the development which the province is
encouraging to take place will not cause a
severe hardship on this existing residents.
If we want to put these lots on the market,
and in effect force their sale, when the serv-
ices are available so that we do not have
people hold us up for high prices, we could
zone the land and assess it at a high level.
The taxes on it would certainly not only add
to our revenues and help support the services
we are putting in, but also force these people
to pay their share, or a good share, of the
value increase that the province has put on
their land.
I would hope that the government would
take a very good look at this method of
creating a substantial excess of serviced land
and helping to pay for it and putting the
burden where it belongs, that is, on the
people who are gaining from that socially
created value.
Mr. Pilkey: I just want to ask a question.
It has some importance, on the question of
public housing where an individual is par-
ticipating in a strike. Under your present
rules, as I understand them, he has to con-
tinue to pay his rent even though he is on
strike and this rent in public housing is wage
related or salary related.
During the strike period— and some of
them could be rather lengthy, five or six
months is not unknown for a person in pub-
lic housing to be on strike during that period
— tliey have to continue to pay it on a wage
or salary related basis even though their
salary has been curtailed considerably.
I recognize they know what they are doing
and they are prepared to make that sacrifice
in anticipation that they are going to enhance
their economic and future well-being. The
question I want to ask is, once they partici-
pate in this kind of struggle and tliey make a
gain because of the struggle that they partici-
pated in and the sacrifices they made during
4678
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that period, then the housing corporation
catches them again on tlie increases that they
get in their wages.
In other words, they are getting them both
ways, they are catching them during a period
of reduced income and because they make
this kind of struggle they catch them again
after they make some kind of a victory in
terms of increasing their economic standard
of Hving. I raise that point because it seems
to me that it really is not fair that you are
able to get it coming both ways.
Hon. Mr. Randall: This matter has been
brought up before. The situation, as we have
handled it in the past, is this: If a man is on
strike, he is on strike of his own vohtion. He
has an obligation to his landlord, whether it
is Ontario housing corporation or a private
owner, the same as he has witli tlie butcher,
the baker and the candlestick maker.
What we generally do— I do not know of
anybody we have evicted who has been on
strike— is make a deal with the man through
the housing authority that when he does get
back to work he catches up with his payments.
But there is no reduction for the money he
loses while on strike. I agree with you, when
he goes back and his income is up, the geared-
to-rent-income-ratio comes into effect.
This is the one we talked about this week
where we hope that we could work out a
solution whereby when he gets to the market
rent, we can charge him five per cent below
market until he can get out and get private
accommodations.
Mr. Pilkey: Mr. Chairman, the only point
I want to make there then, is that I have no
objection with him of paying his rent during
the strike period. But, as I say, you are
catching him the other way as well. If it was
a private owner I would not think that he
would raise his rent because the fellow made
a gain. He would probably go back at the
same level of rent when he went out on
strike.
Maybe because of economic factors and
increased cost of living or inflation— whatever
you want to call it— going up, the landlord
would increase the rent because of taxes,
municipal tax, and so on. But the criteria
that would be used to determine the raising of
his rent would not be determined on what
he won at the bargaining table. In your situ-
ation it is determined on what he has won
and he has made the struggle for it. I think,
on the basis of fairness, that the Minister and
the housing authority ought to look at this
kind of a situation.
Mr. Chairman: Votes 407, 408, 409 and
410?
The member for Windsor West.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, could the
Minister tell the House when Ontario housing
corporation will begin the publication of
annual reports? I understand that no annual
reports have been issued by the corporation
as yet, since its creation and I would like to
suggest to the Minister that they would be
extremely valuable documents in helping
members prepare for the estimates of this
department. Could the Minister say when
annual reports can be expected?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We expect to be able
to table last year's report— the 1967 report-
within the next month. I hope to have the
'66 report within the next week or ten days.
Mr. Peacock: Is it not a statutory require-
ment, Mr. Chairman, that these reports be
tabled?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, it is a statutory
requirement when the reports are audited by
the auditor— and they are in the process of
being audited by the auditor. As soon as
they are audited, we can table them.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
the Minister, on a different point, if the
recommendations of Ontario housing cor-
poration for the construction of family imits
in Windsor have yet been fulfilled? I refer
to the recommendations made in June of
1966 for the construction of 350 family units
in each of 1966 and 1967. An additional 50
were recommended in the report of the hous-
ing corporation of the city of Windsor
released in October 1967. A revision of that
recommendation which I believe was de-
livered in January or February of this year,
called for a further 268 units, totalhng 1,018.
Now perhaps the revision of 268, Mr.
Chairman, includes the 50 recommended in
October 1967. If it does, then the total
would be 968 units. From what I can gather
from the statistics published in the magazine
Ontario Housing, only 44 units were started
in 1966 and 1967. At this point tliere is a
proposal again being issued by the corpora-
tion for 267 units, for a total of 607 starts
undertaken and proposed, contrasted with a
total recommendation of either 1,018 or 968.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I did not get all your
facts and figures, but perhaps this will
answer your question.
In the city of Windsor, since the incep-
JUNE 18, 1968
4679
tion of OHC, Windsor council have requested
a provision of 782 family and 628 senior
citizens units. To date, 462 family units have
been provided and are occupied. In addition,
228 senior citizens units have been provided
and are also occupied. When added to the
765 units developed under the federal-
provincial partnership arrangement, a total
of 1,455 units have been provided.
A proposal calling for 270 family units
closed on September 25, 1967, and a pro-
posal for 256 units by Essex cabinet makers
has not been proceeded with as the city was
not prepared to accept liability for the
sharing of the cost of the required store-
houses for the site, even though this cor-
poration was prepared— and still is— to con-
tribute 50 per cent and is wilhng to finance
the city's 50 per cent share.
A further proposal calling for 64 family
and 400 senior citizens units closed on May
15, 1968. This produced four proposal calls
for senior citizens imits, but not one sub-
mission for family accommodation. Financial
submissions for 408 senior citizens units are
now being prepared for approval and it is
anticipated that contracts will be let for these
units by the end of August 1968.
In order to meet the unsatisfied require-
ments of 320 family units, OHC will be
issuing a proposal call shortly for the con-
struction of 100 units on land owned by the
federal-provincial partnership and the Fon-
tainbleu subdivision and the balance of 220
units on land under control of prospective
developers.
I might add that Windsor has the highest
per capita public housing programme in
Canada.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Chairman, that does not
quite answer the question. I did not ask the
Minister how many units had been con-
structed or started since inception of Ontario
housing corporation's programme in Windsor.
But I did ask him whether the recommenda-
tions of the corporation for the construction
of 350 family units in each of 1966 and 1967
had been fulfilled; whether the recommenda-
tions in October for a further 50 or the
revised figure that may have taken its place.
The 270, the Minister says, have been at
least started or proposals issued for them.
Now I might explain to the Minister, when
the October survey was presented to the city
council in Windsor, the representatives of
Ontario housing corporation were unable to
say whether tlie 700 units recommended to
be started in '67 and '66 had actually been
started, and what the balance was that re-
mained to be undertaken.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I understand that the
units you are talking about have been started
and all commitments asked for by the city
of Windsor are either underway or have
been completed. And 320 are going out to
proposal call now. Another 320.
Mr. Peacock: Family units?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, family units.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I have one
brief question for the Minister.
Would he be in a position to say when
the deal that is to be negotiated with the
township of Long Lac— they made an appli-
cation for a certain number of dwellings—
Hon. Mr. Randall: I understand we have
issued a proposal call for six units and we
are negotiating with the builder to increase
it to 12. So proposal call has been issued.
Mr. Stokes: Have you any idea when they
might be started?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I understand it will be
started this year. As soon as we get the
proposal back from the builder, they will be
starting this year.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minis-
ter if he would comment on how it was
possible to operate the Green Meadows de-
velopment in Guelph, Ontario, with a rent
of $65 a month for the two-bedroom houses
up until April, 1967? Was it subsidized at
that time, or did the project, in fact, carry
itself financially? Because it is not a new
project— it is 12 to 15 years old, Mr. Chair-
man. What was the justification of switching
over a rent-geared-to-income basis?
It is my understanding that these houses
were built at least 12 years ago. I would
like the Minister to correct me if I do not
have the right information.
Hon. Mr. Randall: This was a full recovery
unit. I think as you mentioned, this was con-
verted over to a rent-geared-to-income. In
some cases, rents went up and in other cases
they were lowered.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have
a lot of questions that the delegation from
Green Meadows went away with either—
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. The delegation perhaps could
4680
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
meet with us. Could they not meet with us
and we will answer all their questions direct?
Do you not think that would be better for
them, to be at tlie meeting?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, most of these
questions, Mr. Chairman, also refer to ques-
tions that I would like to ask. I will continue
if you wish, Mr. Chairman, or if you wish to
adjourn.
Mr. Chairman: Proceed.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Would the Minister
correct me if the rents in Green Meadows
did not, in fact, increase up to as high as
$195.60 a month?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not have those
things here. I would have to make a note
of it.
Mrs. M. Renwick: On the rent-geared-to-
income, what is the philosophy, or the basic
make-up of the schedule?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not have this here.
I will get it for you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister how he justifies the
delay in offering the sale of houses that are
held out to tenants for as long as 10 to 12
months at a time, in this particular case in
Green Meadows which we see reflected again
in other areas. The tenants stayed on for a
long time at the high rent increases in the
hope of purchasing the homes, and I would
like to ask if the monthly payments that
have been received in the past months will
apply retroactively to the purchase price
when these homes are available for tenants?
Hon. Mr. Randall: In answer to your last
question, we are still waiting to hear from
CMHC and we have in the meantime frozen
the rents as is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what
bothers a member like myself trying to handle
some of these queries is the real philosophy
that is evolving in the corporation. I asked
the Minister to comment on whether he feels
that this is a true basis, to have a percentage
of rents which does not take into consider-
ation the true income of the family in rela-
tion to how many children are in the family.
Large famihes. If you take just the social
planning council minimal requirements for
food along with the rent from the income of
the wage earner of the family, it leaves
relatively little. I wonder if the Minister has
taken any time in the surveys to realistically
assess the problem, looking at it from tlie
wage earner's point of view? What prompts
me to ask this is a letter dated October 24,
1967, from the Minister's department signed
by H. R. Mason, executive assistant, in which
he says that the shortage of housing is pri-
marily confined to the middle income family.
Now, are there statistics or surveys in the
Minister's department which prove this? I
think that the Assembly should know about it
and if this is not true and we have brought
evidence in the last few days that it is not,
does tiie Minister propose to reassess a per-
centage of rent according to the actual
income, budget and the size of the family?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I have already stated in
this House that we are reviewing all the rent
scales.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask if there is
some sort of research available to us that in
fact prompted Mr. Mason to state that the
shortage of housing is confined primarily to
middle income families? Also could I ask,
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would defi^ne
middle income?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think that I men-
tioned that middle income, I assume, would
be $5,000 to $9,000. These are the people
whom we have been talking about the last
couple of days. Below that they come in for
public housing applications, and as you know
there is no category on the public housing
applications as far as the income is con-
cerned, but my view is that the middle
income people are in the $5,000 to $9,000
area.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask if there is
a board, or some place where a tenant who
has a problem and who has been referred to
OHC once and received no action, might take
his problem?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I think that if they
would write direct to the chairman of the
OHC or myself, I would be very glad to take
this under consideration.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder if the Minister
would comment then on a specific case? The
income of the family dropped considerably
for a two-month period and during this time
they were still required to pay $142 a month
rent. Would there not be a simple way that
a TDl slip could assure someone in OHC
that when a man's income has dropped, he
cannot pay that much rent that month? I
would like to know how this is handled in
JUNE 18, 1968
4681
the department? This pops up quite fre-
quently, I &id.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We do not find it hap-
pening very frequently. I would suggest that
if the client that you are talking about would
let us know when his income dropped, if he
has not been reimbursed he will be. If we
know about it, they are immediately reim-
bursed the following month.
Mrs. M. Renwick: There is a system where
they are reimbursed the following month?
Hon. Mr. Randall: There is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask the Minister
to outline it? Having read this particular let-
ter, it would seem that there was correspond-
ence to the housing authority in which they
simply kept asking for the month's rent.
Hon. Mr. Randall: The procedure is simply
that if a tenant reports that he has had a
drop in income, it is immediately reflected in
the next month's rent.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the
Green Meadows development, where should
the tenant have referred this change in
income?
Hon. Mr. Randall: To the housing author-
ity, but if they have been in touch with
OHC, we will follow it through.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask then if they
have on file something that was not followed
through from the Krusky family?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not know, but if
you will give me the name and address I will
check it out for you.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): I thought that the philos-
ophy was not to disclose the names of these
people.
Mr. MacDonald: What has that got to do
with it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The other day you
were critical of the disclosure of names.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I do not really care to
address interjections, but I think that it is
very important to say that I used a letter
instead of the name in a case last evening
in which the Minister blatantiy referred to
the family by name, although he too is sup-
posed to be a protector of their privacy.
Could I ask what allowance is made to
tenants who in fact are renting or buying
their oil or gas burners?
Hon. Mr. Randall; If they had a heating
system in there when they moved in, which
I am sure that they did, and they decide to
put in a heating system of their own, they
would pay for their own burner installation.
It would be their own property.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder then if the
Minister would outline the $21 allowance
that he has referred to with the Green
Meadows tenants?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I am not sure what the
$21 figure is that you are talking about. Will
you give me more information and I will see
if I can answer your question.
Mrs. M. Renwick: It is the $21 figure that
was taken from the ceiling of $561 income to
prove that there was, in fact, no tenant that
paid 30 per cent. I understood that this was
some sort of individual home help allowance
for some reason. The rest of the tenants
would like to know why they do not get the
same allowance.
Hon. Mr. Randall: It is my understanding
that for some service accommodation there is
an allowance; a deductible from rent service
scale for services. So it means applying their
own services, then the $21 is a rebate.
Mrs. M. Renwick: When representatives
from Toronto came to Green Meadows for
the yearly inspection, along with the Guelph
housing authority manager, they claimed to
have licensed electricians to do repairs and
installations. The tenants say that they have
now learned that these are not licensed work-
men doing the repair work. I wonder if the
Minister would comment? Is this the mistake
of the department or the area manager?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The people are hired by
the housing authority in the area, and that is
a matter which they could take up with them.
If they would like us to follow through, we
would be glad to.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yesterday, Mr. Chair-
man, we spoke of the importance of having
on the property, a person who has the author-
ity to renovate or order repairs that need to
be attended to. Is it required by the tenants
to present this need in writing?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not follow your
questioning. If you would give me a little
more explanation perhaps I could get the
information for you.
4682
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mrs. M. Reawick: Mr. Chairman, in the
specific area of Green Meadows, if there
were repairs done, should this be done by
telephoning or by writing specifically that
these repairs are necessary? Or is a telephone
call sufficient?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Well, I think they
would take it up with the housing authority
and get their permission.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, another
question that these people would like
answered. They said that yesterday the Min-
ister said that if they do not get an active
response from their housing authority man-
ager, they should appeal to Mr. Whaley him-
self, and yet it stated that at a meeting on
April 23, when tenants from Green Meadows
wished to present individual grievances across
the table, this was refused. What they would
like to know, Mr. Chairman, is why.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not know why they
would be refused. I have already offered
tonight myself to meet with the tenants that
you are referring to. We would be glad to
meet with any of the tenant groups that
want to come in. I do not know why they
would be refused. It is not the policy of the
housing corporation to refuse an interview
with tenants.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I wonder, Mr. Chair-
Tnan, if the Minister would comment on the
fact that unit 12 on Vancouver Street, unit 7
on Edmonton, and unit 34 on Mohawk, in
Green Meadows development has been empty
for some time— certainly since the month of
May.
Hon. Mr. Randall: They are rented by the
housing authority and not by OHC. I will
take note of it and get the information for
you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Since Green Meadow^s
tenants have been informed that those eligible
could purchase their homes, how many have
been sold to date?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We have not sold any
to date, tliey are still being estimated on and
approvals from CMHC are still awaited.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, will they
be assessed individually? I understand that
tliere are only about 20 people who can
buy homes out of this group, but they would
like to know if there is going to be some
delay for individual assessment of the homes.
Hon. Mr. Randall: As we said this week,
they will be appraised on the basis of their
market value and all will be treated very
fairly.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to draw to the attention of the
Minister, the serious need of considering the
family budget according to the size of the
family, vv'hen he is considering rent according
to their ability to pay. I am thinking of a
specific family in this development which
now has notice to vacate. The income of
the father has been in the $500 to $600 a
month bracket. The rent is $175 a month.
You take away the weekly rent from the
weekly pay cheque— that leaves the family
approximately $80 to $90 a week to operate
on. There are 10 children in the family, Mr.
Chairman, and if you take the social planning
council's budget for minimal food allowance,
it comes to $70 a week. Now it is not much
wonder— with weekly expenses such as the
fact that this is a man who works on the road
and has $12 a week meal expenses; they
heat their own home, water and hydro, $5
a week; oil $5; baker, $2.55; gas for car,
$8; rent $40.81; and if you add the proper
food budget to that— it is quite clear that
the rent is far too high. The total food
budget being $70 a week, and that is not
allowing food for the father, Mr. Chairman—
that is allowing for $2.50 a week for the
father for breakfasts, presuming the $12.00
a week buys, I hope, two meals outside.
I cannot express strongly enough, Mr.
Chairman, that the Minister will only come
to grips with the problem the people are
bringing to us and we are bringing to him,
by realistically assessing the problems of the
tenants. I would suggest that a budget be
struck from the social plarming council mini-
mal food allowance for a family.
It starts off in this family from as low
as $4 a week for the younger children. It
only goes as high as $6 and $7 a week for
the teen age children; $6 a week for the
mother. No matter how you cut this particu-
lar suit to fit the cloth, it just does not fit
as long as the family is paying $40.81 a
week, or $175 a month out of total income.
So I just hope that a small item like that
might impress upon the Minister that the
size of the family has a great deal to do
with whether they can, in fact, meet the
requirements. Could I ask the Minister, Mr.
Chairman, if tlie rent-geared-to-income re-
quirements are standardized now throughout
the province?
JUNE 18, 1968
4683
^ Hon. Mr. Randall: They are standard across
Canada.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, when
the Minister saw the delegation from Guelph
on April 23, I believe it was, he gave them
a figure which they could buy a home for
per month of principle and interest and taxes.
Is this a definite amount, or is it a minimum,
a maximum, an average? Is this exactly
what they will be required to pay?
» Hon. Mr. Randall: I think we pointed out
? that they were averages and if we established
the prices that we were talking about that
day, this is what they would have to meet
insofar as their monthly payments were
concerned.
I Mrs. M. Renwick: And the rent freeze,
Mr. Chairman— is that province-wide? In the
particular case of Green Meadows is there
a way that the rental freeze can be changed
according to income?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The freeze is on a
provincial basis as far as we are concerned.
All the municipalities are treated the same.
Mr. Chairman: Does
any further questions?
the member have
\'otcs 408 to 410, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This concludes the esti-
mates of The Department of Trade and
Development.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report certain resolu-
tions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply begs to report that it has come
to certain resolutions and asks for leave to
sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the
estimates of The Department of Lands and
Forests.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.25 of the clock,
p.m.
ERRATA
Wednesday, June 5, 1968
Page
3990
Column
2
Line
24 and 39
3991
1
1, 7 and 29
Correction
Remarks beginning at the points indicated
on both of these pages, attributed to Mr.
T, P. Reid (Rainy River), were made by
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East).
No. 125
ONTARIO
Eegtglature of (l^ntarto
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 4687
Seizure of bail in the Meyer Rush case, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4688
Dr. F. Cruickshank, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4688
Careless driving charges in the Gary Godfrey case, questions to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. Shulman 4688
Transfers of certain prisoners in the North Bay jail, questions to Mr. Grossman,
Mr. Shulman 4689
Mclsaac Mining and Tunnelling Company Limited, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence,
Mr. Martel 4690
Interfering with an accident site before an investigation, questions to Mr. A. F.
Lawrence, Mr. Martel 4690
Estimates, Department of Lands and Forests, Mr. Brunelle 4691
Recess, 6 o'clock 4726
4687
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our guests today in the east
gallery are students from Our Lady of Grace
separate school in Ridgevvay; in the west
gallery, from Central public school, Bramp-
ton and St. Michael's school choir, Toronto.
In both galleries, we have students from the
Dalewood senior public school in St.
Catharines.
Later today there will be students here
from Central public school, Guelph, and
Bradford public school at Bradford.
We welcome these young people this after-
3on.
, Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the report of The Department of
Social and Family Services for the fiscal
year 1966-1967.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
lion. J. P. Robarts moves that when the
House adjourns tomorrow, it stand adjourned
until Wednesday next, June 26, at 2 o'clock,
p.m.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): 1 rise,
sir, on a point of order, as mentioned on
page 270 of the 16th edition of May, where
it says:
A member has sometimes been allowed
as a matter of personal explanation to
point out at a subsequent sitting an error
in the report of his speech in the official
reports and debates.
During committee last night, sir, an issue
arose relating to the member for Beaches-
Woodbine (Mr. Brown). At that time I said
that the leader of the NDP should have had
the courage to insist that this member and
the member for Scarborough West (Mr.
Lewis), i>ut their grievous situation to the
committee on privileges and elections.
The part that was omitted from Hansard
today, sir, and which I would like to have
corrected, is this: The leader of the NDP
said that it was up to the government to do
this. My remark— and this is essential— was
that in previous episodes of this kind the
members aflFected have themselves moved the
resolution that their case be heard by this
committee of the Legislature and I think, sir,
1 would like that included in the Hansard
today.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. mem-
ber for London South, as usual, is in error.
The last time tliat I happened to be involved
in this kind of an episode, the government
saw fit to move the motion themselves and
take it to the committee on elections and
privileges. It was they who moved the
motion, not the people involved.
Mr. White: That is completely incorrect.
Mr. MacDonald: 1 submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, that this is just another calculated
effort on the part of the member for London
South to breach a ruling which you have
made and to insist in his mischievous fashion
in continuing to bring this matter before the
House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is
time that you acted on this.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
What case is the member talking about?
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about the
Scarborough bill regarding oversize water
mains.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member for
Grey-Bruce has the floor and he has questions
left over from June 12, as well as some
today.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): A question
to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Who
is pushing the seizure of the—
Interjections by hon. members.
4688
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member for
Grey-Bruce has the floor and I would ask
that he be given the courtesy of silence.
Mr. Sargent: You need to teach that man
some courtesy over there.
Who is pushing tlie seizure of $40,000 bail
in the case of Meyer Rush? And where the
innocent relatives stand to lose their life
savings, why cannot the courts take a more
lenient stand? In other words, what is the
rush on Meyer Rush?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): The member is killing us.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): The
counsel in my department. The Department
of the Attorney General, are the persons who
have made application for forfeiture of the
bail. When people go surety on a bail bond,
they understand, I am sure, that the bail is
posted to ensure the return of the person
who is charged before the court. All that
person has to do is return to the court and
the bail obligation is ended. So the matter
is in Mr. Rush's own hands. He can easily
remove any obligation to his relatives, by
returning to the court.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker could I ask a
supplementary on this? When the matter of
time is involved and there is some doubt as
to the man's medical ability to return why
are you after your pound of flesh?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sure the matter
of Mr. Rush's medical condition will be
taken into account. The evidence that is
before the court will be thoroughly reviewed
before any sudden action is taken— you can
rest assured of that.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the
Attorney General explain how legal aid is
working when the wrong man can be
sentenced to four years in jail, as reported
in the Globe and Mail this morning? And
further, how does the wrongly sentenced
citizen who serves time in prison get com-
pensation from the courts? Is there a financial
repa>ment available?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
just learned of this and I will take the ques-
tion as notice. I am not even sure that legal
aid was involved in this matter at all, but I
shall take the question as notice.
Mr. Speaker: The member has further
question of the Attorney General from June
12. Did the member ask the one that he
placed on June 7 to the Provincial Secretary?
Mr. Sargent: Yes sir, I do not have that,
but it has passed now. I will withdraw
these questions, Mr. Speaker, they are not
timely.
Mr. Speaker: Would you return them to
me so that my file will be complete? The
member for High Park has a question.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have two
questions. First for the Attorney General:
it had three parts, but the third part has
now been answered so I will just give the
first two parts.
On what date did Dr. F. Cruicksliank
retire as coroner, and what are Dr. Cruick-
shank's duties as a consultant and what
salary does he receive?
Secondly, will the Minister order an
investigation into reports in today's Star-
this question was put in last Thursday—
that a Dr. Gruickshank is representing him-
self as a coroner attached to the Metro
coroner's ofiice?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Gruickshank retired, ceased to be a coroner,
on February 8, 1968, on which date he
attained the age of 70 years. That is the
statutory age that he then cease. He was
later appointed as a consultant in the oflBce
of the supervising coroner for Ontario. His
term of ofiice under that appointment con-
tinues until September 30, 1968. His salary
is $15,000.
The answer to the second part of tlie
(luestion is no, there is certainly no need for
an investigation into a newspaper report
that does not even say that Dr. Gruickshank
represented himself as a coroner.
To the third question— even though the
hon. member indicated that he had received
an answer to that question— the matter of
the death of Roger Thornton has been looked
into by the coroner and an inquest has been
annoimced to be held on July 15.
Mr. Shulman: Is Dr. Gruickshank's an
annual salary?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Shulman: I have a second question
for the Attorney General, in two parts.
Would the Minister agree that driving
between 70 and 80 miles per hour in a
30-mile-an-hour zone constitutes careless
driving? If so, would the Minister intervene
in the case of Gary Godfrey against whom
charges were dismissed by Magistrate W. R.
Filson, Peterborough, on July 11, 1968, who
JUNE 19, 1968
4689
stated that driving at this speed was not
careless?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pro-
siding magistrate had the opportunity to
hear all the relevant e\idence and observe
the witnesses, and he came to the con-
clusion that the offence of careless driving
had not been committed. We have discussed
the matter with the Crown attorney who
acted in the case, and we have no intention
of intervening or taking further action.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister allow
a supplementary question? Would the Min-
ister agree with the statement of the magis-
trate as recorded in the Peterborough
Examiner that driving between 70 and 80
miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone is
not necessarily careless driving?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think that it
is necessary for me to agree or disagree with
the court. Decisions from time to time are
appealed, which I think is evidence of agree-
ment or disagreement. The courts, as a
matter of fact, have held in many cases of
excessive speed that in the circumstances
which surrounded them— and in this charge,
I understand the alleged offence took place
at 4 o'clock in the morning on a highway
where there was no other traffic— excessive
speed was not necessarily careless driving.
Mr. J. E. BuHbrook (Sarnia): Negligence
does not necessarily exist in a vacuum.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Right.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have several
questions for the Minister of Reform Institu-
tions.
Will tlie Minister arrange a transfer of
prisoner Lawrence H., number 101543, from
Nortli Bay to the Stratford jail so that his
mother can visit him, to prevent the added
suffering to the boy and his family produced
by incarceration so far from his home?
Question 2: Will the Minister arrange a
transfer of prisoner Tom S. from North Ba>'
to a southern Ontario jail or reformatory so
that his family can visit him, and to prevent
the added suffering to the boy and his family
produced by incarceration so far from his
home?
Question 3: Will the Minister arrange a
transfer of prisoner Richard P. from Nortli
Bay to a southern Ontario jail or reformator\'
so that his family can visit him, and to pre-
vent the added suffering to tlie boy and his
family produced by incarceration so far from
his home?
Question 4: Will the Minister arrange a
transfer of prisoner Edward R. from North
Hay to a southern Ontario jail or reformator>'
so that his family can \isit him and to pre-
\ent the added suffering to the boy and his
family produced by incarceration .so far from
his home?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the de-
partment is at least as con.scious as the hon.
member of the value of visits to a person who
is incarcerated. When a man is committed
initially to our care, among many other fac-
tors, the factor of proximity of an institution
to his family is considered by a classification
committee which decides into which institu-
tion he should be placed.
Let us, sir, put this question into perspec-
tive. The four men mentioned by the hon.
member had already had the benefit of this
consideration. These men were transferred
to the North Bay jail because they had been
involved in a disturbance at the Guelph
reformatory; in other words, the primar\-
consideration in their transfer to this jail was
the security of the reformatory and the pro-
tection of the public.
I am advised that out of the 33 prisoners
transferred from Guelph reformatory to other
institutions because of the disturbance, five
have now been discharged at the completion
of their sentence. On Friday, June 14, 1968,
the classification board met and examined all
the relevant details concerning the remaining
28 men, including the weekly reports on their
conduct, which are received from the go\-
ernors of the respective jails.
Tlie four mentioned by the hon. member
were included in this group. As a result of
this classification meeting, some of the 2S
men have been assigned to new institutions.
Their immediate families will, of course, be
notified when the transfers have taken place.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the Minister
has not answered any one of my four ques-
tions respecting the four men whom I ha\e
inquired about.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of the hon. Minister oi'
Highways.
Would the Minister take steps to chanjxo
the regulations with respect to .signs on High-
way 401 denoting villages at interchanges,
and is the Minister aware that The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs does not allow the
formation of police villages?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
4690
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
another question. If he would care to read
it I will take them both as notice, for I just
left my office at Downsview at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, this is to the
hon. Minister of Highways.
What steps is The Department of High-
ways taking to maintain Highway 3 in
tlie town of Essex due to the heavy flow of
truck traffic through the town? Since the
present condition of the road is so rough, is
the department considering a complete resur-
facing of that part of the road?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Mines, I be-
lieve, has some answers to questions.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, you
will remember that yesterday the hon. mem-
ber for High Park relayed a question origin-
ally from the member for Sudbury East (Mr.
Martel) respecting the Mclsaac Mining and
Tunnelling Company Limited, and there was
some confusion in our office respecting [he
last part of that question.
The question that did not reach me yester-
day but which has, in the meantime was:
"How long have they"— and that refers to
the Mclsaac Company— "been working this
property"— and this property is the Maclennan
mine at Rowlands Ray. I am now informed
that the Mclsaac Mining and Tunnelling
Company Limited started shaft sinking at this
property in 1965.
There was another question, Mr. Speaker,
asked of me on June 4 last, by the member
for Sudbury East. He is not in his place but
I was wondering if it would be satisfactory
if I rephed now.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the member
for Sudbury East said he would like the
answers, if you would reply.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Right. To refresh
the memory of the House, Mr. Speaker, the
question was relating to the death of Ray-
mond D. Thompson and it was question num-
ber 629, and I am quoting now from the
question:
Is the Minister aware that evidence pre-
sented at the inquest into the death of Ray-
mond D. Tliompson following an accident
at the Copper Cliff plant, made it clear
that the scene of the accident had been
altered in spite of the instructions contained
in The Department of Mines handbook,
stating that except for the purpose of sav-
ing or relieving human suffering, no person
may interfere witli the scene of an accident
until the investigation has been completed?
The second part of the question was:
Does the Minister intend to have charges
laid against International Nickel Company
for interfering with the accident site at
the Copper CliflF plant which resulted jn
the death of Raymond D. Thompson?
I indicated in answer to that, Mr. Speaker,
that even before the question was asked, I
had asked for the final report of the investi-
gating engineer of The Department of Mines,
and I also asked for a transcript of the evi-
dence of the inquest. I have now received
both of those reports.
I should point out to you that under sec-
tion 169 of part 9 of The Mining Act, sub-
section 7, the scene is not to be disturbed
where there has been a fatal accident m
circumstances such as this, until the local
engineer of The Department of Mines has
inspected and made his necessary investiga-
tions. Here there was a fatal accident, and
the inspector did not see the scene of the acci-
dent until the production had been resumed
and the scene altered by the stafiF of the
International Nickel Company.
However, in persuing the engineer's report,
and especially the transcript of the evidence
presented at the inquest, I am satisfied that
this unfortunate man was seriously injured at
the site, but under the circumstances the seri-
ousness of the injuries was obviously not
apparent. He was taken away to the first aid
room of the plant, and he died in the first aid
room.
In the meantime, back at the scene of the
accident, production was resimied, the sciene
was altered. I am assured, however, that this
in no way conflicted with the availability of
tlie local engineer to make his investigation
to his own satisfaction. I am satisfied from
the evidence presented at the inquest that it
was certainly not apparent that the accident
was a fatal accident.
Therefore, under these circumstances— un-
less further allegations or further evidence is
presented to me— I do not intend to recom-
mend to the Attorney General that a proseci^-
tion l>e made in this case. Rut I am having
the chief engineer of the department infonn
International Nickel in no uncertain terms
that this provision of The Mining Act be
stricth' enforced in the future by their staff.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 18th order, Hou.se
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
JUNE 18, 1968
4691
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS AND FORESTS
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Chairman, this is the second
occasion on which I have had the privilege
of presenting the estimates of The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
Having benefited from my first full year
with the department— and a very full year at
that— I now have a far greater appreciation
of the complex nature of its operation and
the great responsibility that all of us in the
department have to the people of Ontario.
We are responsible for the management of
the 90 per cent of Ontario's land and water
that is publicly owned; for the management
of the renewable natural resources associated
with the land and waters; and for the pro-
vision of leadership in the management of the
privately owned forest land in the province.
Our land management policy is based on
the philosophy that each acre of land has a
number of possible uses, which must be inte-
grated in a manner most likely to produce
the greatest return for the people. The major
land uses include the building of artifacts,
such as highways, railways, pipelines, air-
ports and townsites; the production of bio tic
crops, such as timber, fish and wildlife; and
the provision of suitable facilities and oppor-
tunities for our people to enjoy a relaxing
outdoor recreational experience so necessary
to offset today's hustle and bustle.
Our resource management policy seeks to
produce from the lands and waters so as-
signed, the optimum production of timber,
fish and wildlife.
This responsibility is translated into thou-
sands of details and innumerable contacts
with the people of this province. From the
representatives of industry concerned with
timber limits, to the boy scout who checks
in with us before he goes canoeing in a park.
In effect, our work involves all the users of
our natural resources, namely the people of
Ontario and our many visitors.
To manage these thousands of details
requires a permanent staff of 3,500 profes-
sional and technical people, all intimately
acquainted with the needs of the various
groups of people, whom it is our privilege to
serve in the manner provided for by these
estimates.
In a very real sense, their personal dedica-
tion and professional reputation are the war-
ranty for the programmes which I have the
honour to present.
Regarding the production of timber— the
timber branch. The forest industries of On-
tario are extremely important to the economy
of the province. They account for about
10 per cent of our industrial employment.
They also provide the greatest opportunity
for increased development and prosperity in
the north.
While the past year has seen no appreci-
able gains in volume of wood cut, many
Ontario companies have undertaken major
expansions. This expansion puts our forest
industry as a whole in a preferred position
to take advantage of the predicted upswing
in demand for wood fibre expected in the
early 1970's.
Recause of these forecasts, I am optimistic
that market conditions will soon improve,
and that additional major projects will be
undertaken in Ontario.
Ontario's forest lands have the potential to
provide a vastly increased contribution to our
economy. To achieve this increase, however,
we must vigorously promote all possible
methods of making the products of the forest
available to the various users.
In the wood products sector this may
involve integrated operations, third party ar-
rangements, re-allocation of timber supplies,
expansion of our road building programme, a
sales campaign to attract new industry and
promote expansion of existing plants.
In connection with this latter point, I
might mention that Mr. Murray Morison,
chief of our timber branch, is at present m
London, England, at the request of my col-
league, the hon. Minister of Trade and
Development (Mr. Randall), to assist his de-
partment's representatives in making Euro-
peans aware of business opportunities in tlie
forest products industries in Ontario.
To provide the timber supplies which will
be required in the future, and to ensure con-
tinued economic growth in the province, my
department has for years continued our forest
inventory work and has been stepping up
our regeneration and stand improvement pro-
grammes. Further increases will be made
during 1968.
As an indication of the present size of
those programmes concerned with the ostal>
lishment and improvement of the forest on
Crown and agreement forest lands, I would
like to outline to you certain specifics on the
increases that are taking place.
In tree planting we shall be increasing the
acreage covered from 56,000 acres last year
to 62,500 acres this year. Similarly, the plant-
ing of tubed seedlings will increase from
18,900 acres to 22,000 acres. Other treat-
ments to induce natural regeneration will
4692
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
increase from 46,000 acres to 54,000 acres
this year. There will be a slight increase in
direct seeding from 11,400 acres to 11,500
acres.
Proposed projects on agreement forests will
show a decrease from 4,400 acres to 3,200
acres. The net result of these programmes
shows that there will be an overall increase
in areas regenerated from 137,000 acres last
year to 153,200 acres this year. In addition
to this, treatments to increase the quality and
volume of existing stands will show an in-
crease from 47,900 acres last year to 71,500
acres this year.
The total area receiving treatments tliis
year will thus be 224,700 acres. This repre-
sents an increase of 21 per cent in the area
treated and an increase in the number of
trees and tubed seedlings planted from 64
million in 1967-1968 to 72 milhon in 1968-
1969.
You will be interested to know that during
this fiscal year the department will lift and
ship from one of our tree nurseries the bil-
lionth tree produced since operations began
in 1905.
To further our forest management pro-
grammes we are actively engaged in research
in a number of fields. These include the
development of equipment which would help
to automate our planting programmes and
include such items as site preparation equip-
ment, new planting machines, and a mobile
tubeling production unit.
To help supply the additional demand for
wood fibre we must find ways to grow trees
faster. To this end, the tree breeding pro-
gramme of the department is concentrating
upon the development of fast-growing poplar
and spruce for northern Ontario. The services
of one of the world's leading poplar experts
have been engaged to conduct this work. In
addition, the province is taking a lead in
studies of forest fertilizers to obtain a much
more rapid growth.
As the quality of the wood products is
also of great importance, the Ontario research
foundation is under contract to the depart-
ment to study the actual quahty of the wood
produced, as related to the end product, such
as newsprint and veneer.
We are constantly examining forestry de-
velopments in other countries, so that we are
always aware of any new techniques that
mi(jht benefit Ontario. One of my staflF has
just recently returned from making an in-
tensive examination of one of our more vigor-
ous competitors, namely the southern United
States. A report of his findings will be avail-
able in the near future.
I am happy to report that the forestry pro-
grammes on privately owned land under
authority of The Woodlands Improvement Act
of 1966 have been particularly popular. More
than 200 land owners have had work done
on their property during 1967, the first full
year of the programme, and 400 or more are
expected to sign agreements this year.
By January, 1969, all of southern Ontario
will be eligible for assistance under the Act,
and by 1970 designated management areas
in northern Ontario will also be included in
the programme. Agreements with many more
landowners are therefore anticipated in the
years ahead.
Under the Act, 3,500 acres have been
planted and 1,700 acres of immature wood-
lands have been improved. This year it is
estimated that four million trees will be
planted and 8,000 acres will be improved in
southern Ontario. Both programmes, namely
tree planting and stand improvement, pro-
vide employment in rural areas. More than
$250,000 was spent on the 1967 programme
and we propose an increase in 1968.
Our basic objective in using the land for
the production of timber, is to provide suit-
able raw material for Ontario's forest indus-
tries on an expanding basis. I am proud to
state that my department's timber production
programme is being expanded as rapidly as
possible to meet the anticipated wood require-
ments of the future.
In southern Ontario, one of the main prob-
lems of game management is to provide
hunters with a place to hunt. This arises
from the fact that most of the land is
privately owned. My department is trying
to solve the problem in two ways.
The first is by acquiring suitable areas of
land, strategically located, and developing
these to provide high quality hunting for
waterfowl and upland game. It is most
desirable that such areas have a naturally
high potential to produce game.
In the past year more than 2,000 acres
were purchased and the province now owns
20,000 acres of land which is being man-
aged to provide habitat suitable for wildlife
of importance to hunters. Realizing, how-
ever, that hunting takes place for the most
part from September to February, it follows
that such public hunting areas will pro-
vide excellent opportunities for naturalists,
bird watchers and others who seek outdoor
recreation. Such outdoor activities as field
JUNE 19. 1968
4693
trials for hunting dogs may also be arranged
in the future.
This programme is still in its initial stages
and during 1968 it is expected that manage-
ment of pubhc hunting grounds will be
intensified at Tiny Marsh, Nonquon, Brighton,
Gananoque, Long Point and Luther Marsh.
Our aim is to achieve increased production
of game and a gain in the overall aesthetic
values provided in the land.
Our second method of improving hunting
on private land is through a landowner
assistance programme wherein relations
between hunters and landowners will also
be improved and thus hunting can be
restored or continued on private lands.
The landowner assistance programme
should be well underway in 1968. Experi-
ence has shown that many landowners are
interested in wildlife and do not object to
hunting under the proper auspices. The pro-
gramme will provide technical assistance to
improve land for wildlife and increased pro-
tection by conservation oflRcers where land
is open to hunting.
The deer range improvement programme
on Crown land was greatly expanded during
the past year on the basis of earlier pilot
programmes, which demonstrated that deer
populations can be increased where there
is adequate shelter provided by an over-
story of evergreens, chiefly hemlock, and a
good supply of winter browse. Major pro-
grammes were carried out in the districts
of Parry Sound, Pembroke, Lindsay and
Tweed and extensive programmes begun in
the districts of Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury,
North Bay, Kemptville, Lake Simcoe and
Lake Huron. The eastern deer range lies
within these ten districts.
Briefly, deer yard management includes
close co-operation between our biologists
and foresters to preserve stands of hemlock
located in deer wintering areas, and treating
forest areas to induce the growth of browse
plants such as dogwood, striped maple and
many other shrubs.
Priority is given to areas where habitat
deterioration has been most pronounced and
where there has been a history of excellent
deer production. One winter's work will
provide beneficial effects for a five- to ten-
year period, and the deer populations which
centred in the wintering areas will, of
course, spread out over the whole of the
range during the spring, summer and autumn
months. Most of the important wintering
areas will receive an initial degree of treat-
ment within the next several years.
The ever-increasing demand made by the
public on the fisheries resources of the prov-
ince, makes the need for sound fisheries
management even more necessary now than
in the past. An inventory of the many
thousands of lakes across Ontario is the
first step in such a programme.
The fisheries inventory now being ex-
panded and accelerated, will provide infor-
mation for each lake surveyed, including the
species of fish presently produced, the area,
the bottom contours; biological, chemical
and physical characteristics of the water and
the lake to indicate its capability for produc-
ing certain species and quantities of fish.
Over 3,000 lakes had been surveyed in
the past by field staff, but because of the
tremendous increase in angling recently and
higher mobility of anglers, we must speed
up our inventory programme to provide
direction for an accelerated programme of
management. This year will see new
emphasis directed to a survey of strategic
lakes, which receive the heaviest fishing
pressure.
Certain key water areas, which are large
and highly important for their fisheries pro-
duction, or potential, have been selected for
intensive fisheries management. On such
waters, a team comprised of a biologist, a
fisheries technician and temporary assistance
concentrate on the problems of developing
optimum use of the resource. Such teams
of fisheries management units have been
assigned in the past to Lake of the Woods,
Rainy Lake, Lake Simcoe, Lakes Timagami
and Nipissing, the Kawartha Lakes, and the
Bay of Quinte. This year, we propose to
establish new units on Lake Nipigon and on
Lake St. Clair.
To augment the natural production of fish
and develop the potential of our waters, we
have 16 fish hatcheries across the province,
and our programme of expansion and
modernization of these facilities is proceed-
ing as planned. Recently 1 had the pleasure
of officially opening the Normandale rain-
bow trout rearing station in Norfolk county.
The renovation of that station makes it
possible for us to double the production of
rainbow and brook trout (in pounds) and
quadruple the number of rainbow trout eggs
produced for the whole province.
At the same time, the construction of new
ponds for the production of 500,000 splake
at the Chatsworth rearing station is just
about complete. We expect that the rei*p«r<i-
tion of our important North Bay trout rear-
ing facilities, which will increase production
4694
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
two to three times will be completed by this
fall. Concurrently an experimental fish cul-
ture and training station to be located at
Saulte Ste. Marie is planned and off the draw-
ing board, while a new hatchery to serve
future needs in southeastern Ontario is in
the initial planning stages.
We are keenly aware of the serious eco-
nomic difficulties encountered by the commer-
cial fishermen of this province and we are
endeavouring to provide practical assistance.
In Lake Ontario, for instance, we are em-
barking on an exploratory fishery this summer
and fall, to locate stocks of fish, and test
trawls, or other fishing gear for an economic
method of harvesting. In addition to nets, we
will be using electronic instruments to locate
fish concentrations.
We are also continuing our investigations
of new species or kinds of fish for the Great
Lakes. The introduction of kokanee salmon
to Lake Huron has shown encouraging re-
sults. Spawning adults have returned in sub-
stantial numbers to streams on Manitoulin
Island and the Bruce Peninsula. The first
planting of fifth generation splake will be
made in Georgian Bay in 1969, and they
should become adults when the effects of
lamprey control there are first felt.
The foregoing have been some of the
actions taken by my department to optimize
the production and use of the game and fish
resources of Ontario.
As many will recall, we experienced serious
forest fire conditions early in June of last
year. The communities of Sioux Lookout and
Chapleau were endangered, and their evacua-
tion was necessary as a precautionary meas-
ure. During a short period of only a few days,
344 forest fires were reported and the area
burnt amounted to 50,000 acres. Uniquely,
the extreme danger condition existed at the
same time in all 22 forest districts, which
required our seeking outside help,
I take this opportunity to express the
gratitude of my department to the United
States forest service, the provinces of Alberta
and Manitoba and the Canadian armed forces
for providing assistance during this crucial
period. As I have announced earlier, we
were able to return the favour to Alberta
during May of this year.
In general, however, Ontario experienced
a relatively light fire season in 1967. We had
1,465 forest fi"es which burned over an area
of 63,505 acres, which is well below the
average for the last 10 years. As of June 1,
this season, we have taken action on 847
fires, approximately twice the normal fire
occurrence for this period, yet have limited
the acreage burned to some 8,700 acres.
Last year tests were made in the province
using various fire detection systems on differ-
ent areas totalling 50,000 square miles. Some
systems included fire towers only, others
included aircraft only and stiU others in-
cluded a combination of towers and aircraft.
The purpose of the tests was to determine if
it were possible to improve our fire detection
system by greater use of aircraft. The results
to date have been very encouraging.
The infrared aerial scanner— which I men-
tioned at this time a year ago— was tested on
an operational basis during the 1967 season.
It was used successfully to map the perimeter
of burning fires. In addition to the detection
and mapping of incipient fires, it is very use-
ful for detecting hot spots during the patrol
stage of large fires.
The study of our future flying require-
ments, to ensure that we have the most mod-
ern aircraft and the most appropriate fleet
composition possible, was started by the On-
tario research foundation in 1967. We expect
to have their recommendations by the end
of this year. The study of our entire com-
munications network is also being handled
by the foundation.
Our aircraft fleet has been further updated
with the addition of 13 new Turbo-Beavers.
Eight were purchaser last year and five more
this spring. When the last standard Beavers
have been retired, our fleet will consist of
28 Turbo-Beavers, ten standard Otter, two
Twin Otters and one Widgeon. All float air-
craft are fitted with water bombing systems.
Continued emphasis is being placed on
increasing the skill of our fire-fighting staff
through special training programmes. In addi-
tion, we have given basic training to some
1,300 northern Indians and 528 are now
employed on our regular fire crew teams or
some other aspects of resources management.
Our fire suppression forces have been re-
organized into a system of seven-man fire
attack crews. Each crew consists of two
forestry technicians and five seasonal rangers.
Some 120 highly trained crews have been
selected and organized on a highly mobile
basis, ready for action wherever required.
We are spraying by air, a 250,000-acre
area 60 miles west of Port Arthur to control
a recent outbreak of the spruce budworm.
It is interesting to note that the well-known
insecticide DDT will not be used, but rather
two new chemicals which have proven to be
JUNE 19. 1968
4695
harmless to fish and wildhfe when used at
riie proper dosage rates.
My department is fully aware of the im-
portance of protecting the natural resources
of this province as the foregoing highlights
show.
In connection with planning for public
lands and the development of lakes for recrea-
tional use, 85 lake development plans were
completed last year and a similar number
are scheduled for completion this year. These
are plans prepared prior to development of
summer cottage sites and include areas desig-
nated for pubHc access points and Crown
reserves.
Where feasible, summer cottage roads of
"township standard" are included in these
development plans. This year, some 30 miles
of cottage roads are proposed for construction,
providing access to 15 lakes slated for cottage
development. Road costs under this pro-
gramme are recovered through increases in
tlie purchase prices of the lots serviced.
Maintenance may be undertaken by local
roads or statute labour boards, or by munici-
palities.
Staff training in public lands administra-
tion has been furthered with the inaugural
last year of a three-week land administration
certificate course at the forest technical
school at Dorset. The course will be given on
a yearly basis until those involved in this area
of the department's administration have com-
pleted it, and from then, on an intermittent
basis only.
Under the Canada land inventory pro-
gramme, the recreational capability of more
than 10,000 lakes was assessed during the
past year. This programme is continuing.
A general plan for the North Georgian
Bay recreation reserve has been completed.
Detailed studies in areas selected for further
development are being undertaken tliis sum-
mer, to enable the site layout for tliis
development.
This year, under a new programme, muni-
cipalities are being assisted in obtaining sur-
veys and title to Crown land occupied by
roads servicing summer cottage lots. Within
our means, this will be accomplished by
sharing the cost of boundary or right-of-way
surveys.
Under the retracement survey programme,
begun in 1961, about 300 miles of township
boundaries will be re-established this year,
bringing the total length retraced to 2,000
miles.
My department has nearly completed a
study of a co-ordinated 10-year resource
management road construction and mainten-
ance plan for northern Ontario.
During the past year, about 53,000 acres
of private land were acquired for parks, water
access points, recreation areas, wildlife pro-
duction areas, and for timber production.
This represents, Mr. Chairman, a 42 per cent
increase in land purchases over the previous
year.
For the eight ARDA projects involving
land purchases, almost 70,000 acres have
now been acquired.
The Department of Pubhc Works is carry-
ing out negotiations with property owners
on 100 active projects, for the purchase of
over 300,000 acres of land.
As regards the outdoor recreation— the parks
branch. The parks classification system, an-
nounced a year ago, provides different types
of recreational areas to satisfy the various
needs of the people of Ontario. Public re-
action to this classification of the park areas
has been most gratifying.
A number of areas, formerly classified as
wilderness areas, will become provincial parks
of the nature reserve class. To ensure con-
tinued planning for this type of park, I have
formed a consulting group comprised of rep-
resentatives of educational and naturalist
groups.
Polar Bear park, which was recently estab-
lished at the Junction of James Bay and
Hudson Bay in northern Ontario, is an ex-
ample of the primitive type of park. Its
primary use will be for educational and scien-
tific purposes, with practically no develop-
ment permitted and therefore very limited
expenditures will be required.
For canoeists, several parks will be estab-
lished within the Wild River classification,
including such proposed areas as a part of
the Mattawa and Winisk rivers.
To ensure that our parks programme will
meet the needs of the people of Ontario, we
are presently collecting information which
will enable us to prepare a master plan for
outdoor recreation. This study of outdoor
recreational needs, while providing a basis
for regional planning in Ontario, also fits into
a nation-wide study in which both the federal
and provincial governments are involved.
In a few years when the study is com-
pleted, the information will be available to
all levels of government within the province.
The master plan vdll show the projected needs
for outdoor recreational facihties of all types
4696
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
—and in considerable detail— for the years
up to 1980 and in a general way beyond.
This outdoor recreational plan will form a
major section of the master tourist plan being
prepared by The Department of Tourism and
Information.
To enable the people of Ontario to make
greater use of the recreational potential of
our many lakes and rivers, we are expanding
our programme of providing access facihties
such as roads and access points. At the pres-
ent time there are 381 access points which
are maintained for this purpose.
The number of such points is increased
annually as our staflF recommends the need
and as funds are made available. During the
last two years, there has been put forth a
considerable effort to improve the level of
maintenance of such areas with total expendi-
tures for the current fiscal year estimated as
$300,000. For the use of the minor access
points, no direct charge is made to the users.
The extent to which provincial parks were
enjoyed by the residents of and visitors to
Ontario during the 1967 season is indicated
by these following figures:
1. The total number of visitors last year
rose to 10,192,533, an increase of 4.1 per
cent above the previous year.
2. The number of camper-days rose to
2,805,143, an increase of 5.7 per cent above
the previous season.
3. The number of persons attending inter-
pretative programmes, such as exhibits, nature
trails and lectures increased to 579,850, an
increase of 6.4 per cent above the previous
year.
All of these percentage increases indicate
that park use is expanding at a rate well in
excess of our rate of population increase.
Within the provincial parks, the construc-
tion of camping and picnicking facilities is
continuing at an accelerated pace. Again this
year emphasis is being given to water supply
and sanitation. When the park season opened
this spring, 26 parks were equipped with
trailer sanitary dumping stations. By tlie end
of the season we propose to have 80 parks
so equipped.
Because of the increased demand for im-
provement in the facilities provided at our
parks and because of increasing operating
costs, the spread between revenue and ex-
penditures has greatly widened.
Facilities are being completed to enable the
operation of two new provincial parks in
northern Ontario. These areas afford excel-
lent boating possibilities and have been for
some years favourite areas for anglers. The
first is located at Missinaibi Lake, 50 miles
by access road north of Chapleau. The second
is at Wakami Lake, reached by access road
40 miles northwest of Chapleau.
Very major efforts are being put forward
this year in the development of five areas
in the province as park sites. It is hoped that
the opening of these areas to public use
may be possible next year.
In order to provide the desired facilities
as requested by the people of Ontario, and
at the same time maintain the principle that
revenue should at least cover operating costs,
we have had to increase the entrance and
camping fees for 1968. It should be noted
that the family who only casually picnics in
our parks this year pays the same one dollar
entrance fee per car as was the case last
year.
We are confident that the study to deter-
mine future needs, and our master plan for
outdoor recreation, will ensure the people
of Ontario of an opportunity to fulfil any of
the varied outdoor recreational experiences
that they may seek in the years ahead.
To manage the renewable natural re-
sources of this province requires personnel
with exceptional skills and training. In 1945
the Ontario forest technical school was estab-
lished at Dorset to provide in-service train-
ing for our employees and for sponsored
employees from the forest industries. The
basic 33-week course which extended over
each calendar year comes to a close at the
end of 1968. By then the school will have
graduated 1,600 forestry technicians, 1,200 of
whom are employed by my department.
Because of the rewarding type of work
available to graduates, interest in the course
had greatly increased up to 1967, when we
had 450 applicants for the 150 positions
available in the 1968 course.
Fortunately at tliis point, when we were
faced with a need to expand the school, we
realized that this course could be handled
most advantageously by certain of the com-
munity colleges which were rapidly develop-
ing in various parts of Ontario.
And last Saturday at the Sir Sandford
Fleming college of applied arts and tech-
nology, 86 students graduated in the first
year of the forestry technical course. I am
very proud of the assistance my staff have
given in the organizing and teaching of this
course.
Three of my staff have since decided to
continue in this very rewarding vocation. By
this fall, three such courses will be available
JUNE 19, 1968
4697
at strategic locations in Ontario, namely, Port
Arthur, Sault Ste. Marie and Lindsay.
Our school at Dorset will continue, but will
revert to its original function of providing
advanced and specialized in-service training
in resource management, and some post-
graduate work.
Our junior ranger programme continues to
appeal to the seventeen-year olds and pro-
vides an excellent opportunity to introduce
to them the opportunities of a career in
resources management. We have again this
year employed a small number of French-
speaking junior rangers from Quebec to
further the bicultural exchange programme.
These boys are located at the Racine Lake
camp in the Chapleau district.
You may be interested to know that my
department has provided summer employ-
ment for over 3,000 students this year.
And, Mr. Chairman, in these remarks I
have endeavoured to give you an outline of
some of the activities and developments of
The Department of Lands and Forests for
tlie past year along with our aims and pro-
grammes for the coming year.
I am fully aware that the economy of this
province today, and in the future, is, to a
large extent, dependent on wise management
of the resources under the jurisdiction of
my department. Thank you.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Madam
Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure
to rise as the Liberal critic of The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests. I would like to
say at the outset that the Minister of Lands
and Forests is one of the few men on that
side of the chamber whom we on this side
can refer to as a true gentleman. I would
hke to thank him for his courtesy to me and
the co-operation that he has given me in the
past few months.
I would like to state in my following re-
marks that my criticisms are aimed not only
at The Department of Lands and Forests
but at the entire government opposite, which
is responsible to a large degree for the
shortcomings of this department. The
Treasury board, composed of members of the
Conservative Cabinet, must take a large
share of the responsibilities for the failings
of this department.
I would like to congratulate the Minister
on his hunters' safety programme and also
those conservation clubs in the province that
have taken an active part in this programme.
I would say also that the conservation officers
of this department deserve a great deal of
credit and the thanks of the people of the
province. In a great many cases they are
overworked and underpaid but, unlike a great
many people, they have a great love of their
jobs and this reflects credit on them and on
this province.
Madam Chairman, I wish to preface my
remarks concerning this department with a
discussion of the policy of this department
and of this government in regards to the
residents of this province and the non-
residents. I would preface these remarks by
saying that I am not anti-tourist or anti-
American, or a Yankophobe, if I may coin
that word; I welcome foreign visitors to our
province and while they are here I believe
they should be treated as guests. But I sug-
gest to you, madam, that they are guests
and that we as Canadians and residents of
Ontario are the hosts and owners of the
house.
I suggest that this government has gone
overboard in catering to the American tourist
in this government's unseemly haste to reap
the rich American tourist dollar. In doing
this they have neglected and ignored the
Ontario resident. I say we have literally
given the country away to American tourists
at the expense of the Canadian. When one
invites a guest into one's home, one does
not invite him to walk into the refrigerator
and to help himself and walk out again.
When a guest abuses and misuses one's
hospitality, then he ceases to be a guest. I
suggest that it is time that in our tourist
industry and in our hunting and fishing, we
first consider the Canadian, the Ontario
resident, before we make provisions for the
American.
In connection with this general policy, I
would like to talk about the proposed resident
fishing licence, the American-based commer-
cial airplane operators, and the private
American aircraft flying into Canada, some
of which I discussed in my reply to the
Speech from the Throne. When the good
Lord made the earth he made it three-
quarters water and one-quarter land. Obvi-
ously he meant for man to fish three times
as much as he ploughed. We have in this
province a wealth of lakes, woodlands and
streams.
We have some of the best fishing country
in the world and I state flatly at the outset,
that I am against any imposition of a resi-
dent fishing licence at this time. My party,
the Liberal Party, is against a resident fish-
ing licence. I call upon my colleagues from
all sections of the province to stand and say,
"My people are against the additional tax
4698
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of a fishing licence." I call especially upon
the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the
member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman)
and the member for Thunder Bay (Mr.
Stokes) to rise in their places and say, "I am
against this fishing licence." My colleague
from Port Arthur (Mr. Knight) agrees and
indeed has spoken against a resident fishing
licence.
All of us as members have received a
great many letters and forms stating that the
residents of our area are against a resident
fishing licence. I would read into the record
a notice that has appeared in the papers in
my district. It reads:
Ontario resident anglers, take notice:
If you object to an Ontario resident
angling licence, read, clip and mail this
letter at once to our MPP Pat Reid:
Hon. Rene Brunelle,
Minister of Lands and Forests,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto 5, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Having read in the local paper your
wish to burden the Ontario resident angler
with a fishing licence, I take strong objec-
tions to this. Fishing without a licence
is the only freedom we have. We, the
Ontario citizens, are at present overtaxed
and over-licensed; our conservation officers
are too few and overworked and such a
licence would only make it more difficult
for them. One-half of such a licence fee
would only be used up in administration
and we would realize very little from it.
Ontario waters will produce enough fish
for the Ontario angler. We, the Ontario
residents, are subsidized in many things
at present; we do not want to subsidize
the tourist industry.
Respectfully submitted.
I might add, Madam Chairman, at this time,
that written in ink on this letter is:
I recommend doubling the licence of
visiting Americans who violate the rights
that we give to them.
I would like to read into the record at this
time some of the other newspaper articles
that have appeared in papers across the
province. The first is from Sault Ste. Marie,
and the title of the article, "This is out-
rageous." The article says at one point: "This
is without doubt the most irritating and use-
less legislation ever conceived in this fair
province." From one of the Lakehead papers
comes, "Licence fee boost unfair to resi-
dents." And there are many more. I have
here on my desk— and I am sure that the
Minister has received the same— many letters
from constituents and forms protesting the
imposition of a resident fishing licence.
The Minister has put forward three reasons
why we should have a resident fishing licence
in Ontario. The first reason is that Ontario is
the only province without a resident fishing
licence. This is true, but two points should
here be made: (a) That with one fell swoop
the Minister has given Ontario the highest
resident fishing licence in Canada; (b) The
argument that we are the only province
without it, therefore we should have one in
this particular case, is specious. That is like
saying every other person in the room has
a wart on his nose, therefore you should
have one.
The second reason the Minister gave was
that the revenue from the fishing licence
would be used for an increased conservation
programme. I might say at this time that we
were told of this only after the Minister had
received a great deal of mail and read a great
many editorials which were not in favour of
a resident fishing licence. As the Minister
well knows and as we have been told often
in this chamber, the revenues from different
departments go into a consohdated revenue
fund. There are no funds earmarked for
special projects. The Minister must go before
the Treasury board, composed of Cabinet
Ministers, plead his case and then perhaps
he will receive a larger share of the budget
of this province.
There is no guarantee that by collecting
a fishing licence from the residents of this
province, the conservation programme of this
department will be increased any more than
they normally would be. This whitewash of
the Minister, this apology to the Ontario
residents for the fishing licence will not wash;
it is unacceptable.
Let us look at what amount of revenue will
be raised by imposing this tax burden on
Ontario residents. The Minister counts 1.5
milhon Ontario residents who fish in the
province. I would suggest that if this licence
is made compulsory, 250,000 to 500,000
people will not fish in the province. Let us
therefore work with a figure of one million
fishermen. At $3 a head, this comes to an
increased revenue for this department of
$3 million. If we use the Minister's figure of
1.5 million people, we come up with a figure?
of a $4.25 million increase in revenue.
Madam Chairman, that $4.25 million is
less than one-twelfth of the totaL budget of
JUNE 19, 1968
4699
this department. In regard to the total bud-
get of the province, it is less than .18 per
cent of total expenditure of this whole prov-
ince. For this small sum of money this Min-
ister and this government wish to impose a
further tax burden on the people of Ontario,
I would suggest that if we increase the non-
resident fishing licence by $6, making a
non-resident fishing licence $12.50, we would
raise almost the same amount of revenue as
we would by taxing the Ontario taxpayer.
It might be said at this point that when
the fishing Licence was originally proposed,
there was no mention of the non-resident
fishing licence being raised. It was only dur-
ing my first speech in the House that tlie
Minister suggested that perhaps a non-resi-
dent fishing licence might be raised to $8.50.
Again, an Ontario resident gives up $3 while
the non-resident gets away with a $2 increase.
The province of Quebec, as I have stated
before, has a non-resident fishing licence fee
of $15.50; British Columbia charges a non-
resident $10. I suggest to the Minister that
we raise the non-resident fishing licence to
a mean between these two provinces, of some
$12.50, and forget about taxing the Ontario
resident.
I further suggest that increasing the non-
resident licence will not discourage the kind
of tourist that we want in this country. The
only kind of tourist it will discourage are
those who bring all their own equipment,
their own gasoline, their own food, their own
liquor, and spend nothing but the cost of a
fishing hcence in this province.
When a tourist comes to this province,
especially in the northern areas, he comes to
fish and he fishes intensely, determined to
catch his limit every day. I would think it
could be proven tbat the average tourist
fisherman would certainly be getting his
money's worth even if he still had to pay
$12.50 for a fishing licence.
The Minister has stated that fishing and
hunting bring an income of some $500 mil-
lion into the province of Ontario. I believe
this figure is based on a study by Peter
Klopchic, usin'g a multiplier of two. It should
be remembered and I draw the Minister's
attention to my opening remarks, that the
Ontario resident in hunting and fishing, buys
his equipment in Ontario, pays taxes on that
equipment, pays a gasoline tax which has
been raised this year by this government,
pays a cigarette tax which has been raised
this year by this government, besides paying
income tax to the province of Ontario. For
all the paying he does and the support he
gives the economy of this province, he is
thanked by being slapped with a $3 fishing
licence.
This department and this government, in
their attempt to squeeze the last dollar out
of the long-suffering Ontario taxpayer, will
not even exempt the old-age pensioner from
having to pay for a fishing licence. In the
state of New York, people seventy years old
and over may procure a fishing licence free
by merely showing their birth certificate.
In the state of Minnesota, an old-age pen-
sioner may purchase a perpetual licence for
$2.50. In other words, he purchases it once
and it is good for the rest of his life. But
what do we hear from this government— they
shall pay. These people who have made this
province and this country, many of whom
take pleasure in the outdoors and dropping
a fishing line into a lake, who have contrib-
uted to this province their lives and cer-
tainly their money and are in the twilight of
their years, are going to be forced by an
unfeeling government to pay the sum of $3
to continue to enjoy something they have
enjoyed all their lives.
I say to this government that to them $3
may not appear to be very much money, but
to an old-age pensioner $3 is a great deal
of money. I urge that if this government,
which must take responsibiUty for this action,
is determined to force this fishing licence on
the people of Ontario, that the very least
they can do is to exempt the old-age pen-
sioner.
In the conservation meeting, the Minister
stated that if we exempted women and old
age pensioners, it would mean a loss of
revenue of $280,000. To this government
$280,000 is peanuts. A government that can
afford to pay $1.8 million to the breeders of
horses surely can afford to exempt women and
the senior citizens of this province from a
$3 fishing licence. How often does a woman
go out fishing? Possibly once or twice a year.
With tliis fishing licence she will never go,
and the Minister must take responsibihty for
this.
The third reason that the Minister has
given for the need of a fishing licence is that
the user of the resource should be made to
pay for it. I have already suggested that
anglers and hunters provide a growing in-
come to the province of some $500 million
through taxes and equipment they purchase.
I would suggest that they are already pay-
ing for the use of this resource. But further
I would recorrunend to the Minister that he
make necessary and immediate reading a
speech given by J. Hatter, director of the
4700
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
British Columbia fish and wildlife conser-
vation authority entitled, "Consideration in
budgeting for fish and wildhfe management".
Mr. Hatter makes tliree particular points that
I would like to summarize for the Minister:
1. From Mr. Hatter's speech: "Budgets
should not be confined to any particular level
in relation to direct income from consumers
of the resource."
2. Mr. Hatter goes on: "Charges should
also be made to the non-consumer." He states
that "those in effect who do not hunt or
fish should also be made to pay their fair
share because of the income that is derived
indirectly from this resource."
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister, that
this idea of the users of the resources pay-
ing for it is a false one and I suggest he
read Mr. Hatter's article.
3. "That is budgeting for fish and wildlife
management costs should exceed revenues."
I repeat that for the benefit of the Minister,
costs should exceed revenues, and yet this gov-
ernment, this Minister, is trying to make the
revenues equal costs. In other words, the
revenues to be derived from fishing should
not equal the cost of tending to that par-
ticular resource. If the Minister does not have
a copy of this article, I would be happy to
lend him mine.
So much for the Minster's arguments in
defence of a fishing licence. But there are
good and valid reasons why he should not
impose a fishing licence. As I have already
stated, the American tourist should be made
to pay his fair share of the costs of conserva-
tion in this province, especially if we follow
the reasoning of the Minister.
The Ontario resident already pays a great
deal towards the budget of fish and wildlife,
both through the taxes he pays and the
equipment he buys in Ontario.
Further, I suggest that we, as Ontario
residents, have a riglit to be able to fish, free
of charge, in our own waters. I was happy
to note that, when earlier in the session, I
asked the Minister if the Indians' hereditary
rights in regard to fishing would still be
observed, he said "yes". I suggest that fishing
is the only freedom that we have left in
this province, indeed in this country, for
which we are not taxed. I would think that
this would be a feather in the Minister's cap
if he could keep it that way. I believe it
was the hon. Kelso Roberts who said: "We
will have a fishing licence in this province
only over my dead body."
I would not want this Minister remembered
by the people of Cochrane North and by the
people of this province as the man who im-
posed a fishing hcence upon them.
This fishing licence, Madam Chairman, is
especially repugnant to the people of northern
and northwestern Ontario. As citizens of this
area, we feel that we have a special right
to fish in the waters adjacent to our com-
munities. We do not feel tliat we should have
to produce a fishing licence on demand when
we have enjoyed for years the right and
privilege of fishing in what we consider our
own lakes.
By reason of geography, the people of
northern Ontario do not enjoy a great many
advantages that the people of southern On-
tario do. We are not able to enjoy the Royal
Ontario museum for instance, or the Strat-
ford festival and other such projects that this
government subsidies and subsidizes heavily.
But we do not complain about this and
all we do want is to be left to enjoy our
fishing. Has the Minister considered how
much extra time and the resulting cost that
will arise by conservation ofiBcers having to
check into residents for fishing licences? I
say the whole idea is badly conceived and
should be dropped forthwith.
I again remind tlie Minister and he is a
resident of northern Ontario, that he will
appreciate the enjoyment that we derive from
fishing; we enjoy the lakes, the trees, the sun
sparkling on the water, the exciting tug on
the other end of the fishing line. I am re-
minded, if I may of a poem that I read a few
years ago, and I would change a line slightly:
For some may swing the axe
And some the pen or peavey pole.
But every man deserving pants
Has fishing in his soul.
I would hope, dierefore— and I ask the Min-
ister to reconsider his decision in regard to
this fishing hcence. I hope he will not imple-
ment this fishing licence for he alone must
take responsibility for this most unpopular
measure. The people of Ontario have said
"no" loudly to a fishing licence; I hope the
Minister will heed that "no".
I would recommend one last thought to the
Minister and that is the cost of administration
of collecting and processing these non-resident
licences. If we were to increase the non-
resident fee, the cost of administration and
issuance would already be covered and no
money would be lost in administration. But
once again, I urge that the Minister recon-
sider this pohcy and not impose this fishing
JUNE 19, 1968
4701
licence on the people of Ontario. I am almost
moved, Madam Chairman, to move that this
Minister's salary be lowered to $3, not to $1
as per usual, but to $3 so that he at least
may be able to purchase a fishing licence.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : He gives himself a comphmentary one.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Madam Chairman, I would
like to make a few comments in regard to
the policy of this department regarding parks.
The Treasury board, and they must take
some responsibility in this, must really have
put the screws on the Minister this time. The
department has now doubled the fee to $10
for a season's pass into our parks of the prov-
ince. I would hke to read a couple of head-
lines from various papers throughout the
province: Increased Park Fees Rapped; Great
Outdoors Tax Irks Campers— Now They Plan
to Boycott Parks; Licence Fee Boosts Unfair
to Residents, and so on. I say. Madam Chair-
man, who does this fee hit? It hits the aver-
age man trying to get along on a small salary,
with rising inflation and an ever-increasing
tax burden. One of the few pleasures that a
man and family, without a great deal of
money, could enjoy was a day or a weekend
in a park at very little expense. It gave a
man and his family a chance to get away from
their small home or cramped apartment,
away from the pollution of the city or town,
way from the congestion and exhaust fumes
from too many cars. It gave a man and his
family a chance to get out into fresh air to
enjoy the beauties of nature, to be alone with
his family without the interruption of tele-
vision or ringing phones. It gave a family a
chance to meditate and to enjoy the natural
riches of his province. But the Minister again,
in one fell swoop, has put this inexpensive
recreation out of the reach of the small man
and has made camping and the enjoyment
of our publicly owned parks a luxury com-
modity. I suggest to the Minister that he
review all these proposed fee increases within
the department and keep in mind the aver-
age Ontario resident who does not have a
great deal of money to throw around, who
must watch his money carefully and who can-
not afford tliese increased fees.
A recent article in one of tlie weekend
magazines of a daily newspaper of this city
concerned camping across Canada. It may be
noted there for all to see— and not just the
residents of Ontario, but the whole country
—that Ontario has the largest camping ground
fees of any province in the country. Ontario
may be a place to stand and a place to grow,
but it is certainly not a place to camp. I sug-
gest to the Minister again tfiat he review his
pohcies. If increased revenue is that neces-
sary, I think it is time we instituted a two-
price policy; one for Ontario residents and
one for foreign tourists who, if they can a£Ford
to travel this far, will certainly be able to
afford an increase in the cost. I think it is
time we gave the Ontario resident a break.
Madam Chairman, we have a problem in
northwestern Ontario but it is one that in-
volves all the people of Ontario and again it
relates to my opening remarks as regards this
government's attitude to the residents of this
province and to residents of a foreign country.
We in northwestern Ontario have a problem
with United States based American commer-
cial aircraft. We have a somewhat related
problem with private American aircraft. The
problem simply stated is this. American
commercial aircraft are exploiting Canadian
and Ontario resources without contributing
one penny to the economy of this province.
This government has allowed American oper-
ators to fly fishermen and hunters into this
province, bag and baggage. These American
fishermen and hunters have contributed only
the cost of a fishing licence or a hunting
licence to the economy of this province. This
has been a problem in our area for a long
time and yet this government refuses to take
any action to stop this practice and let it be
known at the outset that this is a provincial
responsibility. We cannot blame the Ameri-
cans for exploiting the resources of this prov-
ince because it is this government that allows
them to do so. It is this government that
must take the responsibiUty for the situation
that exists in northwestern Ontario.
The money that is made by these Ameri-
can tourist operators exploiting Canadian
resources would be more than a large enough
increase in revenue so that the Minister
would not have to impose any kind of a fish-
ing licence on the residents of Ontario.
This government has been petitioned by
the chambers of commerce of northwestern
Ontario and of Fort Frances in particular. I
would like to read into the record a resolu-
tion of the northwestern chambers of com-
merce, sponsored by the Fort Frances
chamber of commerce, as it was submitted
to members of the Cabinet in March 1968.
Despite protests from the northwestern
chambers, the Ontario chamber and the
Canadian chamber, there has still been no
action taken by any level of government
which has made any significant contribu-
tion to alleviating the situation existing
along the Ontario-Minnesota border. Last
4702
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fall the air transport board very piously
announced that one U.S. operator's licence
had been suspended for illegally moose-
spotting. As it developed, the licence has
since been restored and the period during
which he was prohibited from flying was
during the freeze-up weeks when opera-
tions ceased in any case. It is apparent to
us that no branch of the federal govern-
ment is in the least concerned about this
problem.
We therefore have only the government
of Ontario to turn to, and we beseech The
Department of Lands and Forests and
The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion to develop some form of control over
foreign-based commercial aircraft flying
whenever and wherever they wish in
direct competition with Canadian operators.
The U.S. interests are simply laughing at
us, and Canadians are being made to look
like simpletons.
And it is that government there, the Con-
servative government of this province, that
must take responsibility for this situation. A
similar resolution was made in September,
1966, and I read this also into the record:
That this meeting reconfirm our con-
viction that the provincial and federal
departments concerned should continue
their efforts to correct a situation that could
virtually get out of hand
I say to you, sir, through Madam Chairman,
that the people of northwestern Ontario are
fed up with having their resources, their
game and fish, exploited by our neighbours
to the south.
In tliis connection. Madam Chairman, I
would like to read into the record a letter I
wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart),
the Minister of Tourism and Information
(Mr. Auld), and to the Minister of Lands
and Forests. I might say. Madam Chairman,
at this time, that I received a reply from the
Minister of Lands and Forests, for which I
thank him. But I say to the Minister of Lands
and Forests that his answer was not satis-
factory. But at least he had the courtesy to
reply. This is the memorandum:
I am writing this memo to your three
departments because I believe it will be
necessary for close co-operation between
all three departments in order to come to
some kind of conclusion to clear up the
problem that will be contained herein.
The problem is concerned with American-
based commercial aircraft operating from
Minnesota into Canada, especially in the
Rainy River district, but in all of north-
western Ontario generally. These American
aircraft are allowed to operate in Canada
under class 9-4 licences issued by the
federal government in Ottawa. These
licences allow American operators to fly
parties into Canada, and also apparently
allow them to leave canoes and other
camping and hunting equipment in Canada
for the duration of the hunting season.
Apparently American operators are not
required to pay any duty on this equip-
ment. This, of course, causes unfair
competition to Canadian operators who
must pay duty on the equipment they use
in outfitting tourists. Neither the federal
government nor the Ontario provincial
government receives any revenue from the
exploitation of our himting and fishing, save
the cost of tlie fishing and hunting licences
to American parties which, of course, are
paid by the tourists themselves and not by
the American operators.
A similar matter in this connection is
tlie ability of an American operator to
purchase a licence for $50 from The
Department of Tourism and Information to
set up a tent camp in northern Ontario.
For the amount of revenue that they derive
from these fly-in tent camps, $50 is surely
a very small price to pay. I believe that
it is time that the policy of this govern-
ment in this regard should be changed in
two vital aspects:
1. That American-based aircraft be either
prohibited from exploiting Canadian re-
sources the way they are doing presently,
or that they be required to pay a very high
licence fee for the privilege of using
Canadian resources.
2. I would suggest most strongly that
American-based operators no longer be
allowed to leave their equipment in Canada
over the tourist season.
I realize that a part of this particular
problem is that aviation is under federal
jurisdiction. I do, however, believe that
the provincial government, by initiating
action and requesting the federal govern-
ment to do something about this situation,
would help to clear it up. I am aware of,
and have a copy of the decision of the air
transport board, Ottawa— decision serial
No. 24648 at Ottawa, Canada, August 1,
1967— in regard to this matter, but I
believe that it is in the public interest of
the people of Ontario that present regula-
tions regarding American operators be
changed.
I enclose a copy of an article from an
American magaizne called Outdoors that
JUNE 19, 1968
4703
will give you a good indication of the
type of operation that I have described
above. I have support for the above sug-
gestions from members of all three parties.
I would be happy to discuss further with
you or your staffs any aspect or ramifica-
tion arising from this memorandum.
I mentioned in that memorandum some of
the things that are being written about
fishing in Canadian waters, and these articles
are appearing in nation-wide sportsmen's
magazines in the United States. They are in
effect commercial promotions for American-
based operators. I will not read into the
record the name used in these articles
because I do not wish to give that gentle-
man any further publicity. The title of the
article is, "Fly-in Fishing for Everyone/' and
the sub-title is, "This Memorable Float Train
Trip into Southern Ontario, Including the
Hauling of Everything from Tents to Canoes
and Surprisingly Easy on the Budget Too."
And well it might have been; it was done at
the expense of the Ontario taxpayer. Let me
quote a few lines from the article:
Bernie, I knew, would handle all the
details at his end since his business is
canoe-fitting. I will not mention the place.
All I had to do was get there. We had
fished before near his camp but this
time he wanted to fly a complete outfit of
canoe camp equipment into Bright Sand
River, some 150 miles north of the Cana-
dian border. Notice if you will a complete
outfit of canoe camp equipment. Further
on, since Bernie was outfitting everything
from soup to nuts, I had no worries.
Bright Sand River is nearly 100 miles
north of Atikokan. There are no roads and
it is difficult to reach by canoe. The whole
area has been fished very little. Yet it is
close enough to United States population
centres in the east to make a fly-in trip
on a reasonable budget. From Ely— the
name is censored— flies in many parties for
the day only. The cost depends on the
size of plane used and distance travelled.
There are trips for as little as $50 or they
may cost well into the hundreds of dollars.
Of course trips for as many days as desired
can be arranged. Canoe outfitters supply
everything, food and all camping equip-
ment including a canoe for about $7.50
per day per person.
Imagine that, if you will, how cheaply one
can take a canoe trip in Canadian waters,
outfitted completely by an American oper-
ator. But what about the Canadian operator?
How can he compete with this kind of
unfair competition? You know very well, sir,
that this would never be allowed to be
reciprocated across the border.
What benefit does the province of Ontario
derive from all this? And yet this is the
government that has the nerve to say to the
resident of Ontario: "You must pay a $3
fishing licence— you must pay a $10 parking
fee per season." Again, near the end of the
article, I quote:
There might be a delay tomorrow if
you wait for the Beech," explained the
pilot, "I can take all four of you right
now if you leave your gear here." As we
took to the air I looked down on our
camp site. The equipment stood ready for
use.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that
tliere would be another American party in
there using that equipment in the very near
future, again at the expense of Ontario
residents. The province of Ontario received
$6.50 for a fishing licence and the American
operators garnered a profit of I-do-not-
know-how-many dollars— and we are trying
to promote tourism in this province. We say
how much the tourist dollar brings in.
I would like to know from this Minister
how much of the tourist dollar goes out
when practices like this are allowed? You
are supposed to be helping Canadian and
Ontario businessmen, and yet you allow a
situation to exist where foreign-based opera-
tors—our neighbours to the south— are able
to exploit Canadian resources at the expense
of Canadian operators.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that
equipment would be used again. And this
exploitation of our natural resources by
American-based operators would continue
without any benefit to Canadian citizens.
These people who are allowed to get away
with this are operating in direct competition
to the Canadian operator who pays taxes in
Ontario, who provides employment, who lives
in this province and who is trying to make a
living. To stop the exploitation of our re-
sources by non-residents, this department
must come up with a formula which would
require visitors to our province to use Cana-
dian equipment, to stay at Canadian resorts
and to contribute monetarily to this province
for the benefits which they derive.
I would read into the record just to under-
line the fact that this is a provincial responsi-
bility from the report of the air transport
board No. 487 and it states:
4704
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In the area of northwestern Ontario,
the board is of the opinion that compaints
to date fall almost entirely under the juris-
diction of departments other than the air
transport board and more specifically within
the jurisdiction of the departments of the
province of Ontario. As previously outlined,
the air transport board arranged a meeting
witli representatives of the various depart-
ments most concerned with the alleged
problems with a view to obtaining a co-
ordinated approach. The board considers
it has proceeded as far as it can be reason-
ably expected in directing the complaints
to the responsible authority, in this case,
the province of Ontario.
We have a somewhat related problem, Mr.
Chairman, in regard to private American air-
craft being allowed to fly hither and yon
in our northlands with no control over their
egress from this province.
This has allowed them to fly into our fish-
ing waters, in hunting areas, many without
even having a fishing or hunting licence. It
is almost impossible to keep any kind of check
or control over them. This practice too must
be stopped and it must be stopped imme-
diately. I offer the Minister of this depart-
ment a few suggestions as to how these
practices should be stopped, but I say to him
and I say to the governjnent opposite again,
it has been their responsibility for the last
25 years, when these practices developed and
it is their responsibility to stop them now.
I would suggest first of all that American
commercial aircraft should not be allowed to
operate in the fishing and hunting business in
Ontario at all. If this is impossible to do then
I suggest licensing them so heavily that they
will not find it profitable to exploit Canadian
resources the way they have been doing in
the past.
In regard to private aircraft, I suggest that
only wheel planes be allowed to land at air
fields. This would prevent aircraft from flying
unknown into our lakes and out again. I
would suggest if this is not possible, that
it be made mandatory for all those purchas-
ing fishing and hunting hcences to check out
with a conservation officer before leaving the
country.
I would suggest further that all those
exporting game or fish from this country be
required to purchase an export licence for
that fish or game. I reiterate that this is a
responsibility of this government. This gov-
ernment's policy must change in regard to
Americans and Canadians and we must start
giving Canadians first chance to develop and
to use the resources of this province.
I would like to make a few remarks con-
cerning the purchasing policy of this depart-
ment. As I understand it, when the department
requires vehicles, various dealers within a
given area are asked to submit bids. I tliink
this is a fair system. I think it bolsters the
economy of the particular area by providing
income to those in that area. I say the
system of bids is a good one— as long as
everyone gets a bid. I should like to read into
the record a couple of letters I have re-
ceived:
Our company was incorporated June 6,
1950. Since that time we have not sold a
single vehicle to either the Ontario Depart-
ment of Highways or the Ontario Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests. During this same
period we have not been allowed to tender
on the local requirements of these depart-
ments. When we complain about this mat-
ter we are told very frankly that we are
not on the list of approved suppliers and
therefore are not entitled to quote.
It might be stated at this point, and will
come as no surprise, certainly to those mem-
bers opposite, that it was about this time
that this particular constituency became Tory.
I read from the second letter:
We had one bid from The Department
of Lands and Forests in November, 1960;
we were successful and sold them one unit
in the name of Orbit Motors. Since then
we have never received a request to bid
or to price a unit. As you remember, I was
told by Lands and Forests that our name
was not even on the list.
I say shame to this government that they
should, in this day and age, resort to and
continue that kind of practice in this province
of Ontario. There they sit opposite— the pil-
lars of the business community, those bastions
of free enterprise, those defenders of the
faith of competition. They suggest that our
society is based on the fruits of the capital-
istic system. Their watchword is competition
—and yet competition for whom? It is compe-
tition if you are a Conservative, and the way
they compete is: "Joe, you get the contract
this time and I'll get it next time."
Who loses out in this? Firstly, and most
directly, those people who do not see fit to
support the Conservative Party. Secondly,
the residents of Ontario who are not getting
the necessary supplies at the cheapest pos-
sible price. I salute and I congratulate those
who have had the courage to stand by their
JUNE 19, 1968
4705
political convictions and have not given in
to the economic pressure exerted by this gov-
ernment. In thinking of this particular prob-
lem I am moved to write a poHtical couplet:
They told us in the election, vote Con-
servative or you'll be sorry,
You know the government only buys
supplies and things from a real tnie
blue Tory.
I ask the Minister to stop this patronage
type of politics. It is unworthy of him and
it is unworthy of any government in this day
and age. I would ask the Minister to take
immediate steps to see that these two com-
panies that I have referred to-and all others
that I may not be aware of— are given an
equal opportunity to bid on any further re-
quisitions required by his department
I would like to spend a few minutes dis-
cussing the timber and research branch of
this department. By way of introduction I
might say that Crown land is a provincial
responsibihty. Ninety per cent of Ontario's
forests lie on Crown land and are, therefore,
held in trust by this government for the
people of Ontairo. The British North America
Act, clause 92, section 5, gives to the prov-
inces the management and sale of public
lands belonging to the provinces and the
timber and wood thereon. The priority rights
of the provices in land and timber resources
carry with them the right of the province to
sell land, or otherwise enter into agreements
concerning such natural resources. The prov-
ince—in 1960, I believe it was— in amending
The Forestry Act, took over the responsibility
for the regeneration of forests.
The most important and notable thing
about the forest is that it is a renewable re-
source. Unlike mining, where the ore is
scooped out of the ground and nothing is
left but a big hole, the forest once cut down
can grow again and once more provide em-
ployment, material and beauty.
Forest industries are especially important in
Canada and to the province of Ontario be-
cause they provide one of Canada's greatest
exports and bring in much needed foreign
currency to help correct our balance of pay-
ments. It is obvious, therefore, that we should
be doing all we can to preserve and conserve
and expand our forests and our forest indus-
tries.
But what is this government doing about
all this? At the moment only 50 per cent of
our allowable cut is being used per year in
Ontario. Our efForts at silviculture, the regen-
erating and tending of forests, have in the past
fallen far short of what they should be. Our
efforts-at least certainly the money expended
on research-is pitiable, to say the least. The
forest is a renewable resource but only about
64 per cent of the forest will renew itself
without any artificial help. Therefore, this
government and this department must step in
to ensure that the rest is accomplished. Ac-
cording to the report of the forestiy study
unit, this government has not even reached
the minimum level of regeneration required
to keep even with tlie growing demand in
this province.
Certainly, if we are not achieving the mini-
mum, we cannot achieve the optimum that
the forestiy study unit suggests. The Minister
is condemned by his own words in Hansard
of last year, and I refer him to pages 3493
and 3494. Last year this province had approxi-
mately 80,000 acres of forest regeneration
less than it should have regenerated accord-
ing to professional foresters' forecasts.
I refer the Minister again to the forestry
study report, to table 38, page 220, entitled
"Artificial Regeneration-Estimated Annual
Needs and Amount Crown Land 1966." I
need not go through all of the details, but
tlie table says estimated area need, artificial
regeneration-and artificial regeneration is
defined as including any silviculture treat-
ment involving the expenditure of money to
secure regeneration-was 230,000 acres. The
estimated area regenerated was only 100,000
acres for 1966-67-and there is a footnote to
the effect that this 100,000 acres is estimated
only and includes no allowances for losses
and failures-so that this department is fall-
ing over 100,000 acres behind enforced regen-
eration.
What a poor record, what a very poor
record for this department and for this gov-
ernment, especially when we consider, Mr.
Chairman, the revenues that this department
receives from stumpage and forest protection
fees. The stiidy concludes that silviculture
costs by 1970 would be $8.6 million but
stumpage fees and forest protection revenues
will be $16.5 million and that is probably
before the increased forest protection fees.
These figures, therefore, suggest that the
money is certainly available and should be
made available for a large increase in the
regeneration of our forests so that we will be
able to meet the demands of the forest indus-
tries by tlie year 2000.
I suggest that the Minister pursue a much
greater policy of selling our forests and our
forest products, that the department become
4706
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
more aggressive in its search for new indus-
tries and new materials in the province.
In the newsprint association of Canada's
Report, newsprint data 1967, page 28, diere
is a table entitled "New Capacity Projects
and Prospects." It says this list is compiled
from public announcements and other sources
believed to be reliable. It may be incomplete
because plans are not always reported publicly
in advance of construction.
But the interesting thing about this is that
new capacity projects and prospects are
planned in this way. Alberta has one pro-
jected, British Columbia has four, Manitoba
one, New Brunswick two, Newfoundland
three, Quebec five and Ontario one.
Why— if we are now only using one-half
of our allowable cut— when we have great
stands of prime timber in this province— why
is it not being used? Why are we behind the
other provinces of Canada? I said that this
government is responsible for this situation
as it exists today. I suggest to you that in
this province we have a wealth of natural
resources but a poverty of policy. What
developments can we see of these resources
in this province?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few
words about the research programme of this
department— I could almost say the non-
research programme of this department. The
total budget for this year is $l,148,000-not
much of an increase in relation to the import-
ance this branch within the department
should have.
As a matter of fact the budget of the
research branch is down one per cent from
last year, and makes up only one-fiftieth of
the total budget of this department.
In one of our greatest industries, the forest
industry, very little, if any, research is being
done. The Agriculture department, even the
Highways department, is spending vast sums
on research, and yet this department is doing
a paltry $1.5 million worth of research. I
would think that in this day and age this is
a paltry sum to be spending for research in
view of the dividends that could be reaped
from an all-out research policy.
There were a number of research projects
recommended by the forestry study unit and
I am sure that the Minister is aware of them.
But these were in relation to the timber
branch alone. I fail to see how such a measly
budget will be able to do the required
research in this province. It might be stated
that this research budget is not just for the
timber branch, but for the game and wild-
life branch also. We need more research to
exploit the resources of this province.
Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say on
these subjects that I have raised in my open-
ing remarks, on each of the individual esti-
mates. I will be talking about the removal
of the provincial land tax or municipally
owned recreation centres, and on depressed
farm areas.
I will be speaking on forest access roads—
especially the desirability of such a road be-
tween Highways 11 and 17 from Atikokan to
Ignace, or from the Fort Frances end up to
the northern highway.
I will have something to say about tiie
department building a walleye fish hatchery
in Rainy River district; and I will have
something to say about wolves.
But in these concluding remarks of my
opening statements, I would ask the Min-
ister, once more, to please not impose a fish-
ing licence on the residents of Ontario; to
please do something abotit the American-
based commercial airplane operators exploit-
ing Ontario's natural resources. Please clean
up the purchasing part of your department;
and please increase your silviculture and
research programme. The responsibility for
all these programmes is yours, and this gov-
ernment's, and they must be carried out in
the best interests of the people of Ontario.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I consider it a distinct honour to be
the critic for the New Democratic Party for
The Department of Lands and Forests esti-
mates, I subscribe to a great many of the
things tliat the hon. member for Rainy River
has spoken on this afternoon. I have made
my position clear on the fishing licence and
the increase in the park fees; and the in-
crease in the hunting licences. There will be
no doubt, by the time I sit down, of where
I stand and where the New Democratic
Party stands on those two particular issues.
Now, as the name of the department im-
plies, it is responsible for Crown land reten-
tion and disposal to ensure that maximum
social and economic benefits are obtained by
proper and wise use of the land. It is the
responsibility of this department to develop,
implement, and maintain land-use plans
which take full advantage of land potential,
having regard for the needs of our people
on a regional and provincial basis. Accord-
ing to the annual report of the year ending
March 31, 1967, 40 per cent of the lakeshore
areas, and all of the inventories for the por-
tion of Ontario below the 43rd parallel, were
incomplete.
Under the recreation and land inventory
sector of the Canada inventory plan we are
JUNE 19, 1968
4707
able to determine which Crown land should
be retained for public use, and can assess
which areas of private land should be pur-
H chased for pubhc use. Since 1962, this
I department has acquired 93,356 acres of land
for water access points, recreational use,
timber management, wilderness and nature
reserves, and wildlife management purposes.
I see the role of the department as one
which would encompass the orderly use of
all land in the province.
After many years of mismanagement by
his predecessor, the Minister has come to
realize, that unless all available land is put
to the best use possible, not only from a
recreational point of view, but for social and
economic benefit, we will fail to achieve the
best land use. A provincial plan, with the
initiative taken by The Department of Lands
and Forests, in co-ordination with other de-
partments, such as Agriculture and Food,
Municipal Affairs, Trade and Development,
Energy and Resources Management, High-
ways, Transport, Mines, Tourism and Infor-
mation and Health, should be set up.
It makes very little sense to spend millions
of dollars each year to purchase private lands
for recreational use if we fail to assure our-
selves that choice arable land in southern
Ontario will be retained for agricultural pur-
poses. It is equally irresponsible to spend
milhons of dollars buying up land for parks
and beaches if we allow industry to locate
in areas where pollution and changing en-
vironment render these areas useless for the
purpose for which they were intended.
We must have a provincial plan to resolve
conflicting demands on our land resources. If
we fail to take immediate action to determine
what criteria we are to use, what priorities
should be established for proper land use,
then chaos will result. Population growth in
southern Ontario is such that it will nearly
double every 25 years. We must plan our
development so that the land will be put to
the best use possible and to that for which
it is best suited. Planning is essential.
I see this department as one which will
make use of information which is already
available and compile additional data to
assure that decisions made now will be com-
patible with future land requiremental con-
trol. We are already losing valuable farm
areas to urban sprawl, industrial develop-
ment, transmission, pipelines, and transporta-
tion corridors. We are losing many of our
recreational areas because of pollution, and
location of industry on sites which are better
suited for other uses.
We have reasonable and good information
about our land resources, their potential and
capabilities, and sufficient information about
our physical and human resources, our renew-
able and non-renewable resources and the
particular problems that each area or district
of this province has. Let us begin to plan
for an orderly use of land in this province,
which has been so richly endowed. As Pro-
fessor Norman Pearson said:
Time is not on our side. We do have
enough data for us to make a beginning,
and what is needed is a determined effort
to ask ourselves what all this inventory
means and what all the trends and fore-
casts imply. We need a great deal of
think time, clear-sightedness, a willingness
to look at unpleasant facts, a willingness to
forget some of the limits and traditional
boundary lines between disciplines and
special departmental interests, and a will-
ingness to try and see things whole, to
see the implication in terms of the environ-
ment of the physical, social and economic
and political forces now acting for good
or ill in Ontario.
We must ensure that Ontario is a pleasant
place in which to live; ensure that resources
are not wasted, and if sacrifices are involved,
we get something of value for the sacrifice.
There is a strong indication that tlie short-
age of public parks and recreational lands
will be severe in 20 years. There is very slow
progress in dealing with pollution and other
misuses generated by our society.
I call on the Premier (Mr. Robarts) to set
up an interdepartmental conmiittee under
the Minister of Lands and Forests which
would be responsible for determining which
land should be set aside for farming and
what are the limits to which urban sprawl
should be tolerated.
We should determine what land is to be
set aside for forestry, for mineral reserves,
for recreation, conservation, nature and
wilderness reserves.
This committee should determine the most
suitable sites for heavy industry and for
large industrial complexes. When govern-
ment is called upon to provide services such
as highways, railways, power grids, docks
and harbours, it should be consulted as to
where industry should locate. This is the
role that should be played by The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests through its lands
and surveys branch, land acquisition and
planning sections, surveys and engineering
sections, and through proper planning of
4708
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
access roads, recreational facilities and park
development.
I notice in the Minister's remarks, opening
up the estimates for this department, the
recommendations of the Brodie report were
quite conspicuous by their absence. It was
a report that had been anxiously awaited
for quite some time. It brought in some 70
recommendations; 26 of very Httle con-
sequence have already been implemented,
according to information made available to
the House a short time ago. This govern-
ment's favourite substitute for action is to
set up study units or public equiries.
The forest industry is a prime example. I
would be the first to recognize that sound
policies must be based on knowledge, but
The Department of Lands and Forests has
been conducting investigations of the forest
industry for 20 years. Meantime, thousands
of people in northern Ontario whose stan-
dard of living depends on proper forest
management have suffered, and our total
output has been lower than what it could
have been.
The most recent survey by the forestry
study unit, appointed back in 1964, has pro-
duced 70 recommendations after nearly three
years of research and the time has come for
action. The most important recommenda-
tions relate to the promotion of integrated
operations on Crown timberland. The study
unit found that some of the holders of large
timber limits are not permitting the full
economic use of all species on their holdings,
and have urged more vigorous steps to see
that timber suitable for sawmills gets to
them and is not ground up in pulp and
paper machines.
I am calling for immediate implementa-
tion of the study unit recommendations that
measures be adopted to promote a proper
sharing of timber in licensed areas among
the various kinds of users. I strongly sup-
port the further proposal that any licensee
who is not making full utilization of the
allowable cut in his area during the next
five years, should be required to release to
the Crown a part of the licence containing an
allowable cut equivalent to the unused
allowable cut. Only when forest management
planning is co-ordinated with overall eco-
nomic policies will we get the optimum use
of our rich forest resources for the benefit
of tlie people of this province. For too long,
this govemmnet has left the large licence
holders in the driver's seat. As a result,
many northern communities have stagnated
with uncut mature timber at their doorstep.
Another area in which this government has
failed, is in the development of an overall
land use plan. We are letting urban sprawl
swallow up precious agricultural and fruit
land. This must not be permitted to con-
tinue. The government gives lip service to
planning but has failed to take the first step,
which is to institute a provincial land use
plan that will take in the social and economic
needs of all of the people. In northern
Ontario, the economy of a large number of
communities and thousands of people depends
on our forest resources.
With regard to the 70-odd recommenda-
tions of the Brodie forestry study unit, the
ones that I consider the most important and
the ones that this department to date has
failed to take action on are numbers 40, 42
and 51. If we are to be assured of a proper
forest management policy it is absolutely
essential that these recommendations be im-
plemented forthwith. Irreparable harm will
be done to many towns and villages in north-
ern Ontario unless an integrated woods opera-
tion programme is adopted for complete
utilization of all timber.
Prime licence holders are chiefly interested
in pulp and paper and are only concerned
with those species which are essential to
their operation. Other species are allowed to
rot or overmature wliile sawmill operators
and veneer plants plead for ample timber
supplies. Just to give you some indication
of this, I would like to read into the record
a letter dated Nipigon, June 17, addressed
to the hon. R. Brunelle, Minister of Lands
and Forests, Queen's Park, Ontario:
Dear Sir:
A new company. Multiply Plywoods
Limited, has been formed by a group of
Nipigon and area businessmen to try to
reopen the Nipigon plywood plant early
this summer. The timber needed to make
this feasible was requested in a May 23
letter to Mr. L. Ringham, and this was
discussed with Mr. Bayly in his office on
May 30.
Good progress has been made in nego-
tiations with the industrial development
bank, and in raising shareholder commit-
ments for this project. Markets are im-
proved compared to the past two years,
the plant is ready to run and a majority
of the trained staff and employees are still
available. We are also negotiating for a
line of credit from a chartered bank, and
it now appears that the key to the re-
JUNE 19. 1968
4709
opening of the plant will be the timber
supply.
I have discussed this with the responsi-
ble men in the three pulp companies
whose limits are involved in our timber
request, and they have indicated that a
reserve of poplar and birch, of veneer
grade as requested, is acceptable to them,
subject to the previous agreements with
Northern Plywoods Limited being with-
drawn. Therefore, it appears to me that
the hardwood timber to operate the exist-
ing plant is available.
However, the supply of softwood ven-
eer logs for the anticipated expansion of
the plant is equally important, and as yet
there is no basis for stating to financial
concerns or shareholders that there is room
for expansion. I understand from Mr.
Ringham that your department is working
on estimates of softwood of veneer size,
and we are encouraged that this is pro-
ceeding.
A decision as to the availability of the
timber requested is needed from your de-
partment, and I am writing at this time
to ask when this decision will be made.
We ask that it be made as soon as pos-
sible, because the labour and market situa-
tion is changing rapidly.
If The Department of Lands and For-
ests can state that poplar and birch ven-
eer logs are to be reserved for the Nipigon
plywood plant as requested, and that suf-
ficient softwood of veneer size is within
the economic range and allowable cut and
is to be made available to the plywood
plant, then Multiply has a basis to pro-
ceed with its financing and to negotiate
in future with the licence holders for
softwood logs. If, on the other hand, the
department states that there is not suffi-
cient timber for expansion, then it is
doubtful that there is a basis for reopen-
ing the plant, and this also should be de-
cided as soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
Murray Atkinson, vice-president,
Multiply Plywoods Limited.
If the Minister wants to see expansion related
to the forest products industries in northern
Ontario, it is absolutely ess^tial that the
timber requirements of these small operators
be met.
Ontario has only 17 per cent of wood-
industry establishments all across Canada,
but has 35 per cent of paper and allied in-
dustries in Canada. Of all forest-based in-
dustries in Ontario, sawmills make only 5.4
per cent of the total. Yet Ontario imports
lumber. Veneer and plywood mills make up
only 2.8 per cent of all forest-based industries
in Ontario, and we import plywood. Accord-
ing to 1965 statistics comparing the allowable
cut to the wood used, they used 75 per cent
of the allowable cut of spruce. They used 32
per cent of the allowable cut of jack pine.
They used 15 per cent of the allowable cut
of balsam and other conifers. They used 4
per cent of poplar and birch. In total, for all
species, only 32 per cent of the allowable
cut is being used.
Surely this is clear proof that we are not
taking full advantage of the renewable re-
sources available to us. At a time when
towns like Geraldton, Nipigon and Beard-
more are strugghng for their very existence,
improper forest management should not be
tolerated.
With regard to the revenues that are
generated from that and which accrue to the
timber branch of The Department of Lands
and Forests, we have compiled a table here
showing figures for 1965-66 where the total
revenue— including the logging tax— in that
fiscal year was $17,732,000. Our expendi-
tures for that year were $19,505,000. In
1966-67 our revenues were $16,856,000. Our
expenditures in that branch were $24,695,-
000. In 1967-68 our preliminary estimates
of revenues was $19,125,000, and our ex-
penditures estimated at $27,051,000. For
1968-69, estimated revenues $19,113,000 and
we will have expenditures in the timber
branch of roughly $30,865,000.
So in 1965-66, after deducting federal pay-
ments, percentage of revenue to expenditures
will only be 97 per cent. For 1966-67 it will
drop to 71.72 per cent. For 1967-68 it will
be 73.98 per cent. Estimated for 1968-69
it will only be 64.33 per cent.
In his remarks regarding the amount of
money being spent for fish and water life,
the Minister says that these things must carry
themselves as individual entities. He says
that the operation of parks should be met by
revenues from that source. I suggest to the
Minister that if he is going to follow this
through in his own department, possibly he
should take a look at the revenues and
expenditures of the forestry operations of
his department.
Another area that I would like to discuss
briefly, Mr. Chairman, is that this depart-
ment has an opportunity to contribute to the
well-being of our Indian population in
northern Ontario.
4710
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
In Hansard on April 1, the Minister stated
that some 26 recommendations for the
forestry study unit had been implemented;
in particular recommendation No. 57. Now
if I might just read recommendation No. 57:
That where there is a surplus allowable,
cut proposals for its use be requested and
the allocation made on the basis of the
merit of the various proposals.
If an industry ceases to require or use its
allocated cut, the allocation should revert to
the Crown. It should not be considered a
saleable asset, thus the province could main-
tain control of the disposal of Crown timber
for the best attainment of provincial economic
goals. A change in the allocation would re-
quire a revision of the management plan
and the approval of the regional director and
the chief of the timber branch.
Now there are several Indian bands in
settlements who have assured me that they
would welcome a chance to be gainfully
employed on a winter works programme on
licenced land where prime licence holders
have not seen fit to cut. One such location is
on Lake Nipigon near Macdiarmid. It is
estimated that there is anywhere from 30,000
to 50,000 cords of wood within easy access
of this band. These people would welcome
an opportunity to take a contract, or an
agreement, or you could set up a Crown
corporation, such as was done around Kenora,
with the Widjiitiwin plan.
I am sure these people would feel much
better earning their own living on a project
set up under a Crown corporation rather
than be dependent upon welfare, and I com-
mend that particular course of action to the
Minister.
Getting to tlie increased cost of parks, the
operation of park and park admittances, and
the increase in hunting and fishing licences
as announced by the Minister: The $5 million
additional revenues expected from the in-
crease in park fees, fishing and hunting
licences must be returned to the people of
Ontario through better recreational facilities.
If the Minister is really serious about in-
stituting a licence fee for resident fishermen,
he must give them some assurance they are
getting something for their money. To cite
a comparison, consider what is being done
by the American authorities on the south
shore of Lake Superior and what is being
done by this department on the north shore,
with regard to restocking of lake trout.
During the period 1950-1966, inclusive,
the American restocking programme was
26,638,000 lake trout, as opposed to 4,839,000
by our Department of Lands and Forests,
The cohoe salmon programme introduced by
the state of Michigan appears to be enjoying
a good deal of success, while this depart-
ment has adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
With the increase in park fees, Ontario now
ranks among the most expensive camping
areas in North America, and is certainly the
most costly in Canada.
Campers making use of the provincial
parks receive very Httle for their money. For
the same fee a person can go to a privately
owned camp site where he will have access
to running water, flush toilets, hot showers,
electricity and quite often even a laundromat.
Not so with the provincial parks.
Here there is no running water and very
few flush toilets. Only 195 of the more than
17,000 park sites have electrical hook-ups. A
recent survey in the United States indicated
that within two years, 3 million recreational
vehicles will be rolling on North American
highways. This new breed of family campers
will require more amenities and have indi-
cated that they will boycott our parks in
protest against poor facilities and higher
rates.
I do not like to rehash what the hon. mem-
ber for Rainy River said. I think he outlined
in great detail the feeling of the people in
northern Ontario with regard to the increases
in hunting licences that come into effect this
September, and the announced implementa-
tion of a programme to have a $3 fishing
licence imposed on everybody over the age
of 19 starting on January 1, 1969.
I think he expressed tlie sentiments not
only of the people of northern Ontario, but
indeed of every resident in Ontario with
regard to the imposition in particular of a
resident fishing licence. I think he did quite
v/ell in explaining the choice position Ameri-
can tourists find themselves in when they
come here. They are not paying their fair
share. They bring most of their supplies and
provisions with them, to the detriment of the
merchants and those people trying to make
a hving in northern Ontario. They contribute
very, very little to the economy. I suggest to
the Minister, and I have already done so on
many occasions privately, that if the Treasury
needs additional sources of revenue, they
look somewhere else— rather than imposing it
on the people of Ontario where the last
vestige of a heritage they considered was
free has now been taken from them.
I would also like to add my sentiments to
those already expressed by the member for
Rainy River and exhort the Minister to re-
JUNE 19, 1968
4711
consider. As I say, if he needs another source
of revenue, he should look elsewhere rather
than imposing a $3 fishing licence on the
people of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to thank the two hon. members for their
very worthwhile suggestions. I will try to
reply to the various matters they have
brought to my attention. I am sure I will
probably miss some points, but I know they
will remind me of those I have missed.
First may I say that with reference to the
anghng licence, that this was a step we were
somewhat reluctant to take. We gave this a
great deal of consideration and there is no
doubt there are certain parts of this province
at the present time where stocking is required.
However, we take the view that we are
looking for today's needs and future needs
and there has been some question as to
whether the money we will be taking in will
compensate for the cost of the Hcences and
how much we will be spending.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that
this year we will be spending in fish and
wildlife $9.3 million, and we will be taking
in $7 million. Now, how is this money to be
spent? We are doing 700 lake surveys this
year. In the past we have done about 400.
We should be doing at least 1,000 lake sur-
veys. And the purpose of these lake surveys
Ls to find out the species of fish, the chemical
analysis of water, and to find out just exactly
what type of fish should be restocked. We are
spending a tremendous amount of money in
our hatcheries. As was mentioned, we have
16 hatcheries and we are producing about
5 million fingerlings and 45 million egg frys
—and we should be producing a lot more.
As I said, we are not looking for the needs
of this generation but for future generations.
Not only is our population increasing, but
the number of people who are fishing is in-
creasing, and the number of hours they are
now fishing in the winter time, using snow-
mobiles is increasing. Before this, very few
people would fish in the winter time and all
projections are that in outdoor recreation,
fishing v/ill increase tremendously.
Coming back to my very good friend, the
member for Rainy River, some of the north-
erners—and I come from the north— feel they
have fishing at their back door. It is quite
true, but people from southern Ontario find
they have to travel many miles to go fishing.
In northern Ontario also, I would like to
mention that this year in Bill 115—1 believe
it is— we will be providing access to certain
roads on company limits. This is for hunters
and fishermen. This will cost money. And
again the revenue from hunting and angling
licences will be used to provide access to a
lot of these choice areas.
So there are many reasons, Mr. Chairman,
that I feel an angling licence is justified.
According to the Smith committee report—
and most of you have studied it— I believe in
the Smith committee report it says that our
programme should be based on at least a
four- to five-year period. For this reason, we
thought we would charge a $3 fee instead of
charging, say, $1.50 or $2, and then maybe
a year or two from now adding another dol-
lar. We thought it best to charge an even
$3 and hope that this will remain for several
years, based again on the Smith committee
report that we would programme our rates
for at least a four- to five-year period.
The cost of administration, Mr. Chairman,
will be very small. We have conservationists
at the present time who are checking on
people to find out if they are residents or
non-residents. At the same time, these same
people are checking fishermen as to limits.
We feel that very few additional conserva-
tionists will be required. As to the cost of a
licence, I believe it is somewhere from four
and a half to five cents. The cost of admin-
istration will be quite small.
Also with regard to conservation oflBcers,
we appreciate the feelings that they are
working very hard. I forgot what the hon.
member said, whether they were underpaid
or not. This is continually being revised and
we hope there will be increases— but as far
as being overworked— this we cannot guaran-
tee because they are working long hours.
With reference to the non-resident, we
used to charge $6.50 and we have raised this
by $2 to $8.50. I know many of you feel
this is not enough, that we should charge
the non-residents— who are predominantly
Americans— considerably more. There are
many views on this. The tourist industry in
Ontario is the largest tourist industry in
Canada and if we charge too much on our
non-resident angling fees many of these
people may go to Quebec or Manitoba or
to other provinces. That is why we feel tiiat
we would like to keep the fee at a reason-
able rate in order to attract them to come
here in larger numbers.
As far as the old people are concerned,
we are very sympathetic and this is receiving
consideration. We agree that costs should
exceed revenues. Our capital programme this
year for land acquisition, hatchery expansion
and so forth reflects this.
4712
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
With reference to parks, I would like to
mention that our costs have substantially in-
creased. As you may know, last year we
took in $2,191,000 and our expenditures were
$3.8 million. Why have our expenditures
increased so much? I would say for three or
four reasons. One is wages. Wages have
increased substantially, somewhere over 30
per cent during the last three to five years.
People today want better sanitation; they do
not want to go to an outdoor privy. There-
fore, we are building comfort stations and
these cost thousands of dollars. And also
people today are much more demanding. In
many of tlie parks today they are demand-
ing very definitely that the roads should be
paved. We are doing this in certain of our
parks and will be doing more of this. This
costs money.
I would like to mention that also we are
using our parks, some of our parks, on a 12-
month basis. Today, with the interest in
winter recreation and snowmobiles, we will
establish snowmobile trails as time goes on.
We have done this last year in two of our
parks and the annual park licence entitles a
person to use the parks 12 months of the
year in those parks that are open.
I was very surprised on Saturday when I
went to Lindsay— as I mentioned in my open-
ing remarks— to the graduation of the forestry
technical students at Sir Sandford Fleming
College. There is a nice park, the Balsam
Lake provincial park, and the park attend-
ant told me that the attendance this year was
50 per cent higher than last year. Of course,
we have had some very good weather, but
I mention this because all our projections
this year are based on the premise that our
parks will be used substantially more than
last year.
Also with reference to trailers, it was men-
tioned I believe, by someone that— as many
of you may know— more than 50 per cent of
the people who are using our camp sites are
using trailer facilities. We had 26 camp
sites with trailer camping facilities last year.
At the end of tiiis year 80 out of 96 provin-
cial parks will have trailer facilities.
As far as electricity is concerned, what you
say is quite true. Today people want elec-
trical outlets and we are studying this. When
I say studying, we are trying to find means
to providing more electrical outlets at a reas-
onable cost in certain of our parks.
I know the member for Rainy River is
very concerned about aircraft control and I
can appreciate your problems in the Rainy
River area where you are so close to the
American border— and I guess it appHes to
the Lakehead. I know it does not apply to
my area, northeast Ontario, but I would like
to remind the hon. member that we have
looked at this very closely. When I say
looked, I mean we have done things and,
Mr. Ringham, the regional director of north-
western Ontario, has been to Ottawa.
We have worked very closely with The
Department of Tourism and Information on
this very important matter and I would like
to just bring you up to date. As you may
know in Canada, aircraft come imder the air
transport board of the federal government
and there is nothing in the federal law which
requires an aircraft to check in Canada be-
fore leaving Canada. I wrote to the Hon.
Mr. Hellyer in May. I will not read the letter,
it is a little long, but I would just like to
bring this matter to his attention and I will
read you his reply. It was dated May 14
from Ottawa:
Dear Mr. Brunelle:
This will acknowledge your letter of
May 7, 1968, concerning problems associ-
ated with the use of aircraft for hunting
and fishing in remote parts of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
I have carefully noted your remarks with
respect to the need for additional controls
over such flights and I will be looking into
this matter. After I have had further
opportunity to give further consideration
to the points you have raised I will be in
touch with you again.
The federal government is giving study to
this matter. Now where do we come in? The
Department of Lands and Forests, of course,
looks after the regulations in The Game and
Fish Act, and we have done many spot checlcs
during the past year, and we have brought
people to court for violations under The
Game and Fish Act. Also, as you may know,
in provincial parks it is forbidden to use
aircraft to land on certain lakes. I am told
that this is contrary to federal legislation.
The Provincial Parks Act prohibits landing
in a provincial park except at a licensed air-
port. The federal department has claimed
this legislation is unconstitutional, and in
reply to a request for adequate federal legis-
lation to control aircraft, suggests that the
proposal interferes with the basic rights of
aircraft operators.
I would like to say again that we are work-
ing closely with The Department of Tourism
and Information. There are certain things
that you may know. We have intensified our
JUNE 19, 1968
4713
check control; we are doing more of this.
Aircraft today need a land-use authority per-
mit and we are giving further consideration
to what other steps we could take. So the
matter, I would say, is imder active con-
sideration. It is a real problem in north-
western Ontario and I am optimistic that
with the help of the two levels of govern-
ment concerned, the federal and our own
people, we can come to a satisfactory arrange-
ment.
With reference to the tenders of vehicles,
may I say first to the hon. member that if
he would tell those dealers in his area, who
are interested in tendering, to write to us,
we would be pleased to put their names on
our list. As you know, our procedure is that
we obtain quotations from three or more
dealers depending on the size of the com-
munity, and also there are certain types of
people who are preferable in certain areas.
When the terrain is very rough it is prefer-
able to have a certain make of vehicle which
has good ground clearance. I would also like
to mention that in certain areas what is very
important is not only the purchasing of the
vehicle but in finding places where the vehi-
cles can be serviced. This also has a bearing.
So I would like again to remind the hon.
member that we certainly have a very open-
door policy and would be pleased to con-
sider any of his dealers.
I With reference to regeneration, we feel we
are doing a fairly good job. For instance, in
1962, we were regenerating 7,500 acres and
in 1968-1969 this year, we will be regenerat-
ing 153,000 acres. I agree with those who
have spoken that we should be doing more
and we will be doing more. We are intensi-
fying our regeneration programme where we
are getting more mechanical or more auto-
mated with tubed seedlings. For instance,
this year we are planting, I believe, 22 mil-
lion tubed seedlings, quite an increase. This
programme only started about four years ago
and we are becoming more and more auto-
mated. I feel that we will be able to sub-
stantially inrease.
With reference to research, I would like
to mention that last year we were spending
on research $1,444,400. This year we will
be spending $1,661,600, and this is an in-
crease of 15 per cent-$2 17,200.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): How much
did you say-$1.6 million?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This year we are
spending $1,661,600.
Mr. Sopha: Well it is not in the estimates.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This is imder votes
1106 and 1110. Vote 1110 is the vote on
basic organizations and tliat is where most
of the expenditures come— in the field or-
ganizations. So this year we will Ix; spending
$1,661,600.
I know some of the members feel we
should be doing more and I agree that today
research is certainly a very important func-
tion. We are working very closely with the
Ontario research foundation and we are also
working very closely with the University of
Toronto which is doing wood quality studies
for us. Also, with the University of Toronto
under ARDA programmes we are doing forest
productivity studies, and again with the Uni-
versity of Toronto we are doing pre-breeding
studies at pre-breeding establishments
throughout North America and Europe.
Force fertilization also is being studied.
This is a field that we are most interested
in, as the hon. member for Sudbury knows,
since it takes somewhere between 60 to 100
years to grow a black spruce tree and there-
fore we must try to find means to stimulate
increased growth. Also at the University of
Toronto we are doing seed research, so we
are doing a fair amount of research in con-
junction with the university and the Ontario
research foundation.
Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering
whether there are other comments that I may
have omitted in reference to the remarks of
the hon. member for Rainy River.
With reference to the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, he brought two or three mat-
ters to my attention. With reference to the
forestry study unit, this is a very important
study, and we have implemented 26 recom-
mendations so far. Nineteen are under con-
sideration and will be implemented as soon
as conditions permit, and the balance, 25,
are still under very active study.
He referred to recommendations 40, 42 and
51. With reference to 40, this is integrated
operations, I believe. This is certainly one
of the most important ones and may I say
that this question of utilizing our limits to
the fullest possible degree is one that we
have given a lot of thought to in the last
six months. I have written to all the Ontario
pulp and paper company presidents and we
have met with them and we will meet again.
I have met with the Ontario lumber associa-
tion, and we have met with many others.
What we are doing witii one of the recom-
mendations—I believe that it is No. 42 with
4714
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
reference to the allowable cut— whenever the
21 -year licences come up for renewal with
the major pulp and paper companies, there
is a clause which says at the end of three or
fi\'e years, depending on the condition, that
the surplus unused allowable cut may revert
to the Crown.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Maple-
doram stated that 10 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are doing it— I can
send you copies of our agreements— as the
licences come up for renewal. We told the
industries that the wood must be utilized.
If they say that it is not economic— if it is
not economic to one firm, it will be economic
to the otliers. We are doing this and we will
be doing more of this. Now, some of you—
I forget whether it is the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, or who— mentioned the lack of
growth in Ontario.
We too, are very concerned about the lack
of new mills in the province of Ontario, and
there are many reasons for this. I think that
it was mentioned that mills are going up in
British Columbia and other parts of the
province. I would like to mention first that
in Ontario we have, and have had for a
number of years, been very fortunate in
having some of the larger and very enter-
prising and confident pulp and paper com-
panies. One of the reasons why we met them
is to find out what could be done to stimu-
late the addition of existing industries. As
you gentlemen may know, there are many
problems facing the pulp and paper industry.
One is over-production in Canada at the
moment and the other is that markets are
down. However, all indications are that by
the years 1970 to 1972 there will be an in-
crease which will get larger.
In British Columbia, they are building for
various reasons, including volume. In British
Columbia the average volume per acre is
somewhere above 50 cords or cubits per acre.
In Ontario the average is about 10 or 15.
Also, Ontario has about the highest unit cost
per cubic foot in Canada. British Columbia
is also closer to the markets. The Japanese
interests are building three mills, and they
have the 12-month shipping season. However,
we are doing all we can to find ways and
means to stimulate the industries, and I am
very optimistic that we can be helpful. Mr.
Morrison— mentioned in my remarks as the
former chief of the timber branch— is in
Europe. The purpose of his being there is
to try to find out how much capital invest-
ment is available for forest industries in
Ontario and also to study markets.
We need more markets and we are ex-
panding our sales force in conjunction with
the Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall). With reference to Nipigon, to
Norply, we working on the problem of timber
supply with the three parties concerned and
as late as today the department was carrying
on discussions about this matter. The hon.
member for Thunder Bay knows that our
department had met several times during the
past months with various parties and we are
doing all we can to try to make it possible
for an interested party to establish them-
selves in Nipigon.
With reference to that matter raised about
timber for the Indian group at Lake Nipigon
area, our department is not aware of an
application for timber from this group. If
the hon. member could supply me with
the details, I will be pleased to look into it.
With reference to the Indian population, this
is an area in the forest operation where they
are most skilful. Last year, for instance, we
hired about 1,300 Indians for tree planting.
In certain parts of the province we are doing
all we can to assist them with reference to
employment in the timber industry. If the
hon. member will give me the details I will
be pleased to look into it.
There were some questions about cohoe, a
new species of fish for Ontario. What we are
doing in Ontario, as was mentioned by my
remarks, is introduce cohoe here. I believe
that this is the fifth year, and I believe that
the results have been most successful. Cohoe
have been brought in from British Columbia
and introduced into Georgian Bay and other
parts of Lake Huron. Splake has been intro-
duced into Lake Huron to compensate for
the loss of the lake trout. We are getting
very good results with both splake and cohoe.
We are working very closely with Michigan
and other states, and as a matter of fact, our
people are currently meeting in the West-
bury hotel. They have met for the last two
days with the Great Lakes fishery commission.
We are looking very closely at the intro-
duction of cohoe in Lake Michigan, but this
is a very costly programme. I believe that
the state of Michigan is spending in the
millions of dollars in building a hatchery.
Their cost for the cohoe project is as much as
the total budget for fisheries stocking in
Ontario. This is about all I have at the
moment and I am sure that I have missed
some of the comments that the members
brought to my attention, but I will be pleased
to try to answer them.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I listened with
great interest to the remarks made by my
JUNE 19, 1968
4715
young colleague from Rainy River and was
certainly impressed with the breadth and
scope with which this young man approached
the very interesting subject. This department
is one that gives a great measure of en-
thusiasm to a member, especially one who
represents a northern Ontario riding, because
this department deals with the optimium
utilization of one of our most important
natural resources.
I I have always had a private belief— and
very genuinely held by evidence brought by
the senses over the years— that one of the
chief impediments to the proper development
of the natural resources of the province has
been the fact that the natural resources are
controlled in their direction from Toronto.
There had been too many people occupying
the upper floors of high buildings in the
commercial core of Toronto who, when they
look out of their windows, can see only the
occupants of other high buildings. They lose
a sense of the broad expanse of this province,
its people, resources, and potential. The
annual report of this department, of course,
demonstrates the validity of the criticism that
to some measure obtains with The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests.
One observes with a great deal of gloom
that of the complement of the department,
something in excess of 25 per cent of the
stafiF is in Toronto out of 2,270 of the em-
ployees that are called regular. I do not
know what the word regular means— it might
mean that they are regular fellows— but I
think that it is meant to give the connotation
that they are regularly employed by the
department. Out of 2,270 of them, 581 are
situated at head office, and that depresses
me greatly.
I firmly believe that the Minister is bur-
dened by too many desk generals at head-
quarters. They have forgotten the lore of
the field, the smell of the pine. Only by
memory can they conjure up visions of the
rushing rivers and streams, and all the other
pastoral pursuits given by the wilderness that
exists over four-fifths of the land area of this
province, over which this department has
jurisdiction, which comprises quite a remark-
able percentage of the wealth of Ontario, In
all perhaps it is apropos to cite the following
—and I do not do it in any spirit of derision
at all. If you walk out of the Royal York
hotel at 9 a.m. and see union station spew-
ing forth hundreds of persons, an equal num-
ber coming out of the subway, you do not
have to be impolite, cynical or derisive to
harbour a secret thought when you look at
them going to their desk jobs, the filing cab-
inets and the computers. Reflect for just a
moment that somebody else in the province
is doing the work, the real work in the pro-
duction of its natural wealth.
Of all the departments of government— of
all of them that ought to be decentralized—
this is the prime example. This department
deals principally with northern Ontario, north
and west of the French, and that is where
the timber resources are.
There was a time in the life of this prov-
ince when the Booths, O'Briens and McLel-
lans down in the Ottawa valley looked over
the vast stretches of the white pine and said:
it will never be cut down. Then before they
knew it, they woke up one morning and it
was cut down.
You have to get a regional forester now to
take you out and show you a white pine,
south of the district of Parry Sound. But the
timber is in the north— which leads me to
interject that the other thing that bothers me
about this department, in addition to its cen-
tralization in Toronto head office— is that this
department is too engaged in the tourist
business. This department pokes its nose, to
put it bluntly, far too much into tourism.
There is too much flash in this department
concentrated on making the tourist comfort-
able. We have a Department of Tourism
and Information and this department— I say
most frankly— has no business whatsoever
being in that branch of enterprise. But it
just seems— in its publications, in the verbal
emissions that you see from this department—
that there is such a tremendous preoccupa-
tion with the natural wonderland of Ontario
and its savable characteristic to those who
visit it from abroad.
I would like to see this department- maybe
I am a minority of one in the life of this
province, if I am then I will plant my feet
firmly in the rug and stick with that position
—engrossed to the exclusion of all else in
the optimum use of our timber resources.
Preoccupied in that alone— and indeed, I
hastily add— that which goes hand in hand
with it, the conservation measures that are
necessary to perpetuate our forest resources.
The Minister might, just as a lark, send a
questionnaire around to those 2,270 and ask
them how many of them read the book, The
Coming Age of Wood, written in the early
1950's. It would be curious to see the re-
sponse, to have revealed the multiple uses
to which the forest resources can be put. In
almost everything we use or touch nowa-
days, there is wood some place in the pro-
cess. It is true that other provinces have
4716
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
outstripped us in the attraction of industry
to use our forest resources,
British Columbia is far ahead of us and
the Minister says— I can summarize what he
said in one word— it is rainfall. It is rainfall,
that is what he said in the lengthy answer he
gave my friend from Rainy River. The winds
that beat up against the coast range dump
more rain and therefore the trees grow faster
and thicker in British Columbia.
Well, at one time, of course, when they
were cutting down the white pine in Ontario,
Ontario led the way in the utilization of
forest resources. That has slipped now. Well,
how does the rainfall in British Columbia
explain Domtar's choice of le comte Abitibi
dans la belle provence comme une preference
pour Blind River? How does it explain that?
Yet they had the chance of getting Domtar
and I was told that KVP did not mind if
another company opened up the street, so to
speak, from them. In the final stages, of
course, that industry was lost to the province
of Quebec. That has nothing to do with the
rainfall in British Columbia and, certainly,
the markets for forest resources are handier
to this central province than they are to the
province beyond the mountains. So there is
a good deal unexplained. I go back to the
earher proposition that I made, that I want
very shortly, to see this department engaged
in almost total emersion— a good Baptist
phrase— in the utilization of our forest re-
sources and a putting aside of all this dis-
tracting preoccupation that is involved in
promotion of the tourist industry.
These are the greatest entertainers in the
world. These are the greatest hosts. They
outstrip the Minister of Tourism and Infor-
mation and give him his $75,000 as a head-
start to his private fund. These guys are
professionals in entertaining. Come from any
part of the world you want and they will
show you nature's wonderland of Ontario.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Why tlie
city of Montreal-
Mr. Sopha: Pardon?
Mr. White: The city of Montreal spent
more than the whole province of Ontario.
Mr. S^pha: Well, fine. They are in an-
other world. We cannot compete with them.
Mr. White: Go on, do not think that-
Mr. Sopha: For further proof, of course, 1
summon another piece of evidence to show
the attraction of America to this Minister.
My friend from Rainy River was quite right
when he spoke in the nationalistic spirit that
he did. It showed his identification with
Canada at the age of 25, and it is a matter
of great enthusiasm to me. He is right when
he complains about the patronizing of our
American friends by this department. Did
you notice the answer that the Minister gave
to my question about the sale of our sover-
eign rights-our land? Fifteen per cent of
the sales of the sovereign rights to the free-
hold that we have go to America.
Mr. White: Oh, you would cram the prov-
ince of Ontario into a tiny mould and lock
the lid.
Mr. Sopha: Fifteen per cent. What right
does any American, that we have always wel-
comed here— despite that yammering— there
is not a Canadian alive worth his salt that
has not demonstrated the utmost of courtesy
and good hospitality to his American cousin
when he comes to visit. They get along im-
mensely. But what right do they have when
they come here to piurchase from the Minister
of Lands and Forests part of the freehold of
this country and for the Minister conversely
to alienate part of the freehold to non-resi-
dents in the way he does? But it would be—
An hon. member: From the deep south!
Mr. Sopha: Where was he bom? He has
always sounded like a Yankee to me. Judging
by his intellectual contributions he would
come from south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): He is a carpet-
bagger!
Mr. White: I am from Kansas City, Mis-
souri, on the north side of the Mason-Dixon
line. I am a Canadian by choice, unlike my
friend opposite.
Mr. Sopha: Well-
Mr. MacDonald: Listening to you, we are
all from Missouri.
Mr. Sopha: —in saying that, I happen to
know throughout the middle ranges of the
administration of this department, you have
people who are convinced of the validity of
the replacement of the grant of freehold of
summer resort locations by a lease— a 25-year
lease perhaps. Long enough time for a man
to enjoy during his natural life. But, why
does not that permeate through the higher
echelons of this department to the desk of
the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: We are considering it.
JUNE 19, 1968
4717
Mr. Sopha: I am glad to hear that, that is
very encouraging. Now at this stage sup-
port to the proposition that I make that the
business of this department is the cultivation
6i our forest resoiu-ces. I think it a total
indictment that out of a budget of $48 mil-
lion that the Minister informs us that the
total amount for research in silviculture in
1966-1967 was $614,000. If there is, as the
Minister says, a momentary depression in
the forest industries; one gets the impression
from the financial pages that some of those
companies are not too well managed. When
you see the decline of their share value, the
decline of their equity, the decline of their
sale and reduction of their profits, one gets
the impression that they are not too well
managed. Apparently there is a depression
in the industry, but surely, in the long ferm,
this is but a momentary recession.
In that regard, whenever you pick up any
document written by someone who has some
5pecial knowledge in this field, concerning
the future of this industry, then you are
struck by the optimistic outlook regarding
the demands upon our forest resources.
And one that I ran across by chance is
that compendium published last year under
the editors'hip of Careless and Brown, called
"The Canadians," 1867-1967. In the article
written by Roderick Haig Brown, entitled
"The Land's Wealth," he points out that in
the next 20 years the demands upon our
forests are going to be double. How do we
meet that day? How do we prepare our-
selves for that day? By spending $600,000 in
a year on research.
The Minister says the member from Sud-
bury knows that it takes 60 to 80 years
for a black spruce to come to maturity.
Well he credits the member for Sudbury
with a good deal of knowledge, which I duly
appreciate.
Mr. Nixon: That is mostly around Kapus-
kasing.
Mr. Sopha: Yes that would be around Ka-
puskasing where—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: T^e member for Sud-
bury travels a lot.
Mr. Sopha: It is so unreahstic to suggest
that we in Ontario might be in some way
equating the affluence of people in the Scan-
dinavian countries where the utilization of
their forest resources is treated in much the
same way as farming. They actively engage
in farming of the forests, and to have been
.there and seen their forests, the well-ordered
way in which they are laid out, and then to
experience Canada, to have lived in Canada,
is to realize that one of the greatest inhibi-
tions against our development is the sense
we have of the wide expanse of land and the
multiplicity and the occurrence of resources
in gross.
We have been victimized by the size of
our resources. We have not speculated. We
have not directed our efforts to the intensi-
fication of production. We reap production of
those resources. We just assume that we
have a lot of them, and with a reasonable
amount of effort and attention that they will
always be there.
Last year I asked what was being done
in the realm of research in the fast-
growing species. I have not looked at the
answer, but I remember that it was enough
to discourage one from listening. The Minis-
ter was sitting down there at that time,
more toward the centre. If as he says— to
go back to his argument— the land does not
produce enough in a given area to make it
attractive to the location of a mill, then the
answer that would occur to a layman would
be that the increase of production on a given
amount of land would provide the raw
material.
Now the area of plywood immediately
comes to mind. My leader and I have knowl-
edge of a venture in Nipigon that failed. An
inquiry elicited the information that it failed
because of the shortage of raw material— the
handiness of raw material. Well I say to the
Minister that—
Mr. MacDonald: How about incompetent
management?
Mr. Sopha: I do not know, and I hesitate
to condemn a person.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, that was a rather
important factor.
Mr. Sopha: I would hesitate to condemn,
but I will not go into it. I could appreciate
the motivation you would have for saying
that. But I will not go into it.
Mr. MacDonald: I can appreciate your mo-
tivation for ignoring it.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I do not know, but I
have an idea why you would say that, and
the reason would be somewhat sinister.
But the Minister, I would expect, appreci-
ates these companies are not going to haul
the raw material over a large extent of ter-
ritory. They do not appear to use the rivers
4718
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to any g-eat extent, for the shipping of the
raw material. Coming by road, then becomes
a matter of economics, which is very ger-
mane to the profit picture.
So, at least one can say to the Minister
freely, without being thought to be starry-
eyed about it, that this department ought to
make the venture into the realm of fast-
growing species at a very early date.
Now, it seems to me that the Ontario
Paper Company prided itself on Manitoulin
Island that they were developing, or they
were making research into this very area. I
do not know how successful they were, but
my memory is pretty good and I recall one
of the officials of Ontario Paper telling me
that they had a hardwood that would re-
generate in something like 14 years to the
point where it might be utilized.
Notwithstanding the success they might
have had, they vacated Manitoulin Island as
being economically impractical. Which, of
course, leads to another very sensitive point.
Mr. MacDonald: Is this a second lead-off
speech?
Mr. Sopha: This bothers the member, does
it not? Every time somebody make a valid
point-
Mr. MacDonald: No, it is breaching the
rules-
Mr. Sopha: —he barks away. Well, as I
said the other night, the dog barks, but the
caravan passes by.
Mr. MacDonald: We will see.
Mr. Sopha: This department regards Mani-
toulin Island, of course, as being totally a
recreation paradise. That is the typification,
the tourist-orientation of this department.
Perhaps sometime later in the estimates— I am
not going to go into it— I will demonstrate
how the Indians have been put aside by this
department, how the farmers have been put
aside. This is the garden of Eden to this
department. Manitoulin Island must be a
tourist paradise to The Department of Lands
and Forests. As far as this department is
concerned that will be its sole industry. It
will not be anything other than a tourist
mecca.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity
to make those remarks only by way of en-
largement for my friend from Rainy River.
But to go back to where I began, I would
like to hear from the Minister a rationale why
581 of these employees at head ofiBce should
not be removed into the field. Removing
them would mean the removal of the decision-
making process close to the site. Perhaps the
ideal situation would be that the only neces-
sity for contact with head office would be
to get the approval of the Minister himself
on important matters of policy.
Everything else relevant to the depart-
ment's activity could be decided in Kenor?i
and Port Arthur and Sault Ste. Marie and
Sudbury and Cochrane and Sioux Lookout,
and then the Other places for the regional
installations. But the trouble is that when it
comes down to the head office here, the
decision is made in an environment— not of
trees and lakes and fish and wildlife and the
call of loons in the night— but in an environ-
ment where the person making the decision,
if he looks out the window at all, can see
only the Hepburn building or the Whitney
building.
He lacks entirely the intellectual environ-
ment in which to come to a decision that
collates all the relevant factors that are im-
portant in respect of decisions affecting our
natural resources.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: First may I say that
if it were left to the choice of the employees
themselves, quite a large number would
prefer to be in the field rather than at head-
quarters here. As a matter of fact, we some-
times have a little difficulty in getting some
of our key field personnel to come to Toronto.
Mr. Sopha: Send them out then.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: But I would like to say
to the hon. member that we are decentraliz-
ing the department more and more. As he
may know, we have 21 districts. The district
foresters have a lot of authority and they are
getting more. One of the recommendations
of the forestry study unit under Mr. Brodie,
is that the district forester be given more
authority.
We have two regional directors in northern
Ontario, one for nortliwestern Ontario, one
for northeastern Ontario, and one for southern
Ontario. These regional directors have a
tremendous amount of authority. But we are
doing this more and more, giving more
authority to our district officers. We have,
in addition, 4,500 seasonal employees in the
field, not including, of course, our firefighters.
Now, 80 per cent of the money that we
are discussing now, 80 per cent of our ex-
penditures are in the field.
The hon. member for Sudbury made refer-
ence to the fact we should be concentrating
more on timber, on the forest industries, and
not so much on recreation. My answer to
JUNE 19. 1968
4719
this would be that we believe in the multiple-
use concept— using our resources, our water
and land resources on a multiple-use basis.
This is our objective.
With reference to Domtar, there are some
very good reasons why Domtar located in
la belle provence instead of the Blind lliver
area. The main reason is the high percentage
of black spruce which, of course, is the
choicest tree for newsprint. Now, the Blind
River area is predominantly a pine and hard-
wood area and therefore is not as suitable for
their purposes as was the Tebion area.
I would like to mention, with reference to
Blind River, we have in the province of
Ontario five sites for future expansion and
Blind River is today receiving considerable
attention-
Mr. MacDonald: By the government, or
prospective operators?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: —receiving considerable
attention by the government in making con-
tacts. We have had many discussions within
the last year with certain companies and we
are still negotiating with these companies. As
I said earlier, at the present time there is
over-production and there is a depressed
market, which is a temporary situation. But
the Blind River area is probably one of the
most attractive areas in the province due, of
course, to the fact that it is on the Great
Lakes and accessible to the huge markets of
the northern states, Michigan, Ohio, Minne-
sota, and so forth.
So, Mr. Chairman, with reference to re-
search again, may I remind the hon. member
for Sudbury that we will be intensifying our
expenditures in research. We are, in Canada,
I believe, either the first or second province
for the amount of money spent on research.
I believe British Columbia and ourselves are
about the only provinces who are doing it.
On vote 1101:
Mr. Chairman: Before the member pro-
ceeds—he has the floor— but I would just like
to point out to the committee that there is
a separate vote, vote 1106, for research;
1107 for the timber branch. In addition to
that, if tlie members would look at vote 1110,
which is the basic organization and field ser-
vices, and which covers the major amount of
total expenditure on the research part so, on
vote 1101: the remarks on any of these other
votes could perhaps be left to those specific
votes.
Mr. Sopha: I cannot imderstand. May I
take that up with you? I just cannot under-
stand how this department lays out its esti-
mates. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to look at
page 84.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: Under the five items beginning
with fish and wikllife down to timber, you
will see millions of dollars totalling $37,302,-
000. Then if you go back and start at vote
1102 right through to vote 1107, you notice
relatively minor amounts are picked up.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, the member is quite
correct and the Chairman thought there was
going to be some difficulty in dealing with
these votes, so—
Mr. Sopha: Well, take 1103, for example,
over on page 84 in vote 1110— they have
$10,570,000. Why should they pick out a
mere $290,000 and put it there? I would
think that the provincial auditor would pro-
hibit them from doing that.
In the allocation we voted the money, and
they separated it into two separate votes. One
may go to write a cheque the provincial audi-
tor has to approve. Then they have got two
votes in which to attribute that cheque.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
is quite right and I do not know what we can
do other than to include vote 1110 with these
other—
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: May I say a word, Mr.
Chairman? Votes 1111 and 1110, as it says,
are for basic organization and field services.
The other votes, like vote 1102, fish and
wildlife branch, 1103, forest protection branch
—these are the administrative offices. But
for instance, with reference to research, this
is a special vote. The same as parks is under
vote 1105, research is vote 1106. That is
the research branch. Maybe I am to blame
and I should have reminded the chair that
really the remarks of the hon member for
Sudbury should have come under research,
as a special vote.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I did not want to in-
terrupt the member-
Mr. Sopha: Yes, but from the broad spec-
trum of the activities of this department—
surely the broad aims of this department
should be under this vote.
In that regard I have just one further
comment to make. I want to read to the
House this one paragraph from this book.
This article written by Roderick Haig Brown
—a very excellent volume entitled: "The
4720
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Canadians 1867 and 1967," under the editor-
ship of Professor Careless and R. Raith
Brown, outstanding Canadian scholars, to
contribute to this survey of our history of the
last 100 years. I do not know this Roderick
Haig Brown. One recognizes the names of a
good many of the others; for example, there
is a fellow in here by the name of Laurier
LaPierre, and also John Saywell, but it does
not tell much about who Roderick Haig
Brown is, except he comes from Campbell
River, B.C., and he has written on natural
resources. With that background I would
like to read this paragraph from his article,
entitled "The Land's Wealth."
If the Canadian forest industry is to hold
its high place in the Canadian economy
and its relative position in world markets,
it is believed that the yield of Canadian
forests must be doubled within the next
quarter century. Any such achievement
seems highly unlikely without basic forest
research on a scale not yet attempted any-
where in the country.
There is at present, for instance, little
real knowledge of forest ecology, or forest
soils, and little work has been or is being
done. There is no outstanding school of
forestry in any Canadian university.
Though schools of forestry in the univer-
sities of New Brunswick, Laval, Toronto
and British Columbia do some research,
the total research investment being shown
at the resources of tomorrow conference
was $130,000 annually, a truly pathetic
figure for an industry employing 300,000
persons with an annual payroll of $1.2
billion.
At the same conference it was pointed
out that the federal government of the
United States employs nearly 1,000 pro-
fessional research workers for 783 million
acres of forest, the United Kingdom 141
workers for four million acres, and Canada,
323 for over one billion acres.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
May the Chairman suggest: On vote 1101,
from item 4 to item 12, there are certain
specific items which have no relation to the
remaining votes. Perhaps we could deal with
vote 1101 and then take from 1102 on to
1110 specifically. Could we deal with 1101
now and then if there is anything in that
particular vote, let us get rid of it now?
Mr. MacDonald: Fine. In other words,
you are going to lump them all in one.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, if there is anything
that has been missed the Chairman will not
restrict the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: Right.
Mr. Chairman, on the main office, the one
point I wanted to raise has to do with policy
and I think it would most appropriately be
raised here. During the past year, as the
Minister knows, there has been a study com-
pleted on that rather controversial question
of shorehne, and the alienation of Lake Erie
beaches from the public domain into private
hands. This study was done by Professor
John N. Jackson of the department of geog-
raphy at Brock University. Queries were put
to the Minister shortly after the study be-
came public and he indicated that the gov-
ernment was examining it and making up its
mind.
In view of the fact that the Minister has
said nothing on it in his introductory re-
marks, I assume that they have not made
up their minds, but in the hope that they
have made up their minds, I would like to
ask him what conclusions they have reached.
When he replies, just in case he has not come
to a conclusion yet, I would like to advance
one general proposition. Without going into
the many aspects of this study which covers:
"recreational development on the Lake Erie
shore," I would like to focus attention for
the moment on the specific problem of title
to lots, and whether or not the beach is in
private hands or whether it is public domain;
in other words, whether the shoreline is up
beyond the high water or whether it is down
at the water's edge, so that the beach can
be public domain.
I would remind the Minister that the argu-
ment that has been advanced by the govern-
ment is that it cannot really move in and
reclaim for the Crown, beach which has now
been claimed as private property, because
this would involve expropriation and great
costs. But this argument really does not stand
up in light of experience. I acknowledge that
the titles vary almost as often as there are
titles, and how one can bring order out of
the infinite chaos of titles, going back to
the early part of the 19th century is admit-
tedly a difficult problem.
But the important thing is this: This gov-
ernment, back in the early 1940s, saw fit, as
I understand because of the needs of the war,
to pass an Act which in efiFect altered the law
so that the beaches became public property.
The borderline between private and public
property was up the l^ank at the high-water
JUNE 19, 1968
4721
mark— the very high-water mark. For ten
years that was the case, by a statute, by an
Act of Parliament. The government's Act,
in effect, superseded all of the titles and
said, "This is public domain."
Now after 10 years, for reasons I am not
completely aware of, the government changed
its mind and reverted to the position that
had been the case in the early 1940s. In
other words, they returned all of this public
beach to private holders. If you happened
to own property bordering on it, you could
claim the beach, even if it was a considerable
width right down to the water's edge.
The government's argument in the last
year or so has been that to take this away
from them would, in effect, be taking private
property away without compensation. Let us
look at the reverse of the argument for a
moment. Back in 1941 when the government,
in effect, deprived private holders of all the
beach, they took it away without any com-
pensation. Indeed, what happened was that
in many instances people bought property
during that decade— roughly the early 1940s
to the early 1950s— and the value of the
property was considerably appreciated by
returning to them the beach when you
changed the law in 1951. So this kind of
intervention by the Crown on behalf of the
public domain is not an imheard-of thing;
this has been done. Indeed, this Conservative
government, since its election in 1943, did it,
admittedly in a way that might cause less
public outcry. They handed public property
back to private owners.
Now that does not cause an outcry, but
for those of us whose responsibility it is to
speak on behalf of the public interests, and
the public treasury, I think that perhaps the
outcry should be coming from us. However,
I have made the point that I wanted to draw
specifically to the Minister's attention, in case
the government is still arguing that it cannot
intervene this way because it would be an
unwarranted encroachment on private rights.
I would solicit from the Minister some com-
ment as to what the present state of thinking
is of the government on the recommenda-
tions of Professor Jackson or any variation
thereof.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I am
prepared to make some comments at this
time. Really, though, this should come under
vote 1105, the parks branch. However, I
would say that it is a very complex matter.
Since 1962 we have acquired 45 miles of
waterfront property along the Great Lakes
and we have at the present time another 37
miles under consideration.
Mr. MacDonald: Some of it on Lake Erie?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: In Welland county?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right.
Also, with reference to the study to which
the hon. leader of the NDP is referring, this
departmental study of between 1,400 and
1,500 township plots in some 76 townships
fronting the Great Lakes has been completed.
A legal opinion is presently being prepared
by our department on the extent of beachland
in these townships which may be in public
ownership. The wording used in the grants
from the Crown for these lots varies in
terminology— and may I say that some of
these grants are quite old; some are over 100
years old and they vary considerably.
Approximately 40 per cent of the lots were
granted by reference to the lot and con-
cession only. About 25 per cent were granted
on the basis of description of the land, includ-
ing the lot and concession number, but in
addition they described the exterior boundary
of the lot as along such line as the water's
edge, the lake, the shore, the bank, or the
high-water mark in the front. The remaining
35 per cent of the lots were described by
various combinations of the above.
At this time it appears that the policy
which may be followed is one of acquiring
privately owned land where it is in the public
interest to do so. May I say, Mr. Chairman,
as was mentioned in my remarks— now this is
generally speaking of course— we have ac-
quired during the past year, 42 per cent more
than the previous year, and we are doing
more of this. We need to acquire more. We
are purchasing as much beachland as we
possibly can. Of course, the cost is very high.
Also during the past year, due to an
amendment in the regulations of The Muni-
cipal Parks Act, we have made it possible
now for municipalities to obtain grants under
The Municipal Parks Assistance Act for beach-
land areas without the obhgation of having
camping sites. This is for those areas along
the Great Lakes. Up until now-this was
only introduced late last fall-we have
not had many applications, but this, Mr.
Chairman, is a very complex problem and it
is quite true what the hon. member says,
that in 1940 the government of the day
amended the Act whereby it declared that
all the beaches were pubHc, and this brought
about some varied—
4722
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: In what area?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well this was general
throughout the province.
Mr. Sargent: All of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, to my knowledge.
And this brought about some very complicated
legal problems and the government felt that
it was very confiscatory in nature-
Mr. Sargent: It is a good word.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: —and therefore, in 1951
I believe, they amended the Act to revert to
its original intent.
Mr. Sargent: What year was the amend-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In 1951-but I think
the member will agree that it is a complex
matter. People who have title to their lands
and who have had this in the family for over
one hundred years, and who claim they have
ownership of the beaches— to have it taken
away would cost the government millions of
dollars. What we are doing is acquiring land
in those areas where we feel the need is for
public use— and we are making substantial
grounds.
Mr. MacDonald: I wonder if the Minister
would permit me to intervene here. There
are two aspects: First, I am sorry if this had
better come under parks but I was delib-
erately putting aside the parks aspect of it.
I recognize that this is involved; I know, for
example, that Welland county has been seek-
ing a provincial park in the controversial
area for quite some time. This would be not
just the beach, but it would take considerable
land back from the beach into the hinterland.
What I am interested in at the moment— and
this is policy and I did not think it related
to parks- is clarifying the ownership of the
beaches as such. I am intrigued by the Min-
ister saying that the government found, m
1951, that something that they had done m
1940 was confiscatory.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It was a different
government I believe.
Mr. Nixon: It took you a long time to
react.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, this is rather
strange. Let us forget for the moment who
did it in 1940. Admittedly it was the Hep-
burn government, but the interesting thing is,
if you look at the Act, you will discover that
there was no explanation given when the
bill was introduced in the House in 1951 by
this government— no explanation at all. Go
back and look at it in the records. I have had
occasion to look at it. It was introduced and
nobody know exactly what the significance of
the bill was.
As a matter of fact, I have a healthy sus-
picion, Mr. Chairman, that a few people who
had the ear of the government and influence
with the government, made representations to
have this change made and nobody knew it
was being made.
An hon. member: They would not do that.
Mr. MacDonald: Not only would they do
it— they did it. So that which was a confis-
catory act back in 1940, presumably, if the
Minister's argument is to be accepted, was
redressed in 1951. Well, it is a rather strange
way of solving a problem, because in some
instances the property had changed hands, so
you hand back to new people, a property that
they got at less value, because the beach had
been taken away. Suddenly you give them a
gift of a whole beach. From that point on,
they can claim that it is their own private
property.
This government confiscated it— let me
assert my own view Mr. Chairman— when the
government "confiscated" the beach property
in 1940 they were acting in the public in-
terest, because beach property should not, in
this fashion, be alienated from the public to
the extent that thousands just simply cannot
get to the beach at all. This is the source of
the controversy, of course.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Would you advocate it
without compensation?
Mr. MacDonald: Well you did it without
compensation. The government did it with-
out compensation in 1940. They just said
that this beach property is public property.
The person who happens to buy a cottage
lot, on the bank could, in effect, claim that
stretch— 30 or 40 yards, in some instances—
of a beach as private property, because he
got an adjoining cottage lot. This is giving
away a portion of the public domain.
My main point, Mr. Chairman— and I
repeat it, and then let the matter rest-4S
that governments have intervened one way
and the other. I suggest that the government
can intervene again, as was done back in
1940, and reclaim the beach for the Crown,
or at least make some arrangements, so that
the people, who happen to have the cottage
in the neighbouring area, are not going to
exclude all the great mass of the Canadian
JUNE 19, 1968
4723
public, and any visitors who may come from
this country, from enjoying their heritage of
the shoreline of Lake Erie or elsewhere.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): You did
say that you were acquiring land in Welland
county. Do you want to tell us about it?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure there will be many comments and ques-
tions on the park vote and I was wondering
if-
Mr. Bukator: On this parks vote, I did not
want to miss the opportunity of putting you
on the spot, because I think I am. I know
of no land that you are acquiring.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In the Welland area?
Mr. Bukator: In Welland county.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am sure you must
have heard of Effingham park.
Mr. Bukator: Effingham park is in the hin-
terland.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: You are referring to
beachland?
Mr. Bukator: You were talking about "on
Lake Erie," that was the question you were
answering—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have several areas
that we are considering in the hands of The
Department of Public Works— as you may
know, that is the department which purchases
the land— and we have some areas under very
active consideration.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could deal with
this particular aspect raised first by the
memljer for York South. I am sure that the
members will not repeat themselves when
we come to the parks branch. Now if there is
anything further on the point raised by the
member for York South, perhaps we should
pursue it now.
Mr. Bukator: I know of land along Lake
Erie, that I have spoken about in the House
on many occasions, where you could have
acquired land. I mentioned lands within the
last month, that immediately, or close to,
the parks commission land, which were ac-
quired originally back in 1885 or 1886. Some
were expropriated, many of them, to build
that lovely park system that is there now
and I can see no reason why this government
cannot continue to use that process. Espe-
cially when there is 3,300 feet of lakeshore
property just above Fort Erie which could
be acquired right now. It is for sale, it can
be bought, and I know that having said that.
It is on the record, and your people will take
another look.
These lands should bo bought up as they
are available. I say that you ought not to
expropriate these lands from people who ha\e
had them for one hundred years with the
many descriptions that the hon. Minister has
outlined, because I know— this is not a new
argument— that there are many areas that
could be acquired now. Along a certain road,
there is a golf course. I do not know how
many acres, but many, many hundreds of
feet of lakeshore property can be lx)ught
immediately.
They want to sell, your people have
looked to see if The Department of Public
Works has this and you can rest assured I
will question them also. If you people are
looking, I do not want to interfere with
the sale. Maybe we should not discuss this
so much to get it into the papers because
people will want more money. You always
have the alternative if they do not want to
sell it; you can expropriate it if they get
unreasonable. Having told us, or having men-
tioned it to this House— if you have— that
this is being looked at, 1 look with interest
to the day that you acquire the lands that
are available now.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce on the same point.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on the same
line, I agree that the member for York South
and the member for Niagara Falls have
knowledge of the need in the Lake Erie area
and the southern lakes, but I am opposed to
this confiscation policy insofar as the great
north is concerned. I would like to ask the
Minister the general policy in this area con-
cerning sale of land, lakes, islands, insofar
as your acquisition of land is concerned. We
have changing patterns in our economy, we
have tourism which is a great industry, and
a timber industry which seems to have long-
life contracts with your department— but the
tourist operator has to operate too. and I
would like to know the Minister's policy
about this: How much land do you own in
the north in the lake area and islands; how
much of Ontario do you have title to that
you can sell? If you can give me that answer
I can get to the point I am trv'ing to make.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I had
a distraction there and your last sentence-
Mr. Sargent: I would like to know, Mr.
Minister-you are in the act-you said you
4724
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have acquired 42 per cent more beachland
in the past year.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, no, all land. This
included beachland, hunting grounds and
marsh lands.
Mr. Sargent: Then the general policy is
one of acquisition and the general trend
insofar as this section of the public is quite
good within bounds. Deviating for a moment,
the idea of confiscating land without re-
muneration is completely wrong. I do not
think that is the policy now, but as long
as people have access to it, it does not matter
who owns it. As long as people have free
access to it, I would not care who owns it.
But I am asking you now— if your policy is
to acquire— how many land acres have you
now?
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the
member-
Mr. Sargent: This is a ver>' important point
to us in the north.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the Minister
has pointed out that even the original ques-
tion raised should have been brought up
under the parks branch. I would think that
the member for Grey-Bruce is straying a little
from the original point.
Mr. Sargent: I am not talking about parks,
I am talking about the acquisition of lands.
Mr. Chairman: I know, but this is a little
different from the point raised by the mem-
ber for York South, under the parks branch.
We were dealing with the specific point
raised by the member for York South which
does not really come under this vote as
pointed out by the Minister. But we will not
restrict the debate on the point the member
for Grey-Bruce raised. Now the member for
Welland South was tiying to get the floor
before on this same point.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would
like to ask the Minister what the definition
of the high-water mark is?
I know of many cases where the depart-
ment is making studies. I am thinking in
particular of Bertie town.ship where they can
buy a plan or a map and they tell you;
brown means to the water's edge and red
means to the bank, and one means to the low-
water mark. Could you give me the definition
of the high-water mark?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I wish
I could give him that definition, becau.se you
may ask as many lawyers and land surveyors
as you like and you will get different answers.
This is one of the reasons why the definition
of high-water mark is so complex. Some
claim it is the water's edge, others claim that
it is at the regular— I do not know exactly
what is meant by the high-water mark.
Mr. Haggerty: There must be some regula-
tions sometime under the Act way back. I
have a clipping here about Elco beach. This
is a problem that is going to crop up day after
day— perhaps in the near future— of tres-
passing charges and this the NDP member
was mentioning here. Mr. Ronald St. Louis,
Fort Erie, Ontario, was charged Saturday
with trespassing in connection with an in-
cident in Elco beach here on June 7. Now,
we talk about riparian rights for certain
property owners and yet here is a man who
travels the lakeshore just for a walk and he
is being charged. Has this man not any title
to that beach at all, to walk along the shore?
In many cases the solicitors will tell you that
the person who own this property had riparian
rights. This is fine, you have the Niagara
parks .system and there are many beautiful
homes built along it. Those persons have
riparian rights and yet you have a park in
front of their property the public have use
of it.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I have
one definition of high-water mark. High-
water mark will mean the level at which the
water in a navigable body of water has been
held for a period sufficient to leave a water
mark upon the bank of such a navigable
body of water.
I cannot give you an answer as to why tliis
person has been restricted from walking on
this shoreline. Unless we have court cases in
the last year, where the judge has ruled, has
not taken action on it because of the compli-
cations-
Mr. MacDonald: That is why you have got
to clarify it. It is so complicated that there is
an obligation on the Crown to bring order
out of this infinite chaos. I think there is
some validity in the judge's comment.
lion. Mr. Brunelle: I agree with the leader
of the NDP, that we should get some clarifi-
cation. I am hoping that sometime-now that
we have completed this study— within the
next year that we will have-
Mr. MacDonald: You have got to make
certain that the lawyers really do clarify it
for us laymen.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
one more question on this? What right have
JUNE 19. 1968
4725
certain property owners— if you call tlicm
property owners, in certain parks to run
strings of barbed wire out 10 to 100 feet out
into the water?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We examine each tith',
and each title varies. It would depend on
what tlieir title says. Some titles, I under-
stand, under some of the old English law,
indicate ownership up to half way out into
a river. Others say up to the water's L-dgc.
So it is very difficult to give an answer.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Surely in water, according to
law, complete access cannot be barred— you
cannot bar anyone from it. Shoreline is fed-
eral, it is federal property.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The C^reat Lakes-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: I think the Minister h;is
recognized and stated that it is a problem
he simply cannot answer in this discussion
due to the confusion. Is there anything that
can be added to that?
Mr. Bukator: Yes, on the Lake Erie prop-
erty again, the thing that my hon. friend irojii
Welland South was talking about is this.
You have a 66-foot road on the original road
down to the property. Now the people whr)
live behind on many properties on many of
the subdivisions come down on street .-nds.
This goes on all through Welland county.
Every 66-foot street is supposed to be left
open to the lake but the people may own the
property on either side, up to the low water
mark— or to a point so many feet from there.
And it happens that the banks have receded
and so they actually have the property, they
claim, out into the water.
What the people of that area do is come
down on the 66-foot street like catde to water
and then they spread out into the water.
They have been deprived by the land owners
on either side from using that lake because
they claim they own out into the lake and
the others have no business being there.
Having done that, the Frontiersmen— they
wear a uniform similar to the mounted police;
not the same colour but they look very much
like mounted police; if you see them in tlie
dark you could not tell one from the other-
are appointed by private concerns to ke(^p
the people from spreading out into the lake
after they have come to the water by that
66-foot right-of-way. What my colleague is
asking, complete with—
Mr. MacDonald: Complete widi dogs.
Mr. Bukator: Yes, complete with dof^s, ami
as a matter of fact the worst kind of dog, if
it is trained that way, is the police dog. rhese
men have Ix'en known to chase people out of
the lake because they have come down the
street and they want them to stay within that
66-foot area. They cannot spread out into
the lake.
What I say to you is, this is not a new
problem that you are wrestling with, l)ecausv*
the Minister l)efore you was accjuainted with
it. I know that you have to clean this situation
up.
The people of the province of Ontario have
a right to use that lake and if they have to l)e
channelled down a 66-foot street and then
spread out into the lake they are at least
entitled to that privilege. But there are cer-
tain land owners who will not allow it and
have this police commission, or at least these
Frontiersmen, who keep them from it because
they get paid to keep the people from get-
ting out into the water.
This is not right and never was right, aud
I say to this hon. Minister, as I have sai I
before, that there are many areas that can be
purchased. I know .some of these areas are
rock instead of sand. But the group of people
who own the old original Erie Beach Com-
pany had enough foresight to take tins rock,
dig it out and build swimming pools of nat-
ural water running through them. Again,
Erie Beach can be used that way because the
old foundations and the old l)eaches or swim-
ming pools are still there. They even had a
pumping station to filter the water.
I say that the people in your department
have not the foresight, have not the imagin-
ation, and ought to be convinced by someone.
I have tried since 1959 to persuade them to
buy that property, because I know it can be
made into a nice park. Of the people who go
to parks along the beaches, I woidd say 75
per cent of them do not go in the water any-
how. They use the picnic tables, they go to
these lovely grounds and lovely shade trees
and they watch their children pr.ddle around
in the water. I do not think it is necessary to
have sand but I do believe it is necessary to
acquire all of the land tiiat you po.ssibly can.
along these lakes and open it up to the pid)lic.
You do not have to go any further than
Florida for the solution. There, despite all
of the buildings that you have along the way,
the shores and the ocean l)elong to the people
and they use them. I do not know why we
cannot continue the same policy that the
imaginative people who were originally on
the parks commission did with the park
systems. They come along tlie water; they
4726
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
picnic from Niagara Falls to Niagara-on-the-
Lake, from Niagara Falls to Fort Erie; the
grass is maintained by the park system; they
take their children out; they have their picnic
and some of them swim.
I think you are missing the boat if you do
not acquire Erie Beach before some private
enterprise acquires it. There are a few cot-
tages there now, so for a $200,000 investment
you could acquire this property in Bertie
township. As a matter of fact I should not
be talking for Bertie now, I have Niagara
Falls to look after. My friend can look after
it, but believe me, this is a sound proposition.
For $200,000, immediately you have a
$15,000 income from the cottages. So it
woidd pay for itself.
I suggest to this Minister that the parks
commission is doing so well, and it is so close
to it, between the two of you at least you
could purchase that property and let them
take it and maintain it. As I said before, this
is all along the lake. There are paths through-
out the whole system, which is grown over
with weeds and I know concrete walks. There
are fine big trees that money cannot buy.
There are 60-some acres in that area that can
be purchased very cheaply, just a stone's
throw from Buffalo along the lake.
I know I had many of the Ministers there,
before your term in office, who looked at it
and did not have the imagination and said
this would not suffice, it was not big enough.
But I say to you that a little portion of the
land of about four acres in the village of
Chippawa, that belongs to the Hydro, along
this particular system, was made into a swim-
ming area and they even brought the sand
in. They park about 200 cars, and many
hundreds of people enjoy picnicking and
swimming in front of my home on a Sunday
and on the weekend, enjoying this beach-
that is a man-made beach.
This can be done to Erie Beach. It can be
done to that stone beach of the golf course
that I speak of, and from time to time, small
parcels of land can be purchased along the
shoreline of Lake Erie.
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that this is beside the point we were
debating? It should be discussed under the
parks branch.
Mr. Bukator: We were with Lake Erie and
I did not want to miss the continuity.
Mr. Chaimian: Well, we were talking about
the shoreline; the ownership rights and so on.
Mr. Bukator: That is right.
Mr. Chairman: We just wanted to get that
point clear.
Mr. Bukator: Let me finish; just another
minute or so.
Mr. Chairman: Oh yes, go ahead.
Mr. Bukator: About half a mile of beach
along Lake Erie has been leased by a former
Minister of Lands and Forests and has been
let out on a licence of occupation to Bertie
township who control it. That is a beautiful
sand beach there. Your people should get
together with that township, and since you
have been given that authority, to enforce it,
to charge the boats that anchor there and to
take that money and develop the beaches for
the people— the Canadian people— who ought
to be able to use those shores that they can-
not use now because the Americans have
them pretty well tied up. We who live here
cannot use those waters and it is not right.
It being 6:00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 126
ONTARIO
Hegislature of ([Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
I Frice per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
Estimates, Department of Lands and Forests, Mr. Brunelle, continued 4729
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 4757
4729
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
AND FORESTS
(Continued)
On vote 1101:
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
South.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Chairman, I want to take one moment—
I have no intention of prolonging this ques-
tion on the beaches issue; the Minister has a
diflBcult task and everybody will concede
that he has— but I would like to make this
point.
I think that to delay in coming to some
decision on this situation is intolerable, not
only for the reasons that the hon. member
for Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator) talked about
this afternoon, but for others that might be
added. The proposition of the citizenry being
herded around by police dogs and having to
go down to the beach through a 66-foot
roadway— and, incidentally, I have seen sec-
tions of that roadway where the neighbours
on either side, if you can believe it, threw
glass into the sand so that children running
over the road to go to swim would cut tlieir
feet.
This kind of undesirable situation has
many ramifications, for example, growing ten-
sion between Canadians and Americans.
When I visited the area I wondered if I was
in Vietnam, because there were signs reading
"Yanks Go Home," because of the fact that
Canadians were being denied the right to go
on the beach. I do not need to labour this
point at any great length to impress upon
the Minister that this kind of situation has
got to be resolved. Everybody is not going to
be happy when you have resolved it, but at
least you will have eased the tension of the
situation.
In short, I urge the Minister to grasp the
nettle. Postponement is not going to make
it any easier to grasp, and I would hope that
before this House meets again, to consider
Wednesday, June 19, 1968
the estimates of this department next year,
that we will have a solution. If not, I give
the Minister fair warning that we are going
to spend a lot of time on it.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Op-
position.
Mr. R, F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about
this, because the hon. member for York
South is talking about the need for a solution.
I would be most interested some time to sit
down with the Minister and the people of his
department to find some of the ramifications
about the departmental decision that re-
pealed the statute of 1940— the Minister
called it "confiscatory," or perhaps his pro-
nunciation was a bit better than mine in that
regard. But there must have been certain
studies done at the time that the government
in 1950 or 1951, decided to repeal that de-
cision, because the decision that now rests
with the Minister is surely not to return to
the 1940 legislation.
I would assume that this would not be one
of the possibilities open to him from the way
that he described the government's view ten
years later. He has, however, had a fairly
detailed study done of the chaos, as it has
been described, of the legal ramifications of
the lot boundaries, but I do not know what
alternatives are open to him.
We know that it is government policy to
spend $200 million in the acquisition of pub-
lic lands, particularly along the beaches.
Surely that would be no departure in policy.
If he is going to spend the money to acquire
beaches, then that is something that we on
this side would favour. We feel that we have
not gotten along quickly enough on that and
we can discuss it under parks.
I do not know what the alternatives are
that are available to the Minister. Passing a
statute that says, once again, that all of the
lot lines run down to the high-water mark,
or some distance out into the water, would
be one of the things he may consider. But
I would like to know what machinery the
Minister has in motion to arrive at a con-
clusion, or whether the decision now rests
4730
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with himself advising the Lieutenant-
Governor and the rest of the council.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned
earher in my remarks, we, in my department,
under the lands and surveys branch, com-
pleted the study of these 1,500 lots and now
we are getting—
Mr. Nixon: Fifteen hundred; is that all?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think it is 1,400. The
department study says between 1,400 and
1,500 lots in 76 townships fronting the Great
Lakes have been completed and a legal
opinion is now being prepared. It was men-
tioned by, I believe, the hon. member for
Welland South (Mr. Haggerty) tliat there are
areas, public road allowances, leading to
these beaches which apparently are being
declared private by the adjoining owners. In
my very humble opinion these are public
property under the jurisdiction of the town-
ship. Maybe we should give leadership in
the department to make sture that the town-
ship does not declare these pubhc areas.
This summer— in the month of August, I
guess— I, along with, I hope, my colleague in
the parks integration board, the hon. Minister
of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), the
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Connell) and
the others— we will go to these areas. Some
of my colleagues were there last summer
looking at these areas. Unfortunately I was
unable to be there at that time and I believe,
I am very optimistic, that we can work out
some solution. As the hon. leader of the
NDP has remarked, we cannot satisfy every-
one, but I think our main duty is in the
public interest to try and find some satisfac-
tory solution and I am very optimistic.
I heard the warning of the hon. member
that before the next session we will have,
using his terms, "come to grips" with this
problem and I am optimistic that we can
find some equitable solution.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise
another subject; there may be others who
who would like to continue with this one.
Mr. Chairman: On this particular point, be-
fore we proceed to vote 1101 generally.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Chairman, I do not want to put the Minister
on a spot on this. I had a chat with him for
about 20 minutes before 8 o'clock and would
like to know what action the Minister is
going to take in removing the fences that
project out into the lake?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Chairman,
the way I look at it is each individual lot is
a case of its own. Our own people have
looked at it in tlie surveys branch and now
in the legal department, and each case will
be dealt with individually. We can rest
assured that we will try and find a satisfactory
solution. I think at this time that you will
appreciate that it is very diflBcult to say just
what is the answer.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): With all
respect to the Minister who is trying to do
a very wonderful job in this department, this
does not go. He does not know the answers.
We have multi-million dollar assets tied up
here and he is asking $40 million for the
development of this department and there are
certain things we must define.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
member again that we are dealing with a
specific topic and we are not dealing with
the acquisition of lands. We are dealing with
the matter of the high-water mark and the
beaches and public ovvmership. It has been
pointed out continually that this is something
which requires urgent attention and the
Minister has indicated he is awaiting a legal
opinion on it. He has indicated that he has
been awaiting the report and in order to
clean up this point I would say to the mem-
ber that it comes under the parks branch.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to see in this
vote where you have money set aside for
land acquisition. What vote do you have
that in?
Mr. Chairman: It is not in this general
vote. It has to do with the provincial parks.
Mr. Sargent: There is nothing in parks
about land acquisition at all.
Mr. Chairman: This is where it is, vote
1110; vote 1114 is the capital, of course;
votes 1110, 1105 and 1114.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. Then the last
thing, the policy on land acquisition, the
policy of sale of all these properties, will
come under this group?
Mr. Chairman: That is right.
Mr. Sargent: Vote 1114?
Mr. Chairman: There will be no restriction
on debate on that but this is not the proper
place. We want to clean this point up first.
The leader of the Opposition.
JUNE 19, 1968
4731
Mr. Nixon: One more point.
Mr. Chairman: Right; vote 1101.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, this is another
matter of poHcy that concerns me from time
to time. I have delegations from my own
Indian reserve in the constituency of Brant
and elsewhere who bring to my attention the
diflBculties they have in abiding by the regu-
lations imposed by the Minister and the gov-
ernment concerning hunting and fishing, in
light of their treaties of old.
There have been a number of cases before
the courts. I believe my colleague from Sud-
bury (Mr. Sopha) has been active in these
over the years. But the Minister is surely
aware that his regulations appear to infringe
on the rights given to the Indians in Ontario
by their treaty, the treaty negotiations some-
times having been handed down for more
than a century. This is a continuing problem
and there have been cases in Ontario where
the stand and the policy that has been taken
by the department has been reversed by
judicial decision. There is, of course, the
complicating involvement of the federal juris-
diction as well, which has the responsibility
for seeing that the Indians* rights under the
old treaties are lived up to.
There has been, then, some continuing
diflBculty. The phrase that is frequently used
by my Indian constituents and others is that
they have hunting and fishing rights as long as
the grass grows and the wind blows, and they
feel that the infringement of these rights by
provincial regulation and provincial law is
really a matter of some seriousness. It is not
that so many of them in southern Ontario are
dependent on these sources for their liveli-
hood, but it is true, I believe, in some areas
of northern Ontario, and even in the southern
reservations they are convinced that their
rights under the federal laws are being in-
fringed on.
I would like the Minister to comment on
provincial policy in this regard, and if he
believes that it is our responsibility to live
up to these treaties, or whether the Indians
should be treated as citizens in the ordinary
sense under provincial regulation.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, in reply
to the hon. leader of the Opposition's remarks
I would say that we do honour the provisions
of the treaty. Of course, that comes under
the federal department.
I am advised, as far as the Six Nations are
concerned, at Brant, that there is no treaty
with these Indians. There is quite a problem
involved with the boundaries of these waters.
and I have had correspondence with the hon.
Mr. Laing, not in the last few weeks, but up
until a month ago. This involved my col-
league the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. A. F.
Lawrence), and again, it is a very complex
matter as to the boundaries of the waters—
and this refers mainly to northern Ontario.
I am very optimistic that we can come to
a satisfactory arrangement and, like yourself
and most of the members here, I am very
concerned about the rights of the Indians. In
my own riding I have more than 5,000
Indians, and we should do everything we
possibly can to guarantee their rights.
Mr. Nixon: In the boundary problem that
the Minister brings up, you feel that they
can be given their treaty rights as long as
they stay on their reservation boundaries. I
had understood that their rights to hunt and
fish were without regard to these boundaries
and included the lands that had been nor-
mally used by the Indians, before the coming
of the white man, for their hunting grounds.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised that not
all the treaty rights refer to the reserves. This
is what I am advised.
Can I ask this of the hon. leader of the
Opposition: Have you any other instances
that you are aware where the rights of the
Indians are being jeopardized?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the ones that
come to my attention are usually based on
cases that go to the court. The Minister has
said that the Six Nations Indians are treaty
Indians in the ordinary sense, but he is aware
of the fact that the lands that they occupy
have been contracting over the years. So
there is a legal problem here, if the boimd-
aries were associated with the original agree-
ment.
I do not know whether it is a treaty or not.
I understood that it was, that it was signed
by Governor Haldimand and that it set aside
areas for their use, but these lands have been
sold off. Whether they thought they were
selling off the hunting and fishing rights as
well— probably it never even occurred to them
during the time of the sales, in the early
1800s.
The most recent case involving my own
area was more than a year ago. Two Indians
were caught by the conservation oflBcer, or
found by the conservation oflBcer, fishing oflF
the reserve and out of season and were
charged with an oflFence under these regula-
tions. Their defence was that they had the
right to do this, as Indians, whether they
were on the reserve or oflF. They were off
4732
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the reserve probably 10 or 15 miles at the
place where they had habitually done some
fishing.
Kon. Mr. Brunelle: In tliat particular in-
stance, was the case not dealt with favour-
ably?
Mr. Nixon: Yes, it was, but it was not the
kind of a case that can be used. It was dis-
missed, I understand, under some special
circumstances— not because the magistrate de-
cided that the Indians were right and that
their treaty of 1791 permitted them to imder-
take the fishing and the hunting. It was dis-
missed on some other basis, so it was not the
kind of case that could be used as a bench
mark as far as their rights are concerned.
I suppose tliat it would take a lot of dis-
cussion with the federal authority, and yet as
I understand it, it is the provincial regulations
that are imposed in contravention of what
the Indians believe are their treaty rights, not
the federal.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the leader
of the Opposition raised this with a view to
clarifying policy. As I understand what the
Minister has said, it is provincial government
policy that these rights of Indians shall be
respected. But then he qualified it by saying
that in some instances they do not have
treaties, so you get into the question as to
whether or not they are covered by a treaty
or what area the treaty covers.
I have been most interested in listening to
and reading the discussion, of comparable
kinds of cases that have been taken to couit
in New Brunswick and British Columbia m
recent months. The unfortunate thing in
these cases is that the judge in each instance
has expressed great sympathy for the Indians
—indeed, he has gone pretty far, and in pretty
strong language, in saying that the Indians
have had their rights stolen away— but he
still ended up with a decision depriving them
of their rights under the law as it stood. It
was a legal, technical decision that he made,
and his words almost suggested that his de-
cision was in violation of the spirit of justice,
so to speak.
If that is the case, I would like to suggest
to the Minister that if government policy
definitely is that Indian rights shall be main-
tained—presumably anywhere and every-
where, "while the grass grows and the waters
flow", and all the rest of the poetry to
describe it— then perhaps the only way it can
be done is by some amendment which clearly
indicates that Indians are exempt from the
imposition of the provincial regulations. Quite
frankly, I would think this kind of action, if
this is government policy, can be taken with-
out any reference to the federal government
at all. If you are talking about provincial
regulations with regard to fishing rights, the
province surely would have the right to say
clearly in its regulations that they simply do
not apply to Indians. And that would be die
only way we could escape all the arguments
in tlie courts with their legal technicalities.
Mr. Chairman: On the same point, the
member for Grey-Bruce?
Mr. Sargent: Does he want an answer for
that?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Minister might
reply to both members at the same time.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have two
Indian reserves in my riding in Grey-Bruce,
the Chippewa and Cape Croker, and I take
it this $40,000 we are voting here is to the
Receiver-General—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: What item is that?
Mr. Sargent: Item 7, annuities and bonuses
to Indians, $40,000; vote 1101, item 7.
Mr. Chairman: Well, you can speak about
that particular item but this is a different
item than that which we are discussing.
Mr. Sargent: Well, who is running this
show? What vote are you calling here, vote
1101 or what?
Mr. Chairman: We are calling vote 1101.
I would say to the member that under vote
1101, discussion has taken place regarding
treaty rights to Indians insofar as hunting and
fishing is concerned. It is not mentioned
specifically in vote 1101 but that is the ap-
propriate vote. We will deal with this point
and then the Minister can reply and then
anything further under vote 1101 may be
discussed. Perhaps the Minister would like
to reply before we move on to another topic.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to item
7, Mr. Chairman, the vote for $40,000. This
refers to the Indians under treaty 9 and this
is the area lying north of the Albany River.
Last year, when this point was brought up,
I said that I would look into it. I am in-
formed that there are 14 treaties across Can-
ada providing for annuities which bring $4,
$5 and $6 per person, and that it is not the
policy of the federal government to renego-
tiate these specific rates. While it is realized
that the payments are minimal, they do serve
a very useful purpose. At the time of the year
JUNE 19, 1968
4733
when the Indian people gather together and
the federal representatives and the provincial
representatives meet, this is the time when
they get together. They exchange mutual
ideas and Indians make both representatives
aware of their problems.
The policy is to leave it to the treaty pro-
visions—and this comes under the federal
government, as they are— to deal with the
needs and the problems of the Indian people
through a specific programme such as devel-
opment, education and welfare. May I men-
tion that, in the province of Ontario last year,
we spent $200,000 for resources management
programmes. This comes under my good
friend the Minister of Social and Family
Services (Mr. Yaremko) and, of course, our
department which administers the natural
resources, is very closely involved. I would
like to take a second to mention to you briefly,
just what we are doing.
It may be of interest to the hon. mem-
bers, Mr. Chairman, to know that in Canada
the federal budget for this year in 1967-1968
is $137 million. On a per capital basis, this
represents per capita federal expenditures
for Indians living on reserves— including
health-of $950. While this figure of $4 and
$5 and $6 sounds very minimal, you must
remember that they are spending on a per
capita basis, $950. In Ontario we have ap-
proximately 50,000 Indians, and out of that
number, about half are treaty Indians and
half are non-treaty Indians. So this question
of defining an Indian is a very complex and
quite a legal matter.
With reference to Indians, Mr. Chairman,
last year we had 30 projects in our depart-
ment and these were in forestry, fisheries,
fur, wildlife, parks and tourist development.
For instance, in tree planting last year we
employed 1,407 Indians. Goose hunting
camps were another project. The hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury and those members familiar
widi the north country know there is a tre-
mendous geese hunting potential in the
James Bay area. Indians are the only ones
we allow to operate geese camps north of
the Albany River, and they have camps at
Port Severn, Winisk, Ottawapiskat, Kapus-
kow, Albany and Sutton River and this is
working out exceedingly well. What we are
doing this year is trying to help them more
by catering also to the fishermen. At Sutton
Lake and other areas, after the establishing,
we are having some of our own personnel
to assist and guide the Indians and after a
few years from now tliey will be on their
own.
For instance, with regard to Indian fire-
fighters, do you know that last year we hired
1,300 firefighters? My good friend from
Kenora (Mr. Bemier)— he is not here at the
moment, but I know he is very interested—
would like to know that more than $1 mil-
lion was given to the Indians for the harvest-
ing of wild rice.
In my own area, we are bringing trappers
from the James Bay area, and the Chapleau,
Gogama, White River and Sault Ste. Marie
districts. Approximately 50 families partici-
pated last year in this exercise. As you know,
the average gross income of a trapper
throughout Ontario is about $500— gross in-
come. This is what happened to these trap-
pers. The average income of these Indians
was at least $3,000, though, Mr. Chairman,
I would just like to mention that as far as
the Indians are concerned, we in The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests are doing a lot
and as the years go ahead we will be doing
a lot more.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1101. The leader
of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
suggest to the Minister that this is the second
problem that has faced him in these esti-
mates which is a very difficult one— the
problem as far as the treaties are concerned
and the problem as far as the access to the
beaches is concerned. We have in the prov-
ince, as the Minister knows, a law reform
commission of repute. Up until now they
have concerned themselves with some of the
more esoteric comers of the law, but it
would seem to me that the Minister might
ask his Cabinet colleagues to agree that this
is the sort of thing that might be referred
to the commissioners for their careful scru-
tiny and their recommendations.
Both of these matters, I feel, would very
properly go before them and the Minister
might consider it. The matter of Indian rights
has been hanging on for some time. There
are four or five cases each year, and the
courts do not seem to have the ability to
make decisions which can be binding pre-
cedents. There seems to be some difficulty in
this regard and it seems to be within the
Minister's power in the government to pass
statutes which would clarify this, if only
they could make up their own minds to see
that justice was done.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I will
take this up with my colleagues and espe-
cially the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart).
4734
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, in reading over the remarks of the
Minister of Lands and Forests, at page 9
of the remarks he says that by January of
1969 all of southern Ontario will be ehgible
under the Act for assistance, and by 1970
designated management areas in northern
Ontario will also be eligible and included in
the programme. That is sometime in 1970,
we hope. On page 22 he says:
My department has nearly completed a
study of a co-ordinated ten-year resources
management plan for road construction
and maintenance planned for northern
Ontario.
On page 25 he says:
To ensure that our parks programme
will meet the needs of the people of On-
tario we are presently collecting informa-
tion that will enable us to prepare a master
plan for outdoor recreation.
I spent considerable time in my opening re-
marks with regard to the proper use of land.
This department has demonstrated to some
extent, by the recreation and land use com-
mittees that he has set up in the various
district forest regions throughout the prov-
ince, that it has spent considerable time and
money in gathering data about the flora
and fauna and the characteristics of the
lakes, the water in them, the lake bottoms,
and the ecology of tlie area. I was just won-
dering what kind of overall plan the Minister
has for proper land use in the province of
Ontario? It would seem to be the only de-
partment in the government that is at all
concerned about the proper use of land. I
venture that The Department of Municipal
Affairs, to some extent, is responsible for
land insofar as it relates to that land around
the municipalities, for the proper assemblage
of land and the proper servicing of land.
I spoke about the relationship to The
Department of Trade and Development, in
regard to the proper location of heavy in-
dustry and complexes. I spoke about the
pollution aspects and the changing environ-
ment with regard to pollution and about the
acquisition of land for parks and beaches and
swimming areas, wildlife reserves. There does
not seem to be any department of govern-
ment that is concerning itself at all about
the proper use of land. Even the Minister
of Agriculture and Food, in his estimates,
made a passing remark about the proper use
of our arable land in southern Ontario, but he
said that our ability to grow things on much
smaller areas is better than it once was and
he did not seem to be too concerned about it.
But when one hears such eminent people
as Dr. Norman Pearson, and those qualified
in the field, who are vitally interested and
disturbed about the proper use of land. Hav-
ing regard for the climatic conditions that
this land happens to be in, and the kind of
land that it is, and the use to which it could
best be put, I think that it is incumbent upon
this Minister and the department to prevail
upon his colleagues and particularly the
Premier (Mr. Robarts) to make absolutely
certain that the best use of the land that we
have within our borders is put to the best
use for whidi it is suited.
I was wondering, in view of the brief
references that the Minister did make to
the proper use of land in his opening speech,
if he would elaborate and say if he has an
overall plan for the best use of tlie avail-
able land, having regard for those things
that it is best suited for in the province.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would commend the
member for Thunder Bay because in my
opinion, as well of that in the department,
we agree that land planning for optimum use
is of prime importance. Now, in my own
department we have done considerable work
and each district is carrying out a land use
planning study. You may have heard, for
instance, in the district of Cochrane, of the
Hoffmeyer report, which was completed three
or four years ago, by The Department of
Agriculture and Food, in conjunction with
The Department of Lands and Forests. This
is being done in every district now. It is a
major undertaking and we are working closely
with the federal government through the
Canada land inventory programme where we
are making an analysis, and maps are being
prepared of the inventory of all the resources.
A considerable amount of work is being
done, and I would like to give the assur-
ance that we have come a long way in a
relatively short period of time, in making
land plans on a very sound ecological basis.
I mentioned that each district is carrying out
this plan. However, we are making sub-
stantial progress, and in certain areas we are
getting federal assistance under the Canada
land inventory. We are working closely with
other departments such as Highways, Mines,
Tourism and Information and the Ontario
water resources commission, because all the
other departments are closely involved, and
I think that this is an area which is a most
JUNE 19, 1968
4735
important area, because it has tremendous
impact on all the province.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101? The member
for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the Min-
ister has made an extremely important state-
ment. Quite frankly, I had not been aware
that this long-neglected problem of land use
had fallen mainly as the responsibility of The
Department of Lands and Forests. I am not
complaining because somebody, I think, has
had to come to grips with the problem and it
has been neglected for far too long already.
But what I was a little curious about, as the
Minister outlines what he was doing, was the
extent to which there is a meaningful co-
ordination of the efforts of The Department
of Lands and Forests, with all the other
departments that one normally thinks about as
being involved in some decisions with respects
to land— departments such as Agriculture.
Is this a new interdepartmental committee,
which is going to work closely with the
Cabinet to get the necessary co-ordination?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, as you
know, the Prime Minister, about two or so
years ago, made his design for development.
The main body and the other bodies work
under this main body.
Mr. MacDonald: The design for develop-
ment, as I understood it was for the eco-
nomic development for the province, and to
try to get a more equitable distribution of
economic development. Now, I would agree
that that would involve land use. Is the
Minister in effect saying, that one of the
government moves within the framework of
the design for development is an assessment
of land use for the whole province and that
aspect of it is being tackled by The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests? This is what you
are, in fact, saying. I missed the significance
of this important task being tackled in your
department. Maybe I have been asleep.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, my
friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food
is responsible for ARDA. ARDA is the one
under this Canada land inventory. The
Canada land inventory is the main body carry-
ing out this land inventory assessment and
capability of all the land resources in the
province, both land and water.
Our own Department of Lands and Forests
in each district— as you know we have 21
districts and cover the entire province— is
carrying out this work in conjunction with
the ARDA programme and we are under
ARDA. I believe Mr. Fred Ward, who used
to be with Lands and Forests, is now working
under the ARDA programme of the hon.
Minister of Agriculture and Food, There is
a tremendous amount of work that has been
done so far and I think that some time,
maybe, we should make the House aware oi
just what has been done.
Mr. MacDonald: I certainly would ap-
preciate that being done because we all
agree that it is an extremely important ques-
tion. But I must confess that the Minister has
begun to arouse my fears again. If the ARDA
aspect is being carried on in The Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Food, it seems to
me, if I understand correctly what you are
saying, that this is an extremely important
aspect of it, and yet you are out doing an-
other aspect of the problem. There appears
to be too many cooks, and the broth may get
spoiled in the process.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, in our
department naturally we do the forest aspect,
but for the overall agricultural picture, may
I ask my colleague, the hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Food, if he would comment
on the ARDA feature?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture
and Food): Mr. Chairman, briefly, the Canada
land inventory is the responsibility of federal
ARDA. It is paid for by the federal govern-
ment through ARDA. The administration
falls within the administration of the various
provincial ARDA administrations. The Canada
land inventory that applies to the vast areas
of this province that are not directly related
to agriculture falls within the jurisdiction of
The Department of Lands and Forests. The
department is a member of the ARDA direc-
torate of the province of Ontario. This is the
way it is being done. The Canada land in-
ventory will be completed within the next
year or two, if I am not mistaken. I believe
the target is within the next 18 months. Parts
of it already are completed. But this is the
way it is being carried out.
It is a federal responsibility. I should not
say it is entirely a federal responsibility-the
provinces are all co-ordinating, they are
doing the job but federal ARDA is paying
for it— and the way it is administered within
the provinces is as I have described.
Mr. MacDonald: But that portion of the
problem that falls to The Department of
Lands and Forests will be an assessment of
non-agricultural land, am I right?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Right.
4736
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The recreation, the
forests—
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I would not say that
entirely, sir, because there are areas where
we have a blending of non-agricultural land,
as well as agricultural land. Up to the north
and east, and north central Ontario, you have
extensive operations of The Department of
Lands and Forests— and rightly so— but inter-
spersed within that area are sizeable pockets
of good agricultural land.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the
Minister that this is completely inadequate,
because you have tlie federal ARDA pro-
gramme responsible for a land inventory.
They are paying the shot for the inventory
and the survey that has been taken in all
provinces in Canada.
What I suggested earlier was somebody
under some committee set up under the aegis
of The Department of Lands and Forests,
because obviously they are the only depart-
ment in this government that seems to be
doing anything in a planning way with regard
to proper land use in the province. So I
would suggest to the Minister that an inter-
departmental committee be set up— Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests, Department of
Agriculture and Food, Trade and Develop-
ment, Tourism and Information— any depart-
ment of this government that is in any way
concerned about, or responsible for the proper
use of land.
It should be a co-ordinated effort, so that
while The Department of Lands and Forests
is acquiring land on a beach someplace, The
Department of Trade and Development is
not subsidizing an industry that is going to
make that beach completely useless for rec-
reation use. I do not see how this govern-
ment can attack the problem of proper land
use in a piecemeal way. I think that one
hand has to know what the other hand is
doing.
It seems to me that the only v/ay that you
are going to be able to do this is by an
interdepartmental committee whose respon-
sibility it is to make a complete inventory-
assess what particular land is best suited for
what purpose and have an overall plan based
on decisions made by this committee. I
think that is the only reasonable way that
you are going to make the best use of the
land available.
We have all kinds of land in northern
Ontario— certainly it is not suited to agri-
culture, but it is suited to recreation; it is
suited to the forest industry. At the same
time, down in southern Ontario, we have
about a 50-mile-wide stretch running from,
say, Windsor over to Cornwall, that is the
only arable land that we have in the province
of Ontario. It has been eroded because of
pipelines, because of transmission lines, be-
cause of highways, because of urban sprawl.
It is not going to be too long, if this keeps
up, before you have no arable land at all in
the province of Ontario. You are going to be
importing all of your fresh produce from out-
side our borders. Unless you make a deci-
sion now that you are going to set aside for
agriculture the kind of land that is best suited
to that use, and the kind of land that is best
suited to recreation, separated from industry,
so that one does not conflict with the other,
unless you come up with a plan for proper
land use along those lines— I think that you
are just going at it in a piecemeal basis— you
are not going to achieve anything. It is
going to be complete chaos.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Briefly, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to say, to the hon. member's
concern there is some misunderstanding. In
this plan that the hon. Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food said is just about completed
there has been very close co-ordination. We
have received federal assistance through
ARDA and this plan takes in the Georgian
Bay and north Georgian Bay recreational
area. That report has been completed— the
study has been completed and the report will
be available some time this fall.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, no.
Mr. Sargent: You have not paid your bills.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle. There has been very
close co-ordination and I, Mr. Chairman,
sometime in tlie future, would like to get
the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food
to inform the House of the progress, because
this is just about completed. There has been
some of the closest co-ordination between all
departments and the work is just about
completed.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101, the member for
Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to compliment the Minister
on his presentation thus far and his replies to
our opening remarks. It is something like
sparring witli one of these punching bags,
Mr. Chairman. We make a statement and
you agree and the bag keeps coming back
JUNE 19, 1968
4737
; to US. We can't get at you, you are just like
a sponge.
I say, "You are not doing enough in
I research." You say, "Yes, we are. Isn't that
too bad?" I say, "You are not doing enough
in the timber inspection." You say, "Yes, we
are," and the discussion really gets nowhere.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): A very agree-
able fellow.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to talk and
rebut some of those arguments you made
about the fishing licences, but perhaps we
could wait until the next vote.
I would like to ask about item 4 under
this vote: public information and education.
Does this cover the weekly news bulletin
that the department—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: All publications.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is included in that.
The grant to the Ontario forestry associa-
tion of $12,500, does that include any re-
search or is that strictly for administrative—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, this grant under
item 10, Mr. Chairman, is an annual grant.
The Ontario forestiy association is a very
dedicated group and—
Mr. T. P. Reid: What do they do?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is a very good
question. This is what they do.
Their purpose is the promotion of the
sound land use and full development of the
Ontario forest resources. Here are some of
their programmes.
For instance, forest fire prevention. They
have lecture tours, promotion of the Smokey
Bear programmes. I am sure you are all
familiar with the Smokey Bear programmes.
They have slides, films— an excellent film
—the Premier was shown last February at
the annual meeting. This is, I believe, a 14.5
minute film in colour showing the junior
ranger programme— a junior ranger is from
the ages of 12 to 15, I beheve.
They also promote good outdoor manners.
Many of you are familiar with "Litter Pick-
ing Pete" to encourage the cleanliness of our
parks and outdoor recreation areas.
The resource rangers, as I have just men-
tioned, is for boys between the ages of 10
and 16 years of age. This programme now
boasts 15 clubs cross the province. The On-
tario forestry association sponsored the tree
farms movement, aimed at encouraging wood-
lot management.
Conservation schools: They encourage
these programmes within the school classes
and these are held throughout Ontario.
Schools at Drydcn, Marathon and Espanola
have been aided by the association.
Last year the president was Mr. Mackey,
former chief of the forest protection branci.
They are a very very dedicated group. Most
of their funds come from the association and
from industry, and I believe our grant of
$10,000-is it $10,000 or $12,000?-represents
only maybe 14 per cent of their budget.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I do not disagree with this,
and I think this is very worthwhile.
Would this not be more properly the job
of The Department of Lands and Forests,
rather than the—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Look at the tremendous
work that they are doing, and our contribu-
tion is $10,000. It is a voluntary group, and
I think-
Mr. T. P. Reid: The department carries
out related—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right.
Mr. Chairman: Vote llOl.
Mr. T. P. Reid: One other thing. I would
like to ask the Minister if he would like to
discuss the provincial land tax imder this
vote, or under some other vote.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Under this vote, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I just have a few remarks
that I would like to make in regard to this.
I would like to suggest to the Minister
that he give very serious consideration to
remo\'ing the provincial land tax on com-
munity arenas, community centres, and
sporting facilities that communities in unor-
ganized districts maintain. I realize the
tax is not overly much in relation to ordinary
land tax, or real estate tax; still, for some of
these communities in unorganized territories,
the charges can be burdensome.
I would also suggest that this tax be re-
moved or at least lowered in the case of the
provincial land tax in unorganized areas in
regard to farming lands, especially those farm
lands in depressed areas.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, witli
reference to the provincial land tax I can
appreciate the hon. member's comments be-
4738
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cause my own area is largely under the pro-
vincial land tax. May I say that this tax has
been constant for the last 15 years, and there
has been no increase; it is 1.5 per cent of the
assessment, and it is presently under review.
With reference to The Community Centres
Act, it is a very good recommendation, and
we hope that next year that this will apply.
Mr. T. P. Raid: Are you going to bring in
legislation—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would say we will
bring in legislation to bring this about.
Also, I would like to mention that, as you
know, in the unorganized areas at the present
time they have a provincial tax bill, a local
roads board bill, a school bill, and The De-
partment of Municipal Affairs have district
assessors, and it is just a matter of time until
they have district assessments. In this future
age, also, we hope that there will be only
one tax bill. So there is quite a lot of work
put in on this.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101, the member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I know this
will grab the Prime Minister, but if I were in
the hotel business in Toronto, I would be up
in arms about the fact that all through these
estimates we see, "Westbury hotel, X thous-
ands of dollars". What kind of a deal have
they got with the government that they get
all the business? I mean, are there not other
hotels that we can do business with? I see
an item here— $9,000 in this one section.
There will probably be a lot more as we go
on, but do you not have any sense of spread-
ing the business around, or what goes on?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I can
see the hon. member's point. Let me give
you an example of what happened this eve-
ning. The Great Lakes fisheries commission
are holding their annual meeting at the
present time at the Westbury hotel. I left
here at 6 o'clock. I walked over there. I was
there at ten to six. I met with these people—
An hon. member: How did you do that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, I walked. It was
good exercise. The Minister of Health (Mr.
Dymond) recommends wallcing. The food was
excellent, the service was good and I walked
back, and I was here at 7.30. It is a matter
of convenience.
There are other hotels that we are locating.
Some we located only in the past year. We
have held some of our functions there, and
we—
Mr. Sargent: But they are taxpayers too.
You have got a 65 cent cab ride—
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: It is a good suggestion
and we will certainly take it into consider-
ation.
Mr. Sargent: I do not think you will. I just
think it is a real big family compact. You
have an item of $150,000 for data processing
services. This is part of the overall deal in
the government. How long is the term of the
lease with the data processing or the com-
puter?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: How long is the lease?
We are working, as you know, in the com-
puter age. Everything is being automated
and it is a more eflBcient—
Mr. Sargent: I did not know that—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Data processing comes
under the Treasurer's departemnt. We are
paying our share of the work that comes
under Lands and Forests, and this amount
of money represents our share under the
Provincial Treasurer's department,
Mr. Sargent: That is the portion of the cost
of the computerizing.
All through your vote, you have possibly
$65,000 to $75,000 or maybe $100,000 worth
of charges to Office Overload and other out-
side employment services. Do you not have
the continuity, or is this all seasonal?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would like to say that
I guess we are making less and less use of
Office Overload. This year for the first time
I believe we are using the civil service de-
partment, and this will be a tremendous
saving. This comes under the Provincial
Secretary.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101, the member for
Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: On the item about the
advisory committee to the Minister, probably
in incidental expenses No. 9, who are they,
what do they do and was it they who recom-
mended a fishing licence?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, Mr. Chairman, I
would say that they are a very able group.
They are composed of industry and labour.
For instance, I will name you the members:
Mr. T. Boyles, executive vice-president of
the Bank of Canada, and he represents, of
course, the banking industry; labour is repre-
JUNE 19, 1968
4739
sented by. Mr. Andy Cooper, and I believe
he was the president of the international
union of carpenters and joiners; Mr. Gordon
Godwin represents the pulp and paper indus-
try, and he is the executive vice-president of
Ontario Paper Company; Mr. Gavin Hender-
son, executive director, national and provin-
cial parks association; Mr. Wes McNut, presi-
dent, William Niel and Sons Limited,
representing the sawmill industry; Mr. Ted
Perry, president of the Ontario mining asso-
ciation, and of course The Department of
Mines is closely involved and closely allied
to our department with reference to land
matters; then the chairman is Dean Sisam,
dean of the faculty of forestry at the Uni-
versity of Toronto; Dr. Don Longmore from
Sudbury, the new president of the Ontario
federation of anglers and hunters. These are
the members of the advisory committee. We
meet periodically. I would say that lately it
seems that we meet on an average of at least
once a month.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Are they paid a salary?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, they are paid no
salary. They are paid $25 a day for ex-
penses, and they make substantial contribu-
tions to the department.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101, the member for
Prince Edward-Lennox.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
This afternoon, I listened with a great deal
of interest to the remarks that were made
by the hon. member for Sudbury, in which
he suggested that Lands and Forests be con-
fined to timber rights and matters of that
nature in northern Ontario. I have reason to
disagree with him very much.
Mr. Sargent: He is not here to defend
himself.
Mr. Whitney: Well, it does not matter,
he will defend himself tomorrow or the next
day. But 1 would simply say this, that
when I was newly elected as a member in
1951, I had people from my riding who
criticized the government for the fact that
they could not get their gasoline tax rebates
paid back quickly. T^his is apart from the
subject, but on one occasion I went in to
the office that looked after that particular
feature and I discovered that they were
doing the best job they could and that the
department could not fire and rehire people
to do the job only at the time when the rush
was on.
This same situation is absolutely apparent
here, in that the stafiF of The Department of
Lands and Forests has to be almost, we
would say, ambidextrous. It has to be able
to take care of a great many things and if
it was confined, as the member for Sudbury
suggested, to the timber matters alone, or
this alone, or that alone, well, I do not thiiik
that would be the proper practice or any-
thing of the kind. I want to say without
equivocation of any kind that to my mind
the various fields in which The Department
of Lands and Forests is active, the parks,
conservation, commercial fishermen, forestry,
timber business-
Mr. Nixon: Wolves.
Mr. Whitney: Not wolves. They are on
your side of the House. But nevertheless we
did trap one the other day and we named
him "Monsieur Trudeau." That was just a
local matter. We did not try to explain it
or anything hke that. But that was the
name he had and I am telling you he stood
that high. But he was a dead duck when
it ended.
I just want to take issue with the remarks
that were made by the member for Sudbury
this afternoon, who suggested that this great
department should only confine itself to
northern Ontario. My point is simply that
this dedicated staJEF of this great department
is able to do so many things, in helping our
junior forest rangers, in looking after con-
servation measures, parks, commercial fisher-
men, tourist operators, all those things; the
officials in this department are among the
most dedicated officials there are, and you
can find them in any section of the province
doing various work at different times. We
need to utilize the talents, the education and
the ability of these people to tiie utmost. As
far as saying that they should serve northern
Ontario alone, I say that is a fallacy. They
should serve all of Ontario and I think we
all should appreciate the great services they
do.
Vote 1101 agreed to.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, on 1101—
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1101 was carried.
Mr. Stokes: You were not even looking up.
I was standing here when you had your
head down.
An hon. member: He was on his feet.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I certainly did not
see the member on his feet.
4740
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Stokes: You were not looking, I was
standing up.
Mr. Chairman: If the member was on his
feet, all right. On vote 1101:
Mr. Stokes: I want some advice as to
whether or not the restricted areas, the closed
areas with regard to this survey that we
spoke of earlier, come under this vote or
under another vote?
Hon. Mr. Bioinclle: Mr. Chairman, the
member is probably referring to recreational
zoning committees? No, this would come
under the lands branch, vote 1104.
Mr. Stokes: I just want to ask one short
question with regard to the item for public
information and education. I was wondering
if tlie letterheads— they are very beautiful,
diey are by far tlie most attractive of any
department of government— are much more
expensive than the plain, ordinary letterhead?
Would there be any prices on them? It is
four or five colours and I was just wondering
what the additional cost would be?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised, Mr.
Chairman, that the original cover plate cost
$100. This is the initial cost and the addi-
tional cost is just the same as ordinary paper.
Vote 1101 agreed to.
On vote 1102:
Mr. Chairman: I must point out that vote
1102, fish and wildlife branch, also has $6
million in vote 1110. The member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Minister will probably
not be surprised to hear my next few remarks
concerning the resident fishing hcence that he
has proposed. I do not propose to repeat all
of the remarks that I made earlier this after-
noon, but I would like to reply to a few of
the remarks that the Minister made in re-
buttal to the remarks that I made.
I think, first of all, that the Minister did
not prove this afternoon that he had any real
valid reason for imposing a resident fishing
licence on the people of Ontario. He sug-
gested that if we were to raise the fishing
licence of the non-resident in this province
that we would perhaps drive some of the
tourist trade away. I reiterate that the prov-
ince of Quebec has a non-resident fishing
hcence of $15.50 and British Columbia has
one of $10. Surely these are two of the prov-
inces of Canada that enjoy a large tourist
trade also. I do not think the Minister would
suggest that they do less than Ontario be-
cause they have a slightly higher fishing
licence.
Again, I do not accept the theory that the
Minister once more espoused, that the users
of the resources should have to pay for them
entirely. Again, I refer the Minister to the
remarks made by Mr. Hadder in his speech
on wildhfe budgeting. The Minister this
afternoon did not reply or did not mention
the fact that he was going to give any par-
ticular consideration to tlie senior citizens of
this province. I hope that at the end of my
remarks he will rise and state that he is going
to give the old age pensioners of this prov-
ince a break and tliat they will not be re-
quired to pay for a resident fishing licence.
I would like to say a few words at this
time— and I am sure the hon. member oppo-
site who just spoke recently might be very
interested in this particular subject— on item
9 on payments of wolf bounty. We have
been going over this, year after year, year
in, year out; the arguments have been made
on both sides, but I think it is worthwhile at
this time to repeat some of the comments
made by the hon. member for Algoma-Mani-
touhn (Mr. Farquhar) in his critique of this
department last year. He said that where
the wolf is a menace he should be eradicated,
or certainly driven into those parts of the
province where he will not be a menace to
sheep farmers or to wildlife.
The theory that we should completely
destroy the wolf, I think, is an abominable
thought and horrible to behold. We have
already lost a great deal of our natural wild-
hfe in this country. We have already eradi-
cated the plains wolf and I think it would be
a great injustice to the people who will
follow us to do away completely with the
wolves. So I would suggest to the Minister
that his department adopt a policy of eradi-
cating the wolves where they present a
menace to livestock or a great menace to the
wildlife, mainly deer, but that in other cases
the wolves be allowed to go their way as
other wildlife is.
I would like to bring to the Minister's
attention a practice where we allow tlie
American resident to come into Ontario and
purchase a $5.25 wolf Hcence. We allow
him to get into an aircraft, or in some cases
a converted snowmobile, from what I can
gather, and allow him to hunt wolves in this
province for the princely sum of $5.25. Then
we turn around and pay him a $25 wolf
bounty. I believe again that my hon. friend
from Algoma-Manitoulin mentioned in years
gone by that this wolf bounty should be
JUNE 19, 1968
4741
restricted to those trappers and Indians who
make their Hving trapping or who make their
hving off the land, and that all others be
excluded from collecting this wolf bounty.
I would say at this point, especially Ameri-
cans, If they want to come up here and hunt
wolves as a sport, perhaps they should be
allowed to, but I do not think that they
should benefit at the expense of the Ontario
taxpayer.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, witli
reference to the anghng licence, I think it has
been made very clear to us that we have
tliis choice: If there is no angling licence,
then we carmot spend the money. The reason
why we are spending $9.3 million this year
was because we informed the Treasury that
we hopefully could introduce an angling
licence. So therefore, if we do not introduce
an angling licence I would say that we cer-
tainly do the things that we should be doing.
Mr. T. P. Reid: So is the Treasury board.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Treasury board,
in their wisdom and the government in their
wisdom. Alberta has a $3 anghng licence.
Maybe you did not know that. British
Columbia, by January 1 next year, will have
an angling licence of $3.25. The province of
Quebec is in the process of raising its angling
licence; it is not doing it now, but it will
before the end of the year. So therefore, by
January, British Columbia will have tlie
highest angling licence in the country and
there are others following suit.
I met with the representative of Minnesota
about three weeks ago and he said, "You are
going through the same process that we went
through several years ago. There was a
tremendous uproar when we introduced an
angling licence and they resent it." So do I.
I do not like taxation and no one likes taxa-
tion, but I think you have to admit that if
you want to spend the money that should be
spent, you have got to raise the money and
I do not think it is fair that the money should
come from the public. Therefore, we have to
find the money through other sources— either
raise the sales tax or raise the highways-
gasoline tax. We have got to find the money
some place.
Mr. Sargent: Hit the big boys instead of
the little fellow.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Hit the big boys.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That will come under
timber. So therefore, that is our position, and
you know in my riding-
Mr. Sargent: Pretty good one,
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In my riding I received
one letter against an angling lience, and I am
surprised to see that the Opposition in certain
areas, and I have a suspicion-
Mr. Sargent: You are prejudiced, that is
why.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have a suspicion that
this was raised. There have been ads in the
paper saying, "Write to your member," or
"Write to the Minister." I have a suspicion
that it only takes one or two persons to really
create quite a controversy. At the moment
most people accept this, if they can see that
the money will be spent for the purposes that
we say. We will spend this money; we are
doing it now. We are going to increase our
hatcheries. We are going to increase our
surveys. We need to do this, and I am sure
you will agree that ten years from now, if
we did not do these things, you would criti-
cize us for not having done the things that
we should be doing now.
With reference to the wolf policy, you know
what our wolf policy is, I think we agree on
this. Our policy is this: Where the wolves
do not create any harm, we leave them alone;
in those areas where they are causing destruc-
tion to domestic animals and other animals,
we remove them. We have these predator
control ofiBcers, and if in your area you have
problems, if some of your farmers have prob-
lems, please ask them to get in touch with
the district office and I can promise you that
they will do everything they can to trap and
remove those wolves.
Mr. Sopha: Is there somebody against
wolves over here?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. T. P. Reid: Could I?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I am certainly glad to see
that we finally got a rise out of the Minister
on something here. I hate to drag out this
discussion but I cannot agree with you, sir.
I really cannot. I feel very strongly, espe-
cially coming from the northern part of the
province. You can stand there and say the
money we raise is going to be used for our
programmes this year, but I repeat that there
is nothing this government has said time
and again that changes the fact that this
4742
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
money goes into a consolidated revenue fund.
Certainly you are going to get a grant this
year, or you have got a budget this year for
the programmes that you want, but next year
you are going to have to go before Treasury
board again. Apparently they are not very
interested in The Department of Lands and
Forests or you v^^ould not have such a small
budget.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Our budget this year
is close to $60 million, and you call this a
small budget?
Mr. T. P. Reid: In comparison to the rev-
enues that this department raises and the
money that should be being spent on the
timber branch and in research, yes, I say it
is a small amount, a very small amount.
The Minister said we have to do this, tiiis
and this or in ten years or 20 years we will
be criticizing him for the work that was not
done. But the Minister said this afternoon
that his department was not doing enough in
regards to research and in regards to regen-
eration and silviculture.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We should be doing
more.
Mr. T. P. Reid: So, in other words, you
should have more money—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Exactly.
Mr. T. P. Reid: You are arguing both sides
of the fence. You say you are spending all
this money and then you are saying, "Well,
we are not doing enough because we have
not got enough money." You cannot have it
both ways.
Mr. Whitney: Which department would
you take it from?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I repeat to the Minister,
the Minister tried to suggest that this was
sort of an Opposition ploy that some of us
had received two or three letters and we
were blowing this thing up. I say to the
Minister, he is wrong, very wrong. When I
go up to my constituency, what people are
complaining about is the fishing licence, and
I must admit, in a large number of cases, it
is not $3 that they are worried about. It is
the principle of the thing. It is the very last
thing we have in this province that is not
taxed— except the fresh air, what is left of it,
and I am sure the government will get around
to that.
This is our heritage, especially for us
people in the north who are brought up on
the lakes and in the woods. Now when I go
out fishing I have to have a little piece of
paper in my pocket from the Minister of
Lands and Forests saying that after you have
paid your $3, now you have the privilege of
fishing— what I have been doing for 25 years
and my father and his father before him and
so on. That is the thing that gets us, Mr.
Chairman.
I say to the Minister the paltry sum of $3
that you are raising per person does not
come to any more than a total at the utmost
of $5 million added revenue; and that is
high, I would suggest not more than $3.5
million. Try raising the non-resident fishing
licence. These are the people who are, in
the large case, getting the benefit from any
of these things. Certainly where I come
from, we have, if not the greatest fishing in
the world, it is adequate at the moment,
so if we use the Minister's philosophy that
the users of the resource should pay for it,
surely those guests and tourists into our prov-
ince are the ones who should be paying the
majority of the cost.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Prince
Edward.
Mr. Whitney: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Sopha: You are not serious.
Mr. Whitney: No. Mr. Chairman, I only
wish to speak about wolves and coyotes be-
cause I had a few remarks earlier and it is
only in that regard I wish to speak. However,
I do want to congratulate the hon. member
for Rainy River on his remarks this afternoon
and this evening. I think that he is doing a
very capable job, and I do not want to argue
with him too much. However, I do want to
say in regard to wolf protection that there is
a great deal of misunderstanding among a
great many people as to which are wolves
and which are coyotes. I imagine that over
there you have your share as elsev^here. But
I was going to say that 12 or 15 years ago
the coyote was not known down in the area
in which I live.
Mr. Sopha: It is a Tory province.
Mr. Whitney: No, you drove them. Other-
wise how can we have an election? Well,
you are fortunate that you have your sulphur
dioxide; maybe you should have carbon diox-
ide also.
However, I do want to say that these
animals that originated on the prairies have
spread all around the states and into Ontario
and they are a definite menace to livestock.
I have had sheep killed and lambs killed.
JUNE 19, 1968
4743
My lamb count is down this year. I am not
trying to eliminate them myself, but when
people get up and defend the wolves, some-
times people assume that they are talking
about coyotes which are entirely different
from timber wolves. I know nothing about
the latter. I speak to the hon. member for
Sudbury on this— you talk about helpless ani-
mals being tracked down. You could put all
your helicopters, all your hunters, and every
means at your disposal at the present time,
and I would say that you could not eliminate
the coyotes in Prince Edward country, which
is a habitat in which they are not natural.
[; You could not do it.
There are gangs of them around. Lands
and Forests deserves credit for what it has
tried to do. They have taken their recordings
—the howler, they call it— and they have had
replies to the records of their howls time
after time. They help trap and they have
done a great many things. Just as a result of
their trapping we managed to trap and shoot
a coyote on my farm about two weeks ago.
But that is just one. There are many more,
and when you people talk about defending
the coyote or the wolf you are barking up
the wrong tree because there is nothing that
you can do to eliminate them.
We are not out to eliminate any species,
but we know what we are suffering from.
We know that bounties are being paid by
'i our municipalities and we can find efforts
P being made. I am telling you this much. I
do not want to be associated with it as a
matter of personal profit, because I was con-
cerned whenever in my township I have had
a loss. It has been very generous in regard
to dogs, because the coyote is part dog, and
these coyotes are inbreeding with dogs, espe-
cially the German shepherd.
Nevertheless, the point that I have to make
is that you should give Lands and Forests
a little bit of credit for the job that they are
doing for a change and not find fault with
what they are doing. They appreciate this
problem. They are not out to eliminate the
timber wolf from around Sudbury. I am
telling you that it will never be eliminated
while Elmer Sopha is here, we know that.
I would say give these people help to eradi-
cate this animal, this crossbred, that has
come to an environment that is not his natural
habitat. He spread from the prairies to the
southern states, and into Canada and here
attacks the one product of livestock in which
we are not in competition with anybody.
Ontario lamb is a premium product which
one can hardly obtain, but these coyotes are
one of the animals that is making it this way.
because people will not produce Ontario
lamb. It is one of the choicest products that
there is. I am not advertising it to you be-
cause I can sell it without praising it to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this
opportunity to talk about the wolves, or the
coyotes, that we have had.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to add my voice for the people of my part of
Ontario against the fishing licences. You
know that in this vote we are spending $1
million under the fish and wildlife branch
and under lands and surveys we are spending
$1.6 million. This pretty well is the yardstick
of the department's approach to fish and
wildlife.
For instance, the Minister says that he
never had much correspondence from his
people on the licence fee. I have a bunch
of cartoons that I received in the mail. All
our people in conservation and game and
fishing clubs are up in arms about it. Some
of these are very interesting and I will send
them over to the Minister afterwards. Here is
one of a cartoon of a provincial park. It is
$10 to enter, $2.50 per night, no electricity,
fishing licences sold here, and it says, "Well,
I can understand why taxes keep going up,
to pay for the government departments.
Robarts cannot even make a profit on free
land. He charged campers $5 to see it, and
$1.50 to sleep on it, and now it is $10 to
see and $2.50 to sleep on. What an economi.st!
And now a fishing licence too."
Another big cartoon of a provincial park;
$10 to get in, $2.50 a night if you stay, no
electricity, use flashlights. The caption says,
"Sure the land belongs to the people of
Ontario, but Robarts wants to stop inflation.
People should be soaked if they will not
stay at home." The other man says, "Ontario
is a place to stand all right. A family cannot
afford $27.50 to He down in the bush for a
week! A fishing licence also!"
Here is a cartoon of an outhouse, and it
says in the park, "Ontario provincial parks
for your convenience." And the man says,
"I gues that Robarts forgot that provincial
parks have not got flush toilets, washrooms,
showers, laundry rooms, or even cookhouses,
yet he does not have to raise the rate for
the great service that he gives to campers.
I would hke to see John pay $27.50 for
washing and shaving in cold water. TJie
garbage is collected once a day, and I
wonder what the charge will be if the govern-
ment had to buy the land? And now the
fishing licence too?"
4744
ONTARO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pinpoint
the scandalous charge of $3 for the right to
fish in our streams. It is the last thing in
our lives that we thought that we would be
charged for. I think that it is very chicken
of the government to soak the little guy for
that last thing that was left to him.
In the multi-millions of our resources, in
the timlier rights in the province, there have
been a lot of inside deals. Millions are going
down the drain that should be going to the
taxpayer. Millions are going to the inside
guys who do business with the government
on the timber rights.
Here again we hit the little guy. It is
not the big guy that you go after, it is the
little fellow all the time. You hit us every
way you can. The guy who likes a cigarette,
who drinks beer, the hospital insurance, the
gasoline tax. Everything hits the little guy.
You have now come to the last thing left—
a licence to fish. To drop a line and a fish-
worm in the water, you want to charge $3.
Now, that could be the straw that broke the
camel's back— to break the great Tory ma-
chine. It is the little things that will knock
you fellows out of the ball park, and this
is going to happen sometime along the line
You would not do this in an election year,
because you are too conscious of the need
to play on the public. You have not got
the guts to hit the big guy, you attack the
little guy all the time.
An Hon. member: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Who said that?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): This is not very parliamentary;
Eddie.
Mr. Sargent: Neither are you, to look at
you.
I would like to pinpoint, Mr. Chairman,
the plight of the commercial fisherman in
Georgian Bay — and all the Great Lakes, I
guess. You know, in Ontario we used to
have in the Great Lakes, sir, the greatest
commercial fishing. It was a great industry.
Many, many millions of dollars were invested
and are still invested in commercial fishing.
Tourist fishing was a great industry.
You recall, going back over the years, up
in Meaford they used to have the fishing
derby every year. They would come from
all over the United States to go in this fishing
derby and they would go out and get their
bag of so many trout in an afternoon's fish-
ing. It was the greatest thing. We had,
maybe, 100 or so guides who had their own
year-round business and they could make a
living by guiding on Georgian Bay in the
summer months.
We have this great commercial and tourist
fishing industry— and we bring in 70 or so
scientists into this department— they say there
are about 70 of them there. Now we have
the 70 scientists, we have no fish. We have
the people who say we fish. We have not
got the fish— so we have got the scientists.
That is costing us a potful of dough.
Possibly the answer, in all truth, is in
pollution. Perhaps this is the end-cause of
all this. But this department here. The
Department of Lands and Forests, is in the
park business, sport fishing, forests, reforesta-
tion and by the very absence of the word
"fish" in tlie department's title, I believe that
the Minister's personnel, Mr. Chairman, feel
the same way about commercial fishing too.
They fish in international waters and I
believe that the jurisdiction over fisheries falls
within the control of the federal government.
If your department wants all of Georgian
Bay as a fish sanctuary, why not be gentle-
men and purchase the commercial interests?
Do not try to starve them off the lake and
put them out of business just by legislation.
The fishermen in Georgian Bay, I am talk-
ing about my people, are open to you to talk
to them, to the department, for the purchase
of their outfits. If the department does not
want them fishing on Georgian Bay— if the
Department of Lands and Forests is inter-
ested in removing commercial fishermen—
which it is trying to do— from Georgian Bay,
let the department purchase the commercial
fishermen's outfits instead of trying to legis-
late them out of business through moving
their lines farther and farther out in the lake
and refusing to renew their licences.
I have scores of people writing me about
the cancellation of their licences. Some of
them are justified by your policy that anyone
who does not renew within two years is dead.
First of all, I would like to say that the
province of Ontario licences truckers through
the PCV licences, which are not necessarily
active but are renewed and held for the day
they might possibly need them.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Haskett)
knows that I know of the hanky-panky going
on in his department in PCV licences. But
here is an example in the forest industry.
People who are in the logging and lumb«
business hold large tracts, of course, through
JUNE 19, 1968
4745
paying a yearly licence fee or tax. They do
not necessarily take that resource in order to
stay in business. They have the option of
retaining their right over the years, and this
is all we ask in the commercial fishing
industry.
So I would like to ask the Minister, first
of all, how many commercial fishing licences
were cancelled and not renewed so far this
year in the Parry Sound district? What is the
value of the equipment represented by such
licences, because The Department of Lands
and Forests has this information from the
submission of annual returns of every licence
holder? These returns ask for the value of
land, buildings, nets, gear, boats and equip-
ment.
Further, I would like to ask him, how does
The Department of Lands and Forest justify
the cancelling of these licences when it is
impossible to sell a commercial fishing outfit
when you have no licence for the operation
of this outfit? I would like to hear those
points.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I can
certainly appreciate the concern of the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce for fishermen— espe-
cially older people— who have been in this
business for years. At the same time, I think
you will appreciate that the problems of the
commercial fisherman are similar to many of
the problems of the farmers on marginal
farms and sub-marginal farms.
The problem, of course— in the Great Lakes
and certainly in the area of Georgian Bay
that he is concerned with, and Lake Huron
—and I know the hon. member realizes this,
is that the fishing, due to the lamprey prob-
lem, has decreased substantially during the
past years. Therefore there are limitations
to the number of economic-
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I asked speci-
fic points to answer. I want the answers.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to your
specific question as to the number of licences
that have been cancelled, we are getting this
information. We will have this in a few min-
utes, but I would like to tell the member—
this has a bearing— again, if I may preface
my remarks, by saying that there is only a
limited number of economic licences that can
made it worthwhile.
Now two years ago, my predecessor, the
hon. Kelso Roberts, sent a letter and our own
people went to Killamey, and to various areas
of Georgian Bay. They met with the com-
mercial fishermen and this policy that we
introduced was agreed upon by the commer-
cial fishermen of that area. The problem
was explained that there was only so mudi
fish available and, therefore, this policy was
introduced. Those commercial fishermen who
did not utilize their licences for two consecu-
tive years would not have their licences re-
newed, and this was agreed upon.
I realize this concern again for people who
have been in this industry for years. How-
ever, due to advanced methods of catching
fish, it is a serious problem for some of these
older people who have old equipment trying
to eke out a living.
I am told that there were 13 licences that
have not been renewed so far. As to the
value of their gear, this requires, of course,
more study. I will have this information
available tonight, if I can. If not, I will have
this information available tomorrow.
But again, may I remind the hon. member
that each fisherman was advised by letter
dated July 8, 1966, and addressed to all
commercial fishermen on Lake Huron, Geor-
gian Bay and the North Channel, in reference
to commercial fishing in Lake Huron. It is a
three-page letter. I will send it to the hon.
member and as I said, this was agreed upon
by the commercial fishermen of those areas.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, over my four
or five years in the House here, I have had a
lot to do with the commercial fishermen in
the Parry Sound and Georgian Bay area inso-
far as their problems with the department
are concerned.
I think that the policy you have adopted is
dictatorial and you have no regard for the
human element any more. I have quoted in
Hansard, over the years, the decisions made
by the Minister and his department heads
which has cost our people of Ontario many,
many thousands of dollars unnecessarily when
you could have used the human touch to help
people to keep in business until they could
have disposed of their operation.
But a case in point as I go along. The
Department of Lands and Forests did experi-
mental trawling in Lake Huron and Georgian
Bay in 1967 with a boat contracted from the
Homestead Fisheries on Lake Erie. This
boat was brand new and had not been
equipped for trawling of chub in Lake Huron
and Georgian Bay. It was manned by an
inexperienced crew and did very little actual
fishing over a period of several months. The
results were very poor and inconclusive with
regard to fish in these areas. There were
boats up in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay
that were equipped for trawling and yet The
Department of Lands and Forests contracted
4746
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with the largest fishery on Lake Erie for their
boat. I would Hke to know the amount of
money spent for trawling to pay for Home-
stead's boat. Do you have any information
on that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No.
Mr. Sargent: Tliere is a large fishery called
Gothiea Fisheries of Windsor, which has
found nets at the mouth of the French River
and the Bad River, in the Parry Sound dis-
trict, to take many thousands of yellow pick-
erels each year. Now these fish are game
fish, and commercial fish, but I believe they
would only be classed as game fish as their
value is greater to the province than the
tourist's creel. The Department of Lands and
Forests allows these fishermen to operate at
full capacity, while denying another fisher-
man the privilege of renewing his licence
because he has held his licence for the tuna
white fish which have not been available for
several years. And these gill net fishermen
considered that the yellow pickerel is of no
more value to the province of Ontario than
the tourist's angle or the creel.
As the white fish had been virtually non-
existent in the Parry Sound district, many
fishermen in this area do not fish to comply
with the rule that two years of no fishing and
your licence is cancelled. It was the fisher-
men's understanding at a meeting in Parry
Sound three or four years ago when the "two
years no fishing your licence is cancelled"
rule was discussed at a meeting. The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests representative
stated that the two-year rule would not apply
in the Parry Sound district because of the
absence of fish to make it economically feasi-
ble for any fishermen to operate. Is this con-
trary to your statement that the people said
that they would go along with the two-year
rule, but there was a special ruling made for
Parry Sound? Tliis one large fisherman here
has been paying $120 a year licence fee and
still cannot fish. This has been going on for
the last six years— sending you $120 and he
cannot use his licence.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: How old would this
gentleman be, tiiis fisherman?
Mr. Sargent: Tliis was Mr. Warren Lahee
of Owen Sound—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, may I
first reply to the first question? As I said,
the number of hcences cancelled was 13, and
the value represented in gear is about
$65,000.
With reference to the boat on Lake Huron,
tliis boat on Lake Huron was selected by the
best technical people available from the fed-
eral government, and the contract was for
$41,000.
Mr. Sargent: Did the federal government
retain this?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, we did, we retained
it, but-
Mr. Sargent: Why did you not use the
equipment in the boats that are equipped to
do this job?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Pardon?
Mr. Sargent: Why did you not use the
boats that are equipped to do this job?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is why we are
working closely with the federal Department
of Fisheries, and it was through their advice
and guidance that this boat was selected,
and it was the best boat available for that
particular job.
With reference to the fisherman in the
Parry Sound district, I am not aware, Mr.
Chairman, of the different policy, but I would
like to say this to the hon. member: I am very
concerned also about some of these older
fishermen, and I have had representations by
other members of the Legislature on behalf
of older fishermen. I promised that as soon
as an opportunity arose, we would look into
this, and I personally would go to certain of
these areas to see if anything can be done to
help those elderly fishermen who are, say, 70
years of age and over, and who have no
other means of earning a livelihood.
Mr. Sargent: I apreciate that. I think there
is a great area for the humane element in
these things. What I am concerned about in
this whole business— my leader will not mind
me saying this— but getting to the point, Mr.
Chairman, we here, the elected representa-
tives, are just a joke in this government,
because the department heads — the people
who run the departments from the Deputy
Minister down— make all the decisions and
we are just pawns, and it has got to the time-
Mr. Sopha: Rubber stamps.
Mr. Sargent: Rubber stamps. It has got to
the time when somebody has to put these
guys in their place. I am getting sick and
tired of phoning up departments in this
government, and they are out to lunch, you
cannot get hold of them, and it is getting to
be a ridiculous situation. They are never on
JUNE 19. 1968
4747
the job, you cannot get a hold of them. Who
in the hell is running the show? I do not
know, but if they were in private business,
they would be fired in no time. When I am
here, I expect to get action when I am here.
(Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I resent
very much the remarks of the hon. member
because— and I say this very sincerely— I have
heard nothing but complimentary remarks
about our staff. They are dedicated; they
work on weekends; and I have heard this
from not only our own people in Ontario, but
from others in other provinces. Tonight again
I heard this from our good friends south of
us. They get the closest co-operation and
they say we are very fortunate to have head-
ing our resources such knowledgeable and
such dedicated people.
Mr. Sargent: You notice that it is the
government people who are clapping their
desks.
Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): We like
the truth.
Mr. Sargent: And there are few of the—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Have you received any
unfair treatment?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am getting
fed up to the teeth with civil servants,
because they are non-performers. It is a
pension for life, and it is time somebody put
them in their place and said that people are
important, and we want some action.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: They always say nice
things about you, Eddie.
Mr. Sargent: I did not say anything about
you, Darcy.
I appreciate your offer to give this a bit of
personal attention, but a case in point is a
man at Bing Inlet in Ontario, a Mr. George
Simpson, who has a $20,000 boat and another
$20,000 in nets and allied equipment. He has
not fished in the last 12 years, but he has
kept his licence in good standing over that
period of time by paying his yearly renewal,
because he has faith in The Department of
Lands and Forests, and also that the white
fish would return one day. Yet the depart-
ment has the audacity not to renew his
licence this year. He has $40,000 sitting there
because he cannot fish; there is no fish to fish.
This particular example is similar to a
number of cases in the Parry Sound district,
and these are but a few of tbe greater ambi-
guities—that is a good word— that The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests has perpetrated
over the years. But I am very sincere about
the fact that this industry has had a pushing
around, and they should get special attention.
You do it for everybody else, every other area
of the economy — agriculture gets subsidies,
industry gets subsidies. This area needs some
help, and if I have been rough on the Minis-
ter, I have a great regard for him personally,
but I think it is time we called our shots as
we see them.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1102, the member for
Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, while
we are on the topic of boats, I appreciate
what my friend has just finished saying about
the unfortunate fishermen who have got
licences and all of a sudden they are can-
celled. That man had a licence for 12 years
and did not use it.
I would like to read a letter that was
written to Prime Minister Pearson on a very
famous case that our Minister has dealt with,
and perhaps after I do read this, the member
who just sat down will have a little more
sympathy for some other unfortunate citizens
who try to deal with the hon. Minister's
department. This is addressed to the Prime
Minister:
I, Walter Zilow of Toronto, a New Cana-
dian and a Citizen of Canada, take the
liberty to submit this plea to You during
our great centennial year. In this year of
our nation, we all suppose to be rejoycing
the freedom, the equality in sharing in our
true democratic laws and citizens rights
and the pride of belonging to our com-
munity in this great Province and Federa-
tion. As for me, I feel humiliated and
frustrated by the outcome of my long
struggle and perseverance in my endeavour
to become a commercial fisherman in
Ontario, and this is the matter in which, as
a last resort, I took this opportunity to tell
you about.
Commercial fishing has been my pro-
fession in the old country, in Poland, and
ever since 1 came to Canada in the year
1951, I dreamt of building my own boat
and help to harvest the waters of Great
Lakes. Through hard work and much
savings I acquired my own land and a
place to work on the shores of Lake
Ontario, and with my own hands built a
boat with steel hull, 40 feet long and
equipped for trawHng. This method of
fishing is most popular in Europe and also
in use on Great Lakes both in Canadian
and United States waters. There are no
4748
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
trawlers operating in Lake Ontario on
Canadian waters. I submitted in 1963 my
proper application to the "Department of
Lands and Forests" in Brighton, Ontario,
to the attention of inspector, Hamel. After
a while I was informed that the inspector
is in favour of my application but that he
has to refer it to inspector, Cristy in Picton,
Ontario. After a few months I was in-
formed that Mr. Cristy can not decide him-
self on my application, that this should be
referred to inspector, Oryzawa in Lindsay,
Ontario.
At that moment I was frightened, as my
boat was ready and I invested a lot of
money in diesel motor, winches and nets,
and was anxious to start fishing and earn
necessary funds to keep up with my
obligations. I made the trip to Lindsay,
and Mr. Oryzawa told me in personal
interview he can not decide, and that I
should submit my application to inspector,
Warner in "Wildlife Dept." in Maple, Ont.
Immediately I went to Maple and sub-
mitted my request for permit to Mr.
Warner who is the chief inspector. He
informed me after a lengthy interview
that generally he is agreeing in granting
me the permit, but that he has to seek
advice from the Deputy Minister, Mr.
Bayly, Province of Ontario. Finally, I re-
ceived a letter informing me that the
special commission will examine my boat
and so in March of 64, inspector, Cristy
and inspector Oryzawa from Lindsay
arrived and examined my boat. They both
liked my boat very much and tried to
discourage me from fishing by asking me
to sell my boat.
At this moment I felt that they do not
approve of my application and so I re-
new^ed my efforts to secure the permit. The
government in my opinion had nothing to
lose, as I built the boat from my own
resources and I was ready as a fisherman
to work. I would not resign my position
and finally the permit was granted. But,
the conditions of the permit were such
that all my work and struggle from the
beginning to the end proved itself worth-
less. The permit reads: between merydians
77° 37' on the east and 78° 15' to the
West and beginning in waters no less than
15 fathoms deep. In addition, to add insult
to injury— only two kinds of fish were per-
mitted—alewives and smelt ONLY. The
first, Alewives is the specie not suitable for
human consumption, second its seasonal.
Both species most in warm weather live in
shallow waters so it is impossible to trawl
for them.
The waters assigned to me by the permit
consist of deep, rocky bottom and uneven
formation, so that every lowering of the
travvl, which cost hundreds of dollars, must
produce a risk of heavy damage or loss
of trawl. Mr. Cristy, who for years did
experimental trawling in this waters knows
very well about this condition. He knows
also that the Government spends thousands
of dollars cleaning up dead alewives
(millions of fish), which die in great masses
in summer, polluting the shores and
beaches and sending decaying smell all
over. Nothing said that the real commer-
cial fish like Perch, Pike, Ciscoes, Herring
could be caught, not even mentioned. By
this time I was desperate, and I knew that
I have to try to make a living and live
vip to the conditions of the permit. For
three months I tried at great expense (con-
stant damage to- nets and high operating
costs and long cruises) to fish in this water,
with no results. I could hardly catch fish
for my own consumption.
After that I asked Mr. Cristy to change
my permit to include the waters east,
towards Prince Edward County, where the
bottom is even and clear of rocks. And
here I met the CLEAR REFUSAL, for th6
reason that these waters are licenced to
some fishermen using gillnets and that this
area is reserved to sport fishing. I could
not understand this reservation for the fol-
lowing reasons:
I. The fishermen using gillnets and small
boats are limited to waters close to the
shores and one trawler on all of Lake
Ontario can not and will not ruin their
business, as my boat operates or would
operate on deeper waters.
II. Sport fishermen are using mostly
quiet bays along the shore lines to whidi
my boat would not even venture for a risk
of running aground.
I renewed my quest again and went to
The Dept. of Fisheries in Toronto and
presented my case to the Deputy Minister,
Mr. Bayly. He told me word for word the
same reasons as Mr. Cristy and refused
the permit in Prince Edward Bay. So I
asked him where in Ontario I could trawl?
Lake Erie— No, too many fishermen, Lake
Huron— No, same reason. Lake Superior-
No, no more licences to be issued. So I
came to the end of my line, but I can not
comprehend^ that in this vast Province and
waters there is no room for one fisherman
JUNE 19, 1968
4749
with a small boat, when at the same time
in Europe, hundreds of fishermen are
making good living for centuries in much
smaller water beds.
I could not understand this and blamed
on my poor knowledge of English
language, how it could be that in this
country so vast and underprizing a man,
who for his own money built his workshop,
and could not operate it to his advantage.
I went to the lawyer, Mr. Best in Toronto,
spent more moriey in presenting my case in
proper English but the answer still was
"No". Through my M.P. Dr. Stanley
Hajdasz, for whom as always I and my
family cast our votes, as all of us feel so
close with Canadian Liberal Party, I re-
newed my efforts, however, the enclosed
correspondence is the result of my long
trying and "No" remains the answer.
Therefore, I am submitting this plea to
you. Your Excellency, to find the place in
Great Lakes suitable for trawling with my
boat, which is not a ship of such size that
could affect the wellbeing of other fisher-
men and my countrymen, and the fun of
my fellowmen, sport-fishermen, and to be
able to fish for species which are market-
able, i.e. for human consumption, so when
I lift a trawl I do not need to cast back
in the water all the pike, herring, perch,
eel, ciscoes and white fish, but keep only
the alewives and smelts. Knowing you
from many television speeches and appear-
ances, for some reason you made me feel
close enough to you as my leader, to ask
you for your guidance and help, in which
I think is a bureaucratic dilemma, which
some place got stuck in a knot, and it is
beyond my power, even that I am a fisher-
man, to untangle this one out myself.
Yours respectfully,
Walter Zilow,
11 Munro Park Avenue,
T,oronto 13, Ontario.
If there was ever a condemnation of this
department and this government, this is it.
Not only did you restrict this man to fishing
in a place where there are no fish, but you
restricted him to smelts and alewives. Then
you restricted him to the quantity of alewives
that he could take, while other jurisdictions,
and your own jurisdictions, are spending mil-
lions and millions of dollars, or should be
spending them, to clean up these alewives
that are polluting the shores.
I say on that ground alone— and I have
never sincerely asked that a Minister resign
—but with all due respect to you, for this one
case alone you ought to hide your face in
shame.
Go to the most remote area in this prov-
ince and hibernate there. This is an utter
disgrace, that you cannot allow one trawler
on all of Lake Ontario and when you do
allow him, all he does is catch coarse fish,
alewives, and you restrict him to tonnage,
when they die in millions on the beaches of
this province. And this is what you call ad-
ministering a department.
Get up and explain that if you will.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, in reply
to the hon. member for Humber. Ashamed
as I am, I will try and explain the situation,
as I understand it.
First, may I say that I read this for the
first time in the Toronto Daily Star— I believe
it was about a week ago. The matter was
raised in the House by the hon. member for
High Park (Mr. Shulman) and I told the hon.
member for High Park that I would be
pleased to meet this gentleman. This is what
I am advised by my people. I am advised
that this Mr. Walter Zilow was the man who
insisted on fishing in the east end of Lake
Ontario, one of the most crowded areas in
the province. This is the area where we have
commercial fishermen. Their fathers were
commercial fishermen, their grandfathers were
commercial fishermen, and there are commer-
cial fishermen who have been in the family,
so naturally they would resent an outsider
coming in and establishing himself in an area
that has very limited commercial fishing pos-
sibilities. Also I am advised that he originally
asked for and was given most of the lake,
but not the eastern gill net area. He would
not fish under these conditions.
You may know that trawling in shallow
waters interferes with anglers and I do not
need to remind you that there is tremendous
controversy between the angling sportsmen
and the commercial fishermen. The sports-
men—the anglers— would like us to do away
with the commercial fishermen. Of course,
our policy is the belief there is room for
both. Trawling in shallow waters interferes
with anglers and also with gill nets. And,
with the restricted fishing, we simply could
not put a new fishery into a crowded area.
I am told— and I read as much as I can— I
am told that, sure, alewives and smelts have
no value as far as eating is concerned, but
there is today the pet food industry. As you
know, people love pets, and there is a tre-
mendous demand for certain species of fish
4750
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for pet food. Also the Ontario trade and
development council have many inquiries for
certain species of coarse fish. I am sure, if
you want to bring this gentleman in, or the
member for High Park wishes to, I wotJd be
pleased to sit with him, along with my
people, and see if we cannot work out some
satisfactory solution.
Mr. Ben: Why did you restrict him to four
tons a day of these alewives when they are
so numerous and there is such a demand for
them? And I have the permit in my hand
which restricts him to that.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We would be very glad
to increase this.
Mr. Ben: But you refused to increase it.
You have refused to increase it.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have not. This is the
first time-
Mr. Ben: When I say "you," I mean the
department. But you are responsible for that
department. Not the fellows sitting in front
of you. Not the fellows sitting off to the
side. But you— you are the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Is this not a fair
answer? Ask the gentleman to come and see
me and we will-
Mr. Ben: And furthermore, Mr. Chairman,
he asked to fish in the rest of the lake and
you forbade him, although his would be the
only boat on that whole stretch of water.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We forbade him to
fish, as I mentioned earlier, in the eastern
end of Lake Ontario, where we had a suflB-
cient number of existing commercial fisher-
men.
Mr. Ben: I have the permit in my hand,
Mr, Chairman. The Minister restricted him
to the portion pointing north of Lake Ontario
to the international boundary, between 77
degrees and 37 minutes on the east and 78
degrees and 15 minutes on the west. That
is approximately between Port Hope and
Prince Edward.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised that we did not restrict him to four
tons. We did not restrict him to four tons.
Mr. Ben: Well, I wish to differ with the
hon. Minister. Here are the conditions of the
permit: Exhibit number one: Condition, "This
permit void for taking of any specie of fish
not described above." Two: "Operative of
this experimental gear," and so on. Then we
get up to number 10:
The permitee shall not take any more
than four tons of fish in one day, a 24-
hour period beginning at 12:01 a.m. local
time and shall not take in the aggregate
more than 20 tons of fish in any one-week
period as described in condition number
five.
How dare you get up and say the permit did
not say that. He is restricted to 20 tons a
week, which is not even four tons a day.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised, Mr.
Chairman, that the permit— a Lake Erie form
—and the quantity was never discussed. So
apparently your facts and my facts are not
the same. Once again, I say to the hon.
member, if he is really sincere in helping this
person, ask this person to come and see me
and I will meet with him along with my fish
and wildlife people and we will do our best
to see if we cannot help in this situation.
Mr. Ben: Well, that is fine but you are
still wrong because I have the pennit in my
hand.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Ben: Get up to his defence because
you are a good defender.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has no fur-
ther comments?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.
Mr. Sopha: I want to say a person is a
product of experience. Everyone is affected
by his own experiences and having hstened to
my friend from Grey-Bruce, it shows you how
different one's experiences can be, because
one of the fewer delights, in nine years in
the public life of Ontario, that I have experi-
enced, is the unfailing attitude of courtesy
and co-operation of the civil service at all
levels. One further concludes that the gov-
ernment of Ontario would run pretty well if
it was left to the civil service. The weak link
is usually the pohtical head. Especially when
one surveys that 22 or 23 over there, after a
few years, you realize how weak it is, and
can hardly wait for the day until the leader
of the Opposition chooses his. I think he is
going to have only 16 or 17.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, well mind your P's and
Q's, will you.
Mr. Sopha: I wanted to ask the Minister
whether this fishing licence was enacted by
regulation under section 83 of The Game and
Fish Act, 1961-1962?
JUNE 19, 1968
4751
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: May I ask the hon.
member for Humber to send over that licence,
please?
Mr. Sopha: Well, paragraph 1 says— is the
Minister finished with that other matter and
is he now zeroing in on this one? Apparently
not.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Go ahead, then.
Mr. Sopha: All right, thank you. Paragraph
1 says:
The Lieutenant-Governor in council may
make regulations, establishing classes for
licences referred to in this Act or the regu-
lations or the Ontario fisheries regulations,
governing the issue, form, renewal, transfer,
and cancellation of hcences or any class of
them prescribing their duration, territorial
limitations, terms and conditions and the
fees payable therefore, and hmiting the
number of hcences of any class that may
be issued.
Now is that the power to make regulations
under which this Hcence fee of $3 was im-
posed? Maybe the thing is illegal.
Mr. T. P. Reid: It is certainly unethical
and immoral.
Mr. Sopha: It might be illegal.
Mr. T. P. Reid: And immoral.
Mr. Sopha: Maybe they have not got the
power. We can find an angler to put it to
the courts.
Mr. Ben: This government is coming to
the end of its hne, too.
An hon. member: I am afraid so.
Mr. Sopha: Here is the news from Ghent
to Aix. See what Garcia has to say.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised, Mr.
Chairman, that it will be composed under
the Ontario fisheries regulations.
Mr. Sopha: That is even worse because
that is federal legislation. Now we have a
backdoor method of using a federal Act to
impose taxation upon the people of Ontario.
May I ask this further question before I
get the full plight? Was the fishing licence
approved by the Treasury board of this
province? Did it go to Treasury board?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised it would
go to Treasury board. All expenditures are
supposed to go to the Treasury board.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask you a final question
in order that I have all my facts? Is this hon.
Minister on the Treasury board?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have not been on—
Mr. Sopha: He signifies that he is not. Well,
of course, part of the obscurantism of govern-
ment is that we in the Opposition are never
advised of who is on the Treasury board. But
I know a number of people who are on it,
and I must say that our Treasury board, for
the time being, is a very weak body, very
weak indeed. Most of them, you would not
hire them to run a candy store on an obscure
comer in Sarsfield, Duntroon or Chesterville.
Most of them are thoroughly without business
experience and I wish to say this — having
knowledge of the facts, I want to say this
about them and I wish the Premier was
here—
An hon. member: He is listening.
Mr. Sopha: I wish that man, who is so
much in a hurry to get out of here, and
always egging us on to get the business done,
would come here once in a while—
Hon. Mr. McKeou^: Do not be so cheap.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I believe in free speech
and this is the free speech in which I am
going to engage myself. I wish he would
come and take some of the responsibility for
the government over which he presides—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why do you not go
back to court?
Mr. Sopha: —some of the responsibility for
the measures that his government enacts.
Here we had a classic case of the imposi-
tion of taxation upon people of Ontario, with-
out the Legislature having an opportunity to
say aye or nay, and every member here has
got letters and has anglers devoted to the art
of fishing and in love with the out-of-doors
of this country. So every member over there
has got an equal number of similar people in
his constituency whom he represents and he
knows very well that when this government
made a decision in pohcy to allow Sunday
racing, then the dogs barked. You heard
them bark then. And the bill has not come
for second reading, has it?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Probably will not, either.
Mr. Sopha: Probably will not. Now, had
they done the proper democratic thing here,
and imposed that $3 fishing licence in this
House by an amendment to the statute, then
perhaps the howls of the coyotes would have
4752
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
])een heard. Perhaps we would have had a
Httle exercise in democracy. We would have
had a little exercise in democracy around
here about it, but no, within the confines of
the Cabinet chamber, or within the inner
sanctum of The Department of Lands and
Forests, the light came on.
They said, "Here is a way of chiselling $3
million out of the people of Ontario" and
they went to the Treasury board with it. The
Treasury board was foolish enough— I would
really like to go to one of those meetings, I
wish the provincial auditor would tell us
something about that outfit and the way it
functions— to rubber stamp it. And it ended
up— the only thing that needs to be added to
what my friend, the member for Rainy River,
and the others have said about it— taking away
the last recreation that you had for free. Yes.
Now the man goes fishing of a Sunday
afternoon and he has the Minister of Lands
and Forests on his right side and he has the
treasurer on his left, both with their hands
in his pocket. They both accompany him for
the measly $3 milhon.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): How can a
man fish in that position?
Mr. Sopha: And for a crummy $3 million
that they might hope to raise, and yet in a
mood of expansionism in the shelter grant,
the other fellow down the row there that we
hear by way of interjection only from time
to time, is giving away $150 million under
another statue. You see, the only justification
that he can possibly call, in defence of this
nuisance levy, is that he hopes to spend it in
the propagation of fish species in our lakes.
Well, the answer to that is plain. I have been
to Barney's Ball Lake camp, a guest of this
department, and have seen the accommoda-
tions laid out there, and have looked at the
roster to see the quality of the guest that
arrives, and the prices they pay old Barney
for the use of his Ball Lake camp.
Mr. Nixon: Good old Barney.
Mr. Sopha: Good old Barney. Where even
the blueberries are stylized and sophisticated.
I say, and apparently we say on behalf of
most of the people who think about it in this
province, that you ought to raise some money
for the propagation of your fish. Fine! Put
the hook on the Americans for about $25 per
before they drop a line in the lakes. And
when they come— you know, I am not anti-
American in the slightest degree, I am pro-
Canadian— but when they come to see the
country they own, why not charge them a
fee? Why not charge them a fee when they
come to see their equities and want a little
recreation with it?
With all my angling friends to a man,
that I have met, and from what I read in
the paper of the monster meeting at Copper
Cliff, that was exactly the consensus that they
came to about it. You want to raise a little
more revenue, I say rhetorically, then raise
the levy on our American visitors; put it up
to $15 or $20. But in the great drive by
the Treasurer of this province and his
pals on the Treasury board to raise a little
additional revenue and the obsession, of
course, they had to do it in the form of
regressive taxes. They had to stoop to this
level— that is the proper word— they had to
stoop to this level in order to be completely
consistent; gasoline tax, hospital services
premiums, OMSIP premiums, cigarette tax,
parks, and to be consistent they had to grind
the noses of the ordinary folk of this country
into the ground a little bit more.
This department had to impose that $3.
That levy just about equals some of the worst
of the Elizabethan statutes, or the Tudors,
who were the masters in this type of thing,
in the days before Parliament had developed
to the stage where we responsibly could
stand up here and complain on behalf of
the people who feel with deep and bitter
resentment. The Minister knows he has lost
a lot of friends in northern Ontario, as a
result of this measure.
Finally, to round the thing out— and one
must take note of the observations of Mr.
McRuer- this levy, of course, was imposed
before Mr. McRuer wrote and delivered his
report. In the dark and secret confines of the
operation of the government, I am trying to
place it as being sinister, but what happened
is the Parliament never had an opportunity
to pass on this thing. McRuer said about this
type of taxation these words, "The general
rule is that the Legislature is presumed not
to confer power to impose taxes or other
levies or charges on a subordinate legislator,"
and that is you. Not you, Mr. Chairman, but
that is the Minister of Lands and Forests.
"Even by general language, by the bill of
rights of 1689, it is provided that no money
may be levied to tlie use of the Crown with-
out the consent of Parliament."
Now, that is the violation of the funda-
mental rights of the people of this province.
During the days that The Game and Fish
Act was discussed in the committee, I was
there in 1961 and 1962, and a day was spent
JUNE 19, 1968
4753
' iii discussion of those sections. Never once
did a suggestion come from anyone in The
Department of Lands and Forests that the
historic attitude involved in the free use of
our lakes and rivers by the people of this
province was going to change in any way.
When the committee gave its consent and
later this Legislature ratified that bill, there
was not a scintilla of a suggestion from any-
jl one that that policy was going to change.
r But suddenly out of the blue in the most
arbitrary fashion he who advises or submits
to— "no subject could be truly loyal to the
chief magistrate who advises or submits to
the exercise of arbitrary powers," published
every day in the Globe and Mail— the arbi-
trary decision is made elsewhere, ratified by
that Treasury board of very mediocre ability
when it comes to laying down a cohesive and
sensible rational policy of taxation, and pub-
lished in an obscure publication, the Ontario
Gazette, and that is it. So the Minister does
not have to feel that the Opposition in any
way overdoes it over here in respect of that,
because the Opposition carries out its
responsibility in voicing the resentment of
the people of the province about this drastic
change in policy, this sweeping aside of the
historic practice, violation of what Mr. Mc-
Ruer says will be the fundamental liberties
of the people of this province.
L Therefore, with the greatest sense of
I responsibility I move, seconded by Mr. T. P.
Reid, that because of the imposition of this
$3 fishing licence, that vote 1102 be reduced
to the sum of $1.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury
I moves that vote 1102 be reduced to the sum
r of $1. Shall the motion carry?
Mr. Whitney: Mr. Chairman, I . think I
requested the opportunity to say a few words.
I am not replying directly to the hon. mem-
ber for Sudbury but I do believe that the
previous speaker, the hon. member for
Humber, made a statement about a commer-
cial fisherman applying for a licence, coming
in from no part of Canada and I feel that
that was the question.
I would appeal the hon. member for
Sudbury—
Mr. T. P. Reid: Point of order.
Mr. Chairman: State the point of order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Is the hon. member speak-
ing to the motion?
Mr. Whitney: The hon. member for Humber
was referring to a different subject altogether
and I think that we, on this side of the
House, must have the opportunity to reply to
what the hon. member for Humber—
Mr. Chairman: The member is out of order.
We have a motion before us.
The House divided on the motion by Mr.
Sopha, which was negated by a vote of 34
to 22.
Votes 1102 and 1103 carried.
On vote 1104:
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the lands and
surveys branch in 1104 has some responsi-
bility for the surveys of the Crown lands that
are available to the citizens of the province.
I wonder if the Minister can give us a report
on the availability of the Crown lands to
people who are not Canadian citizens or
residents of Canada. From time to time we
see advertisements about cheap lands avail-
able in Ontario from Crown land sources.
Could the Minister give us an idea of the
number of non-resident purchases of Crown
land in the past year?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: At the present time we
have 3,000 cottage lots available in the prov-
ince. So as far as non-residents are con-
cerned, there is no restrictive policy. Our
sales are encouraged as much as possible.
We mentioned earlier considering the sug-
gestion of the hon. member for Sudbury of
leasing land as is done in British Columbia,
and there is certainly a lot of merit in the
policy. This is under consideration.
Mr. Nixon: Are these lands advertised out
of Canada in any way? Are they advertised
for sale in other jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Our summer cottage
lots are not advertised out of the province.
To my knowledge no Crown land is adver-
tised out of the province.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1104. The member
for Grey-Bruce. I would like to point out
that there is an appropriation in vote 1110
for this particular branch.
Mr. Sargent: On the same item, how and
who is to know what lots are available for
sale?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, each
district has the information on what lots are
available. One could write the head oflBce
of the department, or the district forester,
whatever is more convenient, and we would
be pleased to submit the information.
4754
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: So there is no organized plan
for the marketing of the 3,000 summer lots?
Why do you have these 3,000 lots?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not sure just what
the intent of the question is. Last year, for
instance, we sold close to 890 summer cottage
lots. There is a tremendous demand and the
3,000 lots are available for sale.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. I do not want to
be stupid in this thing. Suppose, as a citizen,
I wanted to acquire a lot, how would I go
about it?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In my riding of Coch-
rane North, for instance, we would be very
pleased to sell you a summer cottage lot.
Mr. Sargent: Who would be pleased?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The department would
be.
Mr. Sargent: How is Joe Citizen to know
that you have lots for sale?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: All he has to do is to
visit the local ofiBce.
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not advertise
and tell the public that you have them for
sale? Here we have an asset of 3,000 sum-
mer lots, and no one— well, I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman. I am an average citizen, stupid or
intelligent. I do not know what you would
call me, but I do not know the fact that
there are 3,000 lots available in Ontario from
your department. Now why do I not know
that? Am I stupid? I got the answer— that
was a leading question. Why does not the
public know what you have available?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that the large percentage of the public is
aware that we have summer cottage lots
available. We also advertise in newspapers
in certain areas when we have these summer
cottage lots available. We also have booklets
informing the public of our Crown land sales
for summer cottage purposes.
Mr. Sargent: What distribution do you
have on the booklets? I guess I have proved
my own point that, assuming I am an aver-
age citizen, I do not know anything about
this at all.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Attend the CNE and
all these fairs where you see The Department
of Lands and Forest. For instance, the
sportsmen's show, which lasts for two weeks,
and where thousands of people-
Mr. Sargent: All I am asking you is give
the public the courtesy of telling them you
have these assets available and give them a
chance to buy them. You have to have an
inside with somebody in your department to
buy a lot.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They are buying them.
Mr. W. Newman (Ontario South): No, that
is not right.
Mr. Sargent: All right. Bill, just a moment.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you think thexe
is hanky-panky there?
Mr. Sargent: All right, we are getting to
the point now.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): All the
lots are going to the great divine?
Mr. Sargent: And you have got lots of
them, too.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Nixon: You can go back down to the
hotel.
Mr. Sargent: We have the fact that you
have this amount of assets available as far as
land is concerned. Now, on your policy
insofar as the acquiring of lakes or beach
property, or land in resort areas, how much
of that do you have available— the acreage?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: What we do, Mr.
Chairman, is to reserve at least 25 per cent of
the best shorehne for pubhc purposes and in
new areas we have cottage subdivision plans.
There again, we choose the most suitable
sites for cottage purposes, and the beach
lands are reserved, of course, for public use-
under this 25 per cent minimum for public
use.
Mr. Sargent: 25 per cent of what?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Of the total area.
Mr. Sargent: How much do you own?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We own 90 per cent of
the land in tlie province; 90 per cent of the
land in Ontario is Crown land.
Mr. Sargent: Thank you, I did not know
that— 90 per cent of the land in the provinct;
of Ontario. Everything in the north country
from the north shore— you own 90 per cent
of it.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Ninety per cent of the
412,000 square miles of Ontario is owned by
the Crown.
JUNE 19, 1968
4755
Mr. Sargent: This is a wonderful multi-
million-dollar asset of the people of Ontario
that you have control of. They are getting
sharp over there. Now we are getting to the
point I want to find out.
You have all this land. You have these
lakes, beach properties available— how does a
citizen go about buying them?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised we receive in the department thou-
sands and thousands and thousands of en-
quiries a year from people who ask us for
information. We submit this information. We
ask them which area they are interested in,
and we have no problem in disposing of
sunmier cottage lots. No problem whatso-
ever.
Mr. Sopha: Most of those letters are ad-
dressed from Ohio.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, I know, and that is the
point. Why should it take me six months to
find out and I do not even get a reply to my
letter?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Oh?
Mr. Sargent: Do not give me any of that
pained look on your face. What is the charge?
How do you charge? How do you sell a lake
or an island? How do you base your charge
on that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It varies, Mr. Chair-
man. On the average it is about $2.50 for
frontage, and the average lot, I would say,
would be somewhere between $500 and
$700. There again, in these new subdivision
plans, where we construct a road to them,
we apportion the cost of the road per lot, so
this is added on to the price of the cottage
lot, in order to provide a road.
Mr. Sargent: I think you are going by the
book there. Supposing I want to buy a lake
or an island— what do I do? I am talking
about resort operations which want to open
up. The tourist industry is a big industry.
Supposing they want to buy a lake or an
island; what do they do?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: To my knowledge you
cannot buy a lake. You can buy land on an
island up to a maximum of 15 acres.
Mr. Sargent: All right, now we are getting
dovvTi to the point. You cannot buy a lake,
but you can buy part of an island.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to qualify my answer. For commercial
summer resort purposes you can buy an island
—15 acres on the mainland, or on an island.
Mr. Sargent: But you cannot buy a lake?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not in Ontario.
Mr. Sargent: You cannot, but this tourism
industry is a big industry. To develop the
north it would be a great thing if you could
buy a lake, but you will sell great tracts of
timber. You will sell great tracts of timber to
timber interests, but you will not sell any-
thing to the resort industries.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to correct the hon. member. We do not
sell tracts of timber. As a matter of fact, we
are in the process of acquiring private land.
Mr. Sargent: You have long-term leases,
same as ownership.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With the pulp and
paper companies we have long-term leases
where they have the timber rights, but the
ownership of the land is retained by the
Crown.
Mr. Sopha: What kind of a province is
this, you cannot buy a lake or a distillery?
Mr. Sargent: But you cannot buy a com-
plete island itself?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, you can buy a
complete island.
Mr. Sargent: You said you could not.
An hon. member: No, he did not.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised that you
can buy an island for two purposes: either
for private or commercial reasons. If it is
private, the maximum size is three acres, and
if it is for commercial purposes, the maximum
size is 15 acres.
Mr. Sargent: I appreciate that you are new
in the department, and you do not know the
answers, and I am being very patient with
you. We have, up our way, great tracts of
land owned by General Motors. They have
Griffiths Island; they have Hay Island, and
all these islands are privately owned, and
they have hundreds of acres of land on them.
Now how do they acquire these lands? The
big corporations can buy them, but I cannot
buy them, or Joe Doaks cannot buy them.
Do you have policies for these people?
Mr. G. Demers (Nickel Belt): In the Hep-
bum days, you know.
4756
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: It was not during the Hep-
burn days.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am told that these
hinds— ownership had been acquired.
Mr. Sargent: You are told this. What do
you know about it?
Mr. Chairman: Order! The Minister-
Mr. Sargent: I am trying to find out, if
these hecklers will keep quiet for a second.
Coyotes, that is the word.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The ownership of these
lands has been held for many years, and they
had been acquired from others. As far as
The Department of Lands and Forests is con-
cerned, our pohcy has been, for several years,
that we do not dispose of land in areas larger
than as I mentioned a while ago— a maximum
of three acres for summer cottage purposes,
and a maximum of 15 acres for commercial.
Mr. Sargent: So this is your policy now.
Is there wisdom in the policy? There is no
rhyme or reason why it is good because it
was good maybe 10 or 15 years ago.
There are changing conditions in Ontario
and there is need for development in these
places. These great tracts would go unde-
veloped, but if you should change your policy
we could develop that country up there. So
I think that your policy is completely wrong
and not geared to the times.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the
Minister— and perhaps his officials can tell
him, because I do not think that he has this
information at hand— how many acres are
there in that Cloche Island in the district of
Manitoulin that is under private owner-
ship? The island that the Dodge estate— the
Dodge motor car people owned.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: About 20,000 acres.
Mr. Sopha: 20,000 acres. I have been
bothered about that for many years. I asked
my friend from Huron-Bruce tonight, a very
sensible young farmer with a very good head
on his shoulders. I was just testing him, and
I said, "How many acres do you think a
person should own for recreational purposes?"
He said, "500." I said, "Would you believe
that there is a man, one man, exercises
suzerainty, like a medieval sovereign, in the
County Palatine, in the province?" And I
guessed that he had about 25,000 acres.
I am prepared to say that that is too much
land for recreational purposes for one sover-
eign to own, and that is the brother of the
Tory candidate who is running federally in
Nickel Belt. I do not want to make politics
out of tliis. That is his brother. He has made
a potful of dough in his lifetime.
No one envies him his money, but really
there has to be a limit to this, and that man
owns that whole island, which formerly be-
longed to the Dodge estate a long time ago
—Dodge motor cars— and it has passed
through a couple of hands and now it has
come into his.
It is situated very ideally on the road to
Manitoulin Island, and the Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Gomme) carries this across his
County Palatine with a road that was laid
out by agreement— I think that the Minister
of Highways could tell us.
They did not have to expropriate; by
agreement they took the right of way across
that land. The Minister then built him a
fine looking fence— and there is nothing
wrong with that, it is a splendid looking fence
that the public built and that is fair. Having
taken the land they took up this fence on
either side of the right of way and it has
the advantage to Fielding that it keeps the
public out of his preserve. There he sits on
20,000 acres. My complaint is that it is too
much land for one man to own no matter
how much cash he has.
Secondly, what the department ought to
do in respect of that, is to take it over for a
public park. Now, a few years ago Fielding
thought, as my friend from Nickel Belt will
tell you— and he is not as close to the Field-
ings as he would like to convey to us—
Mr. Demers: That is what you think.
Mr. Sopha: It is not exactly a Damon and
Pythias act between them. A number of
years ago, this Fielding, a very shrewd man,
tried to con the department-
Mr. J. Jesssiman (Fort William): Is that
not too strong a word, I wonder? He tried
to "con" the department!
Mr. Sopha: He approached them and said
to them, "Look, would you be interested in
a public park?" The department of course is
always interested in a public park, and this
is really an ideal location for those thousands
of people who go to Manitoulin Island every
year. They turned around to Fielding and
said, "How many years?" Hhe said "Five."
Well, of course. The Department of Lands
and Forests isn't going to be interested in a
mere five years. If he had said 99 years, he
might have been holding out something
attractive to the department, but really I
JUNE 19, 1968
4757
think that the Minister has to consider
whether, in 1968, the enhghtened age, the
pubhc of the province can tolerate one indi-
vidual sitting on 20,000 acres of land.
Mr. Sargent: He does not make any deci-
sions over there.
Mr. Sopha: This Minister does not get
pushed around at all. He has got an inde-
pendent point of view, and I am suggesting
—and I have no vindictiveness whatsoever
toward Fielding; I only met him once in my
life; I have no personal feeling for or against
him at all— to the Minister that perhaps the
time has come to say, when we are looking
for parkland, that Killamey Park has not
been successful, let us face it. Only 17,000
used it last year, as against 136,000 for
Grundy, and 100,000 or so for Windy Lake.
This is in such a good location that I dare
say that thousands of people would make
use of it and perhaps a deal could be made
with Fielding in this way. You could say,
"Look, we will give you a reasonable amount
of land for your enjoyment and the rest will
come into the public domain for the estab-
lishment of public parkland." Now it is up
to the Minister, as to what is reasonable
compensation for Fielding for everything
that he has done on that land. He did not
pay a great deal for it. My memory tells me
—and they will be quick to correct me in
Sudbury— that the 20,000 acres was bought
for something like-
Mr. Demers: Half a million.
Mr. Sopha: No, not that much, about
$275,000, I think, cash on the barrelhead.
That was what he paid for it. But even if
it were a half a million, that is a pretty
cheap sum for 20,000 acres. But my point
is, that first the public need is for parklands
for public recreation in the city of Sud-
bury. To be consistent, I have said to the
council, that every time a piece of land is
up for grabs on Ramsay Lake, you should
buy it for public use.
That is the philosophy that I pursue, and
that is the reason that I raised that here,
but ancillary to it, and inseparably connected
with it, is the fact that I do not think that
it is in the best interest of our body politic,
that one individual should sit on 20,000
acres of land for recreational purposes. He
is not farming it, or harvesting it, he is, we
are told, importing a species of fowl from
Scandinavia to try them out, which is all to
the good, but it looks like a purely recrea-
tional pursuit, and I say to my friend from
Nickel Belt, after the 25th, he can put his
brother on it as game warden, because he
will not be occupied elsewhere.
Mr. Winkler: With the federal government
in power, it will be public land anyway.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee rise and report.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee begs to report that it has come to certain
resolutions and begs leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will resume these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:25 o'clock,
p.m.
No. 127
ONTARIO
Hegiglaturc of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 20, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 20, 1968
Air Pollution Control Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 4761
Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, first reading 4761
Trading stamps, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. MacDonald 4761
University Avenue subway, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 4761
Takeover of municipal police forces by the Ontario Provincial Police, questions to Mr.
Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4762
Subdivision of land in Nassagaweya township, questions to Mr. Yaremko,
Mr. Shulman 4764
Windstorm damage relief for Bruce and Grey county farmers, statement by Mr. Stewart 4764
Highway 3 in the town of Essex, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Ruston 4765
Wrong man sentenced to four years, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4766
Compensation for wrongly sentenced citizen who spends time in prison, question to Mr.
Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4766
Estimates, Department of Lends and Forests, Mr. Brunelle, continued 4767
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Stewart, agreed to 4797
4761
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Our visitors today include:
In the east gallery students from Blyth public
school, Walton, St. Peter's school in Wana-
pitae; and in the west gallery students from
Goderich public school, Goderich. Later this
afternoon we will be joined by pupils from
St. Kevin's separate school, Welland; Orono
public school, Orono; Harper Condie public
school. Smiths Falls; and Loring public school,
Loring.
We are very glad to see these young
people here.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves first reading of bill intituled. An
Act to amend The Air Pollution Control Act,
1967.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the
amendment extends the scope of servient rec-
ommendations that they may be made by
provincial officers.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves first reading of
bill intituled, An Act to amend The Public
Health Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the pro-
visions of the Act respecting the appointment
of an acting medical officer of health are
amended; and the amendment also provides
authority to make regulations respecting
health units, enlarging their authority to
appoint associate medical officers of health.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.
Thursday, June 20, 1968
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Attorney
General. The Globe and Mail of June IS
reports that still another major chain store
has indicated its intention to cease using trad-
ing stamps. Will the Attorney General there-
fore give consideration to proceeding with his
law of last year to outlaw such gimmickry?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker-
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Whatever
happened to that bill? That was one good bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It was a good bill; wait
until the hon. member hears my answer.
Mr. Speaker, I am obhged to the hon.
member for raising this matter. It is not my
present intention to proceed with any legis-
lation with respect to trading stamps at this
time. The constructive discussions and pub-
licity attendant upon the earlier bill which
I had contemplated, have perhaps accom-
plished a very useful purpose in bringing to
the attention of many merchandising con-
cerns some of the difficulties attached to what
my hon. friend is pleased to call "gimmickry."
In the circumstances, I think that the edu-
cational programme will achieve our ultimate
objective in a most reasonable and effective
manner.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
a question to the hon. Prime Minister. How
does the Premier justify capital grants of $20
million from the provincial Treasury on a
$45 million mistake, the University Avenue
subway, when Mayor Dennison says that he
was once the only rider on a five-car train?
A $45 million mistake. I would just like to
underline that.
Will the Premier advise why he will not
honour his statement to provide similar grants
to other transportation systems in Ontario?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I have one of my usual answers to
the hon. member. The government of On-
tario made no grants to the University Avenue
subway; and secondly, I made no statement
that similar grants would be given to other
transportation systems.
4762
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the Prime Minister is misleading tlie
House. Every time he gets cornered, he starts
to squirm.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: It is a very painful subject,
that he can juggle the provincial funds be-
longing to all the people of Ontario-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The member will have to back up his
statement that the Prime Minister is mislead-
ing the House if he alleges that he is so
doing. And he does that not by making
blanket statements but by producing evidence
of statements that have been made by the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I can qualify
the fact that he gave $10 million in an out-
right grant and a $20 milhon loan to sub-
ways in Ontario, which is part of the picture
here. And $45 million has been wasted on
University Avenue. It is our money, not his
to juggle around like that.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
proceed with his next question.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would have to speak
to the point of order, if it is one. I simply
repeat what I said. That is that the province
of Ontario made no grant that was used in
the construction of the University Avenue
subway. Now that is a fact; I want to make
it very clear that that is a fact.
Mr. Sargent: Mr, Speaker, at this point I
cannot produce the facts, but I will bring
them in shortly. He is dodging the whole
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member will now
proced to his next question.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the
Attorney General.
Will the Minister give us a film assurance
of a definite policy in the matter of the take-
over of municipal police forces by the On-
tario Provincial Police, as a result of the press
report of June 12 in the Toronto Daily Star
that 50 small-town policemen have lost their
jobs and another 250 stand to lose their jobs
under the OPP takeover scheme, in spite of
the Attorney General's assurance that there
would be very little problem involved?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is a rather
strangely worded question, to ask the Min-
ister to give his firm assurance about these
jobs.
Mr. Sargent: It is no laughing matter; this
is serious.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No. I will do my best,
Mr. Speaker, to answer it and advise the
House that the Ontario police commission
have reviewed the policing of all one-man
police forces.
At this time some 27 municipalities which
previously operated a one-man force have
asked that these duties be performed by the
Ontario Provincial Police. In addition, 19
municipalities with larger forces— that is, with
two to five men— have obtained the services
of the Ontario Provincial Police to perform
police duties and this is on the request of
the municipalities themselves.
At the present time, a study of police forces
is under way to determine the adequacy of
police protection to the citizens of Ontario.
That is a complete survey of the province.
When this review is completed, then recom-
mendations will be made by the police com-
mission as to what steps should be taken to
provide police protection to the citizens of
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I answered a question very
similar to this a few days ago. I thought I
made it clear at that time that we offered
the ser\ices of the Ontario Provincial Police
to those municipalities with \'ery small forces,
starting with the one-man force, purely on a
basis that they were agreeable and that they
requested that service.
We encouraged them in the correspon-
dence, stating our willingness to take over
some of this responsibility but they would
be responsible for the enforcement of their
own bylaws and would therefore need, at least
a bylaw enforcement officer.
Also, we said that we could not under-
take, and never did give assurance that we
could absorb, into the Ontario Provincial
Police force, the members of local forces. We
urged the municipalities to assist them to
find employment in every possible way, and
to give as much notice as possible. In every
case, they were advised to have the members
of the local forces make application to the
Ontario Provincial PoHce and the assurance
which was given, was that these applications
would be considered and interviews granted
to the members of those forces.
I am sure the hon. member will realize
that, by reason of age, by reason of back-
ground, or lack of training, by reason of
JUNE 20, 1968
4763
educational disqualifications, and so on, it
was certainly not possible to accept more than
a proportion of those persons. But everytliing
that we could do to assist was done. I think
I mentioned in my answer a few days ago
that the commissioner of the Ontario Provin-
cial Police actually took a very lenient attitude
in considering the matter of qualifications.
We have gone just as far as we can go—
and we will continue that policy— to take as
many of those policemen as possible. But I
must point out now that to take in the mem-
bers of all those forces— and this is particu-
larly true of the small forces— you would
dilute the quality; you would create prob-
lems of seniority; and you would destroy your
general qualifications for recruitments to the
Ontario Provincial Police force. These have
to be adhered to with some reasonable con-
sideration and we have gone just as far as
we can go and I assure the hon. member we
are sympathetic with the problem. We have
used every effort to make sure that these
men are employed. Some of them— a great
many of them— have obtained employment,
quite a number have been taken into the
Ontario Provincial Police force; some, I regret
to say, by reason of age, some perhaps be-
cause they were not particularly anxious to
obtain immediate employment, are still un-
employed, but 1 assure the hon. member it
is a matter which gives us as much concern
as it does him and we are doing everything
possible to meet that problem.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister accept a
supplementary?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister
agree that the last time he made the state-
ment he said the same things he said today
and he assured me that there would be very
little problem. Since he made that statement,
there are 50 who have lost their jobs; and it
says here another 250 stand to lose their jobs
and they want the Minister's assurance, or
some guarantee, that they will be protected.
That is what I am asking. I do not want
the same double talk again.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
must say that the statements the hon. member
just made are not correct. I do not say that
he is deliberately misstating something, but
he has got his facts wrong.
Since I made the statement, which was
about two weeks ago, the Ontario Provincial
Police have not moved into that many muni-
cipalities. I think two, and the total number
of men-
Mr. Sargent: My information is wrong?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The total number of
men who would be affected would not, I am
sure, be more than 10, because I think one
was a five-man force and one was a three-
man force. So there could not be 50 police-
men put out of work in that time. This is
wrong, and where he got the idea that 250
are to be put out of work, I have no idea.
Mr. Sargent: The association said that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, they are saying
things that should be investigated.
Mr. Sargent: They are wrong and the
Minister is right?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They are wrong. They
are definitely wrong.
Mr. Sargent: It is always—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They are just speculating.
They are speculating purely and simply. This
is not a fact at all.
Mr. Sargent: How can one win?
A question of the Minister of Trade and
Development. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that
the Minister made a great speech in Owen
Sound at the opening of the Pittsburgh plant.
I do compliment him very much. He did a
great job there.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Did he say
they cannot be independent? Did he say
that?
Mr. Sargent: Has the Minister considered
a programme to serve the urgent needs for
housing in Ontario, similar to the Detroit-
Michigan programme where the united auto
workers have joined forces with Consolidated
Edison, using private capital, to set up a
multi-million dollar programme to aid low
income housing?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
hon. member's question, I just noticed tliis
on my desk when I came in. I was in my
office and called the housing corporation and
asked them to get the details of this aUianoe.
As soon as I get it I will be glad to give
the House tlie information.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a
question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
4764
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On what date did the matter of changing the
rules regarding subdivision of land first come
before the Cabinet?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will simply say
to the House, and to the member, that the
deliberations of the Lieutenant-Governor in
council are privileged information and are
not for public information.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question for the
Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister
investigate reports in the June 17 and 18,
1968, Oakville Daily Journal-Record tliat the
Minister of Social and Family Services (Mr.
Yaremko) subdivided several pieces of land
in Nassagaweya township shortly before pro-
vincial legislation prevented such action?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have
asked the Minister about these reports in the
paper. I believe the hon. member has another
question to ask him. He will speak for him-
self when he answers those questions.
Mr. Shulman: Very well.
I have an eight-part question for the
Minister of Social and Family Services, Mr.
Speaker.
1. Did the Minister divide up land owned
by himself in Nassagaweya shortly before
new legislation was introduced by the gov-
ernment prohibiting such action?
2. Did the registration occur on May 6,
three days after the new legislation came
into effect?
3. Did the Minister at a hearing in Nas-
sagaweya township maintain that rural Nassa-
gaweya should remain rural and that land
should not be divided?
4. Did the Minister have knowledge of the
impending legislation at the time he took
his personal action?
5. Did the Minister notify the township
council that he was dividing his land or did
he go directly to the Ontario municipal
board?
6. Did the Minister subsequently put the
subdivided land in other people's names?
7. Did the Minister take these actions in
five or six different places in the four comers
of the towoiship?
8. If the subdivision of the land was regis-
tered on May 6, three days after the new
law took effect, was a special exception made
in the Minister's case to allow such registra-
tion?
Hon. J. Yaremkio (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker the answers
are as follows:
1. No.
2. No.
3. My opinions are set out in a letter to
the chairman of the planning board dated
November 22, 1966, and related in the main
to the maintenance of the township as
"rural," in the sense of living in the country,
that is non-urban.
4. See No. 1. There was no "impending"
legislation. Legislation had been introduced
and was a matter of public record.
5. No and no. There was no requirement
to go to either the township council or the
board.
6. The use of the words "subdivide" and
"subsequently" are erroneous. Pursuant to a
partition understanding between my wife and
myself a parcel of land owned by us jointly
in the township was in part conveyed to two
separate persons in trust.
7. The parcels referred to in No. 6 were
the only ones so conveyed in Nassagaweya
township, to my recollection. Other parcels
were conveyed in part of my wife, pursuant
to a trust agreement and other understanding.
8. See No. 2. No.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister give us
the date when these actions took place?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, if the
hon. member would like to put his questions
in writing I will ansnver him.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture
and Food has a statement.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Before the orders of the day,
I would like to refer to a matter that is of
some few days' standing. On the night of
June 11 there was quite a severe windstorm
that rushed through the province of Ontario
and had disastrous effects in parts of Bruce
and Grey counties. The hon. member for
Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) last night brought
the matter to my attention, reminding me
that there were a few bams that had been
damaged and some destroyed in the part of
that area that he represents in this Legisla-
ture. We have taken a good look at the situa-
tion and as of today at this hour we have
indication of at least 18 barns or farm
buildings damaged throughout parts of Bruce
and Grey counties.
JUNE 20, 1968
4763
In past instances where there has been
severe wind damage, this government has
provided a matching dollar-for-dollar grant
with any money that might be raised locally
to help alleviate the damage, and we are
prepared to do this again, in this particular
instance. This offer is contingent, however,
as in the former instances, upon the estab-
lishment of a local county committee to head
up the collection of the funds and to assess
the damages and to assume all responsibility
for the administration and allocation of the
funds so collected. I would hope tliat the
local people would also make the same
matching request from the government of
Canada as has been requested from us. This
has been the case in the past, where there
have been instances where the government
of Canada has matched on a dollar-for-dollar
basis any money that has been collected
locally, and which has been matched by the
province of Ontario. I would hope that they
would so request this from the federal gov-
ernment. This offer stands conditional upon
the administrative requirements being met,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
may I just make a comment in this regard.
The Minister has indicated that I have talked
to him about this. I am very happy the
Minister has given an undertaking to help
those, including some in my area, who have
been adversely affected because of the severe
windstorm on June 11. I am wondering first
of all what the procedure is for the local
people to request assistance from the federal
government? May I have clarification on
that?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the pro-
cedure in former instances where such dam-
age has occurred, has been that a local
committee is formed, usually of the local
municipal council. Since this embraces more
than one municipality, I would think, just
as a suggestion, that it might be the county
agricultural committee, who could head up
the committee to collect the funds and assess
and distribute the funds. They might then
make formal representation to the govern-
ment of Canada to match this on a dollar-
for-dollar basis.
There is the Canadian disaster relief fund,
which is administered on behalf of the gov-
ernment of Canada by a group of business-
men who have control over that fund. I
could provide the hon. member with the
name of the Ontario representative. I do not
think that I have it on my desk at the
moment, but I could give him that name and
I would suggest that the local people make
that representation.
I would like to make it explicit, Mr.
Speaker, that there be a local committee
established and that there be a public sub-
scription taken up. We would match that
dollar for dollar.
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, this is very good
news. We are happy about it and we appre-
ciate it very much,
Mr. Sargent: On tlie same subject, do I
understand that the money you are offering is
conditional upon federal assistance?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, not necessarily. We
would like it that way, but I tried to do this
last time-in the Perth-Huron storm of last
year. We made an announcement that our
grant was conditional upon the participation
of the federal government. The federal gov-
ernment never did put a dollar up, and has
not to this day. Quite frankly, we wonder
why it has not. Ontario put up $32,000
towards the Perth-Huron tornado disaster
fund last summer.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Highways.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to two ques-
tions asked me by the hon. member for Essex-
Kent (Mr. Ruston) yesterday.
Question No. 708: Highway No. 3 through
the town of Essex is under the jurisdiction
of the municipality as a highway connecting
link. Under terms of the connecting link
agreement, the town may initiate reconstruc-
tion or resurfacing and, up until this year, has
not seen fit to do so. Recently the town in-
formed the department that it was considering
an expensive drainage programme, suggest-
ing a combined storm and sanitary sewer
system. The department and the Ontario water
resources commission do not favour combined
sewer systems, but the department is willing
to share in the cost of a separate storm sewer
system. The department will co-operate with
the municipality and maintain the surface of
Highway 3 through the town in as good a
condition as is possible.
In answer to question No. 709: The first
part is no; and the second part is yes.
Mr. Speaker: When this House adjourns
this afternoon at 6:00 o'clock we will he
losing a good many of the page boys who
have served us so well for the last nine weeks,
and I am sure that the members would like
4766
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to join with me in expressing our appreciation
for their good services.
As I did before, I would like to read their
names so that they be recorded in Hansard
and at some later date perhaps some of
these young men may be back here in the
seats which we occupy and may turn up that
page of Hansard and be able to refer to the
fact that he began his public service as a
legislative page in the Ontario House.
You will note, because I shall give you
tlieir home addresses, that this time we have
page boys from many parts of Ontario. This
is good and I would like this practice to
continue.
T^e boys who have been with us for the
past nine weeks are as follows:
Frederick D. Cass, Belleville; Daniel
Chikane, Round Lake; George H. Free, Kin-
cardine; Larry Gideon, Scarborough; Russell
Green, Downsview; Paul Hammond, Oakville;
Cameron Hubbs, Toronto; Peter Jong,
Toronto; William Locheed, Forest; Simon
MacDowell, Willowdale; Gerald Papiemik,
Toronto; Edward Peters, Pikangikum; Edward
Robinson, Windsor; Jeffrey Seidman, Downs-
view; Evan Tarleton, Toronto; David Winch,
Toronto, and James Sinclair, Etobicoke.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the mem-
ber for Grey-Bruce asked a question yester-
day, I believe it was, question No. 707. I
left it to the end of the proceedings before
the orders of the day, but he has now left the
House. However, I should like to put the
answer on record.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is never here.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The question was: "Will
the Attorney General explain how legal aid
is working when the wrong man can be sen-
tenced to four years in jail, as reported in
the Globe and Mail this morning?"
Second: "How does the wrongly sentenced
citizen who serves time in prison get com-
pensation from the courts? Is there a financial
repayment available?"
My answer, Mr. Speaker, is that tlie inci-
dent raised in this question occurred due to
the fact that an accused person, named Joseph
Beles, stood up in the prisoner's dock when
the name of another accused was called.
Duty counsel was aware that the person
whose name was called wished to plead guilty
to the offence. However, he did not know the
two accused personally and was not aware of
the mistake until later. The accused in this
case, when shown the record of the other
person, with the other person's name, agreed
it was his record, and the court proceeded to
impose sentence. This accused again rose in
answer to his name being called and it then
became obvious that an error had been made
and steps were taken immediately to rectify
the error.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that tlie
two accused before this court were both
charged with the offence of theft— one with
the theft of a radio, one with the theft of
copper. Their records were exactly tlie same
in that they each had three previous convic-
tions. This accused and the other accused
were seen by the legal aid duty officer. He
did not know them personally and this man
simply answered to somebody else's name,
stood up—
Mr. J. Renwick (River dale): It was his fault,
not the court's?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think it is fair to say
that if you stand up to someone else's name
and accept the designation of another name,
you can hardly say the court was altogether to
blame.
Mr. Sopha: Did they not have a presentence
report?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This I do not know at
the moment.
Mr. Sopha: Well, they should have!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The officers who made
the arrest, the investigating officers, were not
present because both these accused had indi-
cated they were going to plead guilty. So
the investigating officer in the offence was
not there.
It is simply a case of a man standing up
to another person's name. I can tell the
House that the man speaks English well, but
does not read it and may not understand it.
The mistake was rectified immediately when
he stood up again as his name was called.
The second part of the question, Mr.
Speaker, does not relate to this matter— as
to how a person sentenced receives compen-
sation if he serves time. That was not the
case here, of course.
My answer would be that there is no pro-
vision for compensation for persons who are
in custody unlawfully, other than civil suits
framed in the style of a malicious prosecution
suit or an illegal arrest.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
JUNE 20, 1968
4767
Clerk of the House: The 18th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS AND FORESTS
(Continued)
On vote 1104:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Chair-
man, last night at the close, I had drawn to
the attention of the Minister of the owner-
ship of some 20,000 acres of land known as
Flash Island in the district of Manitoulin. I
had suggested to the Minister that land might
be acquired for the use of the public gener-
ally, perhaps leaving a moderate amount for
the use of the individual who purchased that
land a few years ago.
I am sure a great many people in that
area, as v/ell as the interest of the wider
public, might be to some extent satisfied to
hear some comment from the Minister as to
Vv'hether the department might consider the
acquisition of those 20,000 acres, for the
purpose of the establishment of a public
recreational area.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Chairman, our parks people
have looked at this area I understand and it
did not meet our requirements.
The hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin
(Mr. Farquhar) has been in the office quite
recently— I believe last week. He has
suggested to us that there are some excellent
beaches on the south shore of Manitoulin
Island and this summer we will be carrying
on further studies as to which ones of those
areas would be suitable for provincial park
purposes. We are very interested in that area.
As the hon. member for Sudbury men-
tioned, it has a tremendous tourist potential
and we certainly will do all we can to try
and find suitable areas.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I am delighted to hear
that. It is somewhat encouraging and it is
indicative that my friend from Algoma-
Manitoulin must be responding to some
inquiries being directed to him from his
own constituents about accessibility or access
to this land.
Now, of course, there is a much wider
interest than only the constituents of my hon.
colleague. I wish to ask the Minister whether
it is not a fact that prior to the acquisition of
these 20,000 acres by this single individual,
that the previous owners— I believe they were
absentee— they permitted hunting over these
lands without hindrance. They permitted
hunting off the land, by people in the area
but since this owner has acquired these lands,
this owner does not permit the public to hunt
over the lands?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This information is
being acquired. I would just like to mention
with reference to his remarks last night that
we are looking into this whole question of
land, provincial land tax and so forth and I
do not need to mention today, that there are
many land owners who are holding land in
speculation and we are trying to find means
to get back to the Crown land that we need
for recreational purposes.
Mr. Sopha: Well, the Minister's answer
would seem to indicate that, and I am pre-
pared to leave it at this point. It would
seem to indicate that there is a feeling in the
Minister than 20,000 acres is just too much
land to be vested in a single individual and
perhaps the Minister is conscious of the broad
public interest involved here, that a large
holding, such as this, for the enjoyment of a
single person and those whom he permits to
enjoy it, is not consonant with the broad
public purposes in the utilization of our
lands.
I hope that is the Minister's feeling in the
matter.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr. Chair-
man, these 20,000 acres of land that this man
owns— I do not suppose it is your department
—maybe someone in your department could
tell me. How do they pay taxes on a pack-
age of land that size? On a per-acre basis,
and if they do, how much per acre?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well if it is in un-
organized territory they pay provincial land
tax and provincial land tax is assessed at
1.5 per cent. As I mentioned yesterday this
provincial land tax is presently under review.
It has been constant for the last 15 years.
Of course, if it is in an organized area,
for instance, in an organized township, they
would be paying their taxes to the township.
We are in the process, throughout the whole
province under my colleague, the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough),
to have uniform assessment.
Mr. Bukator: Two or three years ago, if I
recall, the former Minister of Lands and
Forests spoke of the railroads that have many
hundreds of thousands of acres tied up.
There was some talk about it in this House.
I could be wrong, but I believe they were
4768
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
discussing then that these railroad companies
ought to pay taxes and if they do not, then
they ought to turn the land back to the
province where it rightfully belongs.
Is there anything more being done on that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They are, Mr. Chair-
man. They are paying taxes. I believe about
two-thirds of our private lands in northern
Ontario are railway lands and they are being
assessed provincial land tax of 1.5 per cent.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1104? The member
for Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, I would like the Minister, if he will,
to explain to me how you judge what land
is to be taxed and what land is not to be
taxed?
I took this up with the Minister quite some
time ago. To explain the background to this,
it has to do with a land reserve that was
granted, by this department, to Anaconda
Iron of Canada. I understand it is a reserve,
some two miles wide and about 140 miles
long, stretching from Melchett Lake north of
Nakina in northern Ontario to the shores of
Lake Superior at Camma Bay.
In a previous communication I had with
the Minister, he said that there was no charge
for this, it was a land reserve. There happens
to be a roadway built by public funds run-
ning from Nakina some 40 to 50 miles north
of there to Terrier Lake, from which point
it is a private road. I would just like to read
into the record a letter I got from one of my
constituents, it says:
Dear Sir:
I have been wanting to write you this
letter to let you know the problem I have
regarding these lakes, Melchett and Kapi-
katangwa. It took me almost three years to
get the commercial fishing licence on them.
I fished only one month early last fall in
1967 and had to pull out on account of
the early heavy snowfall in that area.
Everything went fine while Mr. Porter was
in charge of the mine road.
Now this is all on pulilic land.
He let me use the mine road because I
was using it for commercial fishing only.
Mr. Porter mentioned to me at the time
that there was a possil^ility of a change
over to Mr. Wieben, which Mr. Wieben
is using this mine road commercially up
to Melchett Lake.
I want to use the mine road only about
one month and a half early in the spring
and late in fall, if the weather permits.
Mr. Porter thought I should not have any
problem to continue on using the mine
road as Mr. Wieben was supposed to be
a friend of mine and I trusted him on that.
While I was commercial fishing with my
gang in the inland lakes, Mr. Wieben asked
me to complete a shack for him at Melchett
Lake landing and I did that too. When I
was in Mr. Wieben's office at the Lake-
head he promised me if I played ball with
him, he would do the same for me.
After I learned Mr. Wieben was in
charge of the mine road I went to see him
to get his permission to use the mine road
again and he turned me down. He has full
control of the road now.
Is there anything you can do to help out?
Now, according to Bill 115 that received
third reading in this House— it has not re-
ceived Royal assent— I have some assurance
from the Minister that he will take over all
private forest roads, and I assume that he
is going to make them open to the general
public.
Now in this particular instance where the
mining company has done considerable de-
velopment work there, they have not chosen
to develop their known deposits at this time,
and are sitting on this huge reserve at no
cost to them, with certain assurances that
other people are excluded under certain con-
ditions. At the bottom end of the reserve,
is the most choice piece of parkland, or land
that could be developed for a provincial park
on the north shore of Lake Superior, at
Camma Bay.
Now we do not want to be in a position
where we are going to discourage industry
from settling in the north, but there is a
company here who got this huge land reserve,
at no cost to them, where they have been
given the privilege of building roads which
tliey turn over to private individuals, who are
using it for commercial enterprise, to the
exclusion of everyone else.
I think that the Minister should take an-
other look at the policy and proceed with
implementing the provision of Bill 115 forth-
with to give everybody equal opportunity and
access to the north, not only for the toiurist
business, but for prospectors who would like
to go in and assess the mining potential in
the areas, possibly for foreign timber oper-
ators, or anybody else. I do not think that
we can have one law for a small group, and
another law for the general public, and I
would just like the Minister to clarify that
for me.
JUNE 20, 1968
4769
What does he intend to do with regard to
implementation of Bill 115, not only for the
land reserves but roads that have been built
on these land reserves; and I would like his
assurance that he would make these roads
available for the use of the public.
Another one that I would like to draw
his attention to is at Killala Lake, which is
just west of Marathon. Killala Lake is
about 20 miles west of Marathon on High-
way 17, and it is about 27 miles long. Your
f department has an outpost camp at the north
end of it. I think it is closed at the present
time, but the district forester is well aware
of the potential in that area.
I There is a road that was used by the
r Ontario Paper Company and a predecessor
company, I think it was Johnson or some
such name as tliat, but anyway there is a
road in there. It is inaccessible at the present
time, because it has been allowed to run
down because of a condition of a bridge
or something. But it would open up a whole
new area for hunting and fishing, and I am
sure that he would make a good many friends
along the north shore of Lake Superior if he
would open that road.
There are many roads in the north that
could be opened for the use of the tourist
industry and for the sportsmen in the area,
and I would like the Minister to explain
what his department's policy is in this regard.
Hion. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, in reply
to the hon. member for Thunder Bay, I
agree with his comments that we should make
available more of our roads for public access.
With specific reference to the Anaconda
company, they hold a licence of occupation
of 1,000 acres, and as I told the hon. member
when he was in my office, we are negotiating
with the company as well as with The
Department of Mines.
About two weeks ago or so, I received a
phone call that their representative, who was
negotiating with our department and The
Department of Mines, was in the hospital,
and under those circumstances we would
wait until he came out. They thought he
would be out within a short period, and
to me it was agreeable.
So this matter is under very active review,
and I am very optimistic that we will come
to, I hope, a satisfactory arrangement to
allow the public to use that road. I am
advised that the previous owners did allow
public hunting, but at the present time the
present owners do not.
With reference to tlie other road, the
Killala Lake Road, our district officer has
looked into this and we would be pleased
to look further into it. I am advised that at
the present time we feel that this road has
not a very high priority, but we certainly
will be prepared to give it a further look.
Coming to Bill 115, which received the
approval of the hon. members of this House,
I feel very optimistic that it will help con-
siderably in making arrangements on certain
roads, with pulp and paper companies
mainly, as well as other companies, whereby
we will share the cost of construction as
well as maintainance. I feel that this will
allow hunters and fishermen and other users
of the outdoors access to remote regions.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, I am not
satisfied with the answer on the exemption of
land in the province. I understand that the
railroad owns 940,000 acres of land. That is
a staggering figure, and you say that they
pay 1.5 per cent. Maybe it would be simpler
for one to get the answer this way: If diey
own 940,000 acres of land, how many dollars
do they pay the province yearly for the use
that land? I know you cannot answer that
now, but I would like—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They also pay fire
protection tax, which is approximately 4 cents
per acre.
Mr. Bukator: Previous to two or three
years ago when Kelso Roberts, the former
Minister of Lands and Forests, brought in
that bill, they were immune from fire tax
or any other type of tax. Now that they are
paying something I would like your depart-
ment to put down on paper for me how many
dollars they are paying to the province for
that land.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I could have that infor-
mation sent over to you probably this after-
noon.
Mr. Bukator: Fine, no particular hurry, as
long as I have it for my files.
If there is nothing more to be said on
that I would like to go on to another subject.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Could
I ask tlie Minister in that same connection:
What is the status of the reversion to the
Crown of land owned by the Algoma Central
Railway about which we had considerable
debate over a two- or three-year period? As
I recall the position a year or so ago, it was
that, in selling the land they had retained the
4770
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
mineral rights, but they had not for a period
of some years been paying the mineral tax.
Some millions of dollars were due to the
Crown, but the ACR had argued that they
should be given time to review whether or
not they would retain this. This was granted
by the former Premier of the province, back
in 1952 or 1953 and on about the mid-
sixties they began to return this to the
Crown.
My question is: How much have they
returned? How much do they retain? And
did they pay anything on that accumulated
tax bill that they really should have been
paying down through the years?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I can-
not give specific answers, but I will say
that as far as our department is concerned,
with reference to the mineral rights, tliis
comes under my colleague the hon. Minister
of Mines (Mr. A. F. Lawrence). As far as our
department is concerned, we are still negoti-
ating the laws of the fish and wildlife rights.
We have had very active negotiations and we
are meeting, I believe, sometime within the
next few weeks on this matter. We have
had several meetings and I can send over to
the hon. member for York South as much
information as we have available.
Mr. MacDonald: I would appreciate getting
the information. But if I just may make a
comment, how long does this government
negotiate v/ith a corporation before they get
a solution? I mean: Who is boss in the
province— the Algoma Central Railway or the
government? It became very obvious for a
two- or three-year period that the ACR was
the boss and they were quite defiant. I will
give full marks to the former Minister of
Lands and Forests because while he took a
long time, he also took a rather firm stand
and at least moved in the direction of
resolving the issue. But it becomes a bit
ludicrous when a company that has been
getting away with non-payment of taxes and
the operation of what was virtually a private
feudal domain, should in effect force the
government to continue negotiating for what
is now at least three years, if not four.
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Chairman, I will
admit that it does take time, but I would
say a fair amount of progress has been
accomplished. Right now the company is
paying provincial land tax and forest fire
protection tax; also the public now has access
to their lands for public fishing and hunting.
As to this question of compensation for
certain species of wood, this is a very complex
matter. We have our own people, and we
also hire an independent consultant. But as
I said earlier, we are making substantial pro-
gress and I hope that within the next few
months this matter will be finalized. Person-
ally I think that everyone is anxious to have
it finalized.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Chairman, on the subject
of item 4, land surveys. The Department of
Highways and The Department of Energy
and Resources Management and your depart-
ment, again before you took this oflBce, took
on a very ambitious programme. I believe
Lands and Forests were going to provide a
survey or some of the money to pay for an
investigation or a plan of the Tobermory,
Niagara Falls, Queenston, Bruce trail escarp-
ment drive, I guess you would call it. I am
sorry that the Prime Minister is not here
because he made the speech that we all
agreed with one year ago about this escarp-
ment drive from Hamilton into Niagara Falls
and back the other way to Tobermory.
I have a report of the meeting of the
conservation authority held to discuss the role
of the authority in the development of the
Niagara escarpment. They mention here that
in 1964— and mark the year— tri-county was
established to purchase or develop this escarp-
ment drive which everyone agrees with I am
sure. The development planned for the
escarpment was consistent with the economic
importance of the quarry material present. I
realize that there are some quarries along the
way. But let me again touch on a subject
that I spoke about in this House in 1959.
I have before me a brochure, and it is
called "The Niagara Escarpment", and it was
then investigated by the three counties— Went-
worth, Lincoln and Welland. I was on a
committee of county council back in 1956.
This particular brochure was presented to
some members of government back in 1958.
Nothing that I know of has been done to this
day. I would like to involve the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Gomme) in this, because I
am sure that he knows whereof I speak, and
I would like his comment to see how we are
progressing on it.
We were so enthused at the time about
this, that we had quite an elaborate brochure
made up, and I would like to put on the
record the members of the county of Welland
that were on that committee at that time. The
reeve of Humberston, Paul Pietz; Melvin
Swart, the member for Thoreau township-
he is still working on the same project and
JUNE 20, 1968
4771
maybe between us one day we will get it
completed. Francis Goldring, who is now
chairman of the contribution committee, was
reeve of Pelham, myself as the reeve of
Chippawa, and Wilfred Smith, the county
engineer.
A lot of work was done on this project, Mr.
Chairman, to those who will hear, through
you. I feel that we are missing a great oppor-
tunity to acquire a lot of this land before it
is built on, and which should have been
bought long before this.
My question to the Minister is— and I know
that the departments work very closely to-
gether—just how far have you progressed
with the plan? If you want more informa-
tion in detail, ask the tri-county committee
that I sat on with the hon. Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Connell). He was very enthused
on this himself for many years, and held that
this should be purchased; he even had movies
made of the roads to show where the roads
are that can be used as part of the escarp-
ment drive with acquisition of lands in
between.
My question to you is just how far have
you progressed with this? Have you acquired
any of the land? Are the plans complete?
Have they been frozen to stop construction
along the way before they ruin the pos-
sibilities of this great addition to this prov-
ince?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I can
well understand the interest of the hon.
member for Niagara Falls coming from such
a beautiful area, and there again, I would
say that there has been substantial progress.
For instance, the Niagara escarpment com-
mittee under Professor Gertler. They have
now completed their studies and the final
report v^dll be available before September 30
of this year. It is the report establishing the
priorities for acquisition of land, and ease-
ments, and gives very high priority to the
lands recommended by the conservation
authorities.
The second committee that you referred to,
the tri-county study committee, comes under
the hon. Minister of Highways. We have met
several times, this committee, with Highways,
Tourism and Information and, if my memory
serves me, there is a meeting next Wednesday,
June 26. I may be out a few days with this
very important committee. I would say, Mr.
Chairman, that we are making substantial
progress, and we hope to have something
soon.
Mr. Bukator: I am glad that the Minister
understands my concern.
The present Minister and the members of
that committee, as I recall it, met a year
ago, was it not? There were so many meet-
ings. But I think that we did meet, and it
was not a political issue, because this is not,
any portion of it, in my riding.
When Prime Minister Frost was here, I
mentioned this escarpment to him and it is
recorded in Hansard. When I heard the pres-
ent Prime Minister make that speech a year
ago, I met him in the hall to compliment him
on the fact that we are now putting the show
on the road.
My question of you was, when and if they
are doing some work. Now, they were cour-
teous and sometimes, I hope, between elec-
tions, cross party lines and deal with those
who are interested and close to the subject.
If there is nothing to interefere with your
ethics, I would like very much to sit in on
one of these tri-county meetings with your
people, to assist in any way that I can, be-
cause the knowledge that I have with many
who have sat on this committee since 1956,
the first brochure in 1958, may be of some
value to you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1104, the member for
Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to get some information from the Minister
with regard to licences for occupancy.
I understand from one of my constituents,
who had some correspondence with the dis-
trict forester for Geraldton that, as as of June
6, there will be no more licences for occu-
pancy granted. This is being done at a time
when tourist operators are asking for special
concessions on choice sites on remote lakes up
north, as witnessed by the minutes of com-
mittee meeting held in Port Arthur in 1968.
A resolution was passed tliat licensed
tourist outfitters, on application to the depart-
ment, and with the approval of the timber
licensee, may acquire a land-use permit to
erect facihties— subject to the approval of
The Department of Lands and Forests and
The Department of Tourism and Information
—in suitable locations in deferred zones in
the Port Arthur district. This motion was
carried.
The mover said that many of the tourist
outfitter's guests were reluctant to stay in
tents, and wanted more substantial lodging.
If permanent type buildings could be erected
by the outfitters in the deferred zones, it
4772
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would improve the services available to
tourists. The committee would, in future,
appreciate some response from the Minister
to give it some indication of the acceptability
of their recommendations.
I understand that that recommendation
came from that body last year, and there was
nothing done on it. I could readily under-
stand why, because at a time when they
were denying further licences of occupancy
to private individuals and private little hunt
clubs to establish outpost camps— hunting and
fishing camps on some of these lakes that were
in the deferred zone, I could readily under-
stand how reluctant the Minister was to grant
a concession such as this.
I would like an assurance from the Minis-
ter that hcences will not be issued to special
groups of outfitters, unless they are made
available to the general public. Having regard
to your land-use inventory, whether it be a
closed, open or deferred zone, I think that
if you are going to make them open to
anybody you should make them open to
everybody.
In tliat connection, with regard to the new
policy, if I am correct in saying that— that
no new licences will be issued after June 6—
there is one particular case that I would like
to call to the attention of the Minister.
It is in a little bay on the north shore
of Lake Superior. I cannot name it geo-
graphically, other than I happen to know it
from my close association with the area. But
it is a small bay where there are two land
subdivisions; they would not be any more
than maybe 200 feet of frontage apiece.
One of them, I understand, is privately
owned, on which a land tax is paid. The other
one, the chap who was camping on it— in
fact he was living on it practically full time
under a licence of occupancy— he died this
past winter and his estate is being finalized
now. When a chap who was interested in
purchasing the building that was on the land
asked for a licence of occupancy, he was
told by the department that departmental
policy was now that they were not going to
issue any more.
How are you going to be governed in a
small area like this, which cannot be devel-
oped to any great extent for public use,
where half of the frontage— which might be
400 feet at the most— is privately owned and
the other half is Crown land, but the build-
ings on it were owned by this chap who just
died?
I was just wondering what the policy was
and why this prospective buyer was denied
the right to have a licence of occupancy on
tins particular plot of land. What is the
departmental policy with regard to issuance
or continued issuance of licences of occu-
pancy?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, as was
mentioned by the hon. member, up until
June 6 if a person wanted to occupy a site,
whether he be a tourist operator or an
individual— up to a maximum of three weeks
there was no charge— he would go to the
district office and obtain a letter of authority.
If he wanted to remain longer than three
weeks, if he wanted to put a camp there,
then he would require the land-use permit.
I believe the minimum is $45, plus the
minimum provincial land tax of $6.
We have found that these letters of
authority were a bit of a nuisance so we
have eliminated them. But a person up to
three weeks— and we do not discriminate be-
tween an individual applicant, a hunter or a
fisherman, or a tourist resort operator— does
not require a letter of authority; he does
require, however, a travel permit. If he wants
to establish longer than three weeks and
build something, then he needs a land-use
permit.
Now, if the hon. member would send me
the details of this specific case, the name
and the particulars, I would be pleased to
look into it and we certainly will do every-
thing we can to help this person.
Mr. Stokes: It is not true then that
you are not issuing any more licences of
occupancy? You will still continue to licence
them under circumstances.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are not issuing any
more letters of authority in northeastern
Ontario; we are issuing just our usual land-
use permits.
Mr. Stokes: You will still continue to do
that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We will continue to
issue land-use permits, but no letters of
authority in nortlieastern Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: Will tlie Minister inform us,
Mr. Chairman, whether the boundary dispute
with the province of Quebec in the Lake
St. Francis area, adjacent to the county
of Glengarry, has ever been solved?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised that
negotiations arc still proceeding.
JUNE 20, 1968
4773
Mr. Sopha: Well, negotiations have been
going on since Confederation, and we were
told three years ago that this matter was in
tlie process of negotiation. Now, perhaps the
time is ripe with the province of Quebec. It
wants to settle a lot of things about the
futiu^e of this country, and it might
be prevailed upon to settle the dispute in-
volving the St. Regis band of Indians that
I occupy those islands in Lake St. Francis.
! There was a time, of course, when prohibi-
tion was in force in Ontario and it was the
desire of the inhabitants to push the
boundary as close to the Ontario shore as
possible for reasons that do not need to be
elaborated. After all, Quebec was wet and it
was desirable to enlarge the oasis to include
as many islands as possible. But now that
the whisky flows as freely on one side as the
other, that reason is no longer germane. But
surely in regard to the welfare programmes
and that type of thing, the inhabitants, the
Indians, must be in some doubt in which
province they live. There must be a funda-
mental right in this country that a citizen
ought to know which province he lives in.
Some of these islands, I look at the mem-
ber for Glengarry, are occupied by American
tourists, which does not surprise me. It does
not matter as far as they are concerned where
they live, which povince, but I am thinking
of tliis St. Regis band of Indians. We do not
have to be like the programme of Anschluss.
We do not have to get into that frame of
mind, but perhaps we could be a bit altruistic
if we get those islands properly within
Ontario. How long do problems have to be
outstanding in this country? Why can you
not settle that boundary matter with Quebec?
Johnson is a very good friend of the Premier
(Mr. Robarts).
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to mention to the hon. member for
Sudbury that about three weeks ago I had
a meeting with a representative of the
Quebec department and we exchanged views
on mutual problems; for instance angling
licences. We will charge the same fee for
a person from Quebec who comes to Ontario
and vice versa. He said he would come to
Toronto, he has never been here apparently,
and visit us. And at that time I can certainly
assure the hon. member that this certainly
would be one of the matters we will discuss.
I was not aware of this problem of the
boundary line.
Mr. Sopha: Well I think it involves ten
islands.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Ten islands.
Mr. O. F. Villcneuve (Glengarry): Mr.
Chairman, the St. Regis Indians are not in-
volved to much with any islands, they live
right at the junction where New York state
and the province of Quebec starts— along the
45th parallel. It was transferred years ago
when they took land from the Indians and
gave them that area. Now, the islands in-
volved are opposite Glengarry county and
the dispute is this, that Quebec claims five or
six islands that Ontario residents have had
summer homes on for as long as 60 or
70 years and they have always felt that they
were part of the province of Ontario. This
dispute to my knowledge has been on now
for at least 45 years. I can remember in 1929
coming to Toronto to try to resolve it then.
Seemingly the problem was the fishermen
fishing in Lake St. Francis. The officials of
The Lands and Forests Department, who were
looking for people who did not have licence
fishing in Quebec waters, caused quite a stir
but the last five or six years that has been
resolved. They have a mutual understanding
with the game wardens of Ontario to agree
to let residents on eitlier side fish at leisure
in the lake. It is actually the St. Lawrence
River, but it is six or seven miles wide
there and it is normally called, locally. Lake
St. Francis.
Now as far as the ownership of these prop-
erties on the islands, the people who live
there, who claim they are Ontario residents,
feel that they are still living in Ontario and
that is what the dispute has been about.
The Charlottenb'rg township, which is part
of Glengarry, collects resident taxes from
these people and they have never stopped.
So this is a problem for which no one seems
to have the solution or the answer. Naturally,
the province does not want to forsake these
islands, which it feels belong to Ontario; and
the province of Quebec feels, according to
the guideline or the boundary line, that it
is entitled to them. That is the problem and,
as yet, nobody has found a solution. But no-
body is adversely affected since we have come
to an understanding the last six or seven
years. Residents on the Ontario side who
may have gone beyond what they thought
the middle of the river certainly resent being
picked up and fined by officials from the
Lands and Forests or game wardens of the
province of Quebec.
Mr. Sopha: Is there any permanent settle-
ment about—
Mr. Villeneuve: Pardon?
4774
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: Is there any permanent settle-
ment?
Mr. Villeneuve: No, mostly all cottages.
Vote 1104 agreed to.
On vote 1105:
Mr. Sopha: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have
said in the past, and in the light of the
somewhat critical remarks that I have made
of the functions of this department in regard
to other matters I would want to take the op-
portunity to repeat here publicly and within
the hearing of this Minister, that as far as
I am concerned one of the greatest things
that tliis government has done in 25 years of
office in this province is the provision of the
many and very beautiful parks that our
people, as well as many hundreds of thou-
sands of visitors from abroad, enjoy in the
way of recreational pursuits during the all-
too-short summer season which is our legacy
from the weather in this country.
I, myself, am somewhat intimately con-
cerned with this park matter and I must
confess that the chief of the general staff in
my house is a senior official of the national
campers' and hikers' association. I, myself,
have never ever escaped being sequestered
into that organization to tliis point but I have
a feeling they look upon me as their unoffi-
cial legal counsel. But that group of outdoors-
men and women are very vitally concerned
about the affairs of our parks and they keep
a very watchful eye indeed on the proceed-
ings in our parks— the care and maintenance,
the surveillance exercised by this department,
and in fact, everything else connected with
them. Sometimes this department makes mis-
takes; this department sometimes invites into
the parks people whom it might better take
down to the Royal York hotel or some other
place of retreat, and the people it invites
into the parks do not always behave them-
selves in a manner that you would expect to
encounter, say at a meeting on a Sunday
morning with one of the reformed churches.
However that may be, I do not think that
any permanent damage is done in that respect.
But one must wonder, in the light of the
argument last night, about the procedure of
this department in unilaterally and arbitrarily
raising the fees for the use of our parks in
the way that this Minister did earlier this
year, without notice to anyone that it was
intended to do so. The public is met with
the bland announcement that this season the
fees are going to be appreciably higher.
I said "the bland announcement". That was
not entirely true because, when this depart-
ment raised tlie fees for the use of the parks,
tliere was generated a great deal of confusion
among the general public and among those
most closely concerned with the fees in the
park, as to just what the increase was. Many
of us, I know on this side of the House, had
to make specific enquiries as to what the
increase was and what it pertained to, in
order that we in turn could inform indi-
viduals and groups at home, what they might
expect to pay for the ensuing year in the
parks. In that respect it is a curious matter
to me tliat the department did not see fit to
publicize, on a very wide scale for the edifi-
cation of the public in general, the precise
nature of the charges that would be encoun-
tered for the ensuing year.
But as I apprehended, all the world is
divided into two parts so far as park users
are concerned. If you are going to stay over-
night, then there is no necessity to have or
purchase the annual $10 permit for the use
of the parks. The group who are fairly
sedentary in the parks on an overnight basis
can expect to pay $2.50 per night, which is
an increase of $1 per night. I am unable to
calculate that in percentage terms; it is not
quite 100 per cent, I know, but it approaches
a 100-per-cent increase.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Up to five days no in-
crease; same as last year.
Mr. Sopha: One dollar and fifty cents?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Last year you had to
pay $1 to go in and $1.50 to camp-$2.50.
This year there is only one fee— $2.50 up to
five days.
Mr. Sopha: Up to five days?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right.
Mr. Sopha: Then the bite of $2.50 a day
is applied after five days. That affects most
of the people I know. Does the Minister
mean five days of any one period? Any one
period of five days?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: So if a person is there a week
in July he pays $1.50 for the first five days—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: You pay $2.50 per
night.
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Last year, as the hon.
memlx?r mentioned, campers had to pay $1
to go in and $1.50 per night, for a total of
$2.50, and they had the choice of buying an
JUNE 20, 1968
4775
annual $5 permit, which made it considerably
cheaper. We feel there are two types of people
using our parks— campers and the day users,
those who go picnicking. This year, instead
of paying $5 for an annual permit they are
paying $10 for the annual, 12 months of the
year.
You will say, "Well, they do not use the
parks in the winter time." Quite true, but we
are spending this year about $250,000 for
providing trails for those who are using snow-
mobiles. So for a person who is only utilizing
the parks, say, the odd time at $1 per day,
it is the same. Say a person goes three days
in July and four days in August; last year it
had to be $1 each time, this year they are
paying the same thing.
Mr. Sopha: Now he pays $10 a year.
Hon. Mr. Bninelle: He pays $10 for an
annual permit. For those persons who are
camping more than five days, it is going to
cost them a little more. But the reason why
we have increased the park fees is we believe,
and I think you will agree with this, that
the people who are using the services should
make a contribution for these services. We
are not charging for the capital costs. We
are not charging for the land. We are not
charging for the buildings. We are not getting
enough money for it, but we are trying to
pay for the maintenance costs and the opera-
tional costs. During the last three or four
years, wages have increased more than 30
per cent and I am sure that the hon. member
is agreeable that we should be paying our
people a fair wage.
People today want sanitation, especially
the ladies. They do not want to go to an
outdoor privy, so we are building comfort
stations. These are costing thousands of dol-
lars. More than 50 per cent of our parks
are utilized by trailers and the projections for
the future are increasing substantially. I think
you would agree that most people, especially
the ladies, like to have their feet on some-
thing solid, not on wet ground, especially
when it is raining. So therefore people are
buying more and more trailers. Last year we
had 26 trailer camping stations. This year, out
of all our provincial parks, 80 will have
trailer camping stations.
Most people who go on holiday— it all
depends, of course, but the great majority—
by 11 o'clock they prefer to have a peaceful
atmosphere. We are spending more money
to have more people on duty in the evening
to control rowdyism. This costs money. We
feel again that the people who are using the
parks should pay for these things. You may
be interested to know that 21 per cent of the
people who are using the parks are in the
$4,000 to $6,000 income bracket; 34 per cent
are in the income bracket from $6,000 to
$8,000; 21 per cent of the balance make ovei
$8,000. In other words, more tlian 50 per cent
of our park users make more than $6,000.
Thirty per cent of our camp-site users are
American, and I think that the member agrees
that they should make their contribution.
So for all these reasons, we feel quite justi-
fied. Again using the Smith committee report,
we are trying to base our rate on a four- to
five-year period. So instead of raising the fee
50 cents this year and having to come back
and ask two years from now for 50 more
cents, we thought that it would be advisable
to set the rate at $2.50 hoping that we can
stabilize the rate for several years.
Mr. Sopha: First, in the light of that dis-
position, I did not understand this proposition
of capital costs at all. If as you say, 90 per
cent of the land of Ontario is still vested in
the Crown, then how can you talk about
capital cost of land? What relevance has that
got? There is no capital cost at all.
Hon. Mr. BruncUe: In southern Ontario we
are paying thousands upon thousands for
land acquisition, but the problem is that
where the people are, the land is not vested
in the Crown. Ninety per cent of the land
in Ontario is Crown land, and probably 85
per cent of that is in northern Ontario. You
may be interested in these figures: In north-
em Ontario there are 17 persons per square
mile, compared to southern Ontario which
has 124 per square mile. In this great metro-
politan horseshoe industrial area the popula-
tion is 20 times that of northern Ontario, and
this is our problem. We are in the process this
year of spending $9.3 million for land acquisi-
tion and the bulk of it is for park land. I
think that many members of this House,
especially those from Niagara Falls and Wel-
land, agree that we should be spending sub-
stantially more to acquire land for public use
in southern Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: Why do you foist the folly of
the past, on the present generation? If you
allowed this land to go out of the hands of
the Crown at sometime in the past, and now
you are caught up with the necessity of re-
buying it, then I do not see that you should
visit that as a cost upon the present users. Do
you follow what I am saying to you?
4776
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are not including
capital costs. Our costs are strictly for main-
tenance—wages predominantly— 75 per cent
of it paid for.
Mr. Sopha: Well all right, you do not.
But you try to derive an advantage from
that. You say "Look, we don't charge you
the capital costs", as if you are making a
gift, or bestowing a beneficence. I say, in
respect of Grundy Park, which is the one with
which I am familiar, you have no capital
cost at all! It was Crown land. It was a
hardwood forest on Crown land before you
decided to create a park.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: But the buildings and
the roads-
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes, but they have notliing
to do with capital costs of the land. I prefer
to look at it from the point of view that the
people of this province are entitled to make
use of the lands which they own, without
unnecessary, artificial hindrances visited upon
them by The Department of Lands and
Forests. That is my complaint. The people
are enjoying what is theirs. I do not want
the Minister, in the discharge of his respon-
sibilities in the creation of parks, to embellish
himself with any aura of conferring indulg-
ences on the people. He is not giving them a
break or doing them a favour. He is doing
what he is paid to do. My complaint is that
there is a limit on the charges that the
Minister can impose upon those users.
In other words, in the enjoyment of our
land by our seven million people, is there
anything free? Other than sunlight and air?
Is there anything free at all left? That people
can make use of in uninhibited fashion? Now,
why do you come along— for heaven's sakes
the Minister of Municipal Affairs gives away
$150 million in one fell swoop, he might
have reduced the sales tax by a couple of
percentage points, instead of the complicated
scheme in which he has become involved. I
use that as an analogy. There is $150 million
going out the door.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Are you against that
$150 million for basic shelter?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I think that I am. Not
for the very lowest income group, not for
them, but for the people making $25,000 a
year, I am against it. Yes, I am against it
for myself with the pittance that I make. I
do not need it. Well, let us leave that aside.
In the light of that kind of thing, can The
Department of Lands and Forests not, in the
exercise of a little intellectual effort, say
"Perhaps we will provide these parks and
make them available at a minimum fee," in-
stead of getting itself wrapped up in the
business end of it. Does everything have to
be a business? Does everything in govern-
ment have to be approached from a business
point of view? That is the way that Senator
McCutcheon talks. That is the easy way
Robert Winters talks. The government has
got to run as a business.
The Department of Lands and Forests, in
the recreational side of its activity, is not a
business, but it is providing an environment
for the optimum use of that great outdoors
which the beneficent providence has endowed
upon us. That is our heritage in this country,
by virtue of having been born here. Now
can we not enjoy that? Can people who, as
you say, earn $4,000 to $6,000 a year enjoy
that at a minimum cost without being saddled
with $2.50 every time that they come in
the gate? Do they have to fork out that
kind of money?
I suspect that what has happened here is
that since Wilfrid Spooner occupied this
portfolio, and it is well known that he had
a very rigid spine in this area, the complaints
of the tourist operators were descending upon
this department about the cheap camping
fees that the department charged. Maybe
there has been a little feeling in the resolution
of this department. They have succumbed
to those blandishments, and in order to attract
the benevolent attitude of the tourist opera-
tors, they jacked up the fees.
Now I am told, and I do not want to draw
any comparisons at all, between the two uses
of the campsites. One of the major com-
plaints—and I do not know how valid it is—
made by the people who pay $2.50, the over-
night people, is that most of the work of The
Department of Lands and Forests staff is
created by the use of the park by the daily
visitor. They are the ones that create the
work. That gets us into a dichotomy. That is,
the operation of the dialectic, and one group
is pitted against the other. I do not think
that there is a great deal of merit in that. I
think that they should be treated equally, and
I have a feeling that people in moderate
incomes, where it is in the interest of society
that we get them into the out of doors- we
would like to see that. That saves us costs
later on if we expose them to the swimming,
fishing, boating, running around the beach in
bare feet, and everything else. We will save
money at some later date as a result of that
activity, and it seems to me that the sensible
thing to do would be to make it as cheap as
possible.
JUNE 20, 1968
4777
Something like a $1.00 a day, $1.50 a
day? Well I think $1.50 overnight was felt
to be quite reasonable, but along you come
without consulting anybody.
You do not consult us, you do not consult
your own members. You consult that Treasury
board, and overnight I have become even
more pessimistic about the total amount of
grey matter, there is in that board. You
consult them, that is a very weak board.
The public of Ontario is very badly served
by that board.
None of them would get through first
year economics in any of the universities, not
one of them. And they are consulted, and
they say, "All right, let her go, Reno $2.50,
run her through"— and that is it.
There are a lot of people in this province
that are resentful of it. So seven days times
$2.50 for a week's holiday, is how much?
$17.50 off the top. Off the top to The
Department of Lands and Forests. The cost
of the gasoline getting there. Family of
four, let us say, that has got to be $40-$50
in groceries. Well for a family of four, you
are approaching, with all the incidentals,
$100. One hundred dollars plus, that should
cost something in the neighbourhood of $50
for a week of recreational leisure.
The Minister's figures hoist him by his
own petard. When he points out that 50
per cent— is that what he said— 50 per cent of
the users make more than $6,000 a year,
small wonder at those prices. The poor can-
not afford it. They cannot afford to go in
and make use of the camps. Only people
with a trailer can go in now. But you can-
not take the pup-tent, and put it up in one
of the campsites and pay that $17.50. So if
that Treasury board ever got around to
thinking about the financial affairs of this
province, they might, before this season
really gets under way, knock that cost back
to seven times $1.50. How much is that?
That would be $10.50 a week which would
seem to me, to just about hit the nail on the
head as the amount that it ought to be.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Under this same
heading I want to join the member for
Sudbury in regards to increased fees to pro-
vincial parks. The season fee has advanced
double, and the Minister outlined the group
of people in the certain groups that makes
use of our parks, and I must say he forgot
those in the $2,000 and the $4,000 income
bracket.
Since the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Mac-
Naughton) brought down his estimates
announcing an increase, I have been con-
tacted many times from citizens in my part
of tlie province protesting, and asking me
to protest, the increase in fees to enter our
provincial parks.
I might say that in my part of the province
the park was given to the province of
Ontario, and now the fee has reached the
sum of $10. People are protesting it in our
part of the province. Last weekend I visited
the park, and outside the park and along
the beaches the people were lined up, and
very few entering our Randolph provincial
park.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that
the attendance at the parks in our part of
the province is, I would say, going to go
down this present year. They are not going
to make use of it. They are going to attend
the township parks and town parks and I
would say this is not a good way to have the
people; I think they should be encouraged to
use our parks more.
I agree with the hon. member for Sudbury
that the fee should be cut down from $17.50
to $10.50 and make it possible for, or to
encourage, more people to go in and make
use of these parks.
Mr. Chairman, the people in my part of the
province over the last few weeks have pro-
tested to me seriously. They wanted me to
bring this to the attention of the Minister,
I know that he has not got all the say about it.
I have the highest respect for you, but I
must say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
Minister, I think it is about time that you
made a thorough investigation of the cost
of operating our parks. I would think that
if you did look into some of the costs of
operating our parks, it might help to reduce
some of these high rates of admission. In our
part of the province, I suggest that the Min-
ister have a look at the cost of operation— I
think he could find a great saving there.
Mr. Chairman: The leader of the Opposi-
tion.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, something that the hon.
member for Kent mentioned a moment ago
struck me as being strangely true. He said
he realized that the Minister did not have
all the say about this. I believe the Min-
ister has shown in his estimates that he has
less say than he should have.
This is the second year that he has had
this responsibility. He has now come for-
ward with substantial increases in the
4778
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
revenue-producing policy of The Department
of Lands and Forests.
I do not know whether it is his idea, or
whose idea it is. Surely this decision relating
to the fishing licences has already been dis-
cussed here and decided by a vote— unfor-
tunately not in the public interest. But as
well as that, the decision to raise park fees
is going to become quite significant when
we look at the trends in park usage. Num-
bers of people from our large urban centres
are going to be moving into the northern
part of the province and, more particularly,
into the more inadequate facilities in the
southern part of the province.
It seems that if the Minister's policies con-
tinue in this way he is going to turn his
department into a revenue-producing depart-
ment of government with a vengeance.
Surely the $2.50 fee is much in tlie same
category as a $3 fishing licence? One that he
says is designed for the future, rather than
present needs? When we see that one of the
justifications that the Minister has put before
the House for the $3 fishing licence for
residents is associated with the fact that he
hopes he does not have to change it in the
next five years, surely the same argument
was used in convincing him that he should
go for the $2.50 a day new fee that is not
going to be pertaining to our provincial
parks.
This is a substantial increase when we see
the services that are being offered. It is a
substantial increase when we see the predic-
tions associated with the increased desire for
the use of the parks. Whether this increased
use will come about with increased costs
remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that
many more people in tlie population are look-
ing forward to this kind of holiday.
I myself and my family are looking for-
ward to coming up into the Moonbeam region
when the House adjourns, so that we can see
what the facilities are like and also to have
a very pleasant time— the six of us. But I
would say, Mr. Chairman, that there has
been legitimate complaint from all parts of
the province that the fee schedule that is
being imposed by the Minister for fishing
licences and for parks accommodation is
beyond reason. It is taking advantage of what
has been one of the best holidays still avail-
able to those interested in getting their fami-
lies into the outdoors, in the economy style.
I feel that we in Ontario are falling behind
in the facilities that we offer, but we are
moving far ahead of the other provinces in
the charges. Surely it is almost reaching the
prohibitive level when we see what the Min-
ister has in mind for our provincial parks
now?
I would like to say further, that while we
approve of the policy that brought about
the parks integration board, the Minister well
knows that there are five or six agencies of
the government— five or six departments, actu-
ally, if you include Highways, that have re-
sponsibility for parks. There seems to be a
great lack of co-operation in the approach
into which we see the government funds
being channelled.
The conservation authorities are moving
towards supplying more and more recrea-
tional facilities. The Minister himself has
predicted and has reported to this House on
expanding financial responsibilities tliat he is
taking on for this particular idea. Yet we
feel that the Minister for this department is
trying to balance his accounts by raising the
rates.
I sometimes wonder if tlie private enter-
prise people have not got to him more
strongly than they should have, when their
complaint that the government is in direct
competition to private enterprise in parking
and in park facilities has been heard from
time to time.
Surely, the government has the overall
responsibiltiy to develop our recreational
resources and see that they are available to
the average citizen and his family so that
the advantages that we have in Ontario are
available to us all?
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Chairman, the large number of people who
have written to me in protest against this
increase of park entrance and camping rates
compels me to say a word.
With one group in particular, there are
155 families, whose names and addresses I
have, who have written me on this matter.
This one group, particularly, of 25 families
with 72 children living in a lower-income
housing development. I think they sum it up
very nicely when they say:
Camping in parks throughout Ontario is
practically the last pleasure left to an
Ontario resident with limited means. For
couples with children, travelling is out of
the question because of the high cost of
motels.
Witli camping facilities at a nominal cost,
families are able to travel throughout this
beautiful and wonderful province without
going deep into debt. Renting a cottage in
the high-price vacation areas is also not
JUNE 20, 1968
4779
within the reach of the average family.
These proposed increases in camping rates,
if passed, will place this form of recrea-
tion beyond the scope of many families and
will certainly curtail the activities of most
of us.
These people have, as a community group,
built up their camping equipment to the point
where this is the vacation they look for\vard
to from year to year. As camping becomes
more prevalent now we find that it is being
curtailed because of the monetary cost.
I think the government, in its own eco-
nomic procedure, does not have a good argu-
ment for this. The moneys taken in for toll
bridges go into the consolidated revenue of
the province. Why is it then important that
there be a relationship between the amount
of money taken in and the amount of money
spent? I do not think there is any importance
attached to that, not for something of a
recreational nature.
The other thing I would like to state is
this. In other correspondence from the
Kitchener-Waterloo campers' club, which is
signed by a great many people, they point
out, and I would like the Minister to answer
diis question, that as far as they can ascertain
no public body in North America levies such
high charges for use of their parks and public
facilities.
I must concur with everything that was
said on tliis matter and feel that some re-
consideration should be given so that we can
retain tiiese parks for use by people who
want a holiday at a nominal cost.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chair-
man, I too would like to add my comments
to those of my leader and others who have
spoken with respect to the licensing situa-
tion and the cost of licences for persons who
wish to travel in our parks. It is certainly
quite apparent to me and to the other mem-
bers of this House that the development of
camping as a family experience is one which
is growing rapidly in Ontario, and indeed
throughout all of North America. From the
Minister's own figures, some 30 per cent of
those who attend in the provincial parks of
Ontario are American citizens.
But as in other areas, as individual interest
in a hobby or any other kind of work de-
velops, so does the organization of like-
minded people, who wish to expand upon the
facilities available to them and to develop
generally the kind of facilities that they would
like to see in order to favour their point of
view. One such group, to which my friend
the hon. member for Waterloo North has
referred, is the Kitchener-Waterloo campers'
club, and the petition of which he spoke was
sent to the hon. Minister. I too was privileged
enough to receive a copy of the petition,
signed by some 160 persons.
Two matters of opposition were raised, and
my friend has referred to one of them— that is,
dealing with the charges whicli are levied for
camping by any other of the public }x>dies in
North America, and the various state or pro-
vincial government or municipal ones which
have facilities available for camping.
Some of the points raised, to which I would
refer the Minister, in this petition and the
preamble to it, are made concerning the fact
as set out by these petitioners that facilities
in general in provincial parks have not kept
pace in their development with the increase
and changes in the fee structure. Similarly,
that the income derived from provincial park
operations should be more closely reserved
for the actual intensive development of parks
and other facilities, and that some clear use
of this revenue, some form of earmarking of
it so that the actual persons who are paying
the fees should benefit from it, is a function
and responsibility of the government.
This is one of the things that surely the
Ontario committee report on the taxation
structure has recommended in many areas,
that the fees for licensing for the use of
various facilities are fees which should be
directly related to the benefit received. They
should be fees for service. They should not
be fees based on regulatory procedures or
based on any desire to increase the profit in
the consolidated or general revenue funds of
the province.
If these fees are being used to actually
stimulate the facilities for which the Min-
ister is responsible, then 1 feel he has the
responsibility, in addition, to refer to the
members of this House the details of the kind
of items which are being provided, the reasons
for the increases of costs, and the tie-in that
he sees as the reasonable basis on which he
is making the changes in the revenue struc-
ture that he is now proposing.
In addition to these questions with respect
to facilities and with respect to the use of
income derived, the petitioners in this situa-
tion have referred to the increase in the daily
camping fees. The question they pose of the
Minister at that point is that in their opinion,
the daily camping fee increase is not com-
patible with tlie facilities that are presently
available. In one brief quotation from the
preamble to this petition, I would refer the
Minister to this comment and I quote:
4780
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These increases will undoubtedly create
a hardship for the many Ontario families
who camp in jjrovincial parks due to eco-
nomic reasons.
I should like to inquire of the Minister if
he shares the opinion of my friend from
Kent who refers to the mnnber of persons in
low income areas for whom camping is about
the only recreation available to them on their
holiday term. Further, has the Minister re-
ceived other petitions from groups which also
have complained about the increase problems
and the costs of trying to run as economic a
vacation as possible in a one- or two-week
period for a family where the income of
the family is in the $2,000 or $4,000 level?
Could the Minister answer those points,
namely, the one dealing with the level of
facilities, the one dealing with the reserva-
tion of income for the development of fa-
cilities, and the one dealing with the daily
fee and whether or not it is compatible with
these facilities?
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, I wish to associate myself with
the complaints that have been made. I see
no point in repeating all the arguments that
have been made. I have received many com-
plaints from people who oppose these in-
creases. I merely wish to place myself on
record as opposing them. However, I should
like to ask the Minister whether he is intend-
ing to attend the trailer conference early in
July, 1 believe, in Aylmer? And if he is,
I should hke to pass a friendly warning to
him, not to expect a warm reception.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, in summing up
what has already been said by previous
speakers who have shown their opposition
to the increase in camping fees, I am sure
their comments have reflected the general
attitude of people all across the province.
Before I quote from an article in the Toronto
Daily Star, by a camping expert who has
spent a considerable number of years camp-
ing in the parks of the province of Ontario,
I would as a very last resort ask the Minister
if he would not consider exempting pension-
ers from the additional cost of admittance
to the provincial parks, in the same way as
we have asked him with regard to the im-
plementation of a fishing licence, which
comes into effect on January 1 next year.
I think this is the least we could do for
people who are still young at heart and
would like to go out into our parks and
enjoy the great outdoors and the facilities
that are available to them. You are imposing
a hardship on this group of citizens which
makes it prohibitive for them using this fa-
cilit^^ I think we owe this to our senior
citizens who are still enjoying good health
and are able to get out and enjoy those
facilities. I think tliey have paid their way
over the years and should be exempt from
any additional increase in the cost of living
and what little enjoyment they are able to
get.
The article I am going to quote is from
the Star of June 15, 1968, and it says:
Campers are no longer getting good
value for the $2.50 per day they are
being charged in Ontario provincial parks.
In fact, they aren't getting anything more
for the extra dollar they paid this year
than they did for the $1.50 they paid
last year. The new rate puts Ontario parks
amongst the highest-priced public-owned
systems in North America and makes them
by far the costliest in Canada.
If you look at the statistics from Canada
National Parks Accommodation Guide and
the supplement for the fees effective April 1,
1967, where we charge $10 for admittance for
a vehicle into a pubhc park in the province
of Ontario, the national parks charge $2 per
vehicle, or $3 for a vehicle with a trailer, for
the whole fiscal year; and here we are charg-
ing $10. For sites with electrical hookups
in the national parks it costs $1.50 a day;
in a provincial park it costs $2.50 a day.
National park sites with electrical connections,
water, and sewer hookup cost $2; and we
charge $2.50 a day in our provincial parks
and a good many of them do not have tliese
facihties. So this is clear proof that the park
facilities in the province of Ontario are cer-
tainly the highest priced in Canada and a
good many of them do not provide the
amenities that are provided in a good many
of the other jurisdictions witii a much smaller
fee.
Continuing with the article:
The rate is on a par with many privately-
owned camp sites, but in most of these
there are running water hook-ups in each
camp site, and the use of flush toflets, hot
showers and laundromats is usually in-
cluded in the flat rate. Electricity is avail-
able at each site for a nominal charge of
from 25 to 50 cents extra per day. These
extras are also to be found in a great many
public parks in other provinces and most
of the national parks operated coast to
• JUNE 20, 1968
4781
coast by the federal government. Ontario,
once the leader in establishing provincial
parks, is falUng behind the modern camp-
ing trend. Only 195 of the more than
17,000 camp sites in our parks have elec-
trical hookups, none witli running water
hookup, and only a minimum number of
, parks with flush toilets.
Camping associations and clubs have
already vowed to boycott Ontario parks in
protest. They say they will also try to
influence others outside the province to do
the same when they visit here. Parks
, branch ofiicials of The Department of
. Lands and Forests say the higher rates are
in line with policies set down a number of
years ago by the government.
In ending the article he said:
It almost makes you wonder if the idea
isn't to drive the camper out of the pro-
vincial parks.
And I can assure the Minister from the kind
of flak and the kind of objection I have been
getting from people in the north with regard
to the increase in park admittance, they are
just not going to use the facilities. So what
revenue you did have from this source for
the maintenance cost, I think you are negat-
ing it, you are going to lose it as a result of
the increases and you will be right back where
you started. I would suggest to the Minister
that if the Treasury board wants another
source of revenue that they look elsewhere,
other than the only thing we have left to us
with regard to enjoying our national heritage.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any further de-
bates on this point? The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
1 hesitate to criticize this Minister because
I like him, I think he has the best smile of
the lot over there, but I do not particularly
like what he is proposing to do. I cannot
understand how he can have so much back-
bone and gumption as to fly in the face of
the people, especially the people in the north.
I have never seen an issue that has promoted
more table pounding and harsh words among
the men of the north and the women of the
north than this Department of Lands and
Forests and this Minister.
How it could possibly feel that it could
fly in the face of the people this way and say:
"And not only are we going to increase the
camping fees, but we are going to also in-
crease the hunting licence. And besides that
v/e are going to give you a fishing licence.
We are going to do it all the same year." Just
like that. "However, we are going to let you
know sufficiently in advance so you can think
these things over and let us know how you
feel."
Well you know how the people feel. I
have a petition here, I have letters. There
are all kinds of tilings to do and to attend to
when I go back to my riding, and I have to
spend my time listening to people complain
about the proposals of this department. It
is not so much that tliey cannot afford it or
that they will not pay it; but they resent it,
they have always felt that: "Well, the one
thing we do have is the wide open spaces up
here. Our forefathers came up here years
ago, and had the courage and the backbone
to come up here and work in this land and
open this land up, and that is the one thing
we have. We can go 20 miles down the high-
way and we can hunt and we can fish, or we
can camp out." But now along comes this
department and it is taking these freedoms
away. They are saying to the people: "You are
free to use these things if you want to pay."
I was very proud last evening and today
to see so many members of the Liberal caucus
rise and speak out against these proposed in-
creases. I am very proud of it and, believe
you me, when I have had the opportunity to
report back home to the folks back there,
they have been extremely proud of it and
happy. I think the Minister has heard enough
now and he has seen enough to know that it
is not the will of the people whom he rep-
resents and serves and his department serves,
that these increases go ahead.
I have a letter here from the Thunder Bay
fish and game association, which was ad-
dressed to the hon. Minister. I have a copy.
There are somewhere from 1,000 to 1,500
members in this group. They are very repre-
sentative of the feelings of the people, I think,
the outdoors people in the north, and they do
oppose the increased camping fee along with
the other increases.
Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be remiss
if I did not rise in my seat now to speak.
There is hardly an argument that has not
been advanced this afternoon opposing this
camping fee increase. I would say that I think
we are going to find that a lot of our Ontario
campers are going to camp elsewhere. They
are going to go out of the province to camp.
From my part of the country they will go
down to Minnesota or they will head out
across the west, but just out of sheer resent-
ment. They are tough-skinned and they are
stubborn, and because they resent this thing
to such a point, they are going to leave, they
4782
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are going to go somewhere else. I think a
lot of them will let their camping gear rot
out in the back shed or they will camp out
in their back yard.
I really hate to see the people that I know
and especially care for up there so bitter
about anything, but I have not seen them
more bitter about anything than this. It is
just as though you are charging them to go
and park in their own back yard. They figure
this land is theirs, and they take this as a
very personal and a very deep offence, and
they cannot understand how a Minister and
a department could have the gall to raise
everything all at one shot. That is why all
of these letters I get and all of these resolu-
tions do not pertain to just one phase of
these proposed increases, but all of them to-
gether. And that is why I am discussing
them all at the one time.
Mr. Sopha: He is a big spender.
Mr. Knight: I am at a loss to find sufficient
arguments to add to what has already been
said. I really do not know how to approach
this Minister to make him change his mind.
But that is what I am trying to do. I want
you to change the mind of the Minister. I
want him to say to the people, "All right, we
respect your feelings, we have had enough
representation now. We will put the dollars
and cents aspect aside. We will curtail our
programme to some extent, and we will not
charge you the fee, and let us see what hap-
pens. Let us try it for a year, or two yearsi
We will give you a break on this."
Like the Minister, I come from northern
Ontario. I know how the people feel. I know
how possessive they feel about their land,
about their right to hunt, their right to fish.
I want the Minister to say, "I know how
deeply you feel about Americans coming in
and occasionally taking your favourite haunts.
So out of some respect for your sentiment, for
your feelings up there, we will delay this
thing. We will hold it off for a year or two
and we will see what happens."
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot said
from that side of the House about the need
to assist our people in occupying their leisure
hours, of which they are going to have more
and more, it seems. This is a wonderful way
to occupy leisure hours. It is a lot better
for a family to pack up and head out to a
provincial park and camp there, than to sit
at home in front of a TV set or in a movie
theatre, or some of the less wholesome
activities. I think we have got to go about
encouraging people to do this.
There is a wonderful movement afoot now
in the province for people to take advantage
of these outdoor locations and government
has got to encourage it.
We all know how the cost of hving has
gone up. Taxes have gone up. It seems as
though everything has gone up. And it seems
as though governments gear their increases in
taxes to the affluent. The people who can
afford it pay it. So the more the people can
afford, the more we charge them, the more
we take out of them. Well, what about those
who are not affluent? They cannot afford this.
They get poorer and poorer, and the rich
get richer and richer. Those in the middle
start falling behind. I feel that we are at
that stage right now.
I know the people of the north feel that
now it is not enough that we have got to pay
more for gas and pay more in our property
taxes, and more all around for necessities of
life. Now they are biting into the things that
we had for nothing before now. Even these
are gone.
Someone more experienced in this parlia-
mentary field has suggested that I move that
vote 1105 be reduced to $1; and if I have a
seconder, I would be very happy to do that.
That is how strong I feel about it. Thank
you.
Mr. MacDonald: I would like to add a
brief word. I am not going to spend much
time adding to the crescendo of protest to
which the Opposition has given voice, and
which has emerged all across the province of
Ontario. The last speaker spoke primarily on
the views of the north, but as others have
indicated, this is also the view of people all
across the south. In fact, I invite the hon.
Minister from Stormont (Mr. Guindon) to send
to the Minister of Lands and Forests some of
his clippings from the Cornwall Standard
Freeholder, and what they have to say about
this. They are a little scalding. I think the
Minister might almost be persuaded, in spite
of the Scrooges from the Treasury board who
have put the screws on him to raise these
taxes, to change his mind.
However, there is one footnote I would
like to add to this, without elaborating
on all the protest which has gone on.
As has been pointed out, it now becomes
clear that the government has decided—
whether this Minister or the government
imposing it on the Minister, we do not know
—to make The Department of Lands and
Forests much more of a revenue-producing
department. If I may just comment on one
remark of the last speaker when he said
JUNE 20, 1968
4783
that the taxes are geared to the affluent— un-
fortunately if they were geared to the aflBuent,
they might be more acceptable, but they are
most regressive taxes. They apply across the
board, and hit the person who has not got
the means. Therefore they are undercutting
the trend towards camping, which is a very
desirable thing and a very necessary thing
in a time with higher costs of living. The
average family can get some access to the
great heritage of Canada, the great outdoors,
only by trying to beat the cost of living
through cheaper holidays— if they are going
to have a holiday at all.
But in this revenue-producirig department,
if I can get to the footnote that I wanted to
ask, the Minister, under the guise of accept-
ing the suggestion of the Smith report, in
efltect implied that what we were doing was
imposing a higher fee now— really higher
than was justified— but doing so for the
purpose of being able to establish a standard
fee for the next four or five years. In other
words, it is not desirable to be increasing
fees every year, so what we do is we "wham
it up" now, and it will be there for four or
five years.
But I draw your attention, Mr. Chainnan,
to the significance of the schedule. What, in
effect, the people of Ontario now have been
told, is that the fees are up in this oppres-
sive way until just beyond tlie next provin-
cial election. And beyond the next provincial
election, they can expect another "wham,"
as they say in the funny papers. Well, I
tibink it is time that the people be alerted
to the basic policy of using this as a revenue,
and also the cycle of raising it now more
than is necessary to get a standard fee for
four or five years in the hope that people
will forget about it. Then after the next
election is over, if the people make the mis-
take again of putting this government back,
they will be whacked once again. It is for
that reason that I think the amendment is
a worthy one and we will support it.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other speak-
ers before the Minister? The member for
Downsview.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, as I listen to this debate and the wave
of protest that rolled across the floor to this
Minister I thought that a word should be
said in addition about the protest of the
urban dwellers, the people who live in Metro-
politan Toronto. It is not only the people
from the north. Not only the people from
the smaller communities, but the people from
the big cities are concerned that the gov-
ernment is encroaching upon some of the
few free pleasures that they have had in
the past.
You would be amazed, Mr. Chairman, at
the number of people who have telephoned
me and who have written me, to ask how
far this goes. Somehow, in this day of ever-
increasing taxes, they have just had their
municipal tax bills. Sales tax goes up. Cigar-
ettes are up. Liquor is up. You name it and
that tax has gone up, and the substantial
part of it has been put up by this government.
Those people who look forward to in-
expensive though pleasurable vacations, now
find that they have park fees to pay, licence
fees to pay, and so on, and they are most
concerned and most unhappy because they
like to beheve that something in this prov-
ince belongs to them, and that in all of the
taxes tliat they pay that come into the pro-
vincial coffers, there is going to be some
little compensation that comes back to them
in the form of the right to enjoy their parks
and use them as they have in the past with-
out this kind of taxation being applied.
What has happened, Mr. Chairman, is that
the government— having been caught up in
the grandiose election campaign proinise
about the shelter relief which is going to cost
$150 milHon and which is not going to
achieve at all by itself the purpose for which
it has been designed, and which is going
to be almost impossible to administer on an
equitable basis and the tenants by and large
are not going to get any benefit from this
$150 million— the government has had to
come to this unfortunate Minister, and I say
deliberately, this unfortunate Minister, and
say: "Minister of Lands and Forests, it is
up to you. You are going to help bail us out."
Yes, we will raise liquor taxes, we will raise
gas taxes, and we will raise cigarette taxes,
and we will raise any other taxes that we
can. We have to be a little careful because
we also made a promise in the election cam-
paign that we were not going to raise income
tax or sales tax, so we will not do that; but
we have got to scrape the bottom of tlie
barrel to get every last dollar that we pos-
sibly can because we made this unfortunate
promise.
In the meantime, this government, Mr.
Chairman, has set up the select committee.
The member for London South (Mr. White)
chairs this committee. They started to work,
and I am told by my colleagues that they
are putting in a lot of hours, but they are
4784
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
charged with examining the recommendations
of the Smith committee and bringing back
to us, in a package, recommendations as to
how the report of that committee can best
be implemented for the good of all the
people of Ontario.
So what happens, we jump the gun in tlie
middle of an election campaign to promise
the shelter relief. We jump the gun in the
middle of the election campaign to apply
relief in the administration of justice, and
then the Minister comes in and he tries to
justify what he is doing on the basis of an-
other remote clause.
They pick, bit by bit, but it makes no
part of a sensible hole and they unfortunately
mistreat by regressive taxation the people
who can least afford it. The people have
come to believe sincerely— and they should—
that they have the right to enjoy certain of
the natural resources of the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, the people in Metropolitan
Toronto, the people that I represent in great
numbers, resent this kind of approach to the
financing of this province. They want that
view expressed and this is why I join with
my colleagues in supporting this motion.
Now more important than that, Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is going to be interesting to
see the government members who will have
to be called in to vote in favour of a tax put
on their right to use the parks. And, as each
Conservative member is going to have to rise
in his place this afternoon, let me remind
them, Mr. Chairman, that they are going to
be voting in favour of taxes on the use of the
parks and taxes on fishing licences. This is the
sort of fruit that you are going to have to
reap at this time, because you have gone into
an attempted financial re-organization with-
out thinking about it— with a big thick report
that you do not properly understand, that
you have to set up a select committee to
advise you about, but notwithstanding that
you have manoeuvered yourself into financial
chaos. This is why, unfortunately, we have
to tax the use of our parks in this unreason-
able retrogressive and unfair way, and this
is why we are going to vote against the
Minister in this vote and the Tories. Let it
be on their own consciences. The Tories will
vote in favour of taxing the right to use
parks by the people of Ontario, and let that
be shown clearly in the record.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak
on another matter not directly related to this
vote, so I suppose before the motion is put I
will have to speak on this.
Mr. Singer: Do not fall into that trap.
Mr. Chairman: If it is within the vote
1105, the member may continue the debate.
Mr. Stokes: I would like to see a proposed
park that was advocated by the people of
Nipigon and the surrounding area, and the one
at South Bay which is on the southwest corner
of Lake Nipigon, developed as a provincial
park. There was considerable correspondence
with the Minister of the day, the hon. Kelso
Roberts, and with the Minister of Reform
Institutions, the hon. George Wardrope, and
at that time they were given considerable
encouragement with regard to that. I have
spoken to the district forester about it, and
at that time the only reservation to it by The
Department of Lands and Forests was that it
was quite a bit off a travelled highway, off
Highway 17, and it was their experience that
people would not visit the park.
Now, there are thousands and thousands of
square miles of wonderful country in the
Lake Nipigon area and in that whole water-
shed there is only one provincial park and
that is on the east shore up near Beardmore,
about 50 miles north of Nipigon on Highway
11. The people of Nipigon, the chamber of
commerce and the town council put a pretty
good case up for the development of a
provincial park at South Bay, and the de-
partment at that time did not see fit to put
a large sum of money into it because it did
not think that it would attract too many
people because of its distance from Highway
17. But they came up with another angle,
and I would just like to read this letter into
the record with regard to how this could
be paid for. For the benefit of not only the
travelling public, but the people in the area
who really do not have a provincial park
tliat they can visit within easy distance of
the town of Nipigon.
Now here is a letter to the reeve:
Dear Reeve Waghom:
I noted in the copy of an address by an
officer of the Ontario Hydro Commission
that since World War II the commission has
paid more than $12 million to the Niagara
parks commission in the form of water—
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: On the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I understand there is
a motion before the House. Am I correct?
Mr. Chairman: That is correct.
JUNE 20, 1968
4785
re(
Hon. Mr. Wishart: This discussion does not
seem to me to be connected with the motion.
Mr. Chairman: Order pleasel
II The motion is simply that vote 1105 be
reduced to $1. Now we are discussing vote
1105 which is the parks branch, and in the
opinion of the Chairman anything within the
purview of the parks branch on vote 1105
may be debated before the motion is put,
because if this motion is defeated the entire
JL yote is carried.
Mr. MacDonald: The only way, Mr. Chair-
man, the Attorney General can get us off
the hook is that we have a discussion of our
rules and say that if we vote on a specific
estimate we cannot come back to it, but we
would not be precluded from discussing other
items in the general estimate before the
House. Our rules, as they now stand are
that if you pass that general estimate, on
a vote dealing with one aspect of it, you
cut out discussion of everything else.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
am prepared, of course, to abide by your
order, but it seems incongruous to me that
you can have the motion to cut the vote to
$1, then you get up and talk as if you were
supporting the idea of this estimate. I do
not know how you are going to vote after-
wards. I would take it that the hon. mem-
ber who just sat down is perhaps saying we
need this estimate for this project, and that
is perhaps how you can say it is related to
the motion, but it seems to be a rather in-
congruous position in which we are placed
Mr. Chairman: The motion itself does not
make reference to any specific portion of the
parks branch vote. It is simply that the total
vote be reduced, and there is no mention of
any specific area within this vote, and the
Chairman cannot find any basis for restricting
the debate.
The member for London South has the
floor on a point of order.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Mr.
Chairman, the Attorney General and I had
a small difference of opinion in the early
days of this session on this very point. I
could hardly accept the proposition that 1
was in any way in error, and yet his assur-
ance and confidence in making the point led
me to privately study the parliamentary pro-
cedure of May. There is absolutely no doubt,
sir, that the Attorney General was right on
that occasion and that 1 was wrong. The rules
very clearly state that, in an amendment of
this kind, the debate must be confined speci-
fically, and directly, to the terms of the
amendment. I am going to try to turn up
the reference here and the page number for
you.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I would point out
to the member for London South that, in
the chair's opinion, this is exactly what we
are doing. The motion, I again read simply
says: "That vote 1105 be reduced to $1."
Now vote 1105 includes many areas of
consideration within the parks branch, but
we are dealing with a motion to reduce the
total parks branch vote to $1, therefore it
is the opinion of the chair, the members
may debate anything within the parks branch.
Mr. White: No, the debate must be con-
fined to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: On a point of order, the
member for Samia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Now we have
had the member for London South get up and
give us complete generalities about his agree-
ment now and his lack of omniscience for one
occasion.
Well, give us the rule, I ask you this, Mr.
Chairman, let us have the rule.
Mr. White: I am looking for it.
Mr. Bullbrook: Why did you rise in the
first place if you did not know it?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. Stokes: To continue, sir, with reference
to water rentals, it was new to me and I
wrote to the Hydro for some clarification of
tiie subject. The reply outlined the pro-
cedures by which Hydro for years, had paid
the province of Ontario a water tax or a
rental for all waters pouring through genera-
tors in the province. This rental money, ac-
counting for more than $6 million per year,
goes into the consolidated revenue fund of
province and is used to support the de\elop-
ment of the provincial parks system through-
out Ontario.
Here is a portion of a letter I wish to
quote at this time:
The rate paid by Hydro is $1.50 per
horsepower and on this basis some $500,-
000 a year is being paid into the consoli-
dated revenue fund of the province on
water passing through the generating
stations of the Nipigon River— 266,000
4786
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kilowatts or 358,000 horsepower. It would
seem reasonable and logical to me that
Nipigon, if it desired one, is in a strong
position to demand a large provincial park
in the scenically enchanting Nipigon
country.
Do you see some merit on this sug-
gestion, based on revenues flowing into
the provincial Treasury from Nipigon water
rentals paid by Hydro? I would be inter-
ested in your comments. Looking toward
a discussion of this subject, perhaps at
our next directors' meeting.
Yours sincerely.
Northwestern Ontario Development
Association
Alexander Phillips, Manager.
Now, I suggest to the Minister that if he
wants to spread things around, there is $500,-
000 being paid by Ontario Hydro to the
consolidated revenue fimd of the province
of Ontario, which money could go toward
the cost of developing parks. I do not deny
a request such as this to the people of
Nipigon. That money is generated there. It
is money that was earned by water rentals
in northwestern Ontario, where they have
few enough parks, particularly around Lake
Nipigon. It is the junction of Highways 11
and 17, and it is generally considered to be
the hub of the forest-products industry in
the riding of Thunder Bay. It has everything
going for it. They have all kinds of rivers
and streams, wonderful fishing in Lake Nipi-
gon, boating, beaches. All they want is a
park. I was wondering if the Minister would
care to take this under advisement and at
least conduct a survey to see whether such
a scheme is desirable.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, if I
may deal briefly with the last item for the
hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight).
We will give it further study, but I am
advised that this park is in the Port Arthur
area and this is a park reserve for develop-
ment as a provincial park when the demand
warrants it. The figures for last year for
parks for that area are: The Black Sands park
was only used 18 per cent, and Sibley park
used only 24 per cent, and in view of the
limited funds that we have, I think that the
member will agree—
Mr. Stokes: You did not look up Rainbow
park?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: These are the figures
that I have and they indicate that these parks
were used very lightly. However, as I said,
we are prepared to give it further consider-
ation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great
deal of interest to the remarks by the various
members. First, may I say that we started in
1956 with only eight provincial parks, and
today, in 1968, within 12 years, we now have
96 provincial parks, and a couple under de-
velopment for this summer. I would say, Mr.
Chairman, that we should be proud of our
parks, we have some of the finest in Canada.
Last year we introduced a parks classifica-
tion. We have five main classifications, and
we will have a master plan. Each provincial
park is being given a master plan. Within
our provincial parks, we have nature trails.
In a certain number of parks we have inter-
pretive programmes. We are trying to make
our parks as effective as possible to serve the
great diversity of people's interests.
Some are only interested in swimming;
some in wilderness camping. Now, I think,
generally speaking, there are some very good
suggestions made. I have not too much to
say. First, our policy. We believe that the
people who use the services should make a
fair contribution for the use of them. Now,
for those incomes that the hon. leader of the
Opposition mentioned, of the very low income
group— and I think that we all agree that our
concern should be for these people in the
low income group-
Mr. MacDonald: What about pensioners?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With regards to pen-
sioners, I am not too sure. There are many
people today, who, when they reach the re-
tirement age of 65, are sometimes in a much
better position than the young married couples
who have, say, an average of four to six chil-
dren. There are many people today, who
reach retirement age, who are in a very good
financial position. Now, I realize that there
are others who are not.
Now, with reference to the remarks of the
hon. member for Kent, also with regard to
parks. Mr. Chairman, generally speaking,
there are many people who forget that we
have, in the province of Ontario, about 400
access points, which are places where we
have boat launching facilities, picnic tables,
outdoor privies, fire grills, and where not one
cent is charged, of this cost. This costs money,
and this year alone, we are spending over
$100,000 for garbage collections. Now, with
reference to the hon. member for Kent, as I
said earlier, we are very concerned about the
small wage earner, and I think that there is
room for improvement and seeing if we can-
JUNE 20, 1968
4787
not work out some sort of amelioration in
that class.
The hon. leader of the Opposition brought
the matter of the lack of co-operation— if I
understood him correctly— among the various
cormnissions who administer parks. The On-
tario integrated park board is the board com-
prised of the Niagara parks commission, the
St. Lawrence parks commission, the conser-
vation authorities and provincial parks; and
I would say to him, sir, tliat there is very
close liaison.
It was mentioned that we were influenced
by tourist operators. Mr. Chairman, this is
not so. We were not influenced by individual
tourist operators. Our main concern is to try
and provide as good facilities as possible
within our means, and we are trying to charge
the people who use the parks a reasonable
cost— the operational costs.
Mr. Nixon: Your means are based on a $3
million budget!
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Last year we spent in
our provincial parks, $3.7 miUion and we took
in $2.1 million, a deficit of $1.6 million. This
is operational costs.
With reference to the hon. member for
Waterloo North, I would say tliat the state
of Michigan— whether we are the jurisdiction
that has the highest rate— are charging $2.50,
and those who use electrical power, 50 cents
more. It is the same in Cahfornia. I met with
the state of Minnesota about three weeks or
longer ago, about the advisory committee of
the Quetico-Lake Superior provincial park
and they are also in the process of raising
their daily fees to the same as ours.
The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside
mentioned the conference at Aylmer about
the trailer park. If I am available, and if the
House will still be sitting in July, of course,
I, or a representative from the parks branch,
certainly will be pleased to attend.
With reference to the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, saying that the private camp
sites have facilities similar to ours and some-
times charging less. I would say to him that
generally speaking our parks have far superior
facilities. For example, as I mentioned earlier,
we have outdoor theatres; nature trails— we
are really intensifying the facilities in our
parks. Our beaches; our comfort stations;
we are paving several of the park roads.
Today, as you know, people demand the best
and this costs money, and this is why, I think,
in view of the hon. member's concern for the
small wage earners, maybe we should be
giving consideration, the same as the people
in the Legislature. Some drive Chevrolets,
and some Cadillacs. Maybe we should have
parks where the fees are catered or geared to
those in the low income group.
There have been some very good sugges-
tions, Mr. Chairman, and we will certainly
give them every consideration.
Mr. Sopha: Consideration for the people
of the province?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: I said we will give con-
sideration.
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to say that
there are people today who have trailers who
want electrical outlets, who want dumping
space; and there are other people who are
satisfied with a tent. In fact, there are many
people who prefer to camp with a tent, to
be in the great outdoors; and therefore they
do not need the same facilities. So therefore
it might be advantageous, there might be
merit, in charging an additional fee to those
who want the very luxurious facilities.
Mr. Chairman: We have a motion be-
fore us.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I forgot to say, Mr.
Chairman— it is very important.
It has been said that people will not be
using our parks. Well I would like to say,
Mr. Chairman, that these are the figures up
to June 16, 1968. It goes up to June 16
which I believe was last Saturday.
It is interesting to note that camping parks
in seven of our eight districts situated south
of the Mattawa and French Rivers, did report
that to the period up to June 16, an increase
in campsite days used from 23,182 in 1967
to 26,801 in 1968, an increase of 11 per cent.
Last year we had 10 million visitors in our
provincial parks and approximately 2 million
campers. I would venture to say that this
year the increase could well be higher than
11 per cent by the end of this year. a
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur has moved that vote 1105 be reduced ij
to the sum of $1. ffi
Those in favour of the motion please say
"aye". Those opposed will please say "nay".
In my opinion the "nays" have it. Call in
the members.
All those in favour of tlie motion will
please rise.
All those opposed to the motion will please
4788
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the
"ayes" are 24; the "nays" 37.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost;
and vote 1105 is carried.
Vote 1105 agreed to.
On vote 1106:
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
Minister, through you sir, do I infer correctly
from the annual report of the department
that the economics branch of the department
numbers one person?
Hon. Mr. Bninelle: I am sorry, I wonder
if the hon. member would mind repeating
that question?
Mr. Sopha: I am asking, Mr. Chairman, if
I infer correctly from the annual report that
the personnel of the economics branch of the
department is comprised of one person?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, we do
not have an economics branch, but in the
timber branch we have some of the foresters
who specialize in forest economics, plus one
in research.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister is a man that
means what he says and says what he means
and in the annual report on page 15, the re-
search branch I take it— no I am wrong, I
must confess I am wrong in this.
The heading, if the Minister will look, is
"research branch" in bold type at the top of
page 15. Then apparently the forestry section
of the department, which would fall into the
timber branch, begins on page 16. I con-
clude then that the economist is not attached
to the research branch?
Hon. Mr, Brunelle: There are four forest
economists in the timber branch and there
is one in the research branch.
Mr. Sopha: Well that is what I said
originally. Now, the one in the research
branch, would the Minister give us an idea
what he does? Is he the person referred to
in the first paragraph on page 19?
Hon, Mr. Brunelle: The economist's, also
referred to as a scientist in the research
branch, work consists of the study of the
relationship between forest resources of
Canada and those of eastern Europe with
special reference to the USSR, the principal
competitor in the world for forest products
and forest product markets.
^fr. Sopha: Does anyone in the depart-
ment, and specifically in the research branch,
study the uses to which our forest resources
might be put?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The timber branch does
tliis sort of work. The four economists in
the timber branch do this work.
Mr, Sopha: So this branch we are dealing
with is concerned mainly with the generation,
the growth, the cultivation, all those things
connected with silviculture?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is right.
Mr. Sopha: Right. Now, it is intended, per-
haps as the result of a little stimulus from
the Opposition, that the programme of this
department and its activity, is going to be
increased. I do not expect you to agree with
my premise, but may we expect that the
activity is going to be increased in this area?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chainnan, I would
say so. As I mentioned yesterday, we are
spending $1.6 million. This is the highest
amount of money in any province in Canada
for research, and I know the hon. member
is suggesting we should be spending more,
and I am hoping that we will be able to
spend more. I would like to mention that
we—
Mr. Sopha: Well, let me ask this question
then. I can do this by analogy, if tlie Chair-
man will permit. The other day there was a
very naive article in the Globe and Mail. I
am glad the Globe and Mail is not present
for the time being. There was a very naive
article, I think it was written by someone
by the name of Watkins, and the heading
of it was— this article was about the Minister
of Mines— "The Minister of Mines Oversees
the Mining Industry" which is exactly what
he does not do, but we will deal with that
when we come to those estimates. The one
thing he does not do is oversee the mining
industry in this country.
Now, in this department, can the Minister
tell us whether, in any genuine way, this
department oversees the activities of people
utilizing our forest resources in respect of
advising them what and where? What species
they will cut, and where is the best place
for tliem to cut them, and the best method
of transportation, the best ways to create
those avenues of transportation. In fact,
everything else about their operation. Does
this department intervene under that rubric,
to manage the industry, sort of? I am trying
to convey, in an umbrella-like fashion, do
these people, utilizing our forest resources,
have to resort to this department in respect
JUNE 20, 1968
4789
of the details of how they are going to utihze
I them?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well our research
liranch's main purpose is to specialize in new
information and my understanding is that
pulp and paper companies contact our timber
t branch for the direct relationship. Now for
instance in the forestry research carried out
at Maple, we are primarily interested in the
re-establishment of forest stands after logging
I and wildfire. To accomplish tliis our forest
(research activity is engaged in developing a
thorough knowledge of the requirements of
our native species, and how disturbed stands
must be treated to provide the desired con-
dition.
We are also doing quality wood research,
it has been continuing in collaboration, as I
metnioned yesterday, with the Ontario re-
search foundation, working very closely with
them. And it is essentially concerned with
more precise definition of the qualities which
have made several Ontario species premium
raw materials on the world market. At pres-
ent, laboratory studies are wholly concerned
with black spruce, which has been, and still
is, the top premium material in the province,
for the wood fibre industry and particularly
for the production of newsprint.
Also we are carrying out studies in north-
ern Ontario as far as drainage is concerned.
You know, we ha\ e a tremendous amount of
wood in the north and many persons feel
that maybe we should be giving further
study to the drainage and the physical and
chemical properties of items such as the peat
in the Cochrane clay belt, to provide a much
better understanding of the regeneration
problems. All these studies are being carried
out through our research branch at Maple.
Mr. Sopha: One scarcely ever runs into a
professional forester working outside the de-
partment who has a good word to say about
the department. But their views are not
necessarily reliable. But the place where I
take my stand is that I firmly believe that
government should know more about the
aspects of our province than any other body
or any other group of people. Government
should be, if anything, the final repository of
information and the accumulation of facts
_ about our province.
Now we are dealing with one area, our
forest resources. Is the Minister prepared to
assure us that, in respect to our vast forest
resources, government and this department,
knows more about the forest resources, cul-
tivation, harvesting of the forest, than any
other group of people in tlie world.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well I would say, Mr.
Chairman, that we have some very competent
persons. During the past month, for instance,
we have sent someone to the United States,
to the southern states. As you may know,
there is a tremendous expansion in newsprint
production in the southern states. One of
our forest economists went to these states.
I believe there are about ten states, including
Louisianna, Mississippi and Alabama. He
went to study exactly what is going on in
those areas.
Another of our foresters went to a seminar
at Yale to meet with representatives of other
jurisdictions. Some have gone to Europe, also
attending international conferences. So I
would say, Mr. Chairman, we have some of
the top experts in our department on matters
concerning forestry.
Mr. Sopha: Well, how many foresters do
you have in the research branch? How many
are there— professional foresters?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have 26 scientists,
20 technicians, and seven clerical staff— that
is, in the forestry section of the research
branch.
Mr. Sopha: Well, I would have to say as
a layman that it is not enough. And what
bothers me about it is that, to go back to my
earher remarks, it just seems to me that this
department is too distracted in other relatively
unimportant things. Now, for example, you
have a highly qualified man— his name just
escapes me— he is a very nice fellow, with
very high qualifications, and seems to coalesce
within his cranial spaces a good deal of in-
telligence—and he is preoccupied in making
—what do you call it, not a survey, it is some-
thing more than a survey— an assessment, a
compilation, in what is now called the Geor-
gian Bay recreational area. Maybe that is
not the exact title.
I am satisfied that man knows just about
everytliing there is to know about that geo-
graphic area that he has outlined on a map.
He has counted almost the rocks and sea-
shells on it, and he has compiled all kinds of
charts and maps and pictures and so on.
Now I would like to be satisfied, and I am
not, that in respect of the greatest resource
the Canadian people own— the greatest single
resource that the residents of Ontario own,
that is to say our forest resources— I think I
am correct, and somebody is going to set me
straight if I am not, that the harvesting of our
4790
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
forest creates more jobs and generates more
dollars than any other single industry, and in-
deed employs more people, in all its force. I
would like to be satisfied that this department
knows more about our forest resources, their
silviculture, their regeneration, the soil tech-
nology, climatic environment, and everything
else connected with our forests than any other
group of people anywhere. I would like to
find out if that is so. We now have in north-
ern Ontario several big operators harvesting
our forests— particularly in the pulp and paper
field. Now, do those people know more about
forest technology and science and growth
than the people in this department? Or do
they resort to this department when they run
into diflSculty, and is this department able to
furnish them the help, assistance, the infor-
mation and advice that they might expect to
get from it. Now what does the Minister say
to that?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, as I
mentioned earlier, we have very competent
persons in our department; we have 172 for-
esters—these are graduate foresters— and they
are mainly concerned with the management
of our force.
We have our research branch at Maple.
And I would say that we have the most
competent people in the province. For in-
stance, the pulp and paper industries have at
Pointe Claire, near Montreal, a research centre.
Our department works very closely with this
centre.
Also, we work very closely with the federal
government. They have, of course, substan-
tial funds, more funds than we have, and we
work very closely. I remember in the last
year or two we have lost some our men to
the federal government.
Mr. Sopha: Well it is a very difficult prob-
lem and I want to see it in the light of the
statements such as the one that I read yester-
day that in the next 20 years we have to
double the production from our forests. And
I suppose that means Ontario's production
has got to be doubled in order to meet the
demands made upon our forests. Under the
next vote, I am going to have something to
say about some of the nature of those de-
mands. But, how can I be assured; how can
the people of Ontario feel quiescent that sud-
denly, this year, this department lurches for-
ward with a significantly increased vote for
research?
We are entitled to wonder just what have
they been doing all these years in respect of
silviculture, and is it a case of pushing the
panic button that they suddenly realize that
they have got to catch up. Well, for all we
know, as laymen, the catching up or the en-
deavour to catch up in a short space of time
might mean that when the demands are made
upon the production in our forests, Ontario
will be found wanting; that we will not have
that supply of raw material that will be neces-
sary to meet the great demands.
When you talk about doubling production,
and I am thinking now more in the field of
pulp and paper products, when you talk about
that, then that is an immense amount of work
that is going to be required handy to the
mills, because they cannot drag this wood
from Great Trout Lake or some place up
there, it has got to be relatively contiguous to
where these mills are going to me; and the
Minister talks about planting, well, that is
fine, they have planted their billionth tree or
was it their two billionth tree?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: One billion.
Mr. Sopha: One billion. That is a lot of
trees; he did not tell us how many survived
of that billion and I do not know what the
survival rate is. But he does not tell us any-
thing at all, scarcely anything, about the re-
generation of fast-growing species, or the
development of that species. And who knows,
if we had 1.6 million a few years ago we
might be in a position of competing with
Georgia. Is it Georgia that is always pointed
to as being the place that they produce these
species that are a threat to our pulp and
paper industry?
Well, again, I go back and I say it fear-
lessly. I tramp on a lot of people's toes of
course. Here is the problem in a nutshell;
if you want to look at an idiotic book, if
you have a spare moment, there is one pub-
lished by The Department of Economics of
this government that used to be under the
Minister of Trade and Development (Mr.
Randall), and it has moved over to the
Frost building now, and it is now under the
new Department of Revenue.
They put out a book called "A Survey of
Northwestern Ontario" and they count the
telephone poles, the number of outhouses
that there are in northeastern Ontario, and
such other significant facts as that. But,
when they come around to the last page, and
they can get all their conclusions on one
page, the last paragraph refers to the poten-
tiality of northern Ontario as a tourist region;
that is the way they see it. It is going to be
a tourist region.
I am just afraid that that syndrome— I
would call that a syndrome of stupidity— has
JUNE 20, 1968
4791
in some way affected The Department of
Lands and Forests. And, when I see all this
activity related to recreation, I am beginning
to wonder whether this department has lost
sight of its chief purpose— this was The De-
partment of Public Lands. We used to have
a picture, maybe the picture is still up in
the members' cloakroom, of the first mutton-
chopped individual— he looked extremely
well fed— that was the first commissioner of
Crown lands in this province. And out of
that grew this department— Lands and
Forests.
I There is nothing in the name that says
anything about recreation, but I am just
afraid that down at head office here that the
balance has been lost; the thing has got dis-
torted. You never hear anything about our
forest resources; nobody ever mentions those
except tangentially as they may come in
with respect to the fact that KVP is worried
about the Brown forest industries now; wor-
ried about damming up some lakes up in the
Onoping chain. All they talk about is recre-
ation and land used for recreation.
As I view it from outside, I say: What
have we become here in tliis department?
Is this department sold on the syndrome that
northern Ontario is going to be a little
Switzerland? Is that what it is going to be?
Another Switzerland?
We are going to fritter away our heritage
and our birthright in the utilization of these
great resoiurces. Well I have some evidence
to support that view when, this year, there
is a sudden increase in the research branch
of this department. Why not 10 or 15 years
ago? Had there been a proper healthy pre-
occupation with the development of our great
forest resources and the consciousness of the
number of jobs that we can create by their
proper utilization?
Well, the world of competition and the
pulp companies are always screaming about
the competition that they get from abroad
and it would seem to me that the sensible
approach would be to determine whether the
raw product can be improved for its utiliza-
tion. That is where you start. You start with
the product. And you know you can rule
out the Hudson Bay watershed, because you
know that the black spruce is not going to
grow very fast in tliat swamp and muskeg,
with winter imposing itself for about eleven
months of the year.
You have got to start down in more south-
ern climes and see what the soils will pro-
duce in a fairly short space of time, instead
of these pulp companies having to continue
to reach further and further away from the
mill to get their raw materials. So I have
got to be very pessimistic about the future
of silviculture, unless this department will
initiate something of a crash programme.
Perhaps the member— or the Minister of
Municipal Affairs— he is not here; but permit
me to take some comfort from the fact that
I mentioned this last year and tried to make
an issue out of it.
I am very encouraged that there is a great
leap forward in this realm, a year later. But
I want to see more. Now that we have
opened the door to some really directed re-
search into this, I wish, I hope in the future
that we will not just be out planting trees,
the billionth, or the two billionth, but we
will be planting trees that are going to
ripen and mature for their use in something
like 12 or 14 years, which seems to me to
be about the optimum for them.
Mr. Bukator: Seventy-five years!
Mr. Sapha: I say this to the Minister: Go
over and take a look around some day at
the head ofiBce and say, "Look fellows, we
have got to cut some of the splash out
here— this obsession with the tourist industry—
and we have got to get down to business.
We are farmers."
Basically what they are in this department,
they are farmers. They are farmers of the
forest, in the same way as my friend from
Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) is a farmer of the
soil. The chief raison d'etre of this depart-
ment unquestionably is the preservation and
the cultivation of our forest resources, as an
integral part of the economic life of this
province. A very important and valuable part
of that economic life.
And $1.6 million, compared to $1.8 million
—as my friend from Downsview quoted in the
Sudbury Star—ior the horsebreeders; $1.6 mil-
lion is not much of a ripple.
This Legislature would cheerfully vote a
goodly amount more than that. Very oblig-
ingly and very enthusiastically it would vote
a lot more money than that for some kind of
a decent programme of investigation into all
aspects of silviculture.
While the Minister talks about sending
people over to Scandinavia and Russia and
those places, we would be wilhng to go a
little further than that. Bring a few over
from there. Hire a few away from them.
They have got some pretty good foresters
over there, and they have been at this busi-
ness of harvesting of forests— farming the
4792
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
forest— for a long time— a lot longer than
we have. One gets the impression they do a
tremendous job of it.
Canadians are not against borrowing the
techniques and the skills of others. That is
the story of our life, our national life. I urge
upon the Minister that, because I have some
ideas and I know he shares them. I have
some ideas, that I am going to address my-
self to the next vote. This is a sine qua non
for the realization of those ideas, and those
ideas involve maximizing the use of all re-
sources by and for Canadians. We cannot
do that until we get the basics complied with.
The basics must involve that this depart-
ment knows more than any other person in
the world about our forests. No one should
outshine them.
That is not true with mining. Everybody
that breaks up a piece of ore knows more
about mining than The Department of Mines,
but that ought not to be true of The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests— this department
of forestry should not be beholden to any
other persons as far as knowledge goes of
the art of cultivation of the forests. And to
that end, this Minister can make a great con-
tribution, being a northerner that he is. And
he can make things happen, make them hap-
pen in the realm of forestry.
Start tomorrow and say this is the direction
we are going to go, because you loiow they
talk about products becoming obsolescent.
There is one resource that I dare say will
never become obsolescent.
Our poor friend from Oxford (Mr. Inncs)-
not our poor friend, our good friend from
Oxford— he may be threatened that they get
substitutes for milk, but you never are going
to get substitutes for our forest resources,
because they are too versatile. They can,
indeed, substitute for many other products.
Tremendous versatility in clothing and furni-
ture and manufacture of paper products,
chemicals, medicines. Indeed, a whole range
of products that can be produced from our
forests.
If we are going to really herald that day
that we maximize the use of them, this
department has to lead the way. That is why
I say in that light that this Minister could
make things happen.
I am an easy fellow to get along with and
I would be agreeable— turf everybody out of
that department that does not work directly
or reasonably tangentially in connection with
the forests. Get everybody else out. Lend
them to The Department of Tourism and In-
formation. Ship them over there.
They can build a dream of building a
Switzerland over there, as well they might.
Then this department gets down to the busi-
ness of pre-occupation— total obsession with
our forest resources, our lands, and conserva-
tion of it, to the exclusion of all else.
That is what this research branch is about.
That is what it is about. So come in here
next year— after we get inured to voting
money, $1.8 million for the horsebreeders—
walk in here and say, "Look, give us $6
million. We have got a line on three or four
skilled people in Sweden tliat we would like
to bring over."
Maybe a few could escape outside of the
iron curtain. And the Russians apparently
have done tremendous work in Siberia, in
the generation of species. We are dragging
our feet in this country and we know it, and
anybody with a little interest knows that.
You drive through the countryside with a
forester and he will point out to you some
of our shortcomings. When he comes to a
clump, driving up around Nipigon or Gerald-
ton, and sees the second growth of scrub-
birch, poplar, balsam— it looks like nothing
else on earth. He says, "If they cared about
out forests that would never be there; that
would not be there beside the road. They
would be ashamed of that. The Department
of Lands and Forests would be ashamed of
it. They would come in and cut that down."
You would not find that in Scandinavia.
They plant some species there that will grow
up fulsome and viable and really look like
a tree. The trouble is that a lot of our trees
in northern Ontario do not look like trees.
It looks like limp dishrags, that second
growth stuff. The reason for that is that we
have not done enough in this area of culti-
vation of proper species of trees.
I must confess, I have been here too long
a time, until I really got interested in this.
My eyes were really opened up to see the
amount of time we have wasted in this and
how that waste has assailed us and how we
have let this department become a tourist
department in the way that it has.
I have not checked with my leader. He
and I will be here next year— my friend from
Downsview, city folk and farmer friend from
Kent, and all our northern Ontario associates
here. I predict that you come in here with a
crash programme in forest research and
really spend some real money, if you can
wedge it out of that Treasury board. Of
course, you go and talk to them and they
probably will not know what you are talking
about, knowing the personnel. But talk to
JUNE 20, 1968
4793
the Premier (Mr. Robarts)— talk to the
Premier himself about it. I urge upon you,
seriously, to come in here and ask for some
real money in the field of research and we
will be delighted to assist you and vote it to
I you with alacrity.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): With regard
to the annual report on research: I see on
page 17, in southwestern Ontario, they have
been studying the dreaded elm disease. I am
siure that everyone is aware that this has
really made an indentation in the tree popu-
lation in western Ontario.
I might say it was rather depressing to
travel through that area and see the vast
trees standing there, naked like, without any
green foliage, due to this dreaded disease.
I think that this government has been very
backward in not doing something about it,
or at least, doing more than— it should be
doing more— than they are. They claim they
have not found the answer to stopping the
disease but if they cannot stop the disease,
I think they should do something to destroy
tlie diseased trees. Some municipalities, as
you are aware, probably do this on winter
works programmes. Fifty per cent of the cost
of destroying dead elm trees is paid for by
the federal government. Then the provincial
government, the great custodians of the
province, back down a little bit. And some-
times I think of the hon. Minister of Agri-
culture and Food (Mr. Stewart) who gets up
and gives some great spiels about what the
provincial government is doing for farmers,
but not always, I think, quite as much as he
says. They back down and give 25 per cent
towards the destroying of these diseased
trees and the municipality which has limited
resources, must carry on with the other 25
per cent.
I think this government should immedi-
ately, or on the first of October of this year
if it is necessary to make a crash programme
or get extra funds for that extra 25 per cent,
make a clean sweep of western Ontario,
southwestern Ontario and have all the
diseased trees destroyed and I think this
could be done during one winter.
We have lots of people that would be glad
to do this type of work. It is very invigor-
ating to work out in the wintertime, I think
most of us are aware of this. I know in my
own municipality that I have had the pleas-
ure of heading and for a number of years,
have done this. We may be a little more
fortunate and can afiFord to do some, but for
a lot of the municipalities, it is impossible.
due to their range of taxation. I think this
government should l)y all means take this
project on this fall.
We do know that with co-operation of the
federal government, that they would be re-
sponsible for only 50 per cent of this. To see
this, ride through, take a train or a car
through, and see all this. It is very depressing
to anyone and it just makes you wonder what
we are doing to a heritage that was given to
us in the past hundreds of years. We are
doing nothing and I think that this depart-
ment is the one that should look after it and
no other.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I have one
brief comment to make on this.
I noticed that the Minister is spending
some $500,000 with regard to the spruce bud-
worm infestation up around Burchill Lake
and Lake Shebandowan. In a recent press
release, I noticed that the weather had Ixien
against tliem and there was some apprehen-
sion as to whether or not that particular pro-
gramme was going to be completed in time
before the budworm developed into a stage
where they would not be able to do anything
with it.
I would just like to find out, from the
Minister, how you find out about these in-
festations before they get so far advanced.
Do you have foresters go around checking all
areas or do they develop to such magnitude?
I understand that in the neighbourhood of
250,000 acres are going to have to be
sprayed at a cost of in excess of $500,000.
Now I was wondering if it is necessary to
let these things get to such proportions be-
fore we take action. I understand, in speak-
ing to one of the people who is resident in
that area, that at one time is was confined
to a four- or five-acre plot in a jack pine
grove. I was wondering whether there is
any foundation to this or whether it was of
tliis magnitude before the department even
heard or found out about it.
I realize that you have no alternative right
now, but to take the only action left to you,
to spray 250,000 acres, but I was wondering
if there is some way that you could contain
this before it got to such proportions?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, first
with reference to the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, there is only one day's work
left and they were waiting for good weather
and it could be completed.
How do they find out about this? This
comes under the insect rangers, under the
4794
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
federal forestry, and work, of course, in close
co-operation with our own people and
tliroughout northern Ontario these insect
rangers are located. They are the ones who
find out about the infestations. Now these do
not affect the jack pine. They only affect the
spruce and the balsam.
Mr. Stokes: Is there nobody under the
supervision of The Department of Lands and
Forests that is concerned about these insects?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are very concerned,
it comes under our forest protection branch,
but the persons who are mainly responsible
for going out in the fields, who work very
closely with our Lands and Forests personnel,
in the districts, and are the main body respon-
sible for detecting this, are these insect
rangers under the federal forestry. But they
work closely with our own people in each
district.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have had
communications suggesting that these massive
sprayings for budworm upset nature's balance.
Now I understand in this instance that you
are using a new insecticide— it is not DDT but
one, the name of which escapes me, that
comes from Japan, as I recall. Is it accurate,
that in the use of insecticides earlier, there
was any evidence of nature's balance being
upset? Namely, that something more than
the budworms were killed? Are you gambling
with the new insecticide? Have you any
assurance that it is no more or any less of a
threat in terms of consequences beyond kill-
ing the budworm?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, the
chemicals that we are using in northwestern
Ontario, in the Port Arthur area, have been
tested in other jurisdictions and they are very
safe chemicals and not injurious to wildlife.
We have co-operated closely with the
authorities in the United States. This is a
chemical that is in use in certain areas in the
United States, and I believe that is was also
used in Europe. Now prior to this I guess
that there were certain instances where the
chemicals were injurious to wildlife but what
we are using now has been approved and is
quite safe.
Vote 1106 agreed to.
On vote 1107:
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, it is a natural
continuum, having laid the groundwork in
the last vote, to now deal with the guts of
this department. Now we will get dowoi to
the real business at hand and the way that
I want to approach the utilization of our
timber resources, and what I think ought to
be the function of this branch, is to take in
hand one example of our failure to properly
utilize the great heritage of the people of
the province in their forest resources.
I made a little survey. This will become
very clear to those in the House who attend
to what I have to say. But I recite a little
survey of the activity in the forest industry,
and the realm of pulp and paper in northern
Ontario. It involves what goes on in the use
of our pulpwood. If we start at Smooth Rock
Falls, where the Abitibi company— I am going
to start from east to west— produces news-
print.
Further to the west in Kapuskasing, we
have the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Cor-
poration. These names may not be exact, but
it is engaged in the production of newsprint.
At Marathon, we have the Marathon Paper
Corporation, producing newsprint and sulfate
pulp for export. At Terrace Bay, we have the
Kimberly Clark Corporation, which like the
plant at Marathon, produces pulp for export
and newsprint. At Kenora there is the
Ontario-Minnesota plant, again producing
newsprint. At Fort Frances there is tlie On-
tario-Minnesota, producing newsprint. At
Dryden, we have the Dryden Paper Company
which produces newsprint. I think that I am
correct— I could not ascertain this— but I think
that it is the only company in Ontario that
produces any kind of fine paper. At Espanola
there is the Brown Forest Industries, formerly
the KVP company, which produces kraft and
parchment paper, bleached pulp, and a
product which is turned into a finer paper
at Hamilton by the Appleford Paper Com-
pany. At Sturgeon Falls, we have the other
branch of Abitibi Company, which produces
a very rough grade of corrugated paper, such
as is found in cardboard boxes and that type
of thing. The annual report of the depart-
ment is printed on paper produced in the
United States. The $16,000 spent by Milton
Karman, the czar of culture, in Ontario, for
that annual report of the province of Ontario
council of the arts at a $1.60 a copy, or a
thousand copies, that paper was produced in
the United States. Maybe that is most of
the cost of it; the fact tliat it was produced
in the United States.
Now, let us go back to the Marathon Paper
Coi-poration, Marathon, and to Kimberly
Clark at Terrace Bay. To the great credit of
George Drev/, a generation ago, when those
limits were being farmed out. Drew, my re-
searchers tell me in 1944, and again in 1947
JUNE 20, 1968
4795
—1944 in respect to one and 1947 in respect
to another— required that mills be built.
Those companies were created as a result
of the requirements laid down by George
Drew, and the communities of Terrace Bay
and Marathon exist as a monument to him.
He required the mills to be built. In addition
to the newsprint that they produce, they ship
their pulp sulfate into the United States and
that is turned into the kind of fine papers
upon which the Minister of this department-
being in charge of the pulpwood of the prov-
ince—makes his report to the Legislature. He
has to send to the United States for the paper
to print it on.
The significance, of course, is that those
mills manufacturing this paper are located
generally in the northern United States. So
if you went over into Michigan, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, not so much Minnesota now, those
northern states of the United States, the
common factor about them that immediately
strikes the eye, coming from here, is that they
have no forests, because they cut them down.
Michigan was probably the most prodigal of
the northern states in cutting their forests
down. They hired woodsmen from Bucking-
ham, Quebec, the Gatineau and that area, in
the 1890s and the first decade of the century
to cut the forests down. But having denuded
themselves of their forests, they did not lose
out on the jobs to be created from oiu-s. They
sequestered us into a situation where the
activities of our people in our forests of the
north are coalesced with the design that our
raw material will pass into Michigan and
Ohio to the mills, where the work of our
people will be reflected in the jobs created
for Americans producing the paper of this
report, which they will sell back to us.
Now for every dime, you see, we get for
our pulp sulfate that goes to the States, we
pay a dollar to get the finished product back.
That is why it costs Milton Karman $16,000
to produce that collector's work of art. That
is why it cost a probably tidy piece of money
to get this report of Lands and Forests printed.
Now, future generations will look at us, you
see, and they will really wonder what kind of
weird group we were that we are content to
allow our raw materials to be taken away
from our forests, to go south of the border
to create wealth and jobs for other people
and then sell us the finished product back at
a premium.
Now that is the story of the timber wedge.
That is the story of this branch of The De-
partment of Lands and Forests. And try as
I might, other than the activity of George
Drew a generation ago in at least requiring
that the newsprint be manufactured at Mara-
thon and Terrace Bay, I cannot find another
single example where The Department of
Lands and Forests has ever exercised any
stimulus to require the manufacture of fin-
ished products from our forest industries in
our country. For to do so would mean that
it would be breeding new ground.
I really wonder if the northern part of the
province is indeed to become the link Ixjtwecn
east and west of this country; whether there
is any hope in the future that this depart-
ment will take the necessary action in respect
of those who would use up our raw material,
to demand that the finished product be made
in Ontario. To say that is to cite the story of
our failure as Canadians. Now put con-
versely, it means that the timber branch of
The Department of Lands and Forests has,
in effect, in the last 25 years allowed those
from abroad to come into Ontario and rip
the wealth off the surface of the ground and
cart it away to create jobs and wealth else-
where. That is the indictment of this depart-
ment or this branch of this department that
forms the very central core in relation to this
department. All else is mere dressing. All
the rest is unimportant. When you examine
this department from this point of view, you
have to see this department in relation to its
timber branch, and what the timber branch
is going to do to ensure that the resources
of northern Ontario— those wide expanses of
forest— are going to be used in the best
way possible to create wealth and jobs and
opportunity for Canadians; for Canadians
first; for a much larger population than we
now have.
Now in that regard 1 want to mention this
significant fact. The Prime Minister can talk
all he wants about Ontario as a place to grow
and a place to stand, and he likes to say that,
but there is a bald fact that I want to tell him
—if he were here. The fact is, that in three
of the districts in northern Ontario that were
famous for their harvest of the forest re-
sources—the district of Rainy River, repre-
sented by that fine young man who spoke
here yesterday; the district of Manitoulin;
and the district of Timiskaming— the popula-
tion is declining.
Population is declining year by year. Your
people live in those districts and the net mi-
gration, the net migration out of those dis-
tricts exceeds the natural increase. And to
our eternal shame, the people migrating out
of those three districts that were once rich
in forest resoiurces are the young people. It
is the young people who are leaving. Now
how can you say, in relation to at least those
4796
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
three districts, that Ontario is a place to
stand and a place to grow? And of course,
the principal reason for that is that we have
failed in this century. We have failed in the
last 25 years to direct the utilization of our
resources with the goal that we are going to
foster acti\'ity and development and industry
in the northern part of the province. That
should be a first demand.
That is not chauvinism, that is not a
nationalism that has escaped the balance of
reason. That is common sense that we should
do so. We think of ourselves first. We make
a proper requirement that you people that
come here and use up our resources that you
must think of the development of this area
first. Well, put in that light, I say: Have we
got any business— at International Falls, Fort
Frances and International Falls— in shooting
pulp across in suspension? That is what we
do. We have a pipeline there. I would not
be surprised if that pipeline is built with
public funds. I do not know, I must look
into that.
We have a pipeline that takes our pulp,
cut in Ontario in the district of Rainy River,
across to a mill in International Falls. Now,
I think they shoot some back to us. I think
they give us some back.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It comes back to Fort
Frances.
Mr. Sopha: I think what they take over
there they use to make the fine papers and
they send us the guck to make the news-
print. I think I am correct in that, because
we do not make fine paper. We pay the
big price.
What business have we got in shipping
pulp sulphate in the way that we do to mills
outside? What is wrong in the modern v/orld,
of us saying to these people, "Look, build your
mills here." That is what George Drew did
back in 1943 and 1947. You put up a fine
paper mill here. All the paper for the New
York Times is produced at either Smooth Rock
Falls or Kapuskasing. I forget which it is, it
is one of them. What is wrong with our say-
ing to that fine newspaper that has such a
tremendous circulation; such an impact on
world affairs. We say: "Fine, if you want to
produce newsprint, start to make some fine
papers in Ontario and employ some men in
the production of the fine papers."
But it is a very fine arrangement for the
Americans. One thing you can say about the
Americans, you never note them for lack
of shrewdness. They used up their resources
in this century. They cut their trees down
in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New
York state. They cut them down, and then
they look covetously at ours. They said,
"Now we will come and get yours." And
coming across the border, they do.
My goodness gracious, Canadians are the
friendliest people in the world to help them
cart it away. In this department, the timber
branch says, "Come on boys, and we will
help you." We will help you cart them away
in order to provide jobs elsewhere.
Well the truth is, that the only manu-
facturing industry we have got in northern
Ontario, outside the mining industry, is the
pulp and paper industry. We have not got
any other. And the pulp and paper industry
is degraded to its lowest denominator. It
makes the coarsest papers; the worst papers;
the most inferior papers. That is to say
newsprint, cardboard boxes, paper bags, and
all that type. Nothing aside from Dryden—
and I am unable to find out just how much
fine papers they make at Dryden— but other
than that there is no sophisticated develop-
ment of the pulp and paper industry whatso-
ever.
Now another day, when I come back here
on June 26, I will be prepared to say some-
thing about the timber, about the saw logs
and how we have wasted that part of our
resources— and I fear that is ver>' much of
a diminishing resource. We were much better
off in pulpwood than we are in saw logs. Un-
fortunately, back in 1949, through no fault
of this department, I think it was 1949— it
was around there somewhere— there was
burned down one of the last stands of white
pine that existed in this province in the great
Mississauga fire. But that was no fault of the
department, and it could not happen now, let
it be said in fairness.
The forest protection measures are of pretty
high order in this department, and the fire
would, in the absence of gale-like winds, no
doubt be restrained to a very small acreage.
But let me just make this remark about
the timber industry in saw logs, that there
are all kinds of products into which they
could be rendered. Think of the realm of
furniture, for one thing, furniture for which
the essential ingredient is wood, and go into
northern Ontario and try and find a furniture
factory of any size. Now with the resources
we have in saw logs, would you not expect,
at some time in this century, that this timber
branch would have fostered the development
of at least one furniture factory?
Then you go into the realm of clothing,
rayon and the textiles that can be made out
JUNE 20, 1968
4797
of wood. You wonder why, in the whole of
Ontario, there is not some iitihzation of
forest products in that regard.
They tell me that trees can be turned into
food for cattle. They tell me that it makes
a very wholesome fodder.
I do not know how many over there
have read that book The Coming Age of
Wood. How many have read it? It should be
compulsory reading. It has been on the
market now for close to 20 years and that
author— let us say this to his credit— was an
American— came from somewhere in Europe,
and apparently came with a good deal of
qualification behind him in silviculture.
He looked around the forests in the United
States and he wrote a book and set out
the many possibilities of the use of forest
resources. He was talking about the United
States.
They have realized a lot of the possibih-
ties. We have not! And by the holy smokes,
I just hope that those thousands of young
people that were at Nathan Phillips Square
yesterday grow up and demand of politicians
that we make maximum use of our own
resources for our own people-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Sopha: —and we stop this senseless
business of the shipment of our resources
outside the country to provide jobs elsewhere.
That is where I am going to pitch my tent.
Mr. Chairman, we are all going to get to
the election campaign— it is about one minute
to six— and when we get back here on Wed-
nesday next, some of us will be smiling and
others will not. But I think we will be the
ones that will be smiling. I do not want to
see this vote carry. There are some other
remarks about our timber and forest resources
that I want to make.
With your leave, I would like to break oil
at this point if the House leader will put a
surcease to the proceedings.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Agriculture
and Food is going to put a surcease?
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1107.
Mr. Singer: No, No!
Mr. Sopha: No, No!
Mr. Chairman: The chairman did not indi-
cate it was carried,
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves that the committee
rise and report that it has come to certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): When we come back on
Wednesday, June 26, we will go to the order
paper; then the estimates of The Department
of the Attorney General, followed by The
Department of Financial and Commercial
Affairs.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of tlie Opposition):
No night session on Wednesday?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No night session on
Wednesday.
Hon. Mr. Stewart moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6:00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 128
ONTARIO
Hegisrtature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, June 26, 1968
speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 26, 1968
Teachers' Superannuation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4801
Ontario School Trustees Council Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4801
Teaching Profession Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4801
Magistrate Frederick Bannon and Magistrate George Gardhouse, statement respecting,
Mr. Wishart 4801
Metro Toronto garbage collection, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Nixon and Mr. T. Reid 4811
Rental review board for Ottawa, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. MacDonald 48 IL
Vending machine installations in the Hepburn block, questions to Mr. Cormell,
Mr. Sargent 4813
Transfer of certain prisoners from the North Bay jail, questions to Mr. Grossman,
Mr. Shulman 4813
Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 4814
Northern Telephone Company strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Stokes 4815
School Administration Act, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 4815
Abuses in auto, radio and TV repair fields, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Sargent 4816
Marginal drivers, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Sargent 4816
Garbage removal in Metro Toronto, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Sargent 4816
Mobile dental clinic services, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Sargent 4817
Pollution of the Great Lakes, questions to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Sargent 4817
Halton Centennial manor, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 4817
Subdivisions of land, questions to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Shulman 4818
Stuffing in upholstered and stuffed articles upon their manufacture, sale and renovation,
bill to control the content and identification of, Mr. Rowntree, second reading 4819
Art Gallery of Ontario Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, second reading 4819
Workmen's Compensation Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, second reading 4819
Lord's Day (Ontario) Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, second reading 4825
Royal Ontario museum, bill respecting, Mr. Davis, second reading 4835
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, second reading 4838
Air Pollution Control Act, 1967, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 4838
Public Health Act, bill to amend, Mr. Dymond, second reading 4838
Mining Act, bill to amend, reported 4838
Fire Departments Act, bill to amend, reported 4838
Police Act, bill to amend, reported 4838
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4841
4801
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Once again today we have
many visitors in our galleries. We are pleased
to welcome in the east gallery students from
Lakeshore public school, RR 1, Beams ville;
and in the west galleries students from John
G. Althouse public school, Islington; and in
both galleries students from Springfield pub-
lic school in Cooksville. Later this afternoon,
we will be joined by students from Sacred
Heart school in Samia.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION
ACT
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Teachers' Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE ONTARIO SCHOOL TRUSTEES
COUNCIL ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Ontario
School Trustees Council Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE TEACHING PROFESSION ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Teaching
Profession Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Has the Minister any state-
ment on the introduction of the bills?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, all these
bills will be going to the education commit-
tee. They are basically housekeeping in
Wednesday, June 26, 1968
nature, along with one or two references to
Bill 44.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister if there
is any reference in The Teachers' Superan-
nuation Act to assistance to teachers who
have been retired for some years?
Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no reference to
that in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has
the floor.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day
I wish to make a statement respecting Mag-
istrate Frederick Bannon and Magistrate
George Gardhouse.
Over the period of the last three months
the Metropolitan Toronto police force in the
course of certain criminal investigations came
upon information relative to the behaviour
of these two magistrates. This information
was placed before me by Chief Mackey and
the chairman of the Ontario police commis-
sion. That information warranted further
investigation and this was subsequently car-
ried out by a special detail of officers who
were assigned to this task and who have
been working in co-operation with the law
officers of my department.
As the investigation progressed it became
clear that the administration of justice and
the interests of these magistrates required
that they should not continue to preside in
court during the balance of the investigation,
although the nature of the latter prevented
disclosure to either the public or the gentle-
men involved. It will be appreciated that if
the information which was brought to our
attention should upon investigation prove
true, then to permit the magistrates involved
to continue to act would leave the adminis-
tration of justice open to severe and justi-
fiable criticism. The administration of justice
being our first concern we were bound to act
to protect it. We were also concerned that
if upon full investigation the information
should prove to be wrong, nothing should be
done to injure the reputation of the magis-
trates. The chief magistrate was therefore
4802
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
advised of all the circumstances and acting
on my instructions and in accordance with
his authority under section 19a of The
Magistrates Act, he did not assign these
magistrates to any courts effective Tuesday,
June 18, 1968.
In my capacity as Minister of Justice and
Attorney General, my first duty must be to
the administration of justice— that responsi-
bility demanded that this investigation con-
tinue to completion without any disclosures
that might conceivably prejudice the fullest
investigation possible. The matter therefore
proceeded as quietly and quickly as possible
with no publicity whatsoever. This would be
our normal course of action in a matter of
this kind. We regret very much any pub-
licity attendant upon this case, but it did
not emanate from either my department or
the Metropolitan Toronto police force. We
all realize the desirability of full disclosure in
those cases where it is possible, but at tlie
same time we must recognize that the pub-
lic interest in the integrity of the adminis-
tration of justice must be protected.
The investigation has now reached the
point where I may advise this House that
the Honourable Campbell Grant, a justice of
the Supreme Court of Ontario, has been
appointed under the authority of section 3
of The Magistrates Act to make an inquiry
into and report upon the circumstances re-
vealed in the investigation as they relate to
the behaviour of Magistrate George Gard-
house. Under the statute, this inquiry will
ensure that the magistrate is afforded a full
and complete opportunity to hear all evidence
and adduce such evidence as he may deem
desirable and, of course, he will have full
opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses
either himself or through his counsel.
Magistrate Bannon, who has only been on
the bench for six months, may not have in
law the right to the inquiry provided for in
The Magistrates Act. In order to ensure that
he has the same rights as Magistrate Gard-
house, the Honourable Campbell Grant has
been appointed a commissioner under TJie
Public Inquiries Act with the same terms of
reference in respect of Magistrate Bannon as
those which he is given under The Magis-
trates Act in respect of Magistrate Gardhouse.
In appointing the same judicial inquiry with
the dual capacity we will ensure that the
matters, which are related, will be dealt with
concurrently and in the same context.
At the present time there is no evidence
arising from the investigation that involves
any other magistrates or impugns the system
of the administration of criminal justice in
our Metropolitan Toronto magistrates' courts.
The information that is available, however, is
such that it must be in the public interest
to permit its full review before a judicial
inquiry in the presence of those concerned.
While this type of controversy must cause
grave concern to all citizens of this province,
I am certain that the procedure which we
have adopted will maintain the integrity in
our system which we are all entitled to expect
and at the same time provide complete fair-
ness and equity to the magistrates concerned.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit
me to question the Minister to make some
clarification of his statement.
Are we to gather from the Minister's words
that this hearing will be in camera?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not think that
would necessarily follow, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker,
surely the circumstances of the so-called in-
vestigation should be made clear to this
House. If it is in fact going to be a public
hearing then we in this House, who are
responsible with the Attorney General for
the administration of justice and the reputa-
tion of those who administer justice, should
know what these allegations are.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this matter
was in the public realm a week ago Monday.
It was only ferreted out, I suppose, by people
investigating this and made public a few
days ago. The House should surely now be
informed as to the nature of the circum-
stances of the investigation and what these
charges will be in that it resulted in the
Royal commission.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this being
an inquiry under The Public Inquiries Act,
the charges will be made known in due
course and all the evidence will be presented
there. I think that is the proper place.
To comment in any way now, or to make
statements which are based upon information
which has come to our attention, is not evi-
dentiary. Perhaps I am free to disclose the
nature of the evidence, but to make these
statements now, I think, is not fitting or
proper in view of the fact that an inquiry—
a public inquiry under The Public Inquiries
Act— has been established. That is the place
where the evidence should be presented and
that is where it should be weighed and
assessed.
JUNE 26, 1968
4803
The hon. leader of the Opposition said this
became public some days ago in the press.
I would point out that all that became public
—because there was no evidence of any nature
given— all that apparently appeared in the
press, as far as I am aware, was that these
two magistrates were no longer acting in the
courts. As the press used the term "sus-
pended", that was wrongful, that was in-
correct. The magistrates were simply and
quietly asked not to accept further duties.
There was no publicity oflFered by The
Department of the Attorney General or by the
investigating police. The terms of reference
will appear in the order in council and I
I could give those to the House.
I shall read the order in council with
respect to Magistrate Gardhouse.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Can we
have a copy of that?
I
^ Hon. Mr. Wishart: I can have copies made.
This is the recommendation. I do not have
the order in council, but the same language
I will be used:
With respect to Magistrate George W.
Gardhouse, that the Honourable Campbell
Grant, one of Her Majesty's justices of the
Supreme Court of Ontario, be appointed
to inquire into and report upon the
circumstances respecting the behaviour or
misbehaviour of Magistrate George W.
Gardhouse; and respecting his ability or
inability to perform his duties properly,
including his association with the person
known as Vincent Alexander and other
persons.
The undersigned further recommends
that pursuant to the said Act, the Honour-
able Campbell Grant shall have the power
of summoning any person, requiring him to
give evidence on oath and to produce such
documents and things as he deems requisite
to the full examination of the matters into
which he is ordered to examine.
The usual language of the order in council;
and the same terms, the same language,
apply in the order in council with respect to
Magistrate Frederick J. Bannon.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
could ask the Attorney General a question
arising out of his statement. He says on
page 2— he has been good enough to furnish
us with a copy of his statement— page 2, the
last sentence of the first paragraph, at the
top of the page:
The chief magistrate was therefore
advised of all the circumstances and acting
on my instructions and in accordance with
his authority under section 19a of The
Magistrates Act, he did not assign these
magistrate to any courts effective Tuesday,
June 18, 1968.
Now, the pertinent subsections of section 19a
are these, sir:
The chief magistrate shall have general
supervisory powers over arranging the sit-
tings of magistrates and assigning magis-
trates for hearings as the circumstances
require.
By itself that section perhaps might give to
the chief magistrate the authority that the
Attorney General now claims for him, but it
cannot be read without subsection 3, which
reads as follows:
In the arrangements of the magistrates
courts and the assignments of the magis-
trates thereto, regard shall be had to:
(a) the desirability of rotating the magis-
trates within each county or territorial dis-
trict, and
(b) the greater volume of judicial work
in certain of the counties and districts.
Now I would ask the Attorney General, Mr.
Speaker, how he can possibly justify the
sentence in his statement "in view of those
sections of the statute", and how he can
justify the Attorney General, of all people
in the province of Ontario, breaking the laws
of the province of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this is
nonsense. Subsection 2, which the hon.
member read, clearly says that the chief
magistrate shall assign the work to the magis-
trates. I have not the section before me
but that is what it says, he shall assign.
We simply suggested that he not assign work
to these two magistrates.
Mr. Singer: Assigns sittings for hearings?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, and we direct him
not, in these circumstances, to assign these
magistrates to sittings of the courts.
Mr. Singer: How does the Attorney General
explain away subsection 3?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Subsection 3 does not
take anything away from subsection 2.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member for
York South.
4804
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, there are two points on which I
would request some clarification from the
Attorney General.
On page 1 of his statement he indicates
that in the course of certain criminal investi-
gations over the past three months, the
Metropolitan Toronto police force had come
across this information, and then it had been
passed on to him. May I ask the Attorney
General: When was it passed on to him?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not have the
actual date before me, Mr. Speaker. I could
get that. I may say that the investigations
were of a nature which were carried on by
police for some time before they came to my
attention. Actually, it was some time before
the significance of the relationship of the
evidence they had discovered was apparent,
as it affected these magistrates. It was
brought to my attention, as nearly as I can
say at the moment without having my diary
before me, some three to four weeks ago.
And we then had to study it and see what
action might be taken.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my second
point of query to the Attorney General is:
In the course of the police investigation with
regard to these magistrates, did they wire-
tap the activities of the magistrates? If so,
for how long, and under what authority?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, that does not arise out of the state-
ment, and there are certain questions I have
on the order paper-
Mr. Speaker: The member is quite right
and he rose at the same time as I was about
to speak. That is not a point of clarifica-
tion of the Minister's statement. If the
member has any further points in the state-
ment that he wishes clarified I will be pleased
to give him the floor, otherwise the member
for Grey-Bruce has a point of personal
privilege to raise.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I will hold my point of privilege until the
Attorney General's matter is dealt with;
may I, please?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I
want to add to what I have already said, on
a question of clarification, is that in calling
for a public inquiry, the Attorney General
has left the House and the people of Ontario
completely in the dark as to the nature of
the allegations that eventually will be put
before the two gentlemen concerned.
In the terms of reference that he read to
the House a moment ago, he mentioned some
person by name; I do not recall the name
offhand. But it seems to me that if we
are going to be conducting this thing in a
fair, straightforward and democratic way, it
is the Attorney General's responsibility to
give the nature of the allegations against
these men to this House. It would then form
the basis of the investigation of the public
inquiry and the people of Ontario would
then know just what is being investigated.
Surely, for purposes of clarification, the
Attorney General should add detail to what
he has said in the House so far.
Mr. MacDonald: Specifically following the
leader of the Opposition, may I ask the
Attorney General whether the investigation
involves the clean bill of health given by
the magistrates to the Lottman Imperial
Bakery, of Baldwin Street?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, that name
does not ring any association in my mind in
this matter. It may be, but I do not recall
it.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney
General were to give us a statement with at
least the basis for the allegations, then there
would not be the sort of thing that has come
from the member for York South, and which
will certainly come from people across the
province.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I can
only say again to the hon. leader of the
Opposition, this will be a public inquiry
Actually I do not think this House should
be debating evidence, or discussing evidence.
Mr. Singer: You put the muzzle on again.
Mr. Nixon: You have brought the charges,
whatever they are.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not put the
muzzle on. The rule which we have acknowl-
edged for years, Mr. Speaker, is that when
a matter is before the court for adjudication,
we leave the court to do that.
Mr. MacDonald: What is before the court?
Mr. Nixon: We do not know.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The Minister has given a statement, the
leaders of the two Opposition parties, I
believe, have read it, and I have read it.
JUNE 26, 1968
4805
In the statement, the Minister has set out
the actions which have been taken by his
department, and he has read to the House
the terms of reference of the inquiry being
set up. It is my opinion and my ruhng that
that now concludes debate on this matter,
in view of the rules of the House and the
rulings of preceding Speakers, which are
very plain, and which I have had the occa-
sion, thanks to the courtesy of the leader
of the official Opposition, to look up, and
which were looked up before this afternoon.
There is no objection to any clarification
which the Minister may give to members of
the House, but he has already stated that
what he has to say is in the statement.
Therefore, I feel that there is little more to
be gained by continuation of this line of
questioning. If there is any further ques-
tion with respect to clarification of the state-
ments made by the Minister, I will be most
pleased to have them put to the Minister.
The leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, actually I rise on
a point of order, which I iFeel will not trans-
gress the ruling that you have just made.
The matter, by virtue of the Minister's
statements, is sub judice, and I would say
that I have already expressed our dissatis-
faction with the way that he has handled
it. But I want to refer, as a point of order,
to a matter that we discussed in private this
morning when it was my intention to move,
sir, tlie adjournment of this House, so that
we might discuss a matter of urgent public
importance with regard to this very matter.
It seems to me that that particular rule of
the House is designed for specific occur-
rences such as this, where in the view of
at least some members of the House, the
government has been derelict in its duty in
bringing forward information regarding these
matters.
In the discussion with Mr. Speaker, it be-
came apparent that at least he would enter-
tain favourably the possibility of such an
adjournment for a debate of this nature in
the House this afternoon. However, in
reading the ndes of the House, it becomes
apparent that if this were to come to pass
Aen no further discussion of this particular
topic could take place in this session. I
simply draw this to your attention, Mr.
Speaker, as an example of a rule that might
have had good justification in years gone by,
but which surely does not serve the demo-
cratic purposes of this House under any
modem understanding of what we are here
to do.
I would say to you, sir, that, as my point
of order, I would suggest very strongly that
we, as members of the House and under your
direction, if that be the decision of the House,
undertake an upgrading of these rules so that
a reasonable discussion of these mutters can
take place.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Has the member for Humber a question
with respect to the statement?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): I rose on a point of
order.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am just trying to find
out whether it is a point of order or a ques-
tion.
The member for Humber has the floor on
a point of order.
Mr. Ben: My point of order is this, Mr.
Speaker, that I disagree with the contention
taken by you and also by my illustrious
leader. It may be sub judice with reference
to whether or not these magistrates were prop-
erly suspended, but an order in council was
passed which requires the expenditure of
public funds. We as Her Majesty's loyal
Opposition are entitled to debate whether
these funds are properly spent in holding a
public inquiry and we are entitled to have
the business of the House set aside to debate
whether the Minister was justified in order-
ing public funds to be expended to hold a
public inquiry. On this, I think we are on
good grounds. I suggest that the leader of the
Opposition ought to press to have the busi-
ness set aside, and have the Minister justify
his conduct, to satisfy this House that he was
justified in ordering the expenditure of pub-
lic funds through an order in council to have
this hearing.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
member for Humber that if the leader of his
party wishes to take any such action, I am
s-ure he will do so in accordance with the
rules and I will be glad to discuss it with him
as we did with the other matter. But it is
not a matter which can be raised for a motion
at this time. The Minister has a reply.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to reply briefly to the point of order
raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition.
First of all, I would like to make it clear
that the course of action which I considered
taking and which I have now taken, as re-
ported in my statement to the House, had no
reference whatever to any plans he may have
4806
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
had and which were discussed with you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I said that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, right. On the ques-
tion, I think it is proper to say that one of
our great concerns— I would hope that the
members of the House would accept this— is
that these magistrates shall not have bandied
about, either in this House or in public,
allegations or statements which this House is
not in a position to assess or weigh or prove
or deny. And to make statements which I am
being urged to make and say they are charged
with this or they are charged with that is,
I think, wrongful and harmful. The pupose—
Mr. MacDonald: It is the way we normally
seek justice.
Mr. Singer: That is what you have done.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The whole purpose of
placing the matter before a public inquiry is
so that there, in the full light of day and
before a judicial body, allegations then must
be made in proper form and proven or dis-
proven. To do what I am urged to do, to
start bruiting abroad, even in this House
where I am at liberty to say perhaps almost
anything I like, would be wrongful and harm-
ful-
Mr. Sargent: That is privileged justice.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It would be wrongful,
harmful and would go entirely against my
sense of justice.
Mr. Singer: Shocking! Your sense of justice
is perverted.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And I am backed by—
An hon. member: Oh, big political halo.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: Order, orderl
Hon. Mr. Wishart: TJbe hon. gentlemen who
sat in the mother of Parliaments, who sat
in the Parliament at Ottawa and in this
House down through the years have respected
the rule of sub judice for the very reasons I
put forward.
Mr. Singer: It is being abused by you.
Mr. Speaker: Orderl
Mr. Ben: You have to justify the expendi-
ture of those funds.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You would have to do
that for every OPP man who hands out a
summons or something hke that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: But that rule affords a
fair and proper hearing and does not allow
to go abroad rumours, unproven statements,
allegations of any kind whatsoever.
Mr. Nixon: You are in a position to make
them.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, may I
deal briefly with the point of order, if it is
a point of order, raised by the hon. member
for Humber. If he has any question about
the right of the government to spend money
on this inquiry, and he speaks of the Attorney
General taking this action, I would say that
if it is not covered in the estimates which
were voted to my department last year then
certainly the hon. member and all the mem-
bers of this House would have the right to
deny me the funds when my estimates come
forward, shortly I expect, in this session.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, I
do not think that the hon. member for High
Park intends to deal with the same matter.
Mr. Speaker: That is right, and you may
proceed in a moment, but I would point out
that changing the rules of the House, as has
been drawn to my attention, is not really a
point of order. But since we are discussing
it, I would be glad to have the member for
York South put his views on the record too.
Mr. MacDonald: I was hoping to get them
on the record before the Attorney General
replied. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
point of order, what puzzles me is that as
I understand it, the leader of the Opposi-
tion has withdrawn his intention of introduc-
ing a motion of debate of a matter of urgent
public importance, because if that were de-
bated and decided it could not then be
referred to in this session,
I know that there is a rule in the book
with regard to this, but I draw to your
attention, sir, that the rule has been there
for years with regard to any motion put
before the House. And I am a little puzzled
as to why suddenly you see fit to say that if
this is debated we can never refer to it
again, whereas we have not applied the rule
to any motion in an amendment to the
Budget speech, or the Throne speech. We
JUNE 26, 1968
4807
have not, because, quite frankly it is inap-
plicable, and could muzzle the House on a
matter that should be discussed at various
periods through the course of the Legis-
lature.
Mr. Speaker, I solicit from you at some
point an explanation as to why suddenly you
have become so insistent in applying the
rule in this issue; and using the application
of the rule as a means of keeping debate on
the matter at the moment to come before the
House, whereas the rule is not normally
applied.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps Mr. Speaker should
reply with respect to this matter before the
member for High Park has the floor. This
morning I had a discussion with the Clerk
of the House, the leader and the deputy
leader of the Opposition, and up to that
time and some time thereafter, I had not
spoken to anyone else in any party with
respect to the matter. We discussed these
various matters, but I certainly did not lay
down any ruling that members would not
be able to discuss it at any later day.
I drew to the attention of the leader of
the Opposition, supported by the Clerk of
the House, that that is probably what would
happen, and the leader of the Opposition
and his deputy considered it and left me to
decide. Before any further action could be
taken, I received a call quite properly and
politely from the leader of the Opposition
saying that under the circumstances, and con-
sidering the fact that the rule was there and
more than likely would be applied as the
rules of the House provide, they did not
wish to proceed at this stage at least with
the motion. That seemed to be very sensible.
In the same discussion the point arose that
something might happen just as it has hap-
;pened. I pointed out to the leader of the
.Opposition that the government could bring
I in a statement or a report indicating that a
iJudicial enquiry of some sort, or Royal
[fcommission, has been appointed, and that
also would limit discussion of the matter by
the sub judice rule in the House. That also
was in the minds of all four of us as we
discussed it this morning.
I think that that is a fair statement, I hope,
of what took place this morning. There was
no definite ruling, and I did not say to the
parties concerned that I would so rule, but
I pointed out that was the rule and as far
as I was concerned that would be followed.
In that, I was supported by the Clerk of the
House, who is our authority on precedent
in this House. That is a brief background of
what happened, and perhaps will put in
proper perspective the remarks of the mem-
ber for York South.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit
me I can say that what you have recounted
to the House is essentially correct, and this
was the spirit of our discussion. The only
other thing that entered in was the fact that
the rules, of course, provide for only ten
minutes of debate on this from each partici-
pant.
Mr. Singer: Including the Attorney Gen-
eral.
Mr. Speaker: Right. I neglected that, and
we discussed it and it was pointed out by
all of us to each other that ten minutes
would not give the Minister the proper
opportunity of explaining and giving answers
to all questions that would be asked, if he
were of a mind so to do. The member for
High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
there is one matter that disturbs me. Have
the two magistrates been informed of the
allegations against them?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
This does not arise out of the statement
I think that the matter has been dealt with.
The member for Lakeshore has the floor.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I have an
ancillary matter which does, I believe, arise
out of the statement, on page 2, where the
Attorney General says:
The chief magistrate was therefore ad-
vised of all the circumstances acting on
my instructions, and in accordance with
his authority under section 19a of The
Magistrates Act, he did not assign these
magistrates to any courts—
EflFective on a certain date.
My question for clarification and comment
with respect to what has happened—
Mr. Speaker: Clarification only.
Mr. Lawlor: —is concerned with the powers
and procedures possessed by the hon. Minis-
ter-
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter has
already been discussed this afternoon upon
the question of the member for Downsview.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that
the suspensory powers in the operation of
that are defective in that—
4808
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order.
In the first place, it is not arising out of the
statement, and if it is, it has been discussed
in answer to a comment or a question by the
member for Downsview.
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, I wish
to draw your attention to the statement
setting up this enquiry and I would like to
suggest, sir, that inasmuch as this statement
has said that such an enquiry is being set
up, it is quite pertinent for us to know if
the persons involved have been informed of
what the enquiry is about. It seems very
strange, Mr. Speaker, that an enquiry can
be set up and a statement can be made in
this House about that matter, and I should
be able to ask whether the persons whose
behaviour is being looked into even know
what is being looked into. It is incredible.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. As you know, sir, I have before you
and I imagine the Attorney General has been
advised, some four pages which include 14
questions. One of the questions deals very
amply with that, and at the appropriate
time I intend to ask as many of those ques-
tions as I may be permitted. I do not think
it is reasonable that any other member of
the House to be able apparently on a point
of order to start asking questions-
Mr. Speaker: I think the member for
Downsview is quite in order in the procedure
that he is suggesting, and in due course his
questions will be considered by me in view
of the enquiry which has been ordered.
Questions as to the powers and authorities
are not questions of clarification, they are
questions of criticism. Therefore, I would
rule that both the member for High Park
and the member for Lakeshore are not in
order with their questions of clarification.
Mr. J. E. BuUbrook (Samia): Mr. Speaker,
am I correct in assuming that your ruling
now is that I cannot direct questions further
to this statement because the matter is now
sub juclice?
Mr. Speaker: No, any member who wishes
to ask a question of the Minister in clarifica-
tion of the statement he has made— not as to
the basis of it or as to the legality of it, but
in clarification of it— is quite entitled to do
so.
Mr. Bullbrook: Perhaps you would explain
one thing to me, just for my personal edifica-
tion. The member for York South directed
a question to the Attorney General, mention-
ing some bakery. The Attorney General took
it upon himself to answer, "To the best of
my recollection, I do not recall that name."
Either the matter is sub judice or it is not.
Either the Attorney General should have said,
"I refuse to answer any questions of any
kind," or he should permit me now to ask
further questions in connection with the
gentlemen named in the order in council.
Am I not correct there, sir?
Mr. Speaker: I would agree that the
member has good basis for the remarks which
he has made, and if the member wishes to
ask such a question, then in view of what
has transpired and the ruling I have made,
I will undoubtedly rule it out of order. If
the Attorney General endeavours to answer
it, in order that we do not have a continua-
tion of this useless discussion, I will rule him
out of order.
Mr. Bullbrook: Most respectfully to you,
sir, I do not think it is useless at all. I sub-
mit to you—
Mr. Speaker: It is useless in view of the
attitude taken by the Attorney General in
the statement which he has given to the
House.
Mr. Bullbrook: I exemplify no attitude
and I do not think the Attorney General
exemplifies an attitude, but the point I
attempt to make is this, either the Attorney
General should have said to the member for
York South, "It is sub judice and I will
answer nothing," or should not have men-
tioned at all not having a recollection of
any name.
I want to direct this question to the
Attorney General: Who is the gentleman
named in the order in council; who are the
others referred to? In giving jurisdiction or
the terms of reference to the hon. Mr. Justice
Grant, as I recall, the order in council read,
"and including his association with one
Vincent Alexander and others." I ask the
Attorney General if he, as Attorney General,
considers those terms of reference specific
enough in the circumstances, and, secondly,
I would ask him to indicate to us in this
House who are the others contemplated in
that order in council.
I Mr. Speaker: In view of what I have just
f said, I would rule the question and all
f further discussion of this particular matter
♦ out of order.
Mr. Bullbrook: I accept that, sir.
JUNE 26, 1968
4809
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): I would like
to address a question to the Attorney General
on a matter I think requires urgent clarifica-
tion from his statement, and I refer to page
4 of the Attorney General's statement:
At the present time there is no evidence
arising from the investigation that involves
any other magistrates or impugns the
system of the administration of criminal
justice in our Metropolitan Toronto magis-
trates' courts.
That statement bothers me considerably, Mr.
Speaker, and I would ask the Attorney
General if he cannot at this point tell the
House that there is no further wide-ranging
investigation being conducted by the Metro-
politan Toronto police or any other police
agency into the administration of justice in
the metropolitan courts. If there is such a
continuing investigation being carried on by
the police into the administration, then I
would ask him to seriously consider making
that a public enquiry under the terms of
reference, which would be open for the
scrutiny of the public. It seems to me that it
places the administration of justice in serious
jeopardy if in fact at the present time the
Metropolitan Toronto-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is now
making a statement and not asking a ques-
tion of clarification.
Mr. J. Renwick: It is simply clarification,
Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point out that
if the Metropolitan Toronto police are con-
tinuing their investigation of the adminis-
tration of justice, it means that every case
which is before the courts-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is now
making another statement saying that it
means something. The member is out of
order, I have ruled he is so, and the Min-
ister would be out of order in answering it.
Mr. J. Renwick: I would ask the Attorney
General if he has gathered the substance of
my concern and if he would comment
upon it.
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General will
be out of order if he replies, and I would be
glad, in order that this can be concluded, if
the Attorney General would discuss the
matter with the member, because I gather
that he is in a position to do so.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I simply point out and I ask you
to take it into consideration, that what is
involved in my question is every single
coming before the magistrates of the courts
in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I think in
the hght of the comments which I have made
upon the nebulous statement of the Attorney
General it requires an answer immediately,
and I understood that the Attorney General
was prepared to so answer, and I would ask
that it be permitted—
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the
member that a ruling that further discussion
of this matter would be out of order has
been made with respect to several member^
questions, which probably are of equal
importance, from the official Opposition. I
have made the same ruling with respect to
the question by the membner for Riverdale,
and I have also said the Attorney General, in
attempting to pursue this matter further,
would also be out of order.
If the House is of the opinion that it
would like to have this matter pursued, by
the question now having been asked, being
answered by the Attorney General, even
though it is out of order and even though
I have ruled it so, the Speaker is subject to
the ruling of the House. But I feel that this
matter is not going to be clarified by further
discussion along the line on which we have
now discussed it.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in si)eaking to the
point of order, I do not believe that there
should be a time limit on the clarification
that is permitted under the rules of the
House, and you, sir, have said you would
entertain questions, and in fact have done so
already this afternoon. Surely if the member
has asked questions which are designed to
clarify the Minister's statement, then I would
suggest that they be allowed, with great
respect, and since the Attorney General is
willing to further clarify it, perhaps it would
be in order if he were to proceed.
Mr. Speaker: I would be very pleased to
do that, but I do not wish to be in the
position of cutting oflF questions for clarifica-
tion by some members of the House and
allowing others to make them. That is my
point and the leader of the official Opposition
has agreed to this one. I am quite agreeable
if the Attorney General is agreeable to
answering it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, you have
made a ruling and now you are in the
process of withdrawing it. What I wanted
to draw to your attention is that if you do
4810
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not permit an answer to this question, be-
cause it is out of order all the questions that
the hon. member for Downsview is sub-
sequently going to ask are out of order.
Mr. Speaker: The rules of the House
indicate nothing is to be anticipated and the
member is endeavouring now to anticipate
what Mr. Speaker might do. Mr. Speaker is
quite capable of dealing with that in his
own way, subject to the view of the House,
when the time comes. The Attorney General
is \'ery anxious to answer and we will allow
it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I appreci-
ate your ruling and I shall confine my answer
to the matter of clarification. I think I can
assure the member who asked the question
that the investigation, insofar as it is now
being carried on by the police officers in the
intelligence branch is simply to relate those
pieces of evidence which appear to have
some relation, and have been discovered and
brought to light. There is no wide-ranging
investigation into the administration of
justice. I thought that my statement made
that clear, and I would like to say that the
magistrates* courts have a high repute. This
matter concerns, so far as we are aware, only
the two magistrates whose names are men-
tioned in this statement, and any work that
is now being done in the continuing of the
investigation is to relate the bits of evidence
which led us to take this action.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
draw your attention to page 1 of this state-
ment, fourth line from the bottom, where it
says, "Nature of the latter prevented dis-
closure to either the public or the gentlemen
involved." I would like to suggest* to you, sir,
that it is a matter of simple justice if the
police at the present time are conducting an
investigation into the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled
that these matters are out of order.
Mr. Shulman: Sir, I am asking for clarifica-
tion here.
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the mem-
ber's seeking of clarification of this point is
out of order. Now I would also point-
Mr. Shulman: May I just complete my
statement, my question, sir?
Mr. Speaker: No. The member is out of
order, and he has already made that point,
and has been ruled out of order.
Mr. Shulman: But it is simple justice.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
I have before me questions before the
orders of the day with respect to this matter
from the leader of the Opposition, the member
for York South, the member for Grey-Bruce,
and the member for Downsview. These are
questions, many of which at least, will re-
quire considerable study before I know
whether or not they fall within the prohibition
in our rules which I think is quite proper,
and which has been debated and discussed
here today. I will be pleased to go into them
and by tomorrow have a ruling on them, or
if any of the members mentioned wish to
rephrase their questions, or resubmit ques-
tions in the usual course tomorrow, I will deal
with them, and they can be before the orders
of the day tomorrow.
At the moment it is not possible for me
to decide, because I do not have a copy of
the terms of reference, whether these ques-
tions are in order or not. I would ask that
the members in question leave the matter
in that respect.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, and in regard to what you have just
said, I am quite prepared to abide by your
suggestion insofar as most of the questions
I have put here— in my 14 questions. How-
ever, I would draw your attention, sir, to
question No. 3 which does not relate to the
ordering of the inquiry, but relates to whether
or not the magistrates have been informed.
I think this question is in order, is not con-
cerning the matter that is sub judice and
should be asked. I am quite prepared to
discuss with you at a later time, the rest
of the question, but I think I should be en-
titled to ask question No. 3, sir.
Mr. Speaker: At the moment is not the
time and place for the member to put that
question. I will consider it in the meantime,
because there are certain other questions by
the deputy leader of the Opposition. My
automatic reaction to this is that I would
not accept any of these questions without
having the opportunity to consider them fur-
ther against what I have heard here today.
If the member presses me I will so rule, and
then we will have to have a Speaker's ruling,
and that will have to be decided by the
House. If the member wishes to leave it
until I can consider it, I will be glad to—
Mr. Singer: With the greatest respect, sir, I
think that question No. 3 can be severed
from the previous discussion, and I would
JUNE 26, 1968
4811
ask you to reconsider that now, sir. If there
is going to be a ruling that I cannot ask
question No. 3 this afternoon, with great
I reluctance, sir, I am going to have to suggest
t that your ruling on that be challenged.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I have not said that,
and I have also said that in the normal course
of events questions from the leaders of the
oflScial Opposition and the New Democratic
Party, and those questions which are left
over from a previous day, always come first.
I do have several of those questions, and it
was my intention to have those questions
asked. That was my original statement while
I considered the question of the member for
Downsview.
Mr. Singer: I will wait my time.
Mr. Speaker: There is a question for the
Minister of Labour from the leader of the
Opposition. It is some days old now, June 18,
and I do not know whether he wishes still
to place it. It is: "What steps is the Minister
contemplating to assist in the effort to resolve
the dispute between Metro Toronto and
local 43 of the Canadian union of public
employees?"
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, there is another question from the
hon. member for Scarborough East, which is
along the same lines, and I was going to
give the same answer to both.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
then place his question, and I will let him
do the work himself.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): What
initiative has the Minister taken to provide
an alternative service for Metropolitan Toronto
garbage collection, or to get the workers back
to work by expediting settlement of the dis-
pute? Mr. Speaker, there was a slight mistake
in the wording of the written question.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, my depart-
ment's conciliation officials, last Friday,
brought the parties together and negotiations
have been continuing since that time. We have
not as yet been able to reach an agreement,
but I would say to the hon. members that on
Monday last an agreement as to limited
operation of essential water and sewage serv-
ives was arrived at, and that agreement still
holds. Negotiations are continuing at the
present time in my own department and I
will advise the House as soon as there are
further developments.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South
has a question of the Prime Minister.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
of the Prime Minister is: Has the Prime Min-
ister received a communication dated June 6.
from Mayor Reid of Ottawa, requesting the
city be empowered to set up a rental review
board? When can the municipality expect a
reply and what is its likely content?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I did receive a communication, I
believe it came into my office about June
10, containing the resolution from the council
of the city of Ottawa asking for a rental
conciliation board. I am having this
examined to see all the inferences that might
be involved in it, and I will in due course,
answer the letter. I could not at this time
however indicate what the possible content
of the letter would be.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce
has a point of personal privilege, and also a
question from June 20.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, at the last
sitting of the House, on Thursday, I raised
the matter of the partial closing of the
University Avenue subway, which cost over
$45 million, and which I termed a $45
million mistake. I asked the Prime Minister
what justification he had in spending $20
million in grants and public money, when
the rest of Ontario has never received equal
spending. The Prime Minister stated cate-
gorically that there were no grants to the
University subway. Mr. Speaker, I accused
him of misleading the House. He told me
in effect to put up or shut up.
In the Toronto Daily Star he is quoted as
saying that it is a clear fact that there were
no grants to the University subway. I have
here, from The Department of Highways, a
summary reviewing the total spending of
$17,061,276 towards Toronto subway pro-
jects.
Now I further charge, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. Prime Minister was misleading the
House when he said there were no grants.
He knew I was not talking about the Mont-
real subway; it was the Toronto subway I
was talking about. I would like to know
now, Mr. Speaker, the total amounts of
moneys— j
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the mem-
ber's point of personal privilege? He is now
placing a question.
4812
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
\.
Mr. Sargent: Well, the point of personal
privilege is this, Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister was misleading the House. He said
^ there were no grants towards the University
subway. My point is that we are talking
about subway programmes; I am not break-
ing it down to any subway— I am talking
about subways.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sargent: He said there were no grants.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The member's question was on the Univer-
sity subway. I recall it distinctly and he
said so again today. Now the member is
changing his terms to "subways", and that
of course, is neither proper under any cir-
cumstances, nor is it in accordance with his
introductory remarks.
Would the member state his point of
personal privilege, so that the House may
be aware of what is actually the point?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, my point is
that when a member of this House asks
about the spending of such amounts of money
I said $20 million but it amounts to $17
million. Basically, he is correct; he calls
them subsidies. These are grants of public
funds going into a project. They are money
belonging to the rest of Ontario. We can-
not get that spent in the rest of Ontario and
we want to know why he did not tell us the
truth.
Mr. Speaker: Is the member going to state
his point of personal privilege or is the matter
to be concluded as being out of order, be-
cause that is the only alternative?
Mr. Sargent: My point is that he said put
up or shut up. There is the figure of $17
million. And further I asked, Mr. Speaker,
I asked him if there were any outright loans
and that information has not been forth-
coming—whether there were any outright
loans to the city of Toronto. I understand
that there were and I think it is about time
we had, tabled before this House, the com-
plete amount of money-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
If the member wishes that information he
can get it in the ordinary course.
I would point out to the member that my
recollection has been fortified by his open-
ing statement that the original question in
discussion was on the University Avenue
subway and now the member has brought in
some information with respect to the Toronto
subways, not the University Avenue subway.
Therefore, it would appear that the material
which the member is now producing for the
House has no bearing actually on the original
question and original answer.
If I am incorrect in that I would be glad
to have the member correct me.
Mr. Sargent: Well how does the Prime
Minister justify—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Sargent: All right, you asked me how
—I want to state my point.
Mr. Speaker: No, but state it to the
Speaker.
Mr. Sargent: How do you justify spend-
ing $17 million on subways other than this
one?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
I asked the member to state it to the
Speaker and it would appear that what the
member is now doing is endeavouring to
place a question which is not on the order
paper.
Mr. Sargent: My point, Mr. Speaker, is
that I think the Prime Minister was evading
the point that there was this amount of
money spent-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order!
I would say to the member that I can see
the point he is trying to make. But I can
also see that if what he has said today is
correct then it is more than likely— in fact,
I think it is quite so— that the answer that
was given to him to the specific question was
probably correct too.
I would suggest to the member that he
take a few minutes tonight and re-word a
question including the material he has given
to the House here today, and I think he
would probably get an answer.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am not
terribly sensitive about what is said about
me in this House, but the hon. member is
insinuating or has said that I have not told
the truth. I do not consider it my duty to
attempt to interpret what any member may
mean when he asks a question. I do my
best to answer the question asked.
It is not my function, and I am quite
certain I would be roundly criticized if I
were to attempt to interpret questions that
are asked. If the hon. member cannot put
his question down in reasonable English why
JUNE 26, 1968
4813
should I worry about it? I undoubtedly
would put the wrong interpretation on it
anyway and then I would leave myself open
for another of these personal attacks. I am
happy to answer any question that may be
asked, but I do not intend to interpret the
questions of this member or any other mem-
ber of the Opposition because I am quite
certain they do not want me to.
Mr. Sargent: May I reply to that?
Mr. Speaker: The member, I hope, will
reconsider the matter and place his question
so as to elicit the information which he
wishes and I am sure that he will obtain it.
The member for Grey-Bruce has a ques-
tion from June 20 of the Minister of Public
Works; does he wish to place that?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the
Minister advise: One, if the vending machine
installations in the Hepburn block were on
a low bid basis?
Two, was there a tender called?
Three, what were the terms? Who received
the contract and what was the length of the
contract?
Four, what policy does the government
plan to follow in the future in regard to
automatic vending contracts in government
buildings?
Hon. T. R. Connell (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the vending machines
in the Hepburn block were installed by the
civil service association of Ontario which
has, for many years, been responsible for
providing food services for government em-
ployees at Queen's Park. I regret, therefore,
that I cannot give any specific information
regarding parts two or three of the question.
With regard to part four, it has generally
been our policy to allow automatic vending
machines to be installed as part of the food
service operation for any particular building
or at the request of the Canadian national
institute for the blind as part of its con-
cession. This seems to have worked quite
well in the past and I cannot see any reason
to change this policy at the present time.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary?
Hon. Mr. Connell: Yes.
Mr. Sargent: You use the low bid process
in all your other dealings, I understand. Why
not in this million dollar business? Why
could there not be a low bid contract here?
Hon. Mr. Connell: If you had listened to
the answer to the question I do not think
you would have asked your suppIemenUry.
Mr. Sargent: I do not care— answer my
question.
Hon. Mr. Connell: I actually told you we
had nothing to do with it. That was the
answer.
Mr. Sargent: Who has, then?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Complete evasion of every-
thing—
Mr. Speaker: Order, orderl
The member for High Park has a question
for—
Mr. Sargent: I have got a whole bunch
of them.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but we are now doing
the questions from last week. The member
will have his turn shortly with today's ques-
tions.
The member for High Park— just the ques-
tions from June 20.
Mr. Shulman: I have a four-part question
for the Minister of Reform Institutions.
In the specific case of Lawrence H., No.
101543, a prisoner at the North Bay jail,
will the Minister arrange a transfer to the
Stratford jail so that his mother can visit
him to prevent the added suffering to the
boy and his family produced by incarcera-
tion so far from his home?
Question two: In the specific case of Tom
S., will the Minister arrange a transfer of
the prisoner from North Bay to a southern
Ontario jail or reformatory so that his family
can visit him and prevent the added suffer-
ing to the boy and his family produced by
incarceration so far from his home?
Question tliree: In the specific case of
Richard P., will the Minister arrange a
transfer of the prisoner from North Bay
to a southern Ontario jail or reformatory so
that his family can visit him and prevent the
added suffering to tlie boy and his family
produced by incarceration so far from home?
Question four: In the specific case of
Edward R., will the Minister arrange a
transfer of the prisoner from North Bay
to a southern Ontario jail or reformatory
so that his family can visit him and prevent
the added suffering to the boy and his family
produced by incarceration so far from home?
4814
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
we would have saved a great deal of time
of the House if the Minister had answered
the questions when we were last here.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member for telling those
of us who have been around here just a little
longer than he, how to answer questions to
satisfy him.
In my view, sir, I have answered this
question quite sufiBciently. This is about the
third or fourth time that this same question
has been asked, witli a few words changed
here and there. I would refer the hon. mem-
ber to Hansard of May 17, page 3094; to
Hansard of May 23, page 3281, and Hansard
of June 19, page 4689, in which these ques-
tions show as having been answered and I
have nothing further to add to tliem.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I have asked these questions several
times about specific prisoners. In each case
the Minister had given the general answer
that the policy of the department is this, that
or the other. I have made specific requests
about four specific men to the benefit of
themselves and their families. Surely even if
the Minister does not wish to answer me, the
people deserve an answer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, when
the hon. member becomes the Minister of
Reform Institutions he can then follow a
policy of letting the public know specifically
when he is moving prisoners from one penal
institution to another. I do not intend to do
that.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.
I have now read over the questions which
have been placed by him, to the number of
14, some of several parts, and I would rule
that questions two and three are in order
t»day and not covered by the previous dis-
cussion.
The Minister in replying to certain parts
of question three, if he feels that my dis-
cretion has not been proper in view of the
law will be guided appropriately in his
answer.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pre-
pared to accept tliat and I will discuss witli
you at a later time the balance of the ques-
tions, as you suggested earlier.
Question two is this: Will the Attorney
General advise whether he or any other
government oflBcial has the power to relieve
from his duties or suspend any magistrate in
Ontario?
Question three, vvdll the Attorney General
advise:
(a) If either or both of these magistrates
have been informed as to why they—
Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt for one
moment. We are not using the names in
questions two or three. Perhaps the member
would insert the two names there?
Mr. Singer: If either or both Magistrates
Gardhouse and Bannon have been informed
as to why they were suspended or reheved
from tlieir duty?
(b) If either of both Magistrates Gard-
house and Bannon have been informed
whether or not there will be criminal charges
laid against them?
(c) If either or both of Magistrates Gard-
house and Bannon have been informed
whether or not there will be any investiga-
tions made in accordance with The Magis-
trates Act?
(d) If so, what specific information was
given to them in this regard?
(e) If so, was the information written or
verbal?
(f) If so, by whom was the information
given?
(g) If so, when was this information given?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, there are
some parts of Uiese questions that I could
perhaps answer offhand, but in order to give
a full and complete answer I will take them
as notice and give a full answer tomorrow.
Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that
the Attorney General is not prepared to tell
this House now whether or not Magistrates
Gardhouse or Bannon have been told in
advance of what happened here today that
they were being suspended or relieved of
duty?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: In answer to part two
of the question, I believe they were told by
Chief Magistrate Klein or by Deputy Magis-
trate Fred Hayes that they were not being
assigned to duties as a result of information
which had been received in The Department
of the Attorney General. That is as far as
I am able to go today. As I say, I will
answer further tomorrow, as the question
has many parts. In order to give a full and
complete answer I am taking them as notice.
JUNE 2.6, 1968
481^
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Labour. Did the Minister receive a
telegram from Atikokan, seeking his interven-
tion in a strike involving the communication
workers of America and Northern Telephone
Company? If so, what steps will the Minister
take to ensure full treatment of the striking
employees and an equitable settlement of the
strike?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member, I did receive a telegram
concerning the matter, but this comes within
the federal labour jurisdiction, and interven-
tion, therefore, would have to come from the
federal Minister of Labour.
Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
I Hon. Mr. Bales: Yes.
Mr. Stokes: I understand that Bell Tele-
phone comes under federal jurisdiction, but
the subsidiary. Northern Telephone Company,
is under provincial charter.
L Hon. Mr. Bales: I looked into the matter,
^" and it comes under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Education. Does the Minister intend
in the next short while to introduce further
amendments to The School Administration
Act, and if so will one of these amendments
relate to the establishment of transfer review
boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is perhaps aware that there is
notice on the order paper of an intention to
introduce amendments to The School Ad-
ministration Act. I am not in a position to
indicate to the member just what matters
will be considered, but there will be an
amendment to the Act.
Mr. Pitman: I am wondering if the Minis-
ter has any intentions of encouraging the
chairman of the eduction committee to call
trustees in from the Ontario teachers' federa-
tion in regard to this matter?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I said-
Mr. Pitman: Before this—
Mr. Speaker: Tlie member for Grey-Bruce
has 10 questions which I would ask him now
to place in series.
Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the
hon. Minister of Financial and Commercial
Affairs. Will the Minister advise if he has
any plans to crack down on the repair abuses
in auto, radio, and TV repair fields to pro-
tect the consumer against: 1. widespread
abuse; 2. misleading advertising and untrue
advertising in selling practices; 3. proof of
replacement of parts; 4. incompetent or un-
bonded personnel; 5. unlimited fees for esti-
mates?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
in respect of this question may I say, in the
absence of any specific case where abuse is
being cited, that I will attempt to outline
briefly what the policy of the department is
with respect to the general areas referred to.
As I am sure the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce is aware, section 1 and subsection 2
of The Consumer Protection Bureau Act out-
lines duties which include authority for the
consumer protection bureau to "receive and
investigate complaints of conduct in contra-
vention of the legislation for the protection
of consumers".
In practice, that has meant that complaints
and abuses of the type referred to have
l^een received and serviced by consumer pro-
tection bureau personnel and generally satis-
factory results have been obtained through the
process of mediation.
I think that it is worth pointing out, Mr.
Speaker, that complaints of the type described
in the question have been relatively small in
number, and we would welcome any specific
instances that the hon. member might wish
to draw to our attention.
Meanwhile, I can assure the House that
this entire area is being closely watched so
that adequate measures can be evolved, based
on proper study and research, if they become
desirable or necessary.
As far as misleading advertising is con-
cerned, section 31 of The Consumer Protec-
tion Act provides that where instances of
false, misleading or deceptive advertising
come to the attention of the bureau, it is in
tlie power of the registrar to issue a cease
and desist order. With respect to the proof of
replacement of parts, or fees for estimates,
section 16 of The Consumer Protection Act
requires that an executory contract be en-
tered into for the sale of goods or services.
4816
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
where the purchase price exceeds $50. Section
16-2 states that an executory contract is not
binding on the buyer unless it contains the
specific information. Also, a duplicate original
copy must be in possession of each of the
parties.
I would just like to make one final com-
ment with respect to misleading advertising
and say that there have been no cease and
desist orders issued, but there have been
numerous areas of discussion with newspaper
publishers and their staffs themselves.
Through that means of mediation and dis-
cussion we have been able to correct that
type of advertising which is against the policy
of the publications.
Mr. Sargent: Is it unreasonable to ask why
these trades should not be provincially licensed
like car mechanics, to operate TV, radio and
auto repairs?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: No, that is a fair ques-
tion. The answer, Mr. Speaker, must be how
far is government going to intervene in the
management of business? Granted we do in
certain areas, but the truth of the matter, and
I do not think that any of us wants to over-
look this fact, is that the vast preponderance
of businessmen and electricians are reputable,
responsible citizens. The intervention by way
of these steps causes many of the responsible
people to object, and they have recorded their
views against that kind of stand.
Mr. Sargent: The radio and TV people
have asked for licensing.
Two questions for the Minister of Trans-
port. Has the Minister considered the use of
Dr. Gibbs' stress analyzer, a product of the
Ottawa national research council, to weed out
marginal drivers? And has the Minister con-
sidered implementing a driver rehabilitation
programme, wherein persistent violators who
are facing either suspension or revoking of
their licences, can save them by undergoing
a rehabilitation course, involving both the
classroom and road instruction, lasting not
less than 10 hours or more than 30 hours?
Would the Minister consider instituting a
programme such as the one in the city of New
York, to assist incomes of those dependent
upon their continued driving privileges?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, we are most interested in the
work being done by Dr. Gibbs at the national
research council. Members of my staff have
had discussions with him, but feel that the
stressalyzer has not yet been developed to
the point of perfection where it can be re-
lied on for general use.
With respect to the second question, we
have no legislation at this time that would
permit of the type of programme that the
hon. member has outlined. It appears more
suitable for jurisdictions in the United States,
in some of which a great many suspensions
are revoked or set aside; even suspensions
applied by the courts. In Ontario, as the
hon. members are aware, most suspensions
are mandatory under either The Highway
TrafiBc Act, including the demerit point system
or under the criminal code of Ganada.
Mr. Sargent: I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Would the member ask his
question of the Minister of Trade and
Development, who has to leave?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
A question to the Minister of Trade and
Development: Will the Minister advise the
number of loans made to Indians in Ontario
from GMHC under the proposed $7,000
housing loan for Indians?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): I will take notice of the
question, Mr. Speaker, and get the infor-
mation for the hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: Two questions for the Minis-
ter of Health, Mr. Speaker.
As a means of safeguard against health
dangers in the hot weather, has the Minister
considered requesting a garbage task force
from the Canadian army to remove garbage
in Metro Toronto, in view of the fact that
garbage outlay in Canada will cost $300
million this year? What steps and tests is
the government taking to direct certain
municipal authorities to find ways and means
to dissolve cans and plastic wrappers?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the collection of garbage is a
municipal responsibility and so far the city
of Toronto has not requested our help in
dealing with this problem.
As to the matter of dissolving plastic con-
tainers and tin cans, apparently all the work
done on it has met with little success so far.
Our advisory committee on pollution control
is actively studying all the literature in the
hope that we can update and collate the
information that is available to us. So fgr
we have met with no success in this.
Mr. Sargent: I thank the hon. Minister.
JUNE 26, 1968
4817
A further question: Has the Minister any
plans to establish mobile dental clinic serv-
ices to the poor, the orphanages, the blind
and the deaf, similar to American medical
centres, staffed by faculty and student volun-
teers or schools of dentistry?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, as I am
sure the hon. member knows, the provision
for dental services is already made through
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices for the poor, and for those in institutions
it is also made either by that department or
The Department of Health. For many years
The Department of Health has maintained
mobile clinics on both the trans-continental
lines, as well as has the Red Cross, but rather
than separate out segments of our popula-
tion for care we aim at providing as high a
quality of care as possible for the total
population. The mobile clinics at the present
time are used to service those areas that are
far distant and sparsely populated.
Mr. Sargent: I thank the hon. Minister.
A question to the hon. Attorney General.
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General is not
in his seat so perhaps the member will hold
those. The member has some for the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management?
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management, Mr.
Speaker:
Will the Minister advise if he has a hst
of municipal and industrial polluters of the
Great Lakes and if this list is reviewed on
a deadline basis every six months? How
many fines were levied in 1967 and the
amount of money involved and what was
done with the money? Where did the money
go and what is it used for?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resoiurces Management): Mr. Speaker,
the answer to the first part is "yes". To the
second part, the list is reviewed at least
twice a year and in many cases more often
than that. To the third part: In 1967 there
were 11 fines. The amount of the fines was
set by the courts and paid into the courts.
Mr. Sargent: How much money?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the amount.
Mr. Speaker: The member has one for the
Minister of Highways?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister advise if all gasoline for provincial
vehicles is purchased wholesale and, if 80,
what firm received the bid for 1968?
Hon. G. E. Comme (Minister of High-
ways): Mr. Speaker, it will take some time
to get the information but I will get it for
the member as soon as possible.
Mr. Sargent: I thank the hon. Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has some questions?
Mr. Shulman: A question for the Prime
Minister, Mr. Speaker, and it has eight parts.
Was the province's cheque for $200,000,
the final payment of the province's share
toward the expansion of Halton Centennial
manor, given to the member for Halton East
(Mr. Snow) to deliver to the Halton county
council?
If so, why?
Why did the member not immediately turn
the cheque over to the county?
Did the county clerk complain to the pro-
vincial government about the delay in receipt
of this cheque because of the added costs of
$40 per day interest charges?
Was there a one-month delay before the
cheque was turned over to the county?
During this period, did the member for
Halton East have possession of the cheque
for one week?
Is it the policy of this government to give
grant payments to the local Conservative
member, who may pass them on to the local
council?
If tliis is the policy of the government,
would the Prime Minister instruct his back-
benchers in the virtues of quickly passing on
the money?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am
informed a cheque was delivered to the hon.
member for delivery to the Halton county
council. It was for a substantial amount of
the final payment; I do not know whether it
is the last dollar of the final payment, but
a substantial portion of the final payment.
Question 2: Why? This is an arrangement
worked out between the coimcil and the
member. Apparently the council asked the
member to assist them in obtaining this final
payment.
The timing of this transaction was: The
cheque was delivered at the earliest time
convenient to oflBcials of the county. The
member received the cheque on Friday after-
noon. May 17, which, if you recall, was a
long weekend. He was unable to reach the
4818
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
county officials on Friday afternoon and there-
fore Saturday, and Sunday passed and Mon-
day passed as it was a holiday, so that tlie
cheque was in his possession throughout the
holiday weekend. On Tuesday, May 21,
which was the next business day from Fri-
day afternoon, he was in touch with the
members of the county council and they
came to an arrangement by which it would
be deliverd to them— to the warden and four
members of the council, at Queen's Park. So
the cheque made its way back in the pocket
of the member to Queen's Park and was duly
presented to the warden here on Wednes-
day, May 22, when the warden and the
councillors visited Queen's Park on some
other business.
We have no record of any complaint being
made by anybody about this transaction.
I think perhaps where the delay enters is
that the cheque was dated March 31, but it
was not issued until some days after that.
It was dated March 31 because it was a
payment out of tiie funds voted in the previ-
ous fiscal year. The government's fiscal year
ends on March 31 and sometimes there is
an overlap in moneys that are voted in one
year and perhaps not fully expended in the
latter part of the fiscal year. So the cheque
was dated March 31 to bring it within the
appropriations for the previous fiscal year.
This may be the area in which I believe there
have been some questions about interest,
but that date on the cheque does not refer
to the date of actual issuance of the cheque
for payment to the council. The payment
was arranged, as I said earlier, for May 17.
Therefore, in answer to question No. 6, the
member had possession of the cheque from
Friday afternoon, May 17, until Wednesday
forenoon. May 22.
In answer to question No. 7: Cheques of
this type are handled in various ways; some-
times they are handled by the local member,
sometimes tliey are put in the mail. As I
pointed out, too, this was an arrangement
made by the member with the county council.
Mr. MacDonald: Does that same privilege
extend to members of the Opposition?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know that
anyone has ever asked or ever made such
arrangement. I do not think the eighth ques-
tion really requires any answer.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question; two sup-
plementary questions?
Is it common practice to back-date cheques
that are issued?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: As I pointed out to
the member, it is a matter of accounting
procedure. At the time this particular cheque
was being issued, it just came at the end
of the fiscal year and it was dated March 31
so that the cheque would be drawn on funds
in the fiscal year in which they were voted
by this House, if the member understands
what I mean. I am told— and of course I
know this to be so— that in the transactions
of the government, and there are a great
many of them, sometimes it is necessary at
the end of the fiscal year to have a certain
amount of overlap.
Mr. Shulman: A second supplementary
question: In relation to my question about a
complaint from the county clerk, would the
Prime Minister be wiHing to ask the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services if the
complaint was not delivered to his depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I had
someone on my staff check with the depart-
ment and the answer I received was that
they had no record of any complaint being
made.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a furtlier
question?
Mr. Shulman: The Attorney General
appears to have left. I have a question of
the Minister of Social and Family Services
in four parts:
How many acres has the Minister and/or
his wife subdivided in Nassagaweya town-
ship? Has the Minister subdivided any other
properties in Ontario this year? On what
date or dates were the subdivisions regis-
tered? And does the Minister agree with
the government that uncontrolled subdivid-
ing should no longer be allowed?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, my answers
are as follows:
Question 1: I conveyed, or released by
conveyances, to and for my wife 172 acres
more or less, she released by conveyances to
and for me 80 acres more or less, in Nassaga-
weya township.
Question 2: Conveyances were made in
respect of other properties.
Question 3: Deeds of conveyances were
registered on April 29 and 30, 1968.
r
JUNE 26, 1968
4819
Question 4: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED
ARTICLES
Hon. H. L. R,owntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs) moves second read-
ing of Bill 157, An Act to control the content
and identification of stuflBng in upholstered
and stuffed articles upon their manufacture,
sale and renovation.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bm.
THE ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO ACT,
1966
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education
and University Affairs) moves second read-
ing of Bill 151, An Act to amend The Art
Gallery of Ontario Act, 1966.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister
might care to give us some further comments
on this bill. We know that the art gallery
was reconstituted by a bill just a year ago,
or two years ago perhaps, and he might
want to explain what further changes the
principle of this bill would bring about as
far as the art gallery is concerned. And if
there is any thought about the number of
public museums and galleries that are coming
under the direction of the Minister through
bills of this type. Will it be through their
own boards or does he see any way in which
their efforts might be further co-ordinated?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure how it really relates to the principle of
this bill. I am sure there are ways and means
in the future of co-ordinating the activities
of the various centres such as the art gallery,
the museum and the Centennial centre, but
I think that would be a discussion for another
occasion. The bill in this instance adds two
members to the board specifically from the
city of Toronto because of the city's financial
contribution to the art gallery. This is some-
thing that has gone on for many years and
that is all that this amendment does.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves second reading of Bill 150, An Act to
amend The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I do not have the bill in front of me, so I
am just going to have to go by memory. If
my memory serves me correctly, this is the
bill that increases the benefit levels. Am I
correct?
Again, going from memory, first of all this
party is in disagreement with the maximum
levels placed on earnings. I think it was
increased from $6,000 to $7,000. Obviously
this was the McGillivray commission recom-
mendation, but we feel there is no justifica-
tion in maintaining any maximum, this is
better than it was previously. I think the
maximum benefit previously was $85.64—
something in that area-and this will raise it
to shghtly over $100 per week. I do not recall
what the figures are-$101 or $100 and
change.
Mr. Speaker, we do not think that there
should be any maximum levels put on an
injured worker. If he was earning $8,000 a
year then his accident benefits should con-
tinue to relate on the basis of 75 per cent.
Obviously we do not really agree with the
75 per cent there, but if that is the basis for
it then he should get his benefits in relation-
ship to the 75 per cent times the salary that
he earns at the time he was injured. And so
we are not in agreement with that amend-
ment to The Workmen's Compensation Act.
Again, some of the levels are increased for
the widow and the children of a deceased
employee. Those levels are not adequate to
meet the present day standards of living to
which these people are accustomed. The
earnings of the father or the wage earner of
that household are not continuing to be
reflected in their standard of living per the
benefit levels under the proposed changes in
the Act.
We think that the Act is short in that
regard, that they do not maintain a standard
of living that they enjoyed prior to the injury.
I notice that the funeral expenses may not be
a big item, but nevertheless it is an item and
it is a cost and this does not reflect on the
present day costs either.
I thought the Minister would have taken
a more realistic position in that regard as
well. The changes in the Act or the upgrad-
ing of the Act obviously does reflect improve-
ment and I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that
this does not meet the requirements of the
injured employees in this province. This Act
does not go far enough to give them the
measure of equity that they should enjoy as
4820
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
far as their standard of living, working con-
ditions and everything else that is reflected
in the changes in this Act.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, in looking at the amendments to
The Workmen's Compensation Act, one is
struck by the futility of injured workmen, or
the wives of deceased workmen, in trying to
live up to the standard that their husbands
had given them prior to being killed or being
injured.
I notice also, Mr. Speaker, that this Act
does not cover workmen who have been
injured many years ago and it has not really
tried to bring these workmen up to the level
of the earnings and percentages that work-
men get today through the added incomes
that normally take place over the years.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that a man
earning $100 a week with two children has
a fairly hard time bringing up his family. A
widow whose husband earned $100 a week
has an impossible task under the rules of
this Act. She cannot possibly bring up her
children.
All this Act does is throw a bone to these
people. I cannot understand why the amend-
ments were made if they were not going to
be made in keeping with modern workmen's
compensation procedures or with modern
thinking in connection with workmen's com-
pensation.
In Ontario, we have 4,294 fatherless chil-
dren who depend on the workmen's compen-
sation board. And they get $40 a month;
$40 a month to bring up a child in Ontario.
The widow gets $75. If a workman earned
$125 a week the widow still gets $75 a
month, and the child still gets only $40 a
month.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is telling
the widows of men killed in industrial acci-
dents, "We want you to live below a sub-
sistence level. We are not going to give you
a decent income so that you can bring your
children up in Ontario with the proper in-
come." It does not matter to the workmen's
compensation board if these people have to
grub it out for an existence. It does not
seem to bother them at all. But it seems a
little unjust to the family of a man who has
lost his life and limb in a commercial acci-
dent that they should suffer to such a degree.
I am wondering also, Mr. Speaker, what
the Minister of Labour is going to do for
those workmen who were injured 20 years
ago. Is the Minister of Labour in any way
going to adjust the compensations that these
men have received? Is he trying to adjust
the compensation that these men received on
the basis of a wage of, say, 20 to 25 years
ago?
Is the Minister of Labour perhaps going to
take a realistic look at the workmen's com-
pensation laws? Is he going to study these
laws and say these men deserve more than
we are giving them? It is interesting to note,
Mr. Speaker, that the philosophy of work-
men's compensation as set down in the
original Royal commission in 1914 was that
the employer was going to give up certain
rights, and the employee was going to give
up certain rights, and therefore this philos-
ophy just permeates the law today. The old
master and servant relationship that evolved
during the industrial revolution of the 19th
century still pervades the workmen's com-
pensation philosophy of today. It is my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we have got to
get rid of this 19th century archaic thinking,
and bring these rules up in keeping with the
20th century industrial society, bring them
up to the 20th century social outlook, so
that these people who are hurt and maimed
and killed will have a just reward for their
injuries and their deaths.
I have a case here, Mr. Speaker, a woman
with five children. Her husband was killed
five years ago. He earned $95 a week, which
with five children is not a very high income.
His widow with five children, Mr. Speaker,
got a total of $240 a month-$240 a month
to bring up five children; $60 a week. Is
this in keeping with modem social thought?
It is not.
As I said before, they are bound by the
archaic thinking that permeates our society
and that permeates that party. Mr. Justice
McGillivray, I think, who brought down the
workmen's compensation report, still insists
on basing his whole report on that archaic
principle brought down in 1914 that the
employee, by receiving something from the
workmen's compensation board, has to give
up certain benefits. The only thing he is
giving up, Mr. Speaker, is the added income
he would have made if he had been a whole
man. It seems repugnant to me, Mr. Speaker,
that when a man loses an arm or a leg or
a finger, the workmen's compensation board
says to him, "Oh well, that is all right, you
might be able to earn some income later, so
therefore, we are going to cut your compen-
sation."
I notice also, Mr. Speaker, that the report
upon which I understand this amendment is
based, makes many recommendations, but
JUNE 26, 1968
4821
one of them that it does make is that certain
benefits, certain expenses, being paid by the
workmen's compensation board, and incident-
ally paid by the employers, should now be
taken over by other departments of govern-
ment. I think that perhaps the Minister,
when he does consider that report, should
consider those recommendations and in my
opinion reject them, because it is my opinion
that the employer should pay the major cost
of workmen's compensation, because cer-
tainly he is the major cause of the accidents
in many cases.
In regards to the funeral bill, Mr. Speaker,
it merely illustrates the disinterest that the
Minister and the board have for expenses
that somebody is going to have to pay when
a workman dies. They have increased the
funeral bill by from $300 to $400. Mr.
Speaker, the city of Toronto will bury some-
body for about $275 in a pauper's funeral.
But I suggest tliat the Minister realizes that
funeral bills cost much more and that the
workmen's compensation board should pay
the full funeral bill.
They have cut down the time you have
to wait for the workmen's compensation to
begin to pay the compensation to one day
after the accident happened. They have
increased it by three days. In other words
the workmen will get three more days com-
pensation, I think, Mr. Speaker, if this bill
is according to what was set out in the
McGillivray commission report. I think the
Minister has missed the point completely,
Mr. Speaker, and he has spent the public
funds for nothing in bringing down this
report.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth); Mr. Speaker,
I would like to make a few comments on
two areas of this bill on the matter of the
widows. The position of the widows has
been well stated. I concur with what was
said, that the amount that is being sug-
gested at this time is not nearly adequate.
We have all come across widows in our
ridings receiving workmen's compensation
payments, and we find that they are, gen-
erally speaking, living a life of deprivation.
It should not be necessary, in a province with
affluence such as this, that they should be
forced to live in this fashion because their
husband was killed performing his tasks.
The other portion of the bill that I want
to ask about, is the change under section 12.
It says that if the workman is under the
age of 21 years and so on and so on, the
money can be paid to and a number of
people, such as the spouse, a committee
or public trustee. I think that we arc com-
ing into an enUghtened age; I hope we arc.
The debate that we had two weeks ago
reducing the voting age, certainly showed
that tJiere was unanimity among the parties
for a reduction. Surely if we are considering
reducing the voting age, we ought to be
considering reducing the age at which a
person is considered to be legally capable
and able of handling his own money.
Tlie workman earns the money. It is paid
to him because he is losing wages. Surely
the age 21 is not firm. It would be much
better if we were to reduce this to the
realistic age of 18, or for that matter make
it, "to any person employed."
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment briefly
on the amendments to The Workmen's Com-
pensation Act. The position of our party
has been well stated with regard to the pay-
ments that it provides in any given instance,
whether it be the payment to the injured
worker, or the survivor in the case of the
death of the injured worker, and the funeral
benefits. But this amendment is wanting
inasmuch as it does not change the policy of
the board for those who are being rehabili-
tated, where you find that they are on
temporary, or partial disability, where they
cannot be returned to their former employ-
ment. They are, for all practical purposes, re-
leased by the board saying that they should be
sent back to tlie former employer and placed
on light duties for an indefinite period of
time.
It is common knowledge that a good many
of the employers do not have light duties for
these people to perform. In many such cases
it is impossible for the injured worker— or a
worker who is forced to spend in many cases,
months or years recovering from lower back
injuries, or incapacitated for injuries such as
that, and forced to live on sometimes $50 a
month— it is impossible to keep a family on
this. They are not in a position to be re-
employed, and there is no provision made for
this at all. I think that there is a respon-
sibility on the compensation board to assure
the injured workers that they will get a
decent level of income to sustain their
families or themselves until they can be
completely rehabilitated, and I see nothing
in this bill that would make any provision
for that.
There are so many cases coming up today,
as I say, with lower back injuries. There,
operations cannot contribute toward their
4822
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rehabilitation, and it is just a case of letting
it mend. In a good many instances it takes
months and sometimes years. I can point
out several specific instances to the Min-
ister where the employee is forced to go to
welfare agencies for assistance, when I think
that the responsibihty of the compensation
board is either to rehabilitate him or to pro-
vide the necessary funds to keep him and his
family until such time as they are on their
own again.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to this before the Min-
ister? The member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I
think that it was about a year ago, when
the compensation board was before the com-
mittee on government commissions, that I got
after the workmen's compensation board for
collecting their premiums annually. I asked
how much was lost in premiums, because it
appeared to me that every time I picked up
a list of the creditor in bankruptcy action,
the workmen's compensation board was un-
doubtedly on there as being one of the
creditors, and it was minimized by the Min-
ister saying that they lost only about 1
per cent.
So I said, "Well, tell me how much is 1
per cent?" He replied that they took in $100
million a year. So I said, "Well, my good-
ness, 1 per cent of that is $1 million a year
that they lose in premiums."
I tied it in with my question as to what
you are supposed to do for a man who comes
to you and says, "Mr. Ben, I was injured on a
job and the workmen's compensation board
tells me that I should get a light job, and I
cannot get a light job." The only thing that
he can do is swing a pick-axe. The only
thing that he had to offer was a strong back
and strong arms.
When this individual is injured he is com-
pletely incapacitated. So they say, "Well,
the hardest thing to prove is a back injury.
You know, we have got to be careful about
these things." So I started to think, and I
pointed out at the time, Mr. Speaker, witli
reference to the $1 million, that not only
does the workmen's compensation board lose
$1 million in premiums, but if it was collect-
ing the premiums monthly, as they do the
excise tax, for instance, just consider the
interest that they could be earning even if
they only loaned the money to government
departments for, say, 6 per cent.
They would be collecting the money at
roughly $800,000 a month! At 6 per cent
on the first month's premiums that would be
roughly $48,000 that they would take in
interest, or a little less because it would be
for 11 months; so divide that by 12 to get
$36,000 a year.
On the next $800,000, they would be
earning interest at the rate of 6 per cent for
10 months, and so on. If they were to col-
lect their premiums every month, they would
not lose $1 million, and also they would be
earning interest on the moneys that they
would be collecting, as I say, at approxi-
mately the rate of $36,000 a year, on each
month's premium. They would be able to
pay all these doubtful claims and still be in
money.
Under those circumstances, my hon. friend
from Dovercourt would not have to get up
here and concern himself with these labourers
who are completely disabled once they in-
jure their backs or lose an arm or leg. Now,
when in heaven's name is this department
going to smarten up and start collecting the
premiums monthly rather than annually?
Mr. Speaker. The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief com-
ments on this bill. They relate to an indivi-
dual who has been paying into the fund
right along and becomes injured and as a
result collects workmen's compensation. He
goes back to work and can no longer work
in the job that he originally worked at. As
a result he is told that his services are no
longer required because they do not have
employment of a lighter category.
During the period that he was paying
compensation, no payments were made into
the unemployment insurance fund, so that
when he is eventually laid off and goes to
collect unemployment insurance, the period
of time for which no payments were made
were deducted and as a result he does not
get the full benefit of unemployment insur-
ance that he would receive were he physi-
cally able to be working all the time.
My suggestion to the Minister is that dur-
ing the time that workmen's compensation
is being made, workmen's compensation
should also pay the unemployment insiuance
of that worker, so that he will not lose any
benefits whatsoever when he has to collect
unemployment insiurance.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara
FaUs.
JUNE 26, 1968
4823
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): Mr.
Speaker, the portion of this bill that I am
interested in is the fact that up to the time
of passing of this bill, when it gets Royal
assent, the widow of a worker who is killed
on the job gets only $300 for the life; with
the new bill it will be $600. It strikes me as
pretty cheap to buy the life of an individual
for $600.
The $600 that this bill will provide after
the death of a worker on the job strikes me
as a very small amount of money for his
life. I would think that there ought to be an
insurance of a type that the widow in this
day and age should get at least $5,000. There
are not that many people killed on jobs that
the government could not afford to provide
that kind of money.
Just recently, a widow with a child ap-
proached me with her problem. They collect
$40 a month, and this will be greater now,
and for her husband's funeral they could
collect $300. But for the death of that man
they collected $300, and now only $600. It
appears to me that provision should have
been made for a greater amount for that life.
The other thing that I have had to deal
with often in regard to the workmen's com-
pensation is when a man is not really injured
or cannot prove injury on the job, but is not
working because of a sickness or some pain
that cannot be determined.
Some workers can collect sick benefit from
the job on which they are working simply
because the unions have been able to per-
suade the industry to pay sick benefit to
these men. But I am wondering whether
there is not a duplication here of services to
that same individual whose work is not satis-
factory.
If he is injured, the workmen's compen-
sation pays the bill. If he is sick then he
collects sickness benefit from some insurance
company. And I wonder whether these two
services could not be co-ordinated or brought
together into one. It would appear to me
that the administration would not be that
great.
It would be much simpler and the money
would come that much quicker because there
are cases where the workmen's compensation
does not pay because they did not determine
that the man was sick on the job and the
sick benefit has to take over and pay him a
portion of his wages until they determine
who pays the full amount.
These two points have stuck with me for
many years and I think this would be a good
time to try to forcibly bring to this Minister
the feeling that I have about this very serious
problem. I think you could give this money
to the patient that much quicker.
What I am trying to determine here, Mr.
Speaker, is that the individual who started
on that job was a well physical being; he
did take sick in some fashion or another,
whether it be playing baseball or football
with his youngster in the back yard, and
wrenched his back. Often they try to say
that it happened on the job but I think this
determination ought not to be made.
The fact remains that this man was well,
and now he is sick. Someone ought to pay
and I think that money should come imme-
diately from the workmen's compensation. I
realize that it will cost industries more, I
realize that they will have to make a bigger
contribution, but I do not know of better
places they could put that money.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland
South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would
like to go through the matters that the mem-
ber for Windsor-Walkerville has put forth.
I think perhaps you can work in reverse
order as he had mentioned, beginning with
clause 10 paragraph 1 where under this para-
graph it mentions 75 per cent of his average
weekly earnings— this is if he has a total
disability. In many cases in the construction
trades, persons will be unemployed for about
four or five months and then they go back
to work. In some cases they do have a
serious accident and their earnings from com-
pensation are only based on perhaps their
total earnings for that year, say $3,000. Yet
they are laid off for a period of four months
and their earnings could have been $5,000.
When a person ends up with $136 per
month total pension disability, this is rather
low. I think this is a little bit too rigid here.
Perhaps in a case like this where a person
has started back to work, they should take
the week that he has worked and base it at
75 per cent of that week instead of going
back and taking the average for the year.
This brings his income down a little bit low.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the bill before the
Minister replies? The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to deal with the general principles of this
Act, and in so doing attempt to touch on
the matters that have been raised by the
various members. In many instances they
have raised questions concerning the extent
4824
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of benefits. I think we have to bear carefully
in mind that the basis of this Act was a re-
port in 1915 that has been brought up to
date continually since then. This is an Act
whereby industry provides payments to the
workmen's compensation board, so that a
workman who is injured on the job shall
receive benefits during the period of his in-
capacity, and shall be assisted in a variety
of ways, back to normal, and returned to
employment.
I would point out that money is paid
not only for compensation but also for medi-
cal and rehabilitation services. And industry
is responsible for the full payment of these
moneys to the board. It is not a contributory
arrangement. The workman, on the other
hand, as one of the members pointed out,
has given up his right to a civil action in
these kinds of industrial accident cases, and
tlirough that he perhaps sacrifices some-
thing. On the other hand, however, he has
gained a great deal.
Over the years, the benefits to be paid to
a workman's widow have been increased sub-
stantially, and at the present time we have
recognized, as did Mr. Justice McGillivray,
that the payment to the widow of $75 per
month was too low and we wanted to see it
increased. Today, with the increase provided
in this Act to $125 per month for her life
or until her remarriage, this payment be-
comes the highest of such payments in any
province. We do not take particular pride
from that, but we are anxious that a widow
should be paid just as much as feasibly pos-
sible to help sustain herself and her family.
In addition to that, of course, there are bene-
fits paid to the children and we have
increased the amount that shall be paid to
her on the basis of a widow with three
children to $275 per month.
There have been various other suggestions
made about lump sum payments and so on.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls referred
to payments of $600. I am not quite sure
where that arose but there is an initial pay-
ment increase to $500 from $300 and that is
an immediate cash payment. But over and
above that, you will appreciate, she receives
the pension as well as payment of allowances
for the children who are under a certain
age. A lot of these things we have accepted,
and we carefully considered the report of
Mr. Justice McGillivray on the workmen's
compensation board. I may say that there
are a substantial number of recommendations
in that report; a number of them are ad-
ministrative and in the great bulk of those
cases those changes have been made or are
being made.
The board is anxious to do all it can to
increase the efficiency of its operations and
to assist the workmen through the board
itself and its operations. We have to bear
in mind tlie cost to industry in these things.
We want to see the board be as generous
to victims of occupational accidents as we
can, but we have to bear in mind tlie cost
to industry. In this province the board col-
lected some $100 million last year from in-
dustry for this operation, so there has to be
a balance maintained in this regard so that
industry can continue to be prosperous and
continue to provide the jobs and the money
that are required for these and otlier matters.
Raising of the level of maximum earnings
to $7,000 rather than $6,000 is to raise the
maximum amount that can be paid to the
workman who is injured, and it does raise
the maximum payment to $5,250 in the year.
I would particularly point out to the mem-
bers, and I am sure they are aware, that
those moneys are free of income tax. I also
would point out that these changes in com-
pensation benefits to injured workmen will
be in reference to accidents which occur
after the effective date of the legislation.
Mr. Justice McGillivray did not recommend
that the increase in widows' pensions should
be to widows whose husbands had died pre-
vious to the effective date of this Act, but
only to women who became widows after
passage of this Act.
We have adopted measures in this bill so
that all widows receiving benefits under the
Act will receive the increased pensions.
In all of these things, therefore, we have
attempted to bring the Act into line with
present practices as far as we are able and
we are anxious that the workmen's compensa-
tion board should have legislation which is
up to date and of the greatest service pos-
sible to the workmen of this province.
The board administers a great many claims
in one year, and in the last year there were
some 375,000 claims processed by that board.
It is a large operation. It is a costly operation
from the standpoint of money going tlirough
their hands, and yet I must say to the mem-
bers that the actual administrative costs of
that operation are kept in line. I think those
matters have been dealt with extensively be-
fore the committee on commissions of this
House.
There will be detailed consideration of this
during the course of the committee of the
JUNE 26, 1968
4825
whole, and I would also say to the members
that I will ask that this bill be taken to the
standing committee on labour, to be con-
sidered there in further detail.
Mr. Bukator: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The initial payment was $500; the
Minister was correct, I was wrong in my
figures.
THE LORD'S DAY (ONTARIO) ACT
1960-1961
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General))
moves second reading of Bill 53, An Act to
amend The Lord's Day (Ontario) Act, 1960-
1961.
Mr. Bukator: Mr. Speaker, if you recall
when we were discussing Bill 51, it was
brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that
I would have an opportunity to discuss this
bill further when it came up for second
reading.
I want to take the stand that I did on
the previous bill in connection with Bill 51.
I do not in any way approve of Sunday
racing. There are many reasons for the posi-
tion that I take in connection with this bill
and one of them is strictly a business proposi-
tion. In considering this particular bill I find
since I spoke in the House on my objection
to Sunday racing there are some 600 em-
ployees of the racetracks that now work
every holiday, Saturdays and Good Friday
included.
They are family men who feel that they
ought to have a day with their families. They
also feel that the only day they have to
be at home with their families is on a
Sunday and they do not want to be deprived
of this privilege that many of us enjoy. I
understand the racing days that are allotted
to the Jockey club are not going to be inter-
fered with in any way. If they race on Sun-
day they will take a day off through the
week. Using that argument, the family man
who works on Sunday cannot be with his
family through the week because the children
go to school.
I know that the second argument that I
make to you is not vahd and sound but yet
there is some merit in what I have to say.
People in the neighbourhood of the race-
track along the lake, and I think it is called
Greenwood now, have sent a petition to the
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) giving
their reasons for not wanting this bill to
be passed in this House. Their argument is
as sound as anything I have ever heard.
They now have to wait to determine when
their services will be, when their weddings
will be and they have to fit it in between the
people going and coming from the racetrack.
Many hundreds of the homeowners in that
neighbourhood, because of evening racing,
are not able to get in and out of their drive-
ways. And when the Minister answers my
question I am sure he will say that it is left
entirely to the municipality; they can pass
a bylaw to allow Sunday racing. But I say
to this House, through you, Mr. Speaker,
that we ought not to put the elected repre-
sentatives in individual municipalities in a
position where they can or cannot pass this
particular bill.
I was informed by some that we, as legis-
lators, have no business trying to legislate
the morality of individuals. I say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that we are here for that very
purpose. Everything we do is a law of some
type; every statute that we pass is a deter-
rent on someone from not doing something
or imposing something on them that they
ought to do. This is our function. We owe
this to our people to take a stand for and
against statutes.
The most important point I make to
you, Mr. Speaker, is that the principles under
which each one of you have raised your
children, the churches that you attend— and
I have even tabulated that; I know where
each one of you have attended and I have
letters from many churches telhng me that
they do not approve of Sunday racing.
I think that this is an improper Act. Under
no circumstances can I support it. I only
wish I had someone to second my motion to
hoist this bill, to put it on the record to
find out where you gentlemen stand. I can-
not see how these youngsters are taken to
church on Sunday to be given the more
spiritual bringing up that I have had, and I
am sure they have had and then, having
taught our children all these years that Sun-
day is set aside because it is the sabbath,
we stand here and pass a bill allowing people
to do the very things that we ought not to
do ourselves, and I talk about Sunday
gambhng.
I want to make this to you very forcibly.
If there is a mafia type of activity in our
country, if tliere is syndicated crime, you are
opening up another day to that particular
group of thugs to exploit their fellow men.
Under no circumstances ought we to open
the door to them, to allow them to get in on
4826
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the $.5 million additional revenue on which
they can also run their books on a Sunday.
Under no circumstances can I see how any
hon. gentleman of this House can support
this bill.
I have before me letters from individuals
and from churches that I do not care to read
into the record. I have been very much en-
couraged by many people who believe as I
do. Each one of you stands condemned if
you vote for this bill conscientiously and
support it.
I can see no way by which a man who had
been brought up in the synagogue, a man
who is a Protestant, a man who is a Catho-
lic can stand in this House and support
Sunday gambling. I know better than any-
body that we cannot legislate morality. There
are many ministers struggling now— and it
might be their fault, I do not know— to try to
maintain their churches and here we are put-
ting another roadblock before them.
We are not setting the example to them
that each one of us has been taught in one
church or another, the Christian principles
that I believe in, that I have taught my chil-
dren. The sabbath ought to be a day of rest,
the sabbath is a holy day and we have no
right, imder any circumstances, to alter that.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it has not
been an easy time for me in this House since
I made that speech, because the opposition
is great. There are many prominent men in
the business field who have condemned me
for my stand. The odd one has said, "I do
not agree with you but I do admire you for
your principles."
I have before me a resolution. If I could
get a seconder, I think I would like to divide
the House. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce
(Mr. Sargent) said he would second it, which
would give me the resolution. I did not pre-
pare myself too well because I—
Mr. J. H. White (London South): It is out
of order anyway.
Mr. Bukator: No, it is not out of order.
Does the member want me to refer him to
the section?
Mr. Nixon: Certainly it is in order.
Mr. White: Certainly it is not. One can-
not introduce a resolution during a debate
on a bill.
Mr. Bukator: Oh, well, let me tell you
what I have in mind. I might not have used
the right wording. I give my—
Mr. Nixon: If the member did not, that
political expert, the member for London
South, will catch this member.
Mr. Bukator: I would hke to know just
where and how we can face our people. As
I have said before, Mr. Speaker, we have
been taught and we have taught, and min-
isters have preached to me many years in
all churches, and the principle exists. I do
not think we ought to put any municipality
in the position where they now pass a bylaw
rather than a vote, at least that portion should
not have been taken out. And I have before \
me a resolution, moved by myself and sec-
onded by the member for Grey-Bruce, that!
Bill 53 be not now read for a second time
but be read a second time this day six]
months-
Mr. Speaker: I would draw the attention
of the members to the fact that this is a type
of motion which in my opinion— I trust it is
correct— is peculiar and used only on certain
occasions and it has been moved by the
member for Niagara Falls, seconded by the
member for Grey-Bruce, that Bill 53 be not
now read a second time but be read a second
time this day six montlis. May the Speaker
have a moment? Yes, it is debatable.
Mr. Nixon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I presume
that motion is debatable, and I would further
assume that when it is put, it would be put
to the House as any other amendment to
second reading is put, in the normal pro-
cedure.
Mr. Speaker: That would be my view but
I just wanted to be sure. I have had some
difficulty today with other things. So now
we have a motion for second reading and
we have a motion that the bill be not now
read and the floor of the House is open for
debate. The member for Waterloo North has
the floor.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Speaker, I would rise to support this motion.
I strongly feel there are many areas in which
the government has the responsibility to lead
the way. I speak, of course, of matters of
housing, education, social reform and wel-
fare, but I think in matters where there are
morals and religion concerned, the govern-
ment does not have the responsibflity to lead
the way but should be pushed by public
opinion. In my view, this is a matter for
any people of morals.
Consequently, I think until such time as
the people of Ontario show a willingness
and the need and tlie desire to have legisla-
JUNE 26, 1968
4827
tion such as this brought in, the government
should not accept this responsibihty. I think
we must reahze the fact that pressure to
have this bill brought in has come from only
one source, the racing people themselves,
and I certainly am not convinced that they
are in the position that they need to have
this special privilege showered upon them.
I am not all that convinced that their tracks
are going to close down if they do not get
this privilege, or if they do not get that priv-
ilege; I think racing will go on as we know it.
Let us just look at racing for a minute.
The racing people themselves have probably
asked for this and brought the pressure to
bear. At the present time the racing industry
is perhaps the most favoured of any in the
country for one reason— that it has, in fact,
control of the only legahzed gambling in the
province. Horse racing in itself would be
nothing more than a dog show or a horse
show if it were not for the gambling and I
cannot myself be convinced that the people
of Ontario are ready to have gambling legal-
ized on Sunday. This is the only basis that
this bill is being introduced; it is for a com-
mercial money-making scheme for those pro-
moting the horse racing industiy. I am of
the opinion that in questions of this nature,
the government should lag behind the opin-
ion of the people, and I do not think the
people of the province of Ontario are push-
ing this. Consequently, I believe the majority
of the people of Ontario are not interested
in furthering legalized gambhng on Sunday
and I must support this motion.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): May I say
that I consider it a privilege to back the
member for Niagara Falls in this motion, to
stave off another inroad in the legalized
gambling on Sundays. I am no moralist, as
you all know, but I think we do have a
responsibility to our children, to our family
institutions, to our churches. A great majority
of my people are in favour of this motion to
defeat this bill. The fact is that the profit
motive is here; the motivation is certainly
not on the part of the Treasury to make
money, it is the motivation on the part of
the interests to have possibly another 14 per
cent revenue per year out of the people's
pockets by allowing gambling on Sunday.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
when the vote does come on this, we will
have again in front of us, showing full force,
the automation that we have in this age. In
other words I do not think it necessary for
the members of the government to kid us
a bit; they are automation, they press a but-
ton and they all stand up and do not have
the courage to state their own convictions.
We have data processing in large scale in
force now. The Prime Minister can press the
button and these members wlio pledge them-
selves to carry out the wishes of their people
have not the courage of their convictions to
stand up and vote for what they think is
right. We will see when the vote comes that
automation is here even in the government
benches.
I do take a great deal of—
Mr. White: Oh, do not be so silly.
Mr. Sargent: We will see what happens.
When the button is pressed you will jump
up like a little automated card.
Mr. White: Do not be so insulting.
Mr. Sargent: So, Mr. Speaker, I consider
this a privilege to back this motion and com-
mend the member for Niagara Falls for his
courage in bucking the big interests.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak
to the motion, I must begin by commending
my friend, the member for Niagara Falls, for
presenting a motion and to inform you, sir,
that it will not be possible for me to support
it. The bill before us is one that does im-
pinge on personal principles and the member
for Niagara Falls and others have made this
abundantly clear.
I know you remember, sir, when a com-
panion piece of legislation was before this
House some weeks ago that some opposition
to the principle was expressed not only by
the members who have already spoken from
my party but by representatives of the other
parties here in the House. The members
themselves, I do not believe, are present
today. Nevertheless, as has been stated, this
is a matter of a great deal of personal con-
cern. I feel myself, and I feel it quite
sincerely, that these matters are matters of
personal and family responsibility.
While it is not my intention to avail my-
self of the opportunity to visit the track and
bet on Sunday, I do not feel that we are
unreasonably imposing authority on others
when we simply make it permissible that this
be carried out under municipal bylaw. Of
course, it is unfortunate that we on this side
are not agreed in our position and therefore
it is obvious that when the vote is taken, if
in fact it is, that each member in our party
will be representing his own views in this
important matter.
4828
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I have already expressed my views pre-
viously, but certainly under these circum-
stances, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make
them clear not only to my colleagues but to
you.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
moralize here today, because to me it is not
that much of a moral issue. For those of us
who are Christians, the good Lord lets us
decide for ourselves whether we wanted to
sin or whether we wanted to lead a straight
life, and I do not think it is up to us to
determine for any of our fellow men how
they should lead their lives. But there is
something that is important to me, and that
is the fact that I am a Liberal, and I am a
Liberal because for generations and almost
centuries the Liberals fought to make a
better world for people to live in. They
fought against children working in the mines
for long hours. They fought to cut down the
number of hoiurs a man has to work every
week.
The hon. member for Scarborough East
(Mr. T. Reid) was talking about education
and preparing ourselves for leisure. The Min-
ister of Education was doing the same. We
have arranged our working hours to the
extent that we now take a holiday on a
Monday regardless of what date the event
falls on. The only days we still celebrate on
the dates they fall on are Easter, Christmas
and July 1. Other holidays we put on a
Monday so we can have a long weekend, the
idea being that we have a number of con-
secutive days of leisure— or rest— so that we
will not confuse the words "leisure" and
"rest"— for either leisure or recreational
activity.
What disturbs me about this legislation is
that in essenc5e it is going to compel people
to have to work on days when other people
are entitled to have consecutive days of
rest. It is easy for us to say we are passing
permissive legislation. That is an easy way
to pass the buck, so to speak— that we will
not be permitting Sunday racing, we will
not be permitting people to work on Sunday,
we will not be compelling people to work on
Sunday. No, it is going to be somebody else
who is going to be doing it. We just give
them permission to do what they want. Let
the municipalities take the blame. Well, I
do not believe in passing the buck that way.
Earlier in this session we had before us a
bill which would cut down on the number
of overtime hours an employee can work.
We thought it was important to restrict the
number of overtime hours that a person
could work, and the Minister was com-
mended for bringing down such legislation.
I think it is just as important that a worker
be entitled to have so many consecutive
days of rest and one of those be the day
he observes as the sabbath. Everybody does
not observe Sunday as the sabbath day, in
fact the sabbath day is Saturday. We have
Seventh Day Adventists who observe Satur-
day. We have the Jewish faith that observes
Saturday as the day of rest. The fact is we
have come into the position in our society
where we now have a number of consecutive
days, one of which is the sabbath day, be
it Saturday or Sunday. This to me is im-
portant, and we should not be put in the
position where we are permitting other juris-
dictions, answerable to us, to compel people
to lose those days.
Then we talk about air pollution in this
House. To me there is something special
about a Sunday. The factories have been
closed Saturday. The westerly winds have
blown across our skies and have blown away
all the smog that existed and all the pollu-
tion that was put in the air by chimneys,
and when you wake up on a Sunday, first of
all you can see the sky. It looks blue. The
sun even seems brighter. You can get a
suntan on a Sunday that you cannot get
any other day of the week, it seems, unless
you get it out of a bottle. You can hear the
birds singing because they are not drowned
out by all the automobiles rushing up and
down the highway. To me there is something
important about being able to do that, and
what this legislation does is deprive a lot
of the people in this province of having that
pleasure every Sunday.
Sure, some people have to work on Sun-
day—the pohce have to work on Sundays,
politicians have to work on Sundays, especi-
ally during the summer when they have to
go out to all these picnics, but that is the
life they chose. Nobody is compelling them
to do that. The fact is I say these people
should be entitled to have Saturdays and
Sundays as days of rest or worship however
they choose to observe them, and this to
me is the important thing. That is why I
am going to support the amendment.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I also rise to support the amend-
ment moved by the member for Niagara
Falls and I do so for two reasons. First of
all it has already been mentioned that we
are in effect passing tlie buck in this legisla-
tion to tlie mimicipalities. This legislation
JUNE 26, 1968
4829
should either say, "We are saying you can
have Sunday racing anywhere in Ontario,"
and we take the responsibility ourselves, or
we should decide here whether it will depend
upon public demand, or in having plebiscites
to so demand legislation enabling tliis Sun-
day racing.
I think it is completely ducking the issue
for us in this House to pass the Act as it
now stands. It should be either the responsi-
bility of this House to put forward legisla-
tion permitting Sunday racing anywhere in
the province and decide upon it right here
in this Legislature, or we should not have
these clauses or these points in the Act
whereby the municipalities may, without a
plebiscite, make the changes. I think that
the points already made by the member for
Humber and the member for Waterloo North
in this regard certainly are very valid ones
and we should think about them when we
vote on this bill, and the motion before us
now.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make one or two com-
ments on this legislation. I think it is a very
difficult piece of legislation— difficult for both
the government and for the Opposition. I
think this is the kind of legislation which
should be decided by a free vote rather than
being decided as a government bill. Not that
I wish to take the government off the hook,
so to speak, nor that I wish to take Opposi-
tion parties off the hook, but I think there
are things in this pluralistic society that make
it no longer, in a sense, a puritan "blue-
Sunday" kind of society that we once had in
Ontario. Perhaps this bill itself is a reflection
of a new kind of Ontario, and more cosmo-
pohtan Ontario, more sophisticated Ontario,
and perhaps an Ontario which considers it-
self more concerned about real issues.
In saying this I realize I may very well
anger those who are very strong Christians,
but I am just a little bit disappointed in the
position that they have taken in relation to
this particular piece of legislation. I find it
quite amusing in some ways, all the letters
I receive about racing on Sunday. And yet
I see very few letters about the problems
of housing or the fact that families are being
kept apart because of it. In other words,
why is the church not here, criticizing or
applauding? I would be the first to suggest
that there are things that have happened in
this Legislature during this session that the
churches should have stood up and said,
"That is the right thing. This is a basic mat-
ter. We are doing something to improve
family life."
I do not think this legislation is either
going to strengthen the moral fibre of Ontario
people nor do I think it is going to disinte-
grate the moral fibre of the people of On-
tario. In other words, my feeling is very
strongly that it is a peripheral matter, but
because of the fact that it is so close to the
hearts of many people in their religious
beliefs, I do think that I would like to see
this piece of legislation delayed for six
months. I think I would like to see it thought
out. I think I would like to see it come
before this Legislature as a matter which
will allow a free vote.
We have seen examples of this in the
federal House, when the whole question of
capital punishment came before that House,
Mr. Speaker. That was something too which
impinged upon the consciences of the people
who sat in that Legislature. They were con-
cerned about their religious beliefs as it
affected the vote they made. As I said a
moment ago, it may be easier to say, "Well,
why allow a free vote to get all of us off
the hook?" But I think that is not quite
true; it also allows all of us to vote by
conscience.
I think that some of the things which are
expressed about the hypocrisy of politics,
and the "sleaziness" of not being here when
the vote is taken, or speaking one way and
voting another way, are unfortunate, and I
think they bring a certain degree of dis-
respect to this chamber. I do not think this
is true. I think politicians on the whole have
to stand up for their beliefs more often
probably than any other people, of course-
very few people do have to stand up— and
make comments on their beliefs, and put
their vote down where it is going to be seen
by everybody in the community. So I do sug-
gest, Mr. Speaker, that although I am not
supporting entirely the position that has been
taken by other people, and would remove
this for a six-month period.
I do not think this is the machination of
an evil group of people who are trying to
impose racing on the people of Ontario. I
do not think there are people with money
bags who are determined to crush the Chris-
tian morality of our society. I am concerned
along with those who have already expressed
the role of the family in our society and the
problem of people being able to have one
day with their famihes. I must say I was
4830
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
much moved by the comment of those who
would have to work in relation to this piece
of legislation. That is one thing that I think
we should be concerned about. I do wish
that this was a matter that we could deal
with on conscience rather than on party lines
in this House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the arguments that have
been advanced in this debate are confused
and confusing. In fact, there are so many
positions, and perhaps I will prove that there
is still another position before I sit down.
Let me assert at the outset that I agree
with the proposition that this should be a
free vote, and therefore let each person's
conscience be his guide, so I am willing to
state quite clearly where I personally stand.
I do not think that any more can be asked
of any member in this House.
For example, it has been argued by some
members of the House that this should be
opposed on moral or religious grounds. Mr.
Speaker, for reasons that my colleague from
Peterborough just advanced, I find this most
unconvincing. If we have professional rugby,
or professional baseball, and if you can go
to the golf course and tee o£F on Sunday— if
all of these other things can be done, why
does one draw the line at horse racing? If
somebody likes horse racing rather than these
other things, why should he be denied the
right to go to horse racing on Sunday? It
seems to me that those who take this line of
argument are fighting a battle that has already
l^een lost, in many instances while they were
silent. They should have raised their voices
at some earlier point. I am not one to single
out individuals, but there was one person
earlier in the debate in the House who said
he was opposed to the bill, and was fairly
brave in doing this because he was taking a
stand against a government bill. Yet it was
pointed out to him that when he sat on the
city council back home, he voted for Sunday
1)owling. That is hair splitting!
Let us get back to the gambling aspect. I
agree that gambling is another ramification
of this but I find it a bit perplexing to have
people come and say that they are opposed
to Sunday racing, because of the gambling,
and yet I never hear those people speak
about the toleration of illegal gambling, and
the unwillingness of police to rout out
bookies in this province.
We have played with this game for years.
There have been bookies right in this build-
ing Why, a few years ago, I was talking
about bookies, and somebody laughed, and
said that there was a man working right in
this building with whom you could place a
bet any time. Everyone knows that there are
bookies in every factory and oflBce; and the
radio stations oblige the bookies and every-
body who wants to do illegal betting, every
20 minutes, so why does one get so exorcised
with Sunday betting when one tolerates ille-
gal betting? The government tolerates it,
and so do the police.
If you really wanted to clean it out, you
would just say that anyone who is caught
engaging as a bookie— including radio stations
—have got to cease being accomplices in the
crime— so I am not convinced. Like my friend
who says that he gets a lot of letters from
people associated with churches, I received
a lot of letters also. I would like some letters
indicating some willingness to get at some of
the other social issues which are just as im-
portant. To be silent on one, and very vocal
on the other, leads one to believe that you
have some sort of axe to grind!
However, Mr. Speaker, let me get down to
the real substance of this motion, and "hoist
amendment" that is now before us. The rea-
son why I am not particularly happy about
this bill, is that it is a way to get the Jockey
club off the hook for what is the incompetent
running of an industry.
I did not know tliat this was going to come
up this afternoon, so I am repeating now,
what I have put on the record earlier, and
I have forgotten the name of the sociologist
who was hired by a certain advertising firm
in Toronto, to do a study of the operation of
the Jocky club in racing. He came up with
a pretty devastating report with regard to
its incompetence. It is out of date; it is
operating like a private gendemen's club
and an industry in which they really do not
want to keep up to date. They are not ap-
pealing to the right "market", if they want to
boost revenues. What we are doing through
this bill is in efi^ect, rescuing an industry
from its own incompetence and poor mar-
keting.
I am ratlier intrigued that after the man
made the criticism of the industry for a cer-
tain advertising firm, the Jockey club hired
that firm as their advertising agency. So I
am a little suspicious and inclined to the
belief that the Jockey club while being un-
happy about this criticism is, at least by
implication, acknowledging that there is
some validity in it.
There is the further reason, as has been
expressed by a number of members from the
Opposition side— that this is still another in-
JUNE 26, 1968
4831
stance where those who work in the industry
are going to be forced to work on Sunday.
I think if one must work on Sunday, for
essential pubhc services, then maybe there is
some justification, but for an industry which
does not have to work on Sunday, I think
that the workers involved have a case.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, amid all of the
contradictions in the arguments, let me sum
up my position. I have no particular objec-
tion to Sunday racing, because I think that
battle has been lost. We tolerate many other
violations of the sabbath, including the fact
that the church, which recognizes the inclina-
ations of human beings, now has cut out
Sunday afternoon and evening services; so
that if you go in the morning, you are free
for the rest of the day for recreation. In
many instances, the church has done that, as
was pointed out by the hon. member for
Muskoka (Mr. Boyer) in an earlier debate.
On the other hand while I have no objec-
tion to Sunday racing, I am going to support
this motion for a hoist. I will support it be-
cause, quite frankly, it is primarily an effort
to get the Jockey club and the industry off
the hook because of its own incompetence in
terms of keeping a modem, up-to-date in-
dustry. Secondly I think that it is imposing
on people who do not necessarily want to
work on Simday, so that instead of being
with their families when they are free, they
will have to take their "Sunday" on Wed-
nesday or Thursday, when the school chil-
dren are at school, and the wife is engaged
in other family chores; they cannot have
family recreation or a family weekend in the
middle of the week. I think that there is
some merit in the hoist because I am not
persuaded by the bill, although the general
objective of the bill is one that I personally
do not have any qualms about,
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, practically
everything that could be said concerning the
bill has been said, however, I would still like
to make a few comments and these would be
in support of my colleague, a man who cer-
tainly has shown himself to be of extremely
high convictions, and that is the member for
Niagara Falls. I can recall the day when he
was practically alone on the floor of this
Legislature, or at least was the original mem-
ber to speak in opposition to the bill.
I have not received any communications
from anyone in my riding in support of such
legislation. I have received many phone calls.
They were not necessarily from church
people, nor from those who look upon the
sabbath as being a day of rest, but they were
opposed, due to the fact that there are suflB-
cient racing days available now. In my own
community we have the Windsor raceway,
that would stand to profit by Sunday racing.
They have adopted a new policy where they
have racing six days a week; twice on Wed-
nesday and on Saturday. So in a six-day
week, they have eight sets of races. Now, if
we open up Sunday for them, we will give
them an extra day; so in a seven-day week,
they may have nine different racing events.
I think that the six days are suflBcient for
them; they do not need Sunday. The em-
ployees certainly would like to have at least
one day a week off, and they certainly are
entitled to it. In fact one of the mutuel
employees' associations, I think, have written
a communication to each member of the
House, registering their strong objections to
Sunday racing.
I think that if the government were sin-
cerely concerned in having a loosened Lord's
Day, they should have simply asked that
this legislation be passed as is, rather than
making it permissive, and giving the muni-
cipality the responsibiliy of allowing or per-
mitting Sunday racing.
I do not look upon this as being a moral
issue. I look upon it more as being one of
right, where the employee should be give?i
the time off and should not be required to
work seven days a week. I look upon it,
also, as one in which there is sufficient time
in six davs to conduct all of the racing that
is necessary. '
I live in a border town, and in the state of
Michigan, though you may look upon our
American friends as the type that would
tolerate a wide open Sunday, yet the state
of Michigan has never considered permitting
Sunday racing. Not that we should neces-
sarily follow the state of Michigan, but I
strongly believe that the six days of racing
that we have are sufficient for any financial
interests to come along and operate their
racing business; they do not need the seventh
day and I will support the resolution of the
member for Niagara Falls. I think he is to
be commended for introducing this hoist
motion.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, it is with some regret that I must
advise you that I cannot support the resolu-
tion of my colleague from Niagara Falls.
I would think that this bill is part and
parcel of a pattern that follows the allowing
of reasonably free choice to the people of
4832
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ontario as to what they do, Sunday or any
other day.
Over the many, many years that these
matters have come to be considered, the gov-
ernment of this province has seen fit, and I
think correctly seen fit, to allow the various
mimicipalities to choose whether or not
there should be Sunday sports. It comes to
mind that one, Allan Lamport, promoted
this issue in the city of Toronto, and as I re-
call it, very few of the news media sup-
ported him in it and very few of the people
commenting thought that the people of
Toronto really wanted to have Sunday sports.
But it was put as a question on the voting
paper, and lo and behold the substantial
majority of the people in the city of Toronto
voted in favour of having Sunday sports.
I fail to understand how we can begin to
differentiate between Sunday movies, Sun-
day baseball, Sunday football and Sunday
racing. We close our eyes on occasion,
hyprocritically, Mr. Speaker, to the various
activities on Sunday. For instance, we did
for a substantial time allow private golf
clubs to function and there was a great hue
and cry that public golf clubs should not
function.
I do not think that our laws should be so
framed to allow privilege to groups in our
community and it would seem to me that
there are many, many people who get the
opportunity to enjoy racing on Sunday if
they so aspire and, if the municipal council
would go along with it, they would not get
the opportunity at any other tjme. Unfor-
tunately, sir, I cannot accept the argument
that a vote for this would be a vote for ex-
tending working hours.
The same argument was made when we
began to talk about Sunday movies. As a
matter of fact, I understand that many people
who operated the moving picture industry
would have been just as happy to see mov-
ing pictures confined to six days a week
because they thought that people would
only go to see so many movies a week, and
if they only had to do it on six days the
operating cost would be cut down. So that
there was substantial objection by the mov-
ing picture theatre owners against Sunday
movies because they thought that they would
just have additional expense.
However, the public spoke, and the public
spoke loudly and clearly and they said they
wanted to go and see the movies on Sunday.
Now, although the question of hours of
work and rates of pay are the subject of
different statutes and our unions have a great
deal to say, and properly so, about working
conditions, I would think that the people
who are concerned with working at the race-
tracks are going to work for a number of
hours a week in accordance with their em-
ployment conditions. And if this involves
working an extra number of hours either
other people will be employed or overtime
pay will be paid.
I do not think there is any question today
that by extending racing seven days a week
that the workers are going to be exploited.
What I am trying to say, sir, is what I would
say about the amendments to the criminal
code that were talked about in the House of
Commons. This has been the subject of a
recent election and if something happened
yesterday, it was that the public expressed
certain views, amongst other things, about
the amendments to the criminal code.
I think the case was properly put by those
people advancing these amendments. They
were not legislating freer divorce or not
legislating breakdown in the morals of the
community. We are bringing our legislation
up to date so that people can avail them-
selves of the choices and we are not going
to attempt to impose our moral code on all
of the people of Canada who may have a
different sense of values.
I want to say I respect very deeply the
opinions of my colleague from Niagara Falls.
I know that in talking with him about this
on many occasions he has a deep moral con-
viction that there should not be racing on
Sunday and I respect him for it, but I can-
not share that view. I say that if the races
are run, if people want to run them, if
people want to go to them, I do not think!
that we, in this province, have any right to
say that they cannot do this unless we are
prepared to say at the same time we will
take away Sunday sports; we will enforce
the legislation that deals with the operation
of various commercial enterprises in the
resort areas on Sunday.
And I see that my friend the Attorney
General is there, and I wonder how many
permissions he has given for prosecution
under the pertinent legislation for people who
sell all sorts of materials and carry on all
sorts of business in the summer time on Sun-
days in the resort areas. That has been talked
about once or twice in this House.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. member is wander-
ing; it is the gambling motivation.
Mr. Singer: My friend from Grey-Bruce
says I am wandering, it is the gambling
JUNE 26, 1968
4833
motivation. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that
by passing or not passing this Act, we are
going to change the people's gambhng habits.
The gambhng that goes on at racetracks
goes on for six days a week, seems to go on
under reasonable control, and the only thing
that we are going to do if we accept the
suggestion implied in this motion, saying it
cannot go on on the seven-day week, is to
deprive a certain number of our citizens of
the right to do what everybody else does six
days a week and they might do it if they
had the time available.
I I talk, I think, in favour of the rights of the
people in our cities who work hard all week
and on the weekend. On the Sundays, par-
ticularly in keeping with their principles,
they want to go out and enjoy themselves.
As some people can go to summer cottages,
so some of these people might want to go
to the races. Some of these people might
want to do at the races on Sunday what
other people do on Monday, Tuesday, Wed-
I nesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
So for those reasons, sir, I think we have
to maintain some kind of consistency. I could
have found it much easier to support this
motion if the people moving it and the people
speaking in support of it said: "We are going
to close Sunday up absolutely and com-
pletely. Sunday is a day of rest and we will
stop all these other activities. We are going
to insist that the Attorney General give per-
missions to prosecute on Sundays, all of the
businesses that go on in resort areas and we
do not rent motorboats and we do not sell
food or provisions and that we do not have
all these Sunday activities that go on in and
through all the summer resorts and so on."
I just cannot become convinced, Mr.
Speaker, that this motion to hoist at this
time, makes abundant good sense and is in
the interest of those people. So for those
reasons, sir, as I say, with some regret, I
cannot support my colleague from Niagara
Falls. I shall vote, as my leader has indicated
to you he will vote, and I shall vote in sup-
port of it. I think this is a piece of legisla-
tion in keeping with what has been happen-
ing in this province over the last several
years and gives us some indication that we
are moving, even in Ontario, into the late
1960s.
Mr. White: The Liberal leader has one
follower.
Mr. Singer: Tell us about London.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): A similar
debate was going on some weeks ago on
the same matter. The hon. Attorney General
gave an exhaustive reply and a very sensible
one in my opinion, which would lead, of
course to rejecting the motion that has come
before this House. I for one feel that this
is necessary so to do. The arguments, 1 will
not repeat them, have been mentioned here
severally as to the discriminatory aspect of
the legislation— if it is not passed.
And why should not the lovers of horse-
flesh, of whom I am not one, not say that
they were being treated in a restrictive and
a discriminatory way and that their rights
as citizens were not given observance over
against the football players and a host of
other occupations? May I say that as far as
the religious issue is concerned, the other
side of this fence has not got all the merits,
you know. For me to pass the legislation
seems to have as much religious merit as the
other side of the fence.
I think the matter is not of a specifically
reli.crious nature. Anything that a man does
in this life that has a serious effect on
guidance and future in the direction of ful-
fillment is a moral matter. Why should mor-
ality always be pleaded by the other boys
—there is some kind of breast-beating going
on. I do not think they have a monopoly
on this. I feel that one may advocate or
support the expansion of the human spirit,
choice of various occupations, various forms
of pleasure and so on, which are in them-
selves so far as I can see, of at least amoral,
and certainly not of an immoral, nature.
Those who would judge that gambling is
necessarily immoral have a particular philoso-
phy of life which is not shared, I suggest,
by the great mass of the citizens of this time
and history. Why, for centuries human beings
could not smile on Sunday without being
horsewhipped and there has been a process
of gradual decline and it has all been to the
good and we come down to this time in
our history I cannot see how anyone can
even begin to impugn the motives of others
on either religious or moral grounds who
would support legislation of this kind. I think
it is invalid, and as far as I am concerned
my grounds are specifically of that kind. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with people
working or not working, or the economics
of the thing.
It seems to me, to be something in the
veins of our contemporary time. As to good
or ill, I certainly can see that it is fairly
innocuous. It is a form of diversion. The
people from our side of the House, from this
party, look at the wide range of pleasurable
4834
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
activities enjoyed by those in more affluent
circumstances. If a guy who works all week
wants to go to the local racetrack and put
$2 on the nose, I cannot see anything pos-
sibly wrong with that.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish
to speak before the Attorney General con-
cludes the debate on the amendment?
Mr. Bukator: I am going to put this very
clearly on the record regardless of whether
I am stopped or not. This with me is a
moral issue. The principles that we are
acquainted with in this nation of ours, the
things that I am standing for, are not whether
they make any money on Sunday racing or
not.
Mr. Speaker: I think the member has made
his point. The Attorney General?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I spoke
at some length, as was pointed out in the
debate today, in connection with Bill 41,
which is an extension of recreational activity
on Sunday and therefore was very similar in
principle to this bill. On that occasion most
of the members who spoke devoted a great
part of their remarks— whether by mistake
or in error or deliberately— to horseracing. I
think the principle is the same, and I think
there is no need for me to repeat what I
then said. I would adopt, if I might, the
remarks which were made by the hon. mem-
ber for Downs view. It is not often that I
do tliat but I thought he expressed my views
and he has saved me some comments. Also,
the hon. member for Lakeshore said several
other things which I would have said.
I would just add these specific points: First
of all there are a small number of munici-
palities only involved; a very few munici-
palities in this province. Second, the decision
as to whether racing is to be allowed on
Sunday rests with the municipality; that is
the effect of this legislation, to permit local
autonomy, and it is a permissive type of
legislation. On the question of morality, I
do not think that that is involved in this
type of legislation at all, and having said
that I would not discuss it further.
On the question of working hours, I think
that the member for Downshview pointed out
these things are governed by other fields
of legislation. To pick out my own area,
practically all the people who live there and
work in industry would work for the seven
days a week and have their other days off
to counteract the fact that Sunday is a day
of work. Having said those things, Mr.
Speaker, I think there is no need for me
to add further to my remarks at this time.
Mr. Speaker: In order that the members
may understand how this particular motion
is put, since I have had the benefit of advice
from the immediately preceding Speaker and
the Clerk of the House to fortify my views,
tlie motion as made by the Attorney General
is that Bill 53 be now read a second time. I
think that the resolution or motion which
was proposed by the member for Niagara
Falls was that the bill be not now read a
second time but read this day six months.
That being the case, this is one of those
motions, and we have had them in this
session of this Parhament before, where the
first question to be decided and to be put
to the House is whether the bill be read a
second time now. In other words, that the
words sought to be deleted be not deleted.
So the vote will be whether the bill be
now read a second time, and if that motion
carries, then of course the amendment is
lost and the original motion for a second
reading is carried. I regret that I did not
recognize the type of motion when it was
presented to me by the member and hence
there was some question in my mind.
The Attorney General moves that Bill 53
be now read a second time. The member for
Niagara Falls moves an amendment that
Bill 53 be not read a second time but be
read this day six montlis. Therefore, the
question to be decided is, shall the bill be
read the second time now?
The House divided on the motion for sec-
ond reading, which was carried on the follow-
ing vote:
AYES NAYS
Allan
Ben
Auld
Bukator
Belanger
Deacon
Bernier
Edighoffer
Boyer
Gaunt
Brown
Gilbertson
Brunelle
Good
Carruthers
Haggerty
Carton
Innes
Connell
Knight
Davis
MacDonald
Davison
MacKenzie
Deans
Newman
Demers
(Windsor-
De Monte
Walkerville)
Dymond
Pilkey
Evans
Pitman
Gomme
Sargent
JUNE 26, 1968
4835
AYES
Guindon
Haskett
Henderson
Hodgson
(Victoria-
Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Jackson
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
JohT^sf-on
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawlor
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Lawrence
(St. George)
Makarchuk
Meen
Morin
Momingstar
Morrow
McKeough
McNeil
Newman
(Ontario South)
Nixon
Potter
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Randall
Reid
(Scarborough
East)
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough
Centre)
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Rowe
Rowntree
Simonett
Singer
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Smith
(Nipissing)
NAYS
Spence— 17.
AYES NAYS
Snow
Stokes
Welch
Wells
White
Whitney
Wishart
Yaremko— 67.
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "ayes"
are 67, the "nays" are 17.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
biU.
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
Hon. Mr. Davis moves second reading of
Bill 152, An Act respecting tlie Royal Ontario
museum.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to make
a few brief comments about the bill. There
has been a complaint for a number of years
that the government has not accepted its
responsibility in supporting the Royal Ontario
museum as it should. It has not really been
until the administration of the museum
changed—
Mr. White: But what does the Liberal
caucus think?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see
that the member for London South, having
paid his election bets, feels that he can once
more enter into the debate.
Mr. White: Who do you have to talk to in
London now?
Mr. Nixon: He was careful enough under
those circumstances to limit them to $1, for
trying to support poor old Mr. Stanfield.
Now that is a late arrival from the other
London seat.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are at least inter-
ested in the Royal Ontario museum and the
proper financing of this very important insti-
tution, and I was saying a few moments ago,
it was not until the top administration of the
museum changed a few years ago, I guess
two years ago, that it was brought to the
attention of the whole community that it was
not being adequately supported with public
funds. The new director, if that is his proper
title, has entered into a programme to im-
prove the facilities there considerably. While
he had practically given up hope that he
would get suflBcient assistance from this gov-
ernment, he did send letters to a number of
municipalities, I guess aU the municipalities
4836
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and school boards across Ontario, and par-
ticularly to the municipalities in tlie Metro-
politan Toronto area, so that he could see
his way clear toward a budget that would
put the Royal Ontario museum in the posi-
tion which I believe it should have— as para-
mount in Canada for the particular exhibits
that it has in the education programmes that
it undertakes.
So now we find that the government of
Ontario has moved to reconstitute the
museum, and remove it from the aegis of the
University of Toronto, which only received
government funds to pass on to the museum.
It was a rather complex arrangement and one
that did not work to the benefit of the
museum, or to the numbers of people and
students who took advantage of its important
facilities.
It is unfortunate that in the last 10 or 12
years, the museum— while it is still a very
imposing building on University Avenue and
always has been, and I trust will be— has
sufi'ered from the lack of facilities which
would give it the ability to exhibit so many
of the valuable things that it has in its pos-
session. There has been no air-conditioning,
or funds for proper salaries, and this is really
a tremendous hardship. I trust, however, that
the reconstitution of the museum under its
own statute, and making it independent of
the University of Toronto, will usher in a
period during which it will get the sort of
financial support that it requires.
The government, of course, has committed
itself to tremendous funds for the centennial
centre, which is approaching completion
sometime within the next two years. I sin-
cerely hope that there will be sufficient funds
to keep the Royal Ontario museum as a
growing part of the education system of the
province. It will be maintained indepen-
dently of that system now, of course, though
it is now under the tender ministrations of
the Minister of Education who will be re-
sponsible for the bill, and the grants that
should be made to the museum in the future.
I want to say at this time how strongly
we are, on this side, as Liberals, in support
of what the museum is doing, and I feel that
is probably non-controversial enough even
to rally my friends to support it. Further to
that, I believe beyond that, we can expect
the government to finance the museum much
more adequately than they have seen fit in
the past. It has been disgraceful that the
museum has had to carry on the programmes
that it has, to gamer the kind of support just
to keep in operation in recent years. I know
that tlie Minister usually was able to protest
that he has personally been in support of it,
but I hope that accompanying this bill will
be the kind of appropriations in the next few
years that will re-estabhsh the Royal On-
tario museum in its prime position.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I think this is
a very important piece of legislation which
affects one of the most famous institutions
which we have in Ontario, the Royal Ontario
museum. I think it is more than just a re-
structuring of the administration and, one
would hope, a refinancing of the institution,
but perhaps one would hope anyway that it
might reflect a new role for this institution.
In the past, as the Minister has indicated,
this has been a part of the University of
Toronto and as such has tended to look upon
itself in the university setting rather than as
a part of the broader fabric of education. A
university perhaps prides itself more upon
research and upon publication, compiling and
gathering of materials rather than upon ex-
hibiting and perhaps trying to influence the
attitudes of people across the province.
I am interested, for example, in section 3
of the bill where the objects of the museum
are set out in some detail and (a) the first
object is the collection and exhibition of
objects, documents and books of any kind to
illustrate and make known to the public the
natural history of Ontario, Canada and the
world.
I am interested in the order in which this
particular section places these areas. I say
this, because I think in the past one of the
criticisms of the Royal Ontario museum has
been that in essence it has been trying to be
too many things to too many people. One of
the things that certainly baffles people who
come to Ontario and to Toronto is the fact
that we have, I think, the second largest
Chinese collection in the Royal Ontario
museum. And yet, if you want to see any-
thing really unique of our Indian history and
of our Eskimo history one has to go to New
York.
I think this is one of the things which has
baffled many people and I would hope that
this legislation might begin a whole new
thrust and make this a part of the province's
efforts— and they have been considerable in
both The Department of Education and The
Department of Lands and Forests, and in
other departments in government, such as
The Department of Tourism and Informa-
tion, in which we have tried to instill some
sense of history in the people of our province.
JUNE 26, 1968
4837
This has been a worthwhile effort. I think
it is not only a centennial year effort; I hope
.this is going to be part of the hangover we
have had from centennial year. I hope this
v/ill be an on-going thing. But I would hope
that the Royal Ontario museum would now
begin a new era in trying to collect Ontario's
past. I speak with a Httle bitterness in my
voice on this matter because I was associated
with the Royal Ontario museum in a peri-
pheral sort of way some years ago when I
was helping the staff of the Lands and
Forests who were trying to dig up some
Indian mounds in the Peterborough area. It
rather bothered me and rather hurt me that
five or six or seven years after this dig had
been completed, after all the evidence had
been in, that the exhibition and the Royal
Ontario museum still stated that it was
Hopewell culture and it had already been
pointed out years before, it was Point Penin-
sula culture.
This is what I mean by a seeming lack of
interest in Ontario's history as compared to
the history of more exotic areas in our world.
So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be
true. I hope that this will be part of the
whole emphasis we have seen as expressed
in the Hall-Dennis report where, I think, the
emphasis is to get young people out of
schoolrooms, out of the stereotype and the
sterility of some of our past educational
practices and get them into museums.
I think the Royal Ontario museum has
started to become and will continue to be-
come the kind of new look in museums,
where we are not just simply looking at dull
cases with very dull signs on very dull
objects but rather we are inviting young
people to almost get "into the act" and
handle these objects and have an opportunity
to become a part of the history which they
are learning in the setting of museums rather
than through textbooks.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a piece of
legislation which certainly we, in this party,
concur with and as I say I hope it will be
an opportunity for a new future for this
institution.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to participate in this debate?
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw the government's at-
tention to the fact that they are making this
a rather democratic organization and I would
like to record our objection to the extensive
democratization of the Royal Ontario
museum. I sec that of the 18 trustees, they
arc going to permit three of them to be
elected by members of the museum and
that the other 15 will })e appointed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in council. I am some-
what heartened by the fact, of course, that
in section 5 it is the board who will decide
who will be members of the museum and I
suppose in that way they can control any
intrusion into the affairs of the R()> al Ontario
museum by the public at large.
It would seem to me that it would be in
keeping with the philosophy of the govern-
ment if they were to withdraw the bill and
reintroduce it, providing that all 18 tnistees
should be appointed by the Lieutenant-
Governor in council.
Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister wish to
make any comment or participate to close
the debate?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have nothing really,
Mr. Speaker, to add to my remarks on first
reading, other than just to point out one or
two things that I think are relevant. With
respect to finance, the leader of the Opposi-
tion indicated the extent of the government's
support. But I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fair
to state that o\ er the last three or four years
this has been increased considerably and it
comes about once again to a recommendation
from the committee on university affairs. It
was not a government decision per se; the
recommendation came through the committee
on university affairs itself.
I share, obviously, the views of the mem-
bers opposite as to the anticipated role of
the Royal Ontario museum in the educational
programme in this jurisdiction and I think,
Mr. Speaker, we can be very optimistic about
the contribution it will make.
I also say this, and this has been pointed
out by tlie director of the museum himself,
that there is a role for community participa-
tion and participation by individuals in the
donation of materials and fimds and that,
surely, is not an area of total government
responsibility. The private sector has, I think,
a ^'ery real role to play.
I was, of course, interested in the observa-
tions from the member for Riverdale. It indi-
cates his continuing interest in the structure
and administration of institutions of this kind
and I am sure that he will be one of tlie
first, when this board is appointed, to wel-
come them with enthusiasm and become
himself a \crv enthusiastic supporter of this
4838
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
institution of higher learning in this prov-
ince. I was really very pleased with his ob-
servations here on this occasion.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
moves second reading of Bill 153, An Act
to amend The Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
1967
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health)
moves second reading of Bill 160, An Act
to amend The Air Pollution Control Act,
1967.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is just a small
matter that perhaps could be raised on some
other occasion, but there has been the feel-
ing among those particularly interested in
air pollution that the government has not
had sufficient facilities to make the scien-
tific surveys necessary in order to take
meaningful steps to combat pollution from
internal combustion engines around highways.
I wonder if the Minister in connection with
this can assure us that one of the purposes
of this amendment is to give him the re-
sponsibility and the power to make the sur-
veys that would tell us more definitely just
what the hazard is associated witli the com-
muter life that brings so many of our citizens
into the big metropolitan areas and exposes
them regularly to an hour or an hour and a
half of exhaust fumes?
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak before the Minister?
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, this is
one of the puiposes of this amendment. We
believe that we did have the power but there
has been some question raised about it and
this amendment is supposed to embody that
principle. It is mainly, of course, as laid
down, to permit us to write regulations con-
trolling vehicles in parking stations, mar-
shalling yards, garages, places where diesel
motors particularly are left running for long
periods of time, but it does give us the power
to do what the hon. leader of the Opposition
suggests.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves second reading
of Bill 161, An Act to amend The Public
Health Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 20th order. House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Fnancial
and Commercial Affairs): I am sorry, it was
the 4th order I meant to call, the committee
of the whole House. I am sorry.
Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the
House that we take it as if it were the 4th
order, committee of the whole House?
Motion agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The Honourable, the
Lieutenant-Governor, recommends the follow-
ing:
Resolved;
That, there shall be paid to the Crown
in right of Ontario in each year an acreage
tax of 50 cents an acre on any lands or
mining rights to which part XIV of The
Mining Act applies, as provided in Bill
118, An Act to amend The Mining Act.
Resolution concurred in.
THE MINING ACT
House in committee on Bill 118, An Act
to amend The Mining Act.
Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 118 reported.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT
House in committee on Bill 146, An Act to
amend The Fire Departments Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 146 reported.
THE POLICE ACT
House in committee on Bill 147, An Act to
amend The Police Act.
JUNE 26, 1968
4839
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, I would like to
move an amendment to section 4. I will
have to write it out, will I not? Anyway, the
amendment is: to be added after the words
"deputy chief of police" in the third from
the bottom line, the words, "superintendents,
staflF superintendents, inspectors and staff
inspectors."
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ben moves that section
4, subsection 1, of Bill 147 be amended by
adding after the word "police" in the 13th
line, the words "superintendents, staff super-
intendents, inspectors and staff inspectors."
Mr. Ben: These are the same comments I
made when the bill was read for the first
time. At that time I had some strong words
with the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart),
because from the information I had at that
time and which I have confirmed since, the
senior officers were led to believe that an
amendment would be brought down which
would take them out of the bargaining unit.
At the present time they find themselves in
a situation where a senior officer may hesitate
to reprimand or in any way punish a police-
man because that policeman may be his
negotiator when it comes to bargaining for
an increase in wages.
To me this is simply beyond comprehen-
sion. It is like the lowest man in the firm
negotiating the salaries of the vice-president.
As I say, and I repeat, the Attorney General
led these people to believe that this amend-
ment would be brought in; he shakes his
head. I say it is wrong; he did lead
them to believe that this amendment would
bring that into effect. It would take the
senior officers out of the bargaining unit. In
fact the senior officers expressed the position,
at least a majority of them, that they do not
even need a bargaining unit, they are execu-
tive types and can look after themselves. But
to be in the same bargaining unit I think is
reprehensible.
I might point out that there are more
senior officers in the Metropolitan Toronto
police force than there are officers and men
in any other police force in the province of
Ontario, so the excuse that he gave the last
time— to which I would now reply because
he had the last word— that it would be diffi-
cult to enforce, does not hold water, because
an exception could be made with reference
to the Metropolitan Toronto police depart-
ment.
Mr. Chairman: The Attorney General.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chariman, we did discu.ss this. I am
looking for my copy of Hansard on the de-
bate on this matter, particularly with tlie
hon. member for Humber. It must have
been on first reading that we discussed it—
or was it on second reading? We discussed
it at length, and I pointed out that we had
had many discussions about this, not only
this year in preparation of this legislation,
but last year. If I recall correctly, this very
subject was raised the year before.
We have approached what the hon. mem-
ber is so anxious to see us implement into
legislation. When he says that the senior
police officers were misled by myself, I can
only tell him about the discussions which
took place in my office with representatives
of the police association, the governing
bodies, the police commission— and I think
the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial
Police was there— in any event all police
bodies were present. We had actually
reached a draft of language and a proposal
which we felt might be acceptable. After
study, this was some months ago, we came
to the conclusion— and in discussion, again I
think, more or less individually with each
of these bodies— that we could not find it
possible to implement it this year.
It might be possible, and it might be rea-
sonable to say that it could apply— if it is a
good piece of legislation— to the large metro-
politan forces such as Metro Toronto, and
perhaps Hamilton, Ottawa and other large
metro forces of that kind. It would be cum-
bersome; it would cause, in our view, diffi-
culty if it went below a certain size of force.
As I pointed out on second reading in my
remarks then, it would require double nego-
tiations—a duplication or a double approach
to two different bodies within the force— to
negotiate for the two associations, as it were,
within the force.
And then beyond that, there is a very
strong argument put forward that it is not
good policy to divide a police force into what
was the old army approach— the officers and
the other ranks. Most groups of that kind
have got away from a division of that type.
If I understand the amendment, Mr. Chair-
man, I do not think it goes down to ser-
geants; not it does not.
The hon. member asks how is there to be
discipline or reprimand or control by a senior
member of the force when he knows that a
constable of the ranks, a man on the beat,
4840
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
perhaps is going to be negotiating for his
pay? The same thing would apply, surely,
with just the same force, to the sergeants in
the force, which you are not including in
your amendment. Surely the same thing
applies to them. They are backbone of the
force. How are they to discipline, how are
they to control, how are they to direct, how
are they to be the tough leaders of the police
force, if they are to have in mind tliat their
salaries, their working conditions, their con-
ditions of work and pay and so on are to be
negotiated for by the men whom they have
to boss?
I do not see how the argument can be ap-
plied to one class of officers of higher ranks
and not to the sergeants, and it has never
been thought for a moment the sergeants
should be included. Even the hon. member
who makes the amendment does not include
them in his motion. I think we cannot
accept it.
It was very thoroughly considered. There
was no misleading. I think it is fair to say
that the senior officers in perhaps in the
Metro force in Toronto, and I think the police
governing authorities, that is the bodies of
municipalities who call themselves a police
governing authority— that is the name of
their association, municipal police governing
authorities— I think they had high hopes that
this year they could persuade us to go for-
ward with that legislation. As I say, we had
long and serious discussions about it and we
actually tried to draft a clause which would
meet with everyone's approval.
However, they were never told and were
never led to believe anything more than that
we would give it the most serious considera-
tion and take it to government and see if it
would be accepted. It was not accepted, not
this year, and I would only say this, that I
know there will be representations, I know
there will be continued study. I have some
feeling that there are certain merits on the
side of the division. I know the arguments
on the other side. Perhaps I can be per-
suaded, perhaps my colleagues in govern-
ment can persuade me to effect this on
another occasion, but I cannot accept it in
this bill.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, first of all I have
to correct the hon. Minister because he was
inadvertently misleading the House. I did
not say that the Minister had misled the
police department. I said he had led them
to believe. There is a distinction. For in-
stance, in sitting down with the police
department, and on the Minister's own ad-
mission arriving at what would be called a
draft which would be an acceptable draft, I
suggest is leading one to beheve. Another
statement that the Minister made was that
the police departments had expected or had
hoped that something would be done— again,
evidence of having been led to believe. I did
not accuse the Minister of having misled.
I appreciate the point that he makes about
the sergeants. Perhaps I am exercising some
responsibility, as sometimes you have to do
and most times you have to do. On this
particular occasion I am prepared to accept
the half loaf if I cannot get the whole loaf,
because I have learned that this is the way
you get something to eat, by only asking for
half a loaf.
I think that is usually the way the govern-
mcr.t offers it, in half loaves. So I am just
trying to be realistic about this thing. On the
other hand what can I do if the sergeants
always have an opportunity of passing the
buck to somebody higher? Their grievance
procedure provides for it. So there is that
protection as far as they are concerned. But
when it gets to the senior officers it is a
different proposition.
The amendment could be made now. For
instance, the words could be added to my
amendment to provide that this would only
apply as far as superintendents and inspectors
are concerned on the Metropolitan Toronto
police force, and today you can take that
step which everybody has been anticipating
for at least four years.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of the
member's motion will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I move
that section 6 of the bill be amended by de-
leting "third" where is occurs in the second
line and in the fourth line.
I might explain, Mr. Chairman, that the
amendment applies to cases where there is
only one arbitrator and therefore mention
of the third arbitrator is inappropriate.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 147, as amended, reported.
JUNE 26, 1968
4841
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-|
mittee of the whole House rise and report a
certain resolution, certain bills without amend-
ments and one bill with certain amendments
and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resiuned; Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report that
it has come to a certain resolution, certain
bills without amendments and one bill with
certain amendments and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial A£Fairs): Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow we would like to continue with the
order paper and then proceed with the esti-
mates of The Department of Lands and
Forests.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6:00 of the clock,
p.m.
No. 129
ONTARIO
Hegtsflature of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 27, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 27, 1968
Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 4845
Takeover of small police forces by the OPP, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shuhnan .... 4848
Canadian bail system, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 4848
Purchase of gasoline by The Department of Highways, questions to Mr. Gomme,
Mr. Sargent 4849
Used car dealers and salesmen, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Breithaupt 4849
Consumer Protection Act, 1966, bill to amend, Mr. Rowntree, second reading 4850
Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading .... 4850
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading 4850
Assessment Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading 4850
Lord's Day (Ontario) Act, 1960-1961, bill to amend, reported 4850
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 1961-1962, bill to amend,
reported 4854
Schools Administration Act, bill to amend, reported 4854
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, reported 4856
Art Gallery of Ontario Act, 1966, bill to amend, reported 4856
Royal Ontario museum, bill respecting, reported 4856
Air Pollution Control Act, 1967, bill to amend, reported 4857
Public Health Act, bill to amend, reported 4857
Content and identification of stuffing in upholstered and stu£Fed articles upon their
manufacture, sale and renovation, reported 4857
E.stimates, Department of Lands and Forests, Mr. Brunelle, concluded 4858
Estimates, Department of the Attorney General, Mr. Wishart 4882
Recess, 6 o'clock 4883
4845
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today we have with us in
the west gallery the 159th girl guide com-
pany from Islington, who are hosting the
31st coastal Carolina girl scouts. We also have
with us, in the east gallery, students from
the Geraldton composite school, Geraldton,
and in the west gallery, students from
Holland-Chatsworth public school, Chats-
wortli. And we are being joined by pupils
from CRCSS Holy Cross school in Port Col-
borne and from Stanley Park public school,
Kitchener. We welcome these young people,
particularly those from the neighbouring
state.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have
a number of questions for the Attorney
General, notice of which he has been given.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
wait a moment until the Minister reaches his
seat.
Mr. Singer: 1. Will the Attorney General
advise why it took from June 18, 1968, the
date on which Magistrates Gardhouse and
Bannon were not assigned to any courts,
until June 26, 1968, to order the inquiries by
the hon. Campbell Grant referred to by the
Attorney General yesterday?
2. Will the Attorney General advise:
(a) When the hon. Campbell Grant will
commence his inquiries?
(b) If Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon
will be advised in writing, in advance of the
commencement of such inquiries, as to the
evidence that will be brought before the said
inquiries in relations to their behaviour or
misbehaviour, ability or inability to perform
their duties?
(c) Will all of the sittings of the inquiries
be open to the public?
Thursday, June 27, 1968
3. Will the Attorney General advise:
(a) On how many other occasions magis-
trates have been relieved of their duties
under his instructions?
(b) Wlio were the other magistrates so
relieved of their duties?
(c) What were the reasons in each case for
such actions being taken and what was the
eventual disposition of each such case?
4. Will the Attorney General advise:
(a) On how many occasions in tlie last three
months in the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto has wire-tapping been used in the
course of police investigations?
(b) Give details of each of these occasions.
(c) On whose authority was wire-tapping
used on each of these occasions?
5. Will the Attorney General further
identify the person known as Vincent
Alexander who is named in the orders in
council referred to by him yesterday, in order
to avoid confusion with any other persons
who may have the same name?
6. Will the Attorney General advise:
(a) Whether there is any evidence arising
from the investigations he referred to yester-
day which involved any Crown attorney,
assistant Crown attorney, lawyer or any
other person other than Vincent Alexander?
(b) If so, what action is contemplated in
relation to the involvement of such other
persons?
7. Will the Attorney General advise if it
is the intention of the government of Ontario
to appoint a Royal commission or other public
inquiry to investigate all of tlie aspects of the
conduct of business in the magistrates' courts
in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto?
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has a series of similar questions which per-
haps he would place?
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I have four questions for the
Attorney General:
1. Have Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon
been informed of the allegations against
them?
4846
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. Does the Minister not agree that these
magistrates should have been informed before
the Royal commission was announced?
3. When are the magistrates to be informed
of the allegations?
4. If they are exonerated, will the gov-
ernment agree to pay the legal expenses of
the two magistrates?
lion. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Answering these questions, Mr. Speaker, first
the questions posed by the hon. member for
Downsview.
1. It took eight days, Mr. Speaker, to
complete the investigation to a point where
the judicial inquiry could be directed. I
aheady explained to this House why I
deemed it necessary to not assign these magis-
trates to courts in the interval.
2. (a) Mr. Justice Grant will fix the date
for the commencement of the inquiry. We
anticipate that it will be within approxi-
mately two weeks if at all possible. I might
add that I had an interview with Mr. Justice
Grant tliis morning and we are moving with
that period of time in mind to get the inquiry
promptly under way.
(b) The arrangements between Mr. Justice
Grant and tlie two magistrates or their
counsel will be determined by Mr. Justice
Grant, who I am sure, will deal equitably
and fairly with the matter of prior dis-
closure.
(c) The matter of the conduct of the hear-
ings will again be determined by Mr. Justice
Grant.
3. On how many other occasions have
magistrates been relieved of their duties
under the instruction of the Attorney Gen-
eral? My answer is no otlier magistrate has
not been assigned to court on my instruc-
tions.
4. I have knowledge of only one instance,
this is relating to the question of wire-tapping,
the circumstances of which I do not propose
to reveal at this time.
5. The Vincent Alexander referred to, lives
at 7 Welbrooke Place, Etobicoke.
6. There is, at the present time, no evi-
dence indicating any improper involvement
on the part of any Grown attorney, assistant
Crown attorney, magistrate or any other pub-
lic official with the two magistrates whose
names have been mentioned in this inquiry.
7. It is not the present intention of the
government to appoint any further commis-
sion respecting the magistrates' courts in
Metropolitan Toronto.
In answering the questions submitted by
the member for High Park, Mr. Speaker.
The first part of the first question: "Have
Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon been in-
formed of the allegations against them?" The
answer is, as soon as certified copies of the
order in council were made available to me
yesterday, copies were given to police officers
in order that the copies might be delivered
by hand to each of the magistrates or their
appropriate representatives. A solicitor, whom
I will not identify at this time, accepted the
document on behalf of Magistrate Gardhouse
and I have not yet been advised as to whether
Magistrate Bannon has received the docu-
ment, although I understand that his solicitor
has received it.
The second question was: "Does the Min-
ister not agree that these magistrates should
have been informed before the Royal com-
mission was announced?" My answer, Mr.
Speaker, is I do not agree with the hon.
member. First, the disclosure of such a judi-
cial inquiry must surely be made to this
House before any disclosure to any other
person.
Three: "When are the magistrates to be
informed?" That has been generally answered
but I would answer No. 3. Mr. Justice
Grant will no doubt see that the magistrates
or their advisors are fully informed on all
the circumstances relative to the inquiry as
soon as possible.
The question as to legal expenses will have
to be considered at a later date, subsequent
to the inquiry.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I posed two ques-
tions to the Attorney General yesterday after-
noon, which he said he would take as notice
and answer today. I wonder if the Attorney
General has the answers to those.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I took it
in the light of what discussion took place
yesterday, that these were the questions which
had been taken again to your office and re-
viewed, as you had indicated you might be
doing. So I took these questions as the total
that was being asked of me today. If I was
wrong in that I will consider those questions
again but I had not come prepared because
I thought these were the reviewed questions.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, certainly it was
not my intention to withdraw either of the
questions that were posed yesterday. Ob-
JUNE 27, 1968
4847
viously there has been a misunderstanding,
but the Attorney General has those questions
and I would like an answer to both those
questions that I put yesterday as soon as
possible.
Mr. Speaker: Those are questions tu'O and
three on the sheet?
Mr. Singer: Two and three.
Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that the Attor-
ney General receives a copy.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will certainly consider
them now and come forward with some
answer as I see fit, but I must point out to
the House and the hon. member that I really
was under the impression that they were not
being asked.
Mr. Speaker: I think the Minister is quite
justified in his understanding of it, because
I did not make sure that when I sent these
questions that it was in addition to those.
The ones I recall that were asked yesterday
were with respect to the authority to relieve
and—
Mr. Singer: Yes. The third question was
dealing with notice, the form of it, and when
it was given, by whom, and so on. It was
a multipart question.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Attorney General
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: What is the question?
Mr. Shulman: My first question here was,
"Have Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon
been informed of the allegations against
them?" And I understood you to reply that
they had received a copy of the order in
council. Sir, this does not contain the allega-
tions; when do you intend to inform them
of the allegations against them? That is what
my question is.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the mem-
ber that the Minister, so far as my recol-
lection is concerned, answered question No.
3. If I am incorrect the Minister will-
Mr. Shulman: Let me reword my supple-
mentary question then, sir. Inasmuch as the
magistrates have apparently still not been
informed of the allegations against them, does
the Minister not agree they should now be
informed of the allegations against them?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, that ques-
tion is really an.swered, although it is worded
a little differently now by the hon. member.
The answer to question No. 3 is that they
will be informed, I am certain. The inquiry
having been set up, they will be informed
before they come before the inquiry— and
promptly, I am sure— of the nature of the
allegations or charges against them. This
will be done promptly by the commissioner
who is in charge of the inquiry.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park
has a further question.
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I have some further
questions for the Attorney General on an-
other matter, sir.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I do not have
copies of those.
Mr. Shulman: These were submitted yes-
terday, sir. It is question 720.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would
send that to me and, while I look at it, pro-
ceed with his questions for the Minister of
Reform Institutions.
Mr. Shulman: I have seven questions for
for Minister of Reform Institutions, Mr.
Speaker, on the same matter.
1. Was one Roger Whiting arrested April
13, 1968, and was he subsequently incar-
cerated in the Don jail?
2. Was Roger Whiting an epileptic who
has been receiving medication with Valium,
which had completely controlled the epileptic
attacks?
3. During the five weeks in the Don jail,
was Roger Whiting refused medication with
Valium?
4. During Whiting's stay in the Don jail,
did he suffer from 30 epileptic seizures?
5. Are all epileptics treated similarly at
the Don, or was Whiting's case an unusual
one?
6. Are medications prescribed by the jail
doctor, filled at a drug store or from supplies
at the jail?
7. Has the medical situation at the Don
jail been improved since the discussion under
the department's estimates? Specifically, has
the jail doctor been supplied with a secretary;
has the practice of general practitioners do-
ing mental examinations been discontinued;
has the patient load on the jail doctors been
lowered; have facilities for the suspected
mentally ill been improved; and if so, how?
4848
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Speaker, obviously it is go-
ing to take some time to get the information
required to answer these questions, and I
will therefore take the questions as notice—
although I would suggest to you, sir, that
a closer examination of question No. 7
implies a fact which has not necessarily been
proved, that a "practice" should have been
"improved" since a certain date.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, before pro-
ceeding I would just like to point out that I
thought the Minister had agreed that these
conditions needed to be improved. But if he
thinks they are fine, then I think that estab-
lishes the situation very well for this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that a question,
Mr. Speaker, or a supplementary answer?
Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, It is a five
part question.
1. Has the Attorney General read the
briefs sent to the members of this Legisla-
ture by the president of the Fort Elgin police
department, the vice president of the New
Hamburg police department, the secretary
of the Southampton police department, and
the treasurer of the Wingham police depart-
ment?
2. Will the Attorney General agree that
many local police officers have been unfairly
treated and that they have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own?
3. Will the Ontario Provincial Police enroll
these oflicers on a probationary basis, until
they are brought up to OPP standards?
4. Will the Attorney General take imme-
diate action to relieve the hardship to those
officers who have been rejected by the OPP?
5. Why have promises to— and I quote—
"safeguard the future of tlie members of the
afiFected forces", made by the chairman of
the Ontario police commission on May 19,
1967, not been carried out?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I have
answered and set forth on two occasions at
least in this House, the policy of the Ontario
Provincial Police in the takeover of small
police forces. This is only done on request
of the municipality concerned, and after
lengthy notice and urgings to the municipal
authority to re-employ the members of their
forces. Also there is the policy of interview-
ing the members of the forces to locate as
many of them as possible as members of the
Ontario Provincial Police force.
Now, with respect to the publications men-
tioned by the hon. member, I would like to
take, to that extent, the question as notice,
and I will read those publications and answer
fully and completely as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw to the atten-
tion of the House the group in the east
gallery. These are pupils from the com-
posite school in Geraldton; and they have
travelled over 800 miles to attend here to-
day. These students themselves raised $1,800
to provide their transportation here, and with
the co-ordination of Mr. Enders of that
school, and one of his teachers, and inter-
ested parents, they were able to make the
trip down here. They have thoroughly
enjoyed themselves, and the sights of
southern Ontario. All but a few of them
have never been out of Geraldton before.
One young chap comes from the Indian
reservation at Satchego, which is 1,100 miles
from the Legislature, and I think that they
are to be commended for their interest in
parliamentary processes that prompted them
to travel this very long distance to be with
us here today.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if I might?
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has the
floor.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, two ques-
tions were asked of me yesterday by the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). I now
have the answers for these and I should like
to read them into the record.
Mr. Speaker: Would the deputy leader of
the official Opposition approve?
Mr. Singer: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The first question, sir,
number 726, from the member for Grey-
Bruce reads: "Does the Attorney General
agree with the statement of Crown attorney
Bull, that the evils which exist in the Cana-
dian bail system are abuses of administration,
and not the fault of the law?" Second: "Will
the Minister advise what steps his depart-
ment has under way to advise magistrates
and judges to release without bond?" Third:
"How many bench warrants have the words,
and 1 quote, issued in 1967 in Ontario, un-
quote, for persons failing to appear?"
In answer, I would say that I am not
familiar with the statement which the hon.
JUNE 27, 1968
4849
member has attributed to Mr. Bull. If the
statement was indeed made in the form
quoted, then I do not agree with the lan-
guage. I do agree that the law respecting
bail is clearly set out in the criminal code
of Canada, and the application of that law
rests in the discretion of the particular judge
who applied it to the particular case as he
sees fit.
Question 2: Mr. Speaker, I have no inten-
tion of advising the judiciary as to how they
should exercise their discretion in the grant-
ing of bail. The law permits a judge to
release a person on his own recognizance, if
he considers that to be the appropriate relief.
This is a judicial discretion dependent on the
facts of the case. It would be grossly im-
proper for me, or any other person, to direct
a judge as to how he should exercise that
discretion. The Crown attorney may make
submissions on the subject, and this is done
in the light of the facts of each case.
I would add that we do have frequent
meetings, or seminars as we sometimes call
them, of magistrates and judges, where they
discuss among themselves the principles of
sentencing and the principles which should
apply to the granting of bail. Those meet-
ings are addressed by experts, members of
the judiciary, eminent members of the bar,
and the principles which should relate to
the administration of justice, particularly in
our courts, are discussed by the judges and
magistrates on quite frequent occasions par-
ticularly with a view to reaching, shall I say
a consensus, as to the principles we should
apply in sentence and in the granting of bail—
those two subjects particularly, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Singer: Very little of that gets through,
though.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is a matter of
opinion.
To the third question, "How many bench
warrants have been issued in 1967 in On-
tario?" I do not have that information, Mr.
Speaker. If the hon. member has a particu-
lar case in mind, and if he would tell me
about it, I think I might be able to assist
him.
His question number 730, Mr. Speaker,
was:
"Will the Minister advise what protections
are exercised in Ontario, similar to that exer-
cised in 15 states of the United States and
in the military force, to provide for a review
of criminal sentences in appellate courts?"
My answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the mat-
ter of reviewing sentences imposed by the
courts in Ontario has never been a matter
within the purview of the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor in council. If a convicted person is dis-
satisfied with the disposition of the case by
the court, then his prerogative is to initiate
and appeal to have the matter reviewed by
a higher court, and this relates both to the
issue of the conviction and to the matter of
sentence.
There is, Mr. Speaker, an Ontario statute
entitled The Fines and Forfeiture Act which
permits the Lieutenant-Governor in council
to remit in whole or in part, any fine imposed
relating to provincial statute. There is no
authority to consider such a remittance on a
fine imposed pursuant to a federal statute,
with the exception which I have noted, Mr.
Speaker. I believe the best system has been
followed, that of permitting the courts to
deal with all aspects of the trial of an
accused person.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Highways.
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, in answer to question No.
732 asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
yesterday. My answer is: Most gasoline used
by the department is obtained from govern-
ment-owned pumps and purchased wholesale.
Where this is impractical, gasoline is pur-
chased from local service stations by credit
cards at retail prices. Location of govern-
ment pumps is designated for each of the
highways districts and individual one-year
term contracts are tendered publicly and
awarded to the low bidder.
I am tabling, for the benefit of the member
for Grey-Bruce, a list of firms that presently
hold contracts for the supply of gasoline.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
see that the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr.
Breithaupt) is in his seat and I would like to
provide the answer to a question which he
had asked some time ago.
The first part of his question had to do
with the definition of the meaning of the
term "pubhc interest". Well the public interest
in the context of section 4 of subsection 1 of
The Used Car Dealers Act, 1964, has been
interpreted as meaning that, having a proper
regard for the interest of the public, registra-
tion should be granted only to persons who
have a good reputation for honesty, integrity
and fair dealing and who can show financial
responsibility at least to the extent of provid-
4850
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ing a personal bond of $1,000 in the case
of salesmen and $5,000 in the case of dealers.
Now with respect to the second item: The
question was: "How many hearings has the
registrar held since the inception of the Act?
How many hearings resulted in refusal to
register, to renew registration, or to cancel?"
The answer is that the registrar had pre-
sided at 121 hearings up until April 30 of
1968, since the inception of the Act. T,here
were a total of 54 refusals to register. I am
informed, however, that separate figures were
not kept with regard to dealers and salesmen
prior to January 1, 1968.
Since that time and up to and including
April 30, 1968, there were eight dealers' and
15 salesmen's applications denied.
The third question is with respect to how
many 1967 registrations have not been re-
newed, where the applicant has made applica-
tion for a renewal and has not been given an
opportunity to be heard nor been advised
that his application for renewal has been
refused. The answer is "none".
Fourth, with respect to section 16, sub-
section (1): How many decisions of the regis-
trar have been reviewed by the director where
the decision of the registrar has been (a) over-
ruled and (b) upheld? Seven decisions have
been reviewed and four have been overruled.
Three reviews have not been completed.
Fifth, with respect to section 16, subsection
(a): The director must review decisions of
the registrar, except with the consent of the
person who requested the review, within 30
days. Should there not be a limit to the time
the director takes to render his decision?
I am informed that, for practical purposes,
the word "forthwith" as applied in section
16 of the Act could be taken to mean that
the director must serve written reasons to
substantiate his rulings within 10 days of
making his decisions.
Sixth: How many of the registrar's deci-
sions are now before the director for a hear-
ing and review? Four.
Seventh: In the case of Madell Motors,
1624 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto, On-
tario, where the hearing and review of the
registrar's decision before the director was
held in December of 1967: Why has the
decision of the director not yet been ren-
dered? The decision in the case of Madell
Motors, 1624 Eglinton Avenue West, was
rendered on May 23, 1968.
That completes the answers to the ques-
tions.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister
for a very complete answer to the question.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
1966
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs) moves second
reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend The
Consumer Protection Act, 1966.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL
GRANTS ACT
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs) moves second reading of Bill
154, An Act to amend The Municipal Uncon-
ditional Grants Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE MUNICIPAL ACTj
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading
of Bill 155, An Act to amend The Municipal
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading
of Bill 156, An Act to amend The Assessment
Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The 7th order, com-
mittee of the whole House: Mr. A. E. Reuter
in the chair.
THE LORD'S DAY (ONTARIO) ACT,
1960-1961
House in committee on Bill 53, An Act to
amend The Lord's Day (Ontario) Act, 1960-
1961.
Section 1 agreed to.
JUNE 27, 1968
4851
On section 2:
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
on section 2 of the bill I would ask seriously
that the Minister consider amending the
definition of "municipality" to include a
borough municipality, but not to include a
metropolitan municipality. A problem which
arises only with the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto is that if a bylaw is passed
under this Act it will, in fact, mean that the
race-courses within the whole of the metro-
politan area will be governed by that bylaw,
whereas in the east end of Toronto at the
Greenwood track there are serious local prob-
lems of a specifically local nature arising
from a bylaw passed by the municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, that may not be of
concern to others than in that area, which
falls within the city of Toronto proper.
It would appear to me that the interests
of the inhabitants of the area immediately
adjacent to the Greenwood racetrack will be
much better protected if the city of Toronto
is the municipality which has the authority
to pass the bylaw.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I would
draw the attention of the Minister to the
fact that there was a very large meeting in
the east end of Toronto to discuss this bill.
It was very interesting that the 500 or 600
people who subsequently submitted a peti-
tion, through the alderman for that area,
to the Prime Minister on this point, after
quite a lengthy discussion took no view on
the Sunday racing aspect of the question but
were very concerned about the trafiic con-
gestion, the appearance of the area, the
number of racing hours, the general disrup-
tion and deterioration caused in that area
by the operation of the Greenwood racetrack.
They point out very clearly that a few short
years ago it was open for only one week's
racing in the spring and another week in the
fall. And when compared with this season's
staggering total of 192 days and nights of
racing, spread over approximately nine
months, and the threat of one more extension,
Sunday racing, it is small wonder that the
residents of the community are alarmed. And
it would appear to the residents of that area
that in view of the specific kind of immedi-
ate local impact of the operation of the
Greenwood track in that area, their interests
will be much better protected by the city of
Toronto as the municipality which has the
authority under this Act to pass the bylaw.
I do not know whether the brief, which
was submitted through the alderman and sup-
ported by a petition of some 400 or 500
persons who signed it, came to the attention
of the Minister or not. But rather than at
this point submit an amendment and divide
the House on the question— because it is of
such a local nature that the views of mem-
bers right across the province are not of that
much merit on this particular point— I would
ask the Attorney General if he would not
consider the validity of the point of view of
the residents of that area to bring whatever
view they may wish to express to the corpora-
tion of the city of Toronto and the council
of the city of Toronto to protect their
immediate local interest, rather than leave it
at the rather remote level of the metropolitan
council of the metropolitan area which does
not have that close intimate relationship or
indeed, if I may say so, concern about the
impact of Sunday racing in that part of
Toronto.
The points raised by the residents were
seriously considered, the points are all valid,
having to do with parking, the dilapidation
of the area, the general deterioration which
has set in in that part of Toronto because of
the inordinate increase in the number of
racing days up to some 192— and now with
the addition of Sundays, over 200 days'
racing in what is predominantly, and will
continue or should continue for a long period
of time to be, a residential area of the city.
I would ask the Attorney General if he
would consider the comments which I have
made in the light of that brief, and would
amend the section so that it includes a
borough or a city but does not include
a metropolitan municipality.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chairman, I received the brief to which
the hon. member refers and I also arranged
at the request of certain persons who were
interested and who are signatories to the
brief, for a meeting with them. That meet-
ing took place, I think, about three weeks
ago, just after the introduction of this Bill
53. The delegation was led by Controller
Somerville and Controller Archer, if I recall,
and supported by several of the persons who
signed the brief.
There is nothing in the brief on this point;
there is no request in the brief that the
definition of "municipality" be altered or
modified. I was at pains myself to point out
to the persons who saw me that I tliought
they might raise tliis. Controller Somerville,
in her letter, in discussing getting together
for a conference, did raise the question but
4852
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the prayer of the petition nowhere makes a
request for this change.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Alderman.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Alderman, I am sorry.
Alderman Somerville; thank you.
There is nothing in the petition whatever
on this point. We did discuss it to some
extent and my feeling was that while this is
a borough of a metropolitan city, it was in
that council of the metropolitan municipality
that they should make their plea for con-
sideration. As I say, it was not asked in this
petition.
Another reason which I have to recount—
at least, one of the reasons why I cannot
accept the suggestion is that in Bill 41, which
is an amendment to The Lord's Day Act, we
have used this definition in exactly the same
terms, the same words. Perhaps this is not
a very forceful argument, Mr. Chairman, but
the racetrack here involved is one which
serves not just the borough or the city of
Toronto, but a very wide area; and I think
Metropolitan Toronto has a very great interest
in the operation of tliis facility. Perhaps, as
I say, that is not a very strong argument,
perhaps the borough should have the
authority. But in The Metropolitan Toronto
Act many powers are given to the Metro
council which concern really, one could
argue, the boroughs themselves, simply and
particularly.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I would have to
reject the suggestion of the amendment.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may
comment, I agree with the Attorney General
in that his arguments are very weak on the
point.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): So was the
submission, it was not even in the brief.
Mr. J. Renwick: I may point out— and
since the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs has interjected— I would sug-
gest that when meetings of citizens take place
to discuss matters of concern to them, they
are not meetings of those versed in the tech-
nicalities of the government structure of the
country. And they happen to have had the
benefit of the views of the two aldermen
who represent the area, who in their cover-
ing letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
—and as the arguments were so specious I
think I will have to read portions of it
into the record— did in fact make this request.
The letter is dated April 26, and it is ad-
dressed to the Prime Minister. It is signed
by Alderman Alice Somerville of ward 8
and Alderman Thomas Wardell of ward 8.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is the letter, Mr.
Chairman, to which I referred, and I have
mentioned that she brought this to our atten-
tion in the letter.
Mr. J. Renwick: Yes, that is why I want
to repeat it because the Attorney General
emphasized so much that it was not techni-
cally in the brief. That is quite correct. But
obviously the Attorney General has missed
the point. All the aldermen were trying to
do was to point out the way in which the
interests of the residents, as expressed in
the brief and at the meeting, could be ac-
complished to some degree by bringing it
into closer relationship with the government
most closely associated with them, namely,
the corporation of the municipality of the
city of Toronto. This brief is supported by
a petition signed by some 450 constituents
residing in this area. The view is that sub-
section 1 of section 1(a) as proposed should
be amended so as to redefine the munici-
pality and that the jurisdiction under this
bylaw should remain in the hands of the
area municipality.
I think the Attorney General will agree
with me that at a public meeting it is unlikely
that many citizens would be aware of the
specific provisions of subsection 1 of section
1(a) of clause 2 of Bill 53, as being the tech-
nical amendment which would bring their
views into effect.
Now the second point is that while it is
true that Greenwood racetrack, the former
Woodbine racetrack, is of interest to the
whole area of Metropolitan Toronto, it is
also true that this government has permitted
over the years the Jockey club of Ontario
to increase the number of racing days, from
one week in the spring and a week in the
fall, to two weeks in the spring and two
weeks in the fall, until it has now become
a source of considerable irritation and nuis-
ance to the area. That is a residential part
of the city. If municipal government is to
mean anything, then that particular area
should be protected against the operation of
this track. The actual request in the brief,
of course, is to expropriate the Greenwood
racetrack and to require them to relocate in
another more adequate area of the munici-
pality of Metropolitan Toronto. That is the
substance of their brief.
I was trying to bring their argument four-
square with the principles of municipal gov-
ernment under this bill, so that those citizens
JUNE 27, 1968
4853
would have the opportunity of bringing their
view to bear through their elected alder-
men—not through the second-tier structure
which this government has imposed on the
metropolitan area where there is no direct
electoral representation, but in that area
where they, by their vote, can influence
what the mayor and the board of control and
the council of the city of Toronto will do—
because of the noise, because of the deterior-
ation of the area, because of the drop in
value of properties, because of the deterior-
ation in the merchandising facilities in the
area, because people are bypassing the area.
There is no parking permitted, or the
parking that is permitted is taken up by
patrons of the racetrack, and for the many
other reasons which are set out in this brief.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney
General should give serious concern to the
views of residents of the city, and especially
in that portion of the city where most of the
people still do have the Sunday to them-
selves. You are adding to that the traffic
congestion, the parking, the noise and the
clatter of a public racetrack open on Sunday.
As I said at the beginning, it has nothing
to do with horseracing as such or the
moral values or otherwise, it is simply that
those persons in that residential area— if this
government is at all interested in maintain-
ing residential areas in the city of Toronto-
deserve protection.
We are not asking this government to give
them protection. What we are simply ask-
ing is that they be given the protection that
their aldermen can afford to them as elected
representatives in the city of Toronto. I am
asking the Attorney General in the light of
those arguments, and in the light of the
obvious speciousness of his own arguments,
that he do seriously consider either rehearing
the petition or amending this very simply to
provide that it will be up to a borough or a
city and it will not include a metropolitan
municipality.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
as I understand the amendment to section
2, it gives the municipality permissive legis-
lation to adopt a bylaw that provides for
Sunday racing. In addition to that there
were arguments placed at second reading
that people should be able to participate at
the track either as observers or bettors, and
really on a voluntary basis, so this is another
voluntary aspect of the bill— the permissive-
ness of the municipality on a voluntary basis,
the people participating on a voluntary basis.
But the point that I want to raise, and I
think that ought to be in section 2, is that
it should be voluntary on the part of the
employees at the track, because it appears to
me that there is no protection for the
employees at the track. The employment
will not be on a voluntary basis. They are
going to be forced to work on a Sunday
even though it is a day of rest and a day
they can participate with their families, and
this will not be a voluntary thing.
As I point out, it should be written in here
that those employees should be able to par-
ticipate as workers on a voluntary basis.
Someone might point out that people work
in industry on a Sunday, but I might point
out, Mr. Chairman, on a voluntary basis. If
the track wants these people to work there
on a Sunday, then it ought to make the
wages attractive enough so that they can do
it on a voluntary basis. They will have no
problems of getting people if they put the
wages on an attractive enough basis.
I am not suggesting for a moment— and
this is the reason I voted against this at the
second reading— that I am not in favour of
maintaining the Victorian era in the province
of Ontario. I think we want progress, and
obviously if the people want to voluntarily
go to the track that is their business in my
opinion. But I vote against it because I
could see that the employees of this track
are going to be forced to work on Sundays.
Somebody is going to have to do the job,
and I think that that would be wrong. Not
giving those people the protection would be
wrong, when on the other side of the coin
in two areas it is on a permissive and volun-
tary basis, so I think the employment at that
track should be on a voluntary basis as well.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I have
little to say further, returning to the sugges-
tion that the definition of municipality should
be amended. I can only say again further
that my argument which the hon. member
was kind enough to call specious, I think
was not specious. I admitted it was weak on
one point.
Three things I put forward. I did say the
petition did not request this. I did say I
had discussed it. I say, and I reiterate, that
I think this is a place where the metropolitan
government of the metropolitan area of
Toronto should take care of its borough.
The welfare of that borough is surely closely
4854
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
related to the government whicli has been
set up for that metropohtan area, and if it
is not concerned with it, surely an argument
can be made at first instance there by the
aldermen who represent the borough of
the city of Toronto. We have this definition
in The Lord's Day Act now, and in the bill
we passed earlier in this session.
The suggestion put forward by the hon.
member for Oshawa, it seems to me, is not
related to this bill now, whether the people
work voluntarily or whether they work
under an agreement. I presume they have
an association. Their hours of work and
their rates of pay are things which we would
certainly not insert in this bill. I certainly
agree with him that I should hope to see
them well paid, and with proper working
conditions— vacations and so on— but I am
sure they have the means of achieving those
things. In addition to that we have legisla-
tion on hours of work, vacation pay, and so
on, and so many days' work in a week.
These things are outside the ambit of this
legislation, but I agree with his point of view
that they should be safeguarded, but not
here. If they are not properly safeguarded,
there is a place surely where we could
approach those problems and deal with tliem,
and I would go along with him. But I can-
not amend The Lord's Day Act to take care
of that.
Section 2 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 53 reported.
THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 1961-1962
House in committee on Bill 144, An Act to
amend TJie Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System Act, 1961-1962.
On section 1:
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section
1 of the bill, I would like to ask the Minister
whether he has not given consideration to
some more flexible method of fixing the
interest rate on the debentures which will
provide the funds for the retirement fund?
It seems to me, with fluctuating interest rates
over a period of time, when we embody tliem
in a statute it becomes, in fact, unrelated to
the general level of interest rates over a
month-to-month, six-month-to-six-month, or
year-to-year basis. Already in the note to the
bill, that is indicated, because the debentures
had been earning only 5 per cent, and ob-
vously the fund has been penahzed by the
rate not being appropriate to the general level
of interest rates.
We are now asked to raise it to 6.5 per
cent. I do not argue whether that is appro-
priate or not. I suppose one could argue that
this is an average going rate for debentures
of this type at the present time. But surely,
there is some method by which the interest
rate on these debentures could be tied to some
standard interest rate; either a slight point
above them, or a slight point below them, or
at the same level as the province of Ontario
is borrowing funds throughout the financial
markets, rather than to fix it so specifically
in this statute.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs): Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are
getting into a very tricky area, that of setting
rates. Neither 6.5 per cent nor 5 per cent,
to me, in some ways seems a very appropriate
rate today, when even the province of Ontario
is paying 7 per cent or better. However, you
reahze that this is for a 40-year term in the
original OMERS bill, the money was for
5 per cent for 40 to 45 years which was con-
sidered, at that time, to be very good, and
I do not think really it is fair to say that
there was a penalty on the scheme because
it was not changed sooner. I think had it not
been changed now, there undoubtedly would
have been.
Now, as to being more flexible about it,
I can say that this matter was thoroughly
threshed out between the OMERS board and
between The Treasury Department and they
went back and forth. Quite frankly, I have
to say to you, that much of the argument was
technical enough that it was away over my
head. But I have the sum and substance of
it, although I had wondered why this could
not, for example, be done by regulation so
that it could follow tlie interest rates.
I think the real reason is that at this early
stage of the development of the scheme-
even tliough OMERS has something in the
order of $50 million now invested, or $70
million, I have forgotten the figure, it is still
in its early stages and it becomes important,
or more important, for the actuary to know
exactly what is happening to the dollars
which are going in today.
I think probably five years from now, im-
doubtedly the Act, pending on what happens
to interest rates, may probably be amended
again. I think at that time, it would be under
JUNE 27, 1968
4855
consideration that it should be a floating rate,
following the provincial rate, perhaps follow-
ing the Treasury bill rate at Ottawa in some
way or another.
I think it is not inconceivable that one
fund has been in operation long enough, that
it may be thought advisable to put part of
the moneys into some other investment; mort-
gages, I do not know— preferred or common
stocks.
But at this point, I think the actuary and
the board feel, and certainly Treasury feels,
that it should be at a fixed amount and
stated value.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Chairman, coming back to the same point. Are
the funds treated as if they are all on deposit,
not difi^erent term issues bought as funds
accumulate? Is it treated as one single issue?
Or is it broken down as the money accumu-
lates? Do they keep on buying, in effect,
from the province, securities at the new rate
of 6.5 per cent; or 5 per cent that it was
before? Is it treated as a deposit account, in
other words, or is it treated as buying bonds?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: When I was first
appointed Minister, Mr. Chairman, I think
one of the delights I had was— and this was
before there was a proper rubber stamp made
for my signature for these purposes, and be-
fore the board was appointed, which was
on January 1 and I was still on the board of
OMERS. I was signing cheques for several
himdred thousand dollars about every second
day, on the OMERS account, payable to the
Provincial Treasurer.
Unfortunately I do not have that pleasure
any more. In answer to your question, the
money goes over, I would think within two
or three days of it coming in OMERS, it
immediately goes over to the Provincial Treas-
urer and it starts earning that amount of
money from that day. It does not go into a
bank account and earn short term interest.
It presently earns 5 per cent immediately the
Provincial Treasurer receives it, and, at the
end of the year as I understand it, or at a
certain fixed time, then a debenture is issued
for the total amount received up to that time
and I think that is done about once a year.
Mr. Deacon: Well, I have not quite made
myself clear, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
know if the whole $50 million now moves up
to the 6.5 per cent rate? If not, I would sug-
gest that this definitely is where the province
is not being fair to tliis fund at all. They
should be treating this fund on the same
basis as people would be able to benefit were
they to go to an insurance company today,
which would be able to take their money
on a current basis and take advantage of the
higher interest rates that are available. It
seems to be wrong that we should be approv-
ing a change here that does not, as the hon.
member for Riverdale said, take into account
the floating levels of interest rate. Particularly,
when we are not moving up the overall rate
paid on the fund totally on deposit as when
we pass this legislation today.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may
just comment briefly on what the Minister
has said. What this bill is doing is providing
for the issue of very short term debentures
up until 1973, and then there is this refund-
ing operation from 1973 until the year 2013—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it would be
clear whatever money comes in between now
and 1973, will be invested in these deben-
tures for 40 years. It is not a short term
debenture. The money will be invested in
a very long term debenture.
Mr. J. Renwick: Perhaps I need clarifica-
tion then, because the bill does say that in
each year the Treasurer of Ontario shall
issue province of Ontario debentures to be-
come due and payable on December 31,
1973 and so on, and then provides that
later, on December 31, 1973, the Treasurer
of Ontario shall issue debentures to become
due and payable in the year 2013.
It seems to me, rather strange that we
should be sitting here taking a view of the
interest rates under which these debentures
are to be refunded in 1973, let alone for the
period up to 2103, because I do not think
that either of us will be here to make the
necessary changes during the period of time.
I would like again— and I realize that it is a
technical question, and not wishing to pro-
long it at all— but it does seem to me that
there must be some more flexible method for
this period between now and 1973, so that
the debentures, which are short term deben-
tures, even though there is an obligation
for funding them for a longer period, will
have an interest rate which is appropriate to
the market at the time. I do not tiiink we
can take the view that the interest rates are
going to be up or down, because there is no
way of knowing.
I think that there should be, for this short
period of time a much more flexible method
by which the Minister, by regulation, can
4856
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fix the interest rate, and then when the time
comes in 1973 to fund those debentures, it
can be done in terms of the experience with
the interest rates over the previous years
from 1973 back to the inception of the
OMERS fund.
It would seem to me, to be a much more
appropriate and equitable method, if that
was followed, rather than for us to be pass-
ing this kind of bill, particularly the part
about the refunding in 1973. This seems to
me to be totally inappropriate, other than
for the purpose of indicating that the gov-
ernment does, in fact, intend to refund, and
that we should not be passing a bill to fix
interest rates which will be in effect after
1973.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say to my
friend that I will be glad to. I do not have
the papers here, but there were a series of
papers which went back and forth from the
OMERS board to Treasury, outlining both
arguments; a fixed rate, and the floating rate.
I would be glad to send him those papers,
and will do so, and if he understands them,
fine. I think that I was ultimately convinced
by the arguments, but I cannot recall them
all now. But I will send them to him.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in view of the
Minister's last statements, I would think it
very important we defer further considera-
tion of this bill until he does understand
what he is putting before us. I think that
it is ridiculous for us to be considering this
without knowing the background of this
clause and the reason for not being able to
operate this fund to the same advantage of
the people covered by the fund as they
would be able to receive outside if they
were under another private pension plan. I
do not think that we are being fair to these
employees in going ahead with this under
this system.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill 144 reported.
THE SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 140, An
Act to amend The Schools Administration
Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 140 reported.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 141, An
Act to amend The Secondary Schools and
Boards of Education Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 141 reported.
THE ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO ACT,
1966
The House in committee on Bill 151, An
Act to amend the Art Gallery of Ontario
Act, 1966.
On section 1:
Mr. J. Renwick: Perhaps the Minister
would just comment briefly why the semantic
change from "directors" to "trustees" is more
appropriate?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of University
Affairs): Mr. Chainnan, it is to a degree a
semantic change. You will notice that this
is in keeping with the Act relating to the
ROM. This is a term used, I think, generally
with respect to art galleries and museums:
"trustee", rather than "director". Also, in the
terminology with respect to administration of
the art gallery and the ROM, the term
"director" is used for, shall we say, the
professional administrative people. So we
have made this change to the term "trustee".
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 151 reported.
Clerk of the House: The Honourable tlie
Lieutenant-Governor recommends the follow-
ing:
Resolved
That, the Royal Ontario museum and its
real and personal property business and
income are exempt from all assessment and
taxation made, imposed, or levied by or
under the authority of any Act of the
Legislature,
as provided in Bill 152, An Act respecting
the Royal Ontario museum.
Resolution concurred in.
THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
House in committee on Bill 152, An Act
respecting the Royal Ontario museum.
Section 1 agreed to.
JUNE 27, 1968
4857
On section 2:
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section
L 2, I notice that the Minister has fixed the
^ fiscal year definitely in this Act to end on
June 30, without any provision for any
change being made. Yet, in the preceding
_ Act on the art gallery, there was an enabling
I provision for it to end on June 30, but with
provision for the board of trustees to make a
change if they felt it necessary. I would not
know whether there is any necessary con-
nection, or whether it deserves comment, but
I did note the change.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, this Act, of
I course, has to relate to the existing Univer-
, sity of Toronto Act, where the fiscal year is
set as of the period June 30 and because of
the existing financial arrangements it was set
in this Act in the same way.
> Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister give us the reasoning of the govern-
ment that believes that only three of the
members of the board of trustees should be
elected by members of the museum, and the
remaining 15 should be appointed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in council? Perhaps at
the same time, he might comment on the
classification of membership in the museum,
if he has knowledge of them at the present
time, so that we will have some idea of the
group of people from among whom the three
members will be elected.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, at this
time, I cannot give the hon. member the
number of people who are or will be mem-
bers of the new museum. I shall endeavour
to get this information for him. If one were
to look at the total numbers in the prov-
ince, of course, and recognize that we all
have an interest in the museum, I think that
three out of 18 would be very appropriate,
although one might hope that they might
have a large number of members of the
museum. But I think at the present moment
this is a very equitable distribution of the
trustees as far as the governing of the
museum is concerned. I cannot at this point
give you the total membership or what their
plans are for an increase in membership but
I shall endeavour to get this information for
the member.
Mr. J. Renwick: Does the Minister have
any idea at the present time who, in fact.
will be the 15 who will be appointed by
the Lieutenant-Governor in council?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not, at this point,
Mr. Chairman.
Section 4 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill 152 reported.
THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT, 1967
House in committee on Bill 160, An Act to
amend The Air Pollution Control Act, 1967.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 160 reported.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT
House in committee on Bill 161, An Act
to amend The Public Health Act
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 161 reported.
UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED
ARTICLES
House in committee on Bill 157, An Act
to control the content and identification of
stuffing in upholstered and stuffed articles
upon their manufacture, sale and renovation.
Sections 1 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 157 reported.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of the whole House rise and report
one resolution and certain bills without
amendments and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report one
resolution and certain bills without amend-
ments and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The 18th order, House
in committee of supply.
4858
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS AND FORESTS
(Concluded)
On vote 1107:
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chair-
man, on vote 1107, I mentioned earlier in
the estimates that there was no reference
made in the opening remarks of the Minister
(Mr. Brunelle) with regard to the Brodie
report that has been under consideration
since 1964 and was made public in the
House here on April 1 this year. It brings
up many questions with regard to the
recommendations of the report that have
already been adopted, those that are under
active study, and those that are still in ques-
tion.
I have before me a resolution passed by
the lumber and sawmill workers' union with
regard to the Brodie report, and I would
like to read into the record their observations
with regard to the Brodie report itself. They
say:
We must state that this is not the first
study or commission report that has been
made to the government of Ontario, and
all others have failed to be implemented
even though there were sound recom-
mendations contained therein after com-
plete study of the problems affecting the
forests. Without changes, we predict that
the recommendations contained in the
Brodie report will fail for the same reason
that other reports and recommendations
have failed. There is no proper recom-
mendation for enforcement of the new
forest policy, simply a sanctimonious state-
ment by the Minister of Lands and Forests
that it will require co-operation on the
part of the various interests concerned to
make his proposals work out successfully.
And another such statement, both in the
main report and the condensed report from
recommendation number 5.
We know from past experiences that
these huge corporations, who have raped
our forests for decades and who are re-
sponsible for the mess our forests are in
at present, will not co-operate and will
have to be forced into a sane forest policy.
Basically, in the report the problems are
fully outlined and, if all of the recom-
mendations were implemented and rigidly
enforced, they would:
1. Eliminate waste in harvesting prod-
ucts by implementing a clean-cut method
as recommended by recommendations 1, 9,
40, 42, 43, 44 and 46.
2. Distribute different species and sizes
to properly designated processing plants as
recommended by numbers 8, 9, 40, 42, 43,
44, 45 and 46.
3. Reforest to not only supply existing
mills but to supply expanding forest pro-
ducts industries on a perpetual basis— re-
commendations in sections 14 and 15 of the
report itself. However, the shortcoming
of the report, as we have stated, is lack
of machinery for enforcement, and we urge
the Ontario federation that they press
for the implementation of the recommenda-
tions of the report with the following ad-
ditions and deletions:
A system of board of referees to settle
disputes between the harvesting companies
and the company which utilizes the forest
product, and in the end, an arbitrator if
these disputes cannot be settled by the
referees amicably.
We can foresee many disputes arising as
to prices to be paid, delivery dates, etc.,
and if no such procedure is established
the large companies will have a strangle-
hold on the utihzing companies more so
than they have at present.
An addition to section 16, "The Private
Lands Forestry," for the fullest enforce-
ment of The Settlers Pulpwood Protection
Act and the estabhshment of marketing
boards for the private land owner. The
Settlers Pulpwood Protection Act was made
law under the UFO government in the
early 1930s. It gives the Minister of Lands
and Forests the right to establish the
amount of wood to be purchased by a
company in any area and the price the
purchasing company will pay.
At the present time, private land own-
ers are delivering wood to the mills at a
much lower rate per cord than the same
company can produce wood from their
licensed areas, and furthermore, many of
the private land owners are cutting im-
mature timber under conditions which are
not in the best interests of a sound forest
pohcy.
The only manner in which these abuses
can be eliminated is through proper polic-
ing and proper marketing procedures.
We are completely opposed to recom-
mendation No. 13 deahng with licences to
settlers or settlers' co-ops. It takes pages
in the main report for Mr. Brodie to
explain why small operators and third party
operators have no place in a sane forest
policy. The meat of the explanation is that
these operators cannot afford the necessary
JUNE 27, 1968
4B59
machinery which is being used in the
woods industry of today or will be used
in the future. T/hey cannot aflFord the cost
of a road system and cannot aflFord to
properly plan their operation on a sound
basis as regards sustained yield. And then,
because of political pressure, we believe that
the Minister himself and pressure by Spruce
Falls Power and Paper Company (he makes
a completely insane recommendation that)
where these poor settlers (whom he states)
cannot afford to operate form themselves
into co-operatives, licences will be issued.
He further states:
This is straight nonsense. We say that
the Crown is holding unlicenced land which
requires harvesting. For good forest man-
agement the Crown must engage a con-
tractor or contractors who can be party to
a union agreement, and his employees will
have the same wages and conditions we
have established with the harvesting com-
panies throughout northern Ontario and
who will be as responsible as the other
companies for the forest management.
Now Mr. Chairman, with regard to the timber
branch itself I have several questions that I
would like to ask the Minister of Lands and
Forests. Mr. Chairman, but before doing that
I would like to draw the House's attention
to an agreement tliat was entered into be-
tween Tlie Department of Lands and Forests
and the E. B. Eddy Company under licence
No. D2256, dated October 10, 1963; and
it was approved by order in council No. 2946.
This particular licence or contract gives the
E. B. Eddy Company the right to cut and
monopolize the forest potential on 1,640
square miles in the Timiskaming area. I
would like to know from the Minister how
much has been cut on this licence since
1963 by the E. B. Eddy Company; how much
has been cut by third party agreements; what
revenue accrued to the Crown as a result of
any cutting activity since the issue of this
licence, and how many third party agree-
ments have been entered into?
I understand that this is a continuation of
a licence that was granted quite some time
in advance of this date, October 10, 1963;
as a matter of fact I think it is just an exten-
sion of a previous licence that was issued.
They are allowed to cut spruce pulpwood
for 35 cents a cord, balsam for— I think it is
5 cents a cord, jack pine 10 cents, poplar 10
cents and other hardwood pulpwood for
10 cents a cord.
As I said before, I would like to know
under what conditions you are going to allow
them to continue to monopolize this huge
tract of land. I think it says in the agree-
ment that they have some 10 years to make
up their mind as to whether or not they are
going to establish a pulp mill. They have put
up a $25,000 bond and the licence is renew-
able at the discretion of the Minister, I believe
it is, after the expiry date of this one. And
it says "provided that the licensee does not,
on or before the expiry date of this licence,
build and have in operation a pulp mill
capable of utilizing a minimum of 100,000
cords of wood per annum at a location to
be approved by the Minister, the Minister
may refuse any extension of this hcence and
the bond referred to in clause 3 hereunder,
shall be forfeited to Her Majesty and retained
by her as liquidated damages and not as a
penalty."
Now, when you consider towns in that area
like Elk Lake, Latchford, and Matachewan,
which have been losing the small industries
they have, because of the lack of wood within
reasonable distance of the mill, I think that
maybe the Minister should give us some
answers as to why a company of this size
can monopolize such a huge tract of land.
I understand that as far as as the pulp and
paper industry is concerned they are in over-
production now, operating at about 75 per
cent of capacity, and world markets certainly
contribute to the problem that the mills find
themselves in at the present time. But cer-
tainly, I am told by some of my colleagues,
that in that area there are small sawmill
operators who have had to shut down because
of inadequate supplies of wood. I was just
wondering if the Minister would not like to
conmient on that particular licence and give
the House some assurance that it will not, in
the future, deter the proper harvesting of not
only the pulpwood in the area but the diflFer-
ent species that would be suitable for saw-
mill operation and plywood and presswood
operations.
Turning to another matter, I would like to
ask the Minister to what extent, if any, tlie
present prime licence-holders contribute to-
ward the cost of reforestation. I think there
are something like 10 or 13 prime licence-
holders in the northern part of tlie province
that have a virtual monopoly on all the
productive forest lands within reasonable dis-
tance of mills, and I have had considerable
correspondence with the Minister with regard
to supplying the proper wood supply essen-
tial for plywood mills and sawmills in the
4860
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
area. And I think that if many of the recom-
mendations of the Brodie report, which have
not been been implemented to date, were
implemented forthwith, it would take care of
that situation with regard to the small opera-
tors—particularly the one about which we
have had considerable discussion in this
House, Norply at Nipigon.
I really believe that it is incumbent upon
the Minister, in addition to making the differ-
ent species available to these small operators,
either to insist that the prime licence-holders
build a network of access roads on all parts
of the limit, so that they will not just exploit
those particular areas that are adjacent to the
mill and which can be harvested most profit-
ably to the detriment of the industry in north-
western Ontario.
There are all kinds of marketable timber
on these limits that are not accessible, simply
because they have not taken the trouble to
build a proper network of access roads where
they can cut all areas simultaneously and in
so doing, assure that a particular mill can
operate in perpetuity. They will not just cut
with a 10- or 15-mile radius of the mill
and then get out, and then leave it for
somebody else to come along and establish
a new town in a new location, which is hap-
pening so often in the north where they cut
out and get out.
I need not remind this House and tlie
Minister that we have far too many towns in
the northern part of our province that are
reliant upon one industry such as a plywood
mill, or a pulp mill, or a sawmilling opera-
tion. We cannot allow these towns to die for
want of a proper forest management policy.
I think that tie only realistic way we can
solve this problem is to assist— or to co-operate
witli the licence holders to build a proper
network of access roads to make all the
merchantable timber accessible and make
them harvest it in a realistic manner to
perpetuate the operation in that area witli
the co-operation of this department.
With regard to silviculture, I notice in
the report for the year ending 1967 that
there has been a marked improvement in the
number of trees planted, and the different
species that have been planted. I was
wondering at page 65 of the report that I
just mentioned— the number of Scotch pine
planted for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1967, planted on private lands, 1,465,000,
and on pubHc lands there were only 16,430.
For Norway spruce, on private lands there
were 309,000 planted as opposed to only
33,000 on public lands. For white cedar
there there were 458,000 as opposed to
45,000 on public lands. For European larch
99,000 on private lands, and only a little
over 2,000 on public lands. For white
ash, there were 91,000 on private lands
as opposed to 26,000. Silver maple, 162,000
as opposed to 30,000. Red oak 83,000 as
opposed to 572. Carolina poplar 234,000
as opposed to 34,000. Black locust 64,000 as
opposed to a little over 2,000.
Now some of these I think are for decora-
tive purposes, and I suppose maybe the
Scotch pine would be for Christmas trees.
Now I was just wondering if the Minister
would care to comment as to why so many
of them were planted on private lands, and
yet a very small proportion of them were
planted on public lands. I do not know
whether the Minister can get the information
for me now, but I would appreciate it if
he could.
With regard to his silviculture programme
I was just wondering how many cords of
each species were cut during the past year,
and I am talking, not about the decorative
species, but the merchandisable timber. Not
only the spruce, the jack pine, but also the
hard woods, such as birch and poplar. How
many trees would this represent? How many
of each species were planted? Are we devel-
oping species or better methods for quicker
maturity? What is the backlog for the
regeneration programme? When will we
catch up? Will we be able to keep pace
with the demands over the next 20 years?
Now I notice for the year 1968-1969, you
plan on planting some 62 million trees. How
many acres would this represent? Will it
take care of the backlog, and a little more,
or are we just keeping pace? What is being
cut at the present time? How long do you
expect it is going to take you to not only
take care of what is being cut at the present
time, but the backlog of some 200,000 to
300,000 acres that we failed to keep up to
date with in years gone by? I just wonder if
the Minister would care to comment on those
few things that I have asked about?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Chairman, with reference to
the E. B. Eddy Company, the hon. member
knows, and mentioned they were given a
licence in 1983 for a 10-year period, and it
is provided that the licence may not be
renewed if a pulp mill has not been erected
and in operation at the expiry of this date.
It further provides that if any other com-
pany makes a firm commitment to construct
JUNE 27, 1968
4861
a mill, the E. B. Eddy Company must make
up its mind to proceed with a comparable
project within 60 days, and commence con-
struction of a mill within the next 12 month
period, or give up the licence.
Now we have prepared the report entitled
"Pulp Mill Feasibihty in the Timiskaming
Area", and this report has been widely dis-
tributed throughout Canada as well as in
Europe. We have at the present time five
major areas that we feel could support a
pulp and paper mill, and the Timiskaming
area is one. Of course, the well-known area
that the hon. member knows of the Bhnd
River area, and there is an area stretching
in the Georgian Bay to Bancroft. The fourth
area is the Michipicoten area. The fifth one
is in the Red Lake district.
I believe the hon. member appreciates that
at the present time, there is a depressed
market for newsprint and pulp, and therefore
it is very difficult to interest a company or
companies to try and establish themselves
when today a newsprint mill costs in the
millions of dollars. I would estimate that at
today's prices it would cost in the neighbour-
hood of maybe $50 million, if not more.
Also I would like to say to the hon. mem-
ber that in that very area of which he is
speaking, in Timiskaming, we have a very
prosperous new mill, the Grant and Wilson.
|. A very new, modern mill which has recently
I opened. It is producing lumber and chips.
I I was just given a copy, this morning, of
f their latest report, and it is doing exceed-
ingly well. If the hon. member knows of
any sawmill that is going out of business,
due to the lack of the raw material, we
would be pleased to look into it. But I do
need to say, that in the province of Ontario
at the present time, there are about 900 saw-
mills, and it is only those who are becoming
more efficient, who are putting in new
machinery that survive. They must have the
very modem machinery in order to compete,
and this is what is happening in many of
these small inefficient sawmills who are fall-
ing by the wayside. But I would be pleased,
if he knows of any sawmill that is curtailed
or closed their operation due to the lack of
raw material, to look into it.
With reference to the figures that he has
asked regarding the amount of volume that
is being cut, and the other matters, we will
have this information for you, if possible
this afternoon, if not, we will have it for
you tomorrow.
With reference to access roads, I agree
with the member that we need more forest
access roads, and we will be building more
forest access roads. As the hon. member
knows, we have established a committee this
year, called the northern Ontario roads to
resources committee. This is an enlarge-
ment of the existing mining access roads
committee, and we will be building more
and more roads to develop our resources and
of course, the forest resources are a very
important part of our natural resources.
He was mentioning also the Scotch pine,
according to our report. As the hon. mem-
ber knows, the Scotch pine is primarily used
for Christmas trees and actually private
growers are very interested in growing
Christmas trees in view of the short term.
But in the department our primary object is
to grow trees where they make the greatest
contribution, and that is why most of our
programme is in, for instance, black spruce,
which is used for newsprint. I would like
to tell the hon. member— I do not need to
tell him that the contribution that the pulp
and paper industry makes to Ontario is
substantial— I beheve we cut about 525
million cubic feet a year and I believe it is
something like, for every 100 cubic feet,
about $120 of gross provincial product. So
if you multiply 525 million cubic feet I think
it gives you a figure of about $620 million—
the contribution of the pulp and paper
industry to the gross provincial product of
Ontario.
So our whole programme is aimed at this,
and I can tell you, as the hon. member knows
in my opening statement, we have expanded
considerably our regeneration programme
and next year we will be doing more of this,
and we should be doing substantially more
because all projections are that the demand
for newsprint and other wood products is
increasing substantially.
With reference to the regeneration agree-
ment, as the hon. member knows, we have
regeneration agreements with all the large
pulp and paper industries and also with most
of the large sawmill industries. They supply
the equipment and the men, and the govern-
ment pays for these regeneration agree-
ments. For instance, in figures, we receive
in stumpage dues, $16 million revenue. These
were our last figures, and we spend about
$5 million in regeneration.
Now, I would hke to mention to the hon.
member and also to other members, and I
do not need to say we are in an age of
competition and we must not increase the
cost too much, because, as you know, many
companies are looking at other areas: British
4862
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Columbia, in the southern United States, so
that is why we must try and keep the cost of
production down, and I think as a govern-
ment we should do everything possible to
try and make it as attractive as possible to
have existing mills expand as well as to in-
vite companies to build new mills. That is
why we feel in the department that we
should try and keep the cost of production
down, doing more reforestation, building
more access roads and doing more of the
things which will be of some help in keeping
the cost of production down.
The hon. member made reference to the
Kennedy report, and most of the recommen-
dations of the Kennedy report have been
implemented. One notable exception is the
formation of forest operating companies. Our
policy is that we prefer to encourage industry
to integrate its operations rather than impose
such a system on the industry, and that is
why in this report one of the major recom-
mendations is on this question of integration.
This is not an easy one, and I can tell you
that in our department we have been giving
considerable thought to these recommenda-
tions. The hon. member knows we have
implemented more than half, and of course
the major ones are the ones that are very
difficult. But we are making progress, and
the hon. member knows that the Smith com-
mittee report also made recommendations
and these are under review. Our policy is
the full utilization of wood on a sustained
yield basis, and I feel very optimistic that
we are making substantial progress.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Timis-
kaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Chair-
man, I would just like to comment and per-
haps ask a couple of questions of the
Minister.
First of all, in Latchford there have been
two mills close down because of lack of
timber— Murphy's and Gordon's mills. They
have been closed down for some time, and
the prime reason was the unavailability of
timber to keep them going. At the moment,
they are sitting right on the edge of E. B.
Eddy limits and right on the edge of the
Johns-Manville limits in Nipissing. I would
like the Minister perhaps to comment on the
available cut in the Johns-Manville limits
and how much of it is being used, and
whether it would be made available to a
mill under the same terms as in the licence
of the E. B. Eddy Company.
I would also like to comment, Mr. Chair-
man, on the clause in the E. B. Eddy licence
that says that it is to commence construction
of a pulp mill "as herein provided within
12 months of the date." The company is to
make this commitment within 60 days of
another company or group of companies say-
ing that they will build a sawmill. I would
just hke to point out to the Minister that he
has already stated they would have to raise
in the neighbourhood of $50 million to estab-
hsh a sawmill, but I cannot even visualize a
company or a group of people trying to raise
$50 million when they know that within 60
days of the raising of this money and com-
mitting themselves to build a sawmill, the
E. B. Eddy Company can come along and
say, "We are going to build a sawmill," and
all their labour would be lost.
Plus the fact if they raise $50 million, even
for a period of 60 days while they wait for
the E. B. Eddy Company to make up its
mind, they are going to have to pay a phe-
nomenal rate of interest on that money, which
would be a dead loss. I believe that the
Minister has made a very big step in putting
this clause in because it is at least a step
forward. However, I do think that due to
the fact that the E. B. Eddy Company has
held this property for so many years without
properly developing it, he would be further
ahead to cancel this licence and to put it
on the open market and give the competing
companies an even chance to establish a
sawmill.
Hon. Mr. BruneUe: First, I will deal with
tlie last item. Their licence, as you know, was
given in 1963. They are doing what we have
asked them to do. I will admit that all new
licences that we issue today have not the
same clauses as those which were issued five
or seven years ago. We have clauses in them
saying that the licences come up for periodic
review and at the end of three years or four
years, if the licensee is not using the allow-
able cut, the surplus can revert back to the
Crown.
We have other areas in the province that
are, I would say, just as attractive if not
much more attractive than the Timiskaming
area. I would say the one in Blind River,
which is located on the Great Lakes, is very
close to the tremendous market of the north-
ern states, Michigan and Ohio. There are
very few new pulp mills being established
in Canada, and those which are being estab-
lished are being established in British Colum-
bia mainly by Japanese interests, because
they are closer to Japan and they have a
12-month shipping season. Also there are
JUNE 27, 1968
4863
other various factors in British Columbia;
the cost per unit is smaller than it is in
Ontario.
With reference to the reasons why the
white and red pine mills are not being built,
as the hon. member knows the red and white
pine are just about depleted in that area.
E. B. Eddy and the Johns-Manville have
jack pine and spruce primarily, and the vol-
umes available for sawmilling are substan-
tially used. So the availability of red and
white pine has greatly decreased because
most of it has been cut, and it takes I would
guess somewhere between 50 to 75 years to
grow the pine to sufficient maturity to be
used.
Mr. Jackson: The Minister said that the
licence was issued in 1963. That is quite
correct— the most recent licence— but E. B.
Eddy Company has held this property for
many years under different Hcences. He
also says that certain areas are more attrac-
tive to a pulp mill and this is quite true.
But, because of this clause in this contract,
this is one of the reasons that Timiskaming
is not quite as attractive, and I think it
should be removed. The Minister has that
discretion under The Crown Timber Act,
and when this licence comes up for renewal
I certainly recommend that he use his dis-
cretion in that situation.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I can assure the hon.
member that when the licence does come up
for renewal in 1973, we certainly will give
it a very close look, and the same clauses
will not apply.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
has not answered my specific question with
regard to this. He made a brief reference to
the fact that the E. B. Eddy Company had
lived up to its commitments and its obliga-
tions under the licence. I asked how much
wood had been cut under this licence since
1963 in terms of the allowable cut; and
what revenues have accrued to the province
as a result of it? Did they issue any third-
party agreements, that is did they allow any-
body else to come in and utilize the other
species? It makes specific reference in here
to the fact that the pulpwood would be left
for the licensee as much as possible. But
there are many other species that could be
used for sawlogs, for sawlog operation, or
for veneer bolts and things of that nature.
Now, how much has been cut on this licence
since 1963 either by the licensee or a third
party, and what revenues have accrued to
the province as a result of it?
Now, I think what the Minister has said,
and the provisions of the licence fly in the
face of recommendation No. 57 of the Brodie
report; this has already been implemented.
I am pretty sure it has. But where there is
a surplus allowable cut, proposals for its
use should be requested and the allocation
made on the basis of the merit of the various
proposals. If an industry ceases to require
or use its allocated allowable cut, the allo-
cation should revert to the Crown; it should
not be considered a saleable asset. Thus the
province could maintain full control of the
disposal of Crown timber for the best attain-
ment of its provincial economic goals; a
change in the allocation would require a
revision of the management plan and the
approval of the regional director and the
chief of the timber branch.
Now, am I not correct in saying that this
has been implemented— recommendation No.
57? This would be directly in conflict with
the agreement you have signed with E. B.
Eddy Company in 1963, and I presume even
the predecessor agreement that was signed
before this. But, specifically, I would like to
know how much has been cut by the licensee
on this area since 1963? How much have
they farmed out, say, to third-party agree-
ments? And, what revenue has accrued to
the Crown as a result of any cut?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, as I
mentioned to the hon. member at the open-
ing of my remarks, this information is being
gathered and will be available to him shortly.
Mr. Stokes: What about recommendation
No. 57? Would you not say it is in disagree-
ment with the provisions of the agreement?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to
recommendation 57, we are in agreement
that the surplus allowable cut be made avail-
able on the merits or proposals made and
this, in effect, is being done now. It is pos-
sible also to increase our efi^orts to increase
proposals. Any surplus area of timber is
much easier to deal with than a surplus
volume on an area already under hcence.
The department has a marketing unit which
is working towards the full utilization of the
allowable cut and keeps informed on the
production statistics and trends in North
America and even farther afield. So, we are
doing this now and we are also meeting—
I would like to mention that in the past
three or four months we have met with the
major pulp and paper companies; have writ-
ten to all the presidents; and we met here
at the Westbury hotel. We are going to meet
4864
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
again, probably within the next month, and
we are making substantial progress. We have
made it known that there are many demands
for wood uses and therefore those who are
not utilizing their full allowable cut and who
do not anticipate expansion— now we do not
want to jeopardize existing industries who
have plans for expansion— but those com-
panies are being made aware that we are
taking steps to try to get the surplus wood
back to the Crown. Also, I would like to
mention, regarding third-party agreements,
that most pulp and paper companies have
third-party agreements, and this is the way
to utilize certain species of wood which are
not of any use to the original hcensee. Tliat
is why once you see the figures of the
Timiskaming area— then you will find that
we have several third-party agreements in
that area. This mill that I mentioned-Grant
and Wilson, this new modem mill that just
came into production in the last year, it is
using a substantial amount of the allowable
cut under the E. B. Eddy Company.
Mr. L. Bemier (Kenora): Mr. Chairman, I
think it is very appropriate at this time to
mention that about one year ago the town
of Sioux Lookout was seriously threatened
with a very devastating forest fire. Of course,
we were quite pleased with the efforts of the
department at that time, and it is interesting
to note that some 90,000 acres were burnt
over during that particular fire. I am pleased
to report to the House today that in this
area we have slightly over 50 per cent of the
plantable area now reforested. I think this is
a tremendous credit to the Minister and his
department, and I would also like to com-
mend your department in this particular proj-
ect because in this project you utilized the
services of over 110 Indians from northwest-
em Ontario.
Mr. Jacksion: I would just like to ask the
Minister a question, Mr. Chairman, through
you. The Minister stated that some of our
strongest competition is from the southern
states in pulpwood and in newsprint manu-
facture. Would the Minister just comment on
the quality of the newsprint that comes out
of the southern states as compared with
Canadian newsprint; and will he also com-
ment on the lowering of the quality because
of the fact that the trees are growing at
such a fast rate that the quality is actually
going down year by year?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I am surprised to hear that their quality is
going down because the information that I
have been given is that due to technology
their quality is being improved and that they
have in the past few years— I am just going
by memory— I think about no more than five
or six years ago, they were cutting about
6 million cords and this year they are cutting,
I believe, about 35 million cords. By 1970
they will be cutting over 40 million cords.
We have also sent one of our forest econo-
mists, who has spent more than one month
in the 11 southern states; we have anotlier of
our forest economists who went to Yale re-
cently and met with these various companies
from the southern states. And they are real
competition to Canada. And in order to have
first-hand information about the numerous
forest developments in the United States, a
department economist was recently sent to
the southern states.
Briefly, it is apparent that the forest in-
dustries in southern United States have many
advantages which, when lumped together,
make them extremely important competitors.
For instance, technological developments
have made it possible for newsprint of high
quality to be manufactured from southern
pine; and with the short distance to many
of the major United States cities, and the
advantage of cheap water transportation to
some destinations, there is very little doubt
that this area will continue to increase its
share of the total market for newsprint and
other forest products. The total volume of
plupwood harvested in the southem states
has increased from about 6 million cords in
1946 to 33 million cords in 1967. The fore-
cast, as I just mentioned, is 40 milhon cords
in 1970. Also, they are becoming very na-
tionalistic. This may sound strange but they
are becoming very nationalistic, and instead
of buying paper from Canada, the publishers
are buying paper from southern states.
They have, as you know, a much longer
growing season, being closer to the equator,
and many areas are capable of growing two
cords of wood per acre per year, or more.
Here is this province it takes between 60 and
100 years to grow spruce, while the southern
pines take an average of 20 to 30 years. The
mills are usually completed and surrounded
by forest area as compared to Ontario where
the majority are located on large bodies of
water. This means that the distance that the
wood must be transferred is lower than here,
and good road access to the forest access was
established in the agricultural areas in the
south at public expense. That is why we in
the department feel that we must be build-
ing more of our roads ourselves. There are
JUNE 27, 1968
4865
also numerous attractive financial assistance
schemes for new industry development.
The foremost among these is the issuance
I of revenue bonds by municipalities. During
' the period 1963 to 1967, the amount raised
by this means with this industry increased
development from $100 million to $1.3
billion. This form of investment is very
attractive, because it provides a shelter
against tax. That is why we in the govern-
ment are studying ways and means to make
a much more favourable economic climate
in Ontario. To have the existing industries
expand and to get pulp paper mills at the
five major areas I mentioned, is hampered
by very great competition in the southern
states.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1107?
I Mr. Stokes: I would like the Minister to
explain briefly the way in which timber is
sold. On page 112, table 27, spruce saw
logs, bid $2, bonus $6, dues $4, total $12 per
1,000 board feet. Would the Minister care
to say how he arrives at the figures? What
is the bid price, the bonus, plus the dues?
Who gets this money, and what is the reason
for breaking it down in this way?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Generally speaking, as
the hon. member knows, we have studied the
recommendations of the Brodie report very
closely, this whole question of stumpage and
bonus and dues is under review, and we have
made and will be making changes. This is
in keeping with the recommendations of this
report.
One of the recommendations of the re-
port, and I am sure that the hon. member
will agree, is that in order to develop those
resources in remote areas, there must be a
reduction of stumpage used in the remote
areas. The dues are statutory, and the bonus
given is our estimate of value. As I said, this
question of bonus is under review, and we
will be making changes. As far as the bid is
concerned, this is what the bidder bids above
the normal rate. We are putting up for
tender fewer and fewer bids, because we feel
we should be trying to supply those indus-
tries that were established, the sawmills that
are in operation and need more wood, with
the raw material that they need. Often the
person who bids is not necessarily the person
who needs it the most, and on some occasions
it is the person with the m.ost money. For
tliis reason, we are giving this question of
bidding, as well as the system of bonus and
dues, a thorough review, in accordance with
the Brodie report.
Votes 1107 and 1108 agreed to.
On vote 1109:
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- VValkerville):
Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to
congratulate the Minister on the junior forest
ranger programme. I think that it is an ex-
cellent programme. However, I would like
him to consider the feasibility of experiment-
ing with a programme for young girls in that
same age category, to see if such a pro-
gramme could actually be operated success-
fully. We find today that a lot of our young
ladies have not the opportunity to get sum-
mer employment, and this not only would
provide employment, but give them the
opportunity to learn some of the basics of
outdoor living and the general economics.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I v^ish to thank the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville for
his suggestion. I think it is an excellent
one. As you may know, we do employ a
very limited number of girls in our provin-
cial parks. A week ago Saturday I assisted
at the graduation of the first corps of forest
technicians at Lindsay, at Sir Sandford Flem-
ing community college, and was very pleased
to see among the graduates, one girl. I do
believe that today, witli the emphasis on out-
door recreation, we should do everything
possible to try and have more girls enter into
this field of work. Also, we will certainly
try to employ more girls. As far as the junior
rangers are concerned, we certainly will look
into this suggestion.
Mr. B. Newman: My thought is a pilot pro-
ject for one year to see if the idea will work,
and why not take—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: You are thinking of a
junior ranger camp for girls only?
Mr. B. Newman: That is right. May I also
suggest to you that once you have compiled
the list of the individuals who are going to
attend the camps, you could provide the
members of the area with the locations to
which these rangers are going so that the
member may be able to get several of them
togetlier to share expenses, especially if tliey
are travelling by automobile.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: A very good sugges-
tion.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): How many have
you included in your junior ranger pro-
gramme this year? How many junior rangers
were there this year?
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, we take
in 1,800, the maximum that we can accom-
modate. This year we had over 2,500 appH-
cations. I hope that next year we can expand
the programme, and I am sure that this will
meet the approval of all the members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. Stokes: I too would like to commend
the Minister for the excellent junior ranger
programme that he has going on in the prov-
ince. The very last statistic that he men-
tioned—2,500 applicants to fill 1,800 positions
—is hving proof that there is a demand
for it. It is unfortimate that the programme
is limited to 17-year-olds, particularly in
northern Ontario now, where it is almost
essential that we provide summer employ-
ment for high school students and people
attending university, and jobs are not too
easy to come by with the lack of industry.
I was wondering if the Minister would
undertake to expand the programme and
make it available to boys from 16 to 19?
There is a lot of work with regard to re-
forestation that could be done in the north.
We have a lot of younger people coming
from the south vying for the job oppor-
tunities that we do have for young people
in the northern part of the province, and I
think that if the Minister would undertake to
expand this programme, to include young
people from 16 to 19, I am sure that it
would be money well spent. It would give
them a chance to earn a little bit of money if
you could utilize their skills and their in-
dustriousness toward a proper programme of
reforestation. I think there are many ways
in which you could use their skills in your
silviculture programme and I was just won-
dering if the Minister would take that into
consideration.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly think it is an excellent recommenda-
tion.
I would like to mention to the hon. mem-
ber that this year, in addition to the 1,800
junior rangers, we have hired 1,186 uni-
versity and high school students and also 69
from the forestry technical school. This makes
a total of summer students hired by the
department of 3,055, and they are doing
excellent work. I certainly think that next
year we will see if we cannot enlarge this
programme, because not only is it good for
the students in that they make gainful em-
ployment, but as far as the department is
concerned and the province of Ontario is
concerned, they do very worthwhile work in
planting trees and as park assistants and in
garbage collection and other various types
of work in connection with the resources.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I too, Mr.
Chairman, would like to encourage the Min-
ister in the continuing development of this
form of educational employment which the
department has so successfully spearheaded
to date. Both The Department of Lands and
Forests and that of Tourism and Information,
I think, have well developed their pro-
grammes, not only in making historical sites
live with the employment of students as in
the Fort Henry guard and such like, but also
I believe that The Department of Lands and
Forests has a tremendous educational pos-
sibility here to have students from all of
Ontario serve in the areas of northern On-
tario which they might not otherwise see.
The growing university population and the
encouragement of the provincial government
for students to remain in areas of higher edu-
cation, I think that there goes, hand-in-hand
with this encouragement, a certain respon-
sibility. The responsibility is to ensure that
those who are involved in higher education
have forms of gainful employment.
The Minister and his department are cer-
tainly to be complimented on the work that
they have done and I would hope that the
Minister will encourage Treasury board and
his colleagues in the Cabinet to further be
allowed to develop this kind of a programme
which can give so much long-term benefit
to the entire province.
Vote 1109 agreed to.
On vote 1110:
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, there is just one little point I want to
raise with my friend, the Minister.
In relation to the long hunting season for
moose in Ontario, I have no idea what the
population of moose in Ontario would be at
any given point but it seems to me that a
season extending from October 1 until
January 8—1 believe it is— annually, is a
fairly long season. I wonder if the Minister
has given any consideration to shortening the
season? If not, what is the population of
moose in Ontario? The population of moose
must justify the long season. I suppose that
would be an inference.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, with
reference to moose, our biologists estimate
there is, in the province of Ontario, approxi-
JUNE 27, 1968
4867
mately 150,000 moose. These figures are
arrived at by aerial surveys. During the
winter months they conduct aerial surveys
and according to our biologists they claim
that we should harvest about 25 per cent—
somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent. Our
last figures are somewhere in the neighbour-
hood, I believe, between 12,000 or 15,000
moose that were killed last season.
So therefore, we are not cropping the
amount of moose that we could crop accord-
ing to our biologists. But the problem, in
moose hunting, is access and it is very diffi-
cult. What we are trying to do, is to en-
courage hunters by building more roads and
other means to get deeper into the forest and
there are certain areas, it is quite true, where
the moose are being over-harvested. Those
areas that are more popular is where there
is probably more density of population. Our
problem is trying to direct the hunters in
those areas where there is a good moose
population and fewer hunters. This is rather
difficult to do. But generally speaking, our
moose population is sustaining very well.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): There
are two points that I want to raise with the
Minister. Quite frankly, I do not know
whether the first one is in this estimate. Per-
haps my first question should be where, if at
all, is there, in the Lands and Forests esti-
mates, an appropriation specifically for work
with the Indians? Is there one?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, Mr. Chairman,
as I mentioned, I believe, under the first
vote, this comes under item 6 or 7 with
reference to the treaty number 3. I men-
tioned that we spend, in the department,
approximately $200,000 on resource agree-
ment and this is shared by the federal gov-
ernment. The actual vote, as the hon.
member for York South knows, for Indians,
comes under my colleague the Minister of
Social and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko).
But we spend in the department, approxi-
mately $200,000, shared by the federal gov-
ernment, and we employed the Indians mainly
as forest firefighters and, of course, in the
tourist aspect. For instance, all goose camps
in the James Bay area— I should not say all—
with the exception of one or two, they are
mainly operated by the Indians, and we en-
courage this. We are opening new areas,
strictly restricted to the Indian population.
So we feel, in the department, that we are
doing considerable work in providing em-
ployment to our Indian population.
Now as far as the forestry is concerned,
we are employing them in certain areas,
and we are doing more of this.
Mr. MacDonald: But there is no appropria-
tion as such for Indians? It is in The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well-
Mr. MacDonald: I am interested in the
figure of $200,000 that the Minister gave
me. From persons who are associated with
the Ontario union of Indians, they were of
the impression that there was more than
that, something like $250,000 being spent
in northern Ontario and $18,000 in southern
Ontario, perhaps that includes something
more than the programme that the Minister
has just referred to. Are the figures accurate
-$250,000 in northern Ontario and $18,000
in southern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, where-
Mr. MacDonald: They are not here at all.
These are figures that were given to me and
I am a bit curious. The Minister has clarified
to some degree— that the appropriation is a
matching appropriation. It is passed in The
Department of Social and Family Services esti-
mates, under the interdepartmental commit-
tee. But the total figure was in the range of
$250,000. The Minister mentioned a figure
of $200,000. Is that the total amount that is
made available for Indians through the inter-
departmental committee— $200,000 a year?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The money that I re-
ferred to, Mr. Chairman, the $200,000 is on
resource projects and this is under a federal-
provincial agreement. There are 33 projects
and they are mainly as I mentioned, in for-
estry, fisheries, fur and wildlife.
Also, we employ— these are permanent
employees— in the department, in the sum-
mertime, I would say maybe 2,000 or 3,000
Indians, mainly as firefighters, and for tree
planting. Also, we have as permanent em-
ployees—and I am just guessing now— be-
tween 50 and 100 on permanent staff— about
50.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the $200,000 figure the
total, including the federal matching grant?
Namely, $100,000 from each level of gov-
ernment, or is it $200,000 from Ontario and
another $200,000 from the federal?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My understanding is
that the $200,000 is the total on this resource
agreement and $100,000 is paid by the prov-
ince of Ontario.
4868
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1110?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
am sorry— the Ministers are conferring there.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Excuse me if I repeat
this once more, Mr. Chairman. This $200,000
is on the resource agreement project only.
Now the hon. member knows that under The
Department of Social and Family Services
they spent $1,428,000, in the estimates under
that department, for the Indian development
branch.
Mr. MacDonald: On the resource develop-
ment, which partly comes under this Minis-
ter, and partly under other Ministers. One
point that has been made to me— and I
want to raise it with some care, because
quite frankly I can see both sides of this
issue— is the argument from Indians in south-
ern Ontario, that a disproportionate amount
of money is being spent in northern Ontario.
Now I repeat; I see both sides of this issue,
because in northern Ontario I think condi-
tions are much worse, and the need for assist-
ing these Indians is greater. It certainly
would be in fish and wildlife and in forest
resource that would be related to this Minis-
ter. But there are—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The $200,000, Mr.
Chairman, is mainly, I would say, in north-
em Ontario. My guess , it would be probably
75 per cent if not higher.
Mr. MacDonald: In northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In northern Ontario.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, this was the point
that was being made. Let me try to put it
fairly and factually before the Minister, for
a moment. Some 75, or 80 per cent of this
amount was being spent in northern Ontario,
but that in southern Ontario, where our In-
dians have been somewhat better off, and
therefore, perhaps, in a position to react
more effectively to self-help, if they are
given a bit of financial assistance.
In other words, in many of the nortliern
Indian areas, I think you have really got
populations that have to be lifted up by the
bootstraps in a very serious and basic way.
Our southern Indians are somewhat more
independent if they had the means to get on
a self-supporting basis. Therefore, the argu-
ment is advanced by some Indians from
southern Ontario, that while they are not
jealous of what is going to northern Ontario
—because they recognize the desperate need
there— that in southern Ontario, the expendi-
ture of money might be even more effective
if more money was available in assisting in
the kind of economic development that is
needed, for example, in the Cape Croker
group and Indian bands all across the
province.
I wonder if I could solicit some comment
from the Minister on this, and see if we can
allay some of the criticisms that are coming
from southern Ontario Indians?
Mr. Chairman: I do not want to restrict
this debate, but frankly I do not believe it
comes under vote 1110. The member for
York South has made his point, but I think
he must agree with me it is not under this
vote. However, if the Minister can give him
some reply—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, the
$200,000, I am advised, is strictly for north-
ern Ontario. But I think the hon. member
has made a good point that maybe there
should be some assistance under the resources
programme for Indians in southern Ontario,
and we certainly will take it into con-
sideration.
Mr. MacDonald: I appreciate what the
Minister has said, that my point is accepted.
We will let it rest there. But the point be-
comes even more valid if the Minister now
informs us that all of tlie $200,000 was in
northern Ontario.
The second area that I wanted to explore
would certainly be in relationship to access
roads, or roads in general. It has always
been my feeling that if the Minister wants
to achieve effective forest management, he
cannot achieve it for harvesting of the tree
crop over the whole of the limit if there is
not a basic roads system. The Minister may
be aware of the fact that I have raised the
matter in earlier sessions as to why, in On-
tario, we do not do something comparable
to the kind of policy that exists in British
Columbia, where if a timber limit is given,
the first thing that the licensee must do is
to build his basic road structure.
He cannot start to cut timber until he has
built his basic road structure, and therefore
he has got the basic means for harvesting of
a crop throughout the whole area. Compare
our approach— where they may build a $50
million mill and put in $500,000 in starting
a road structure, and gradually build it into
the limits. Twenty-five years from now, they
may be getting into the hinterlands of their
limit, which meanwhile is not being cut on a
modem forest management basis. Is the gov-
JUNE 27, 1968
emment contemplating some adaptation, if
not application, of the policy that exists in
British Columbia, and if not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, it is a
very good point. We are contemplating
building roads, giving assistance. For in-
stance, as the hon. member knows, this year
we have no money in the northern Ontario
roads-to-resources programme, but next year
we will have money. This is an enlargement
of the mining and access committee's respon-
sibilities, and this committee's prime purpose
will be to build roads for forestry, mining
and tourism as well as other resources.
Also, in Bill 115, which was introduced
and passed in this Legislature, money will
be made available for the maintenance and
construction of certain roads, mainly on pulp
and paper company limits. As I mentioned
earlier, with the tremendous competition of
the southern states— where there are roads,
which were built, of course, mainly for agri-
cultural purposes— as well as, you mention,
British Columbia, we as the government must
make it as attractive as possible to try and
further the growth of our forest industries,
so that we will be getting into road con-
struction.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the government itself
assuming responsibility for building the roads
in an area that has been licensed to, say, a
pulp and paper company? Are you assuming
responsibility and, in effect, making it avail-
able on a rental basis? How do you cope
with the cost? To what extent does the
licensee share in the cost of building the
road structure which he is going to use?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Up until now, Mr.
Chairman, we of the government to my
knowledge have not spent any money in
building roads, except for our own Crown
management units. Pulp and paper and other
companies have been building their own
roads at their own expense. Under Bill 115,
the main purpose is on the concept of mul-
tiple use, of providing access to hunters and
anglers and other people who are interested
in recreation. But I feel the northern Ontario
roads-to-resources committee is a vehicle
whereby we will be building more roads into
our resources-
Mr. MacDonald: Will the paper companies,
or the licensees, be sharing in the cost, if
any?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to Bill
115, we will be entering into agreements for
certain roads for certain companies, and at
the present time we are negotiating with
certain companies for certain roads.
Mr. MacDonald: On a shared-cost basis?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: On a shared-cost basis.
Mr. Spence: I would like to ask the Min-
ister about the $6,039,000 for fish and wild-
life. With regards to Lake Erie, as the
Minister is well aware, the federal govern-
ment has a 10-cent floor on perch, and of
course at the present time there is a surplus
of perch, fillets and rounds. I understand
there is about two million pounds in storage
in this province. I would like to know if
your department is doing anything about
finding, or helping to find, a market, on
account that I believe in the early part of
the summer or fall, there was some discussion
that the federal government was going to
lower that floor price.
Another question I would like to ask of
the Minister is: How many new licences
were given out or sold in 1967 in Lake Erie,
or are there any?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, with
reference to Lake Erie, there is quite a sur-
plus of perch. We are working very closely
with the federal government. The Mclvor
Royal commission on fisheries has made its
report to the federal government and I be-
lieve one of the main recommendations is a
marketing board. 1 feel very optimistic that
this will greatly help the marketing, and
give the commercial fishermen a fair price
for their product. With reference to new
licences, I am advised that no new licences
have been issued on Lake Erie this year.
Mr. Spence: Is that in 1967?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Once be-
fore in this House, Mr, Chairman, I proposed
to this hon. Minister that something more
be done about a proper guiding system for
non-resident hunters in this province. I am
not aware of just how much the department
is doing at this point on guiding. I am
given to understand that not as much is
being done as in the provinces of Alberta
and British Columbia, where I understand a
compulsory guiding system for non-resident
hunters is in effect. I would not propose that
tomorrow we establish a system of compul-
sory guiding for non-resident hunters in this
province, but I would like to propose that
we step up our programme of guide training.
4870
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I think that it is the only solution. It is
the only way that we are really going to get
proper safety in the bush in Ontario. I think
there are hunters who come into this prov-
ince who are not fully cognizant of our rules,
who get up into the great northwest and
figure they will make tliemselves pretty well
at home without realizing what dangers there
are. As a reporter up in that part of the
country, how many times have I reported
visiting hunters killing horses and cows, and
shooting up barns? How many thousands
has it cost the Ontario Hydro Electric Com-
mission in this province to bring about re-
pairs caused by insulators that were shot off
poles? I thiiJc that when a non-resident
hunter comes into this province, he should
have a guide with him, and that we should
be on a very intensive programme right now
to train sufiBcient guides, to attract sufficient
men into this field and make it worthwhile
to them.
I understand there was some kind of a
guiding system at the Quetico training centre
and I thought that was good, but it did not
seem to be the solution to our problem. I
cannot see any real hard campaign underway
in the province right now within the depart-
ment to develop or to train a sufficient num-
ber of guides. I think probably the best
guides or possible guides in this province—
and you will agree with me— would be our
Indian people. I know an Indian, drunk,
with his hands tied behind his back, could
get across Lac des Mille Lacs at midnight.
Some of these people know that bush so well
and it is a shame that they have to come
into the city and work on some construction
job or do some kind of a job that they are not
interested in, when they could maintain a
living right out there in the wilds where they
would be happy and where, after all, we
need them.
I think a good guide will see to it that a
hunter hunts away from the highway, away
from the city; he will get him into the bush
and out of the bush in safety. Most often, if
the hunter cannot shoot his game or get his
game, then the guide will do it for him. I
think our American hunters have been wait-
ing a long time to see Ontario set up a proper
guiding system. I think they would appreci-
ate it, I think they would welcome it; cer-
tainly most of them can afford it and I think
it is high time that this department went into
this business of a proper guiding system very
seriously with an ultimate objective of making
it compulsory for non-resident hunters. I
think a lot of our would-be hunters down
here in southern Ontario would be far more
game to head into the wilds of the north and
hunt if they thought they could hire a guide
who would make sure tihat they got in and
out safely and got their game, and so forth.
So much for that but I would like to reim-
press this on the mind of the Minister.
The other thing I would like to bring up
is the business of a period of hunting for
Ontario hunters only. I have mentioned it
before and I would like to bring it up again.
I think the first two weeks of the hunting
season should go to our own resident hunters
here in Ontario. And I think we should do
this especially for the poor fellow who works
all week and does not get a chance to pick
up his gun and go out into the bush except
on the weekend. In most cases now he gets
to his favourite haunt and some visiting hun-
ter is there ahead of him. I think we should
give him a break. We are putting up the
hunting fees, but we are not putting them
up, I understand, for the non-resident hun-
ter, for the Americans; we are putting them
up for the resident. The resident hunter
looks and he says, "What am I getting? My
fees are increased, the American hunter's
fees are not increased. He starts the same
time I start, I do not get any head start at
all, what is the advantage of living in On-
tario?"
It is this old business of pride and resent-
ment once again. If we want them to have
pride in the province of Ontario, then we
have to give them reason to feel this is their
province and they have a little bit of an
advantage. I do not think there is a visiting
hunter from the United States or any other
province in Canada who would resent this
government doing that for the resident hun-
ters. I think the Minister should very seri-
ously consider once again the possibility of
giving them two weeks or even a few days.
I have two documents I would like to read
into the record. The 1,500-member Thunder
Bay district fish and game association— at
least it was 1,500 the last time I heard-
has sent a letter into the department, which
they have also sent to me. I would hke to
read it:
This is to advise that the following reso-
lutions were passed at a regular meeting
of this association held April 3 last.
That we oppose any implementation of
a fish licence.
That we oppose any increase of hunting
licences.
That we suggest increase of non-resident
alien hunting and fishing licences.
Tliat we oppose the increased park fee.
JUNE 27, 1968
4871
That we again request a two-weeks ad-
vance season for the resident over the
non-resident ahen hunter of moose and
deer.
It seems to our members that the resi-
dent sportsman is already paying more
than his share of taxes in the pursuit of his
hobby. The three levels of government,
federal, provincial and municipal, are tak-
ing too great a share of the worker's hard-
earned cash. The time has come when
these three must re-assess the situation and
decide the pie must be cut in such a man-
ner to give each a share and leave some
for John Q. Public as well. There has been
and still is far too much overlapping of
taxes at the three levels mentioned.
That is from the Thunder Bay fish and game
association.
The other one is a letter I received re-
cently from the— well I will read it:
We read in the News Chronicle that you
were interested in keeping the first two
weeks of the hunting season open for
Canadian residents only. I enclose a peti-
tion from the Thunder Bay mill employees
(Abitibi division)— this is 300 or 400 men.
We hope you will be successful in this
endeavour—
And so forth. It is signed by the president
of that local. I think the local hunters of
Ontario know what they want and what they
need. I do not think their request is too sel-
fish. I think they might even be inclined to
go along with some of these increases that
the department is moving ahead on this year,
if the department were to turn around and
say, "Well, we will do something special for
you, we will grant you one of these requests".
At this point I do not see where the depart-
ment is granting any of their requests. It is
going ahead with all of its proposals, all its
increases, the new fishing licence and so
forth, but there does not seem to be anything
left for the local hunter and he is turning
very bitter about it. I said all these things not
too long ago and so I would like to bring it
to the Minister's attention again.
Another question I would like to ask the
hon. Minister while I am on my feet is
whether we have any law in the province
right now that states that a hunter, be he
resident or non-resident, has to wear a certain
type of garb that is going to make him im-
mediately discernible from the animals that
move about in the bush. I think a hat or
sometliing, even a jacket, so that is readily
recognized which is man and which is beast—
and it might not be a bad idea for the farmers
to put some of these things on their cows and
horses; because we have a situation up north
where some of these hunters— I do not know
whether they are shooting out of the bottom
of a bottle or out of a gun, but some of the
incidents that happen strike us as humorous
but, believe me, they are not; the potential
danger is very, very disturbing, and I think
the time has come to include a law for some
kind of a compulsory type of dress for the
hunter to protect himself and protect the
others who are in the bush.
So just reiterating very quickly, Mr. Chair-
man, I would hke to ask the Minister again
to consider a very intensive guiding pro-
gramme in the interest of Indians and hun-
ters, in the interest of residents, in the
interest of people who drive along the high-
way up in the north and never know when
they are going to get a bullet through their
windshield. I would again like to propose
that the department favour resident hunters
in some way, more particularly in a way
wliich they request themselves, that they get
a little headstart on the season. And I would
like to request some kind of dress, special
dress, hat or coat or something, that will
make the hunter immediately distinguishable
in the bush.
Thank you.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Chairman, I have one request along the same
line which the Minister would probably
answer at the same time. It is my under-
standing that one of the considerations in
the increase of the small gun licence from $1
to $5 would include liability insurance for
the person purchasing the gun licence. Also
that it would be very desirable to have acci-
dent insurance coverage linked with the pur-
chase of a gun licence. I understand this was
under consideration. Could the Minister in-
form the House whether anything final or
definite has been arrived at with the including
of hability and accident insurance with the
purchasing of a gun hcence?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Chairman, if I may
deal with the last item I would say tliat this
matter of gun licensing is still under review.
We have not come to it yet— but we soon
will; I would say that within the next week
or two we will have something definite, but
it is still under very active review.
Witli reference to the hon. member for
Port Arthur, I believe there is a lot of merit
in his recommendation that there be guide
training. As far as making it compulsory,
4872
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this
would be advisable, because, as the hon.
member knows, years ago it used to be
compulsory and the problem is that once it
is compulsory and there are no guides avail-
able it gets very embarrassing. I come from
a region, the Kapuskasing area, where off-
hand I would say there may be 200 or 300
non-resident licences sold, and there are very
few guides. In fact, they can be counted on
one hand. There are no Indians in that area.
We sell today, I am advised, about 40,000
non-resident licences, and it would be very
difficult to try to find 40,000 guides.
There is a lot of merit in the suggestion
that we should be giving more training to
our Indians. They are excellent guides. The
hon. member referred to Quetico centre and
probably knows that Moosonee has a new
school under construction. One of the sub-
jects to be taught to the Indians at this school
will be tourism. Of course, this will include
guiding services as well as other services
that are provided to tourists. With reference
to the suggestion of the advanced season for
hunters only, I am advised that biologically
there is no problem. There is a lot of merit
in the suggestion, and we will look into this
as to whether it is advisable to have an early
season in certain areas.
I would like at the same time to remind
the hon. member that there will be consider-
able opposition to this by people in the
tourist industry who feel that the contribu-
tion made by non-resident anglers and
hunters to the province is substantial. How-
ever, we are prepared to take a look at your
suggestion as to having pre-seasons for
residents.
With reference to wearing a certain colour
to make hunting safer, may I remind the hon.
member that we are, of course, giving a lot
of attention to hunter safety programmes
that we have established in the province. As
far as having a law to make it compulsory
to wear a certain colour is concerned, we
would be very reluctant to do this. We are
introducing a back patch. I think that it is
just a matter of time, until we will have a
central registry in Toronto, like a car licens-
ing bureau, and every hunter will be
licensed. There are certain areas in southern
Ontario, where back patches are issued, and
this is something to give us more informa-
tion. At the same time there could be a
safety feature, rather than having a back
patch, to have some sort of system that would
make hunters more conspicious.
Mr. Stokes: I would just like to make one
comment on the fish and wildlife section of
the vote, with regard to restocking. I men-
tioned earlier in the estimates where the
American authorities had done a consider-
able job of restocking in connection with the
lamprey problem in the Great Lakes, Par-
ticularly Lake Superior, where, over the past
ten years, they have stocked some 26 million
fingerlings and yearlings, whereas this de-
partment in the province restricted its pro-
gramme to something like 5 million over the
last 15 years. It has been generally agreed
that the lamprey are on the run, and there is
every likelihood that the environment is con-
ducive to the rehabilitation of the Lake
Superior trout. There is ample evidence of
this. If you look at the cohoe salmon pro-
gramme that is going on so well on the south
shore of Lake Superior, and in Lake Michi-
gan, I was wondering if the department plans
any more hatcheries that will make many
more fish available for lakes like Nipigon,
which I understand has been stocked once
in the last 20 years?
Now, lakes that were once considered
inaccessible in the northern parts of the
province, are becoming accessible because of
the flying tourist trade and the planes that
we have today. I was wondering if the Min-
ister would not consider stepping up the
restocking of the lakes? Because if the Min-
ister is quite adamant in imposing the fishing
licence fee, he is going to have to assure the
people that they are getting something for
their money. Of course, if a man is interested
in only one aspect of outdoor life, say fish-
ing, he wants to know that there is every
likelihood that he might catch fish.
As you know, in many of the lakes that
were once productive, along the main high-
ways, it is almost impossible to catch fish,
and these people are going-
Mr. J. H. White (London South): This has
all been covered.
Mr. Stokes: What has all been covered?
Mr. White: All this,
Mr. Chairman: May I remind the member
for Thunder Bay that the aspect of fishing
licences has been covered. But I believe the
member was referring to another part other
than fishing licences?
Mr. Stokes: Thank you Mr, Chairman. I
would like some assurance that the hon.
Minister will undertake a thorough restock-
ing programme of many of the lakes along
JUNE 27, 1968
4873
the highways, and also the inaccessible ones,
so that he can assure these people that are
going to have to pay for their fishing, that
tfiey will be getting something for their
money— and there will be every likelihood
that they stand a good chance of catching
fish. Particularly in Lake Nipigon, Lake
Superior, and a lot of the more remote
areas where people tend to go to fish.
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: I agree with the hon.
member and we are intensifying our fisheries
programme. For instance, he referred to
Lake Huron, which we are restocking with
lake trout at the rate of .5 million per year.
This number, we feel, will produce the num-
ber desired. As the hon. member knows, we
have introduced kokanee salmon and are
very satisfied with the success in this, the
fourth year. We are doing this in other
lakes.
As to our future programme: We are
establishing a large hatchery in southeastern
Ontario, since I know that he will be in-
terested in the whole province, not just the
north. We are establishing, at Sault Ste.
Marie, an experimental station, and this is
very helpful to train personnel in fish manage-
ment. There is also the new station, north of
North Bay, a $.5-minion investment, that will
be open in the next few months. Generally
speaking, we have, with the introduction of
an angling licence, to do more. In lake sur-
veys, we are doing presently within 500 to
700 lake surveys a year. We should, and will,
be doing twice this number in the future
years. We are very optimistic that we will
increase the fish population.
I am sorry, .5 million lake trout were put
into Lake Superior, not Lake Huron.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1110? The member
for Essex-Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): With
respect to the issuing of gun licences, I
understand that from some reports in our
area, that it is going to be a rather cumber-
some method. And where are they going to
be issued? In Essex-Kent I understand that
they are going to have to go to the local
agriculture office and be interviewed and so
forth, and then they go back to Aylmer for
processing; and then they have to come back
again at some other time to the agriculture
office to receive their permit. I am just won-
dering, in a five-day week, how are some of
the people going to be able to obtain the
licences. Could you explain anything with
regard to this, or is this set up yet?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, we are
setting these up and we are trying to pro-
vide the services to the people; we are trying
to provide these services so that a person will
not have to travel on the average, more than,
say, fifteen or twenty miles. Now, I cannot
tell specifically for the hon. member's area,
but I certainly will look into it and I will
drop him a line as to just where we intend
establishing them.
Mr. Ruston: With regards to a park that
has been in operation for a couple of years:
I understand tliat facilities for boat docking,
or runways, or for getting the boats in the
water in the Wheatley park are not adequate.
What have you got? Do you not generally
have proper boat ramps in these parks so
that people can get the boats in, or what is
the general procedure?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I will have that infor-
mation, Mr. Chairman, in a minute.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Wellington
South.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Sir,
I would like to urge what the hon. member
for Waterloo North has suggested in regard
to insurance for hunters. I recall in the past
year, in fact quite recently, I have had a
farmer who has been left crippled by a stray
bullet, and while the police caught what they
thought was the culprit there was no way
of proof because the lead was damaged and
they could not tell which rifle it came from.
I would like to urge the Minister to give
serious consideration to this possibility of
putting insurance on the hunter's licence so
that the individual who is injured can be
protected.
The other item that I would like to ask
about, Mr. Minister, is this: You had a letter
from a constituent of mine concerning an
imported fish that was evidently dangerous
to Canadian waters. Is it a piranha? I have
forgotten the name of the fish. Did you ever
follow that advertisement up as to what
was the outcome of the advertising?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It was bait was it?
Mr. Worton: No, this was an advertisement
concerning a tropical fish, I believe, that is
very dangerous to our waters and was adver-
tised in a Toronto paper. You replied to
the constituent but I did not hear further
as to what action had been taken in regard
to satisfying the request as to whether they
were going to allow it into the country or
not.
4874
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, first, in
reply to the hon. member for Essex-Kent,
with regard to boat ramps in Wheatley park:
Two boat ramps have been estabhshed in
Wheatley park and there are also facilities
for parking cars. With reference to the hon.
member for Wellington South: It is illegal
to release— the name of this fish is piranha;
the import is restricted.
Mr. Worton: As I understand it, this
American firm had put an advertisement in
the paper that these fish were available and
from what I gather if they were ever let
loose in our waters they would really cause
havoc to the fish and to humans too. And
I was wondering if they ever followed it up
to see what had happened to it.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, it is
illegal, and also I am advised that they do
not survive our winters, that they would die
out in a few months; as soon as the water
gets colder, then they would die.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chaimian, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister— and this is a question
a lot of hunters in our area would like to
have answered— why the department has seen
fit to increase the resident hunter's licence
without increasing that of the non-resident?
What is the motivation here, to do it for
one and not for the other? It was obviously
going to cause a lot of resentment with the
resident hunter, which it has done. And the
other question would be: If not now, when
does the department propose to follow
through with an increase in the non-resident
hunter's hunting licence?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, the non-
resident licence for moose hunters is $101.
A few years ago a committee was estab-
lished, I believe under The Department of
Economics and Development, to study the
tourist industry in Ontario. And I believe
one of their recommendations was that the
fee of $101 is very high and that a moose
hunter makes a contribution on the average
of somewhere between $200 and $300 per
hunter, in addition to tlie $101 fee. This con-
tribution is made for lodging, food, gasoline
and liquor, and other expenses. And we feel,
in the province of Ontario that if we were to
raise this any higher, we would drive hunters
to other jurisdictions; that they would go
to Manitoba or the province of Quebec or
elsewhere. Our moose licence— the resident
moose licence— has been $10 for quite a
number of years; I would say for at least
ton years. Also, in view of the fact that the
value of the dollar has decreased substan-
tially in the last ten years, we felt that it
was in keeping with the higher costs. Also
we are providing, or will provide, more ac-
cess to hunters.
The main value of Bill 115, in my opinion,
will be to hunters to provide access on com-
pany roads, and this will cost a substantial
amount of money. So we feel again that the
increase will pay for the increased benefits.
The deer licence in Ontario has also been
raised $5 and there again we are trying to
increase the deer population. Last year
we spent, I believe, somewhere between
$200,000 and $300,000 in deer yard improve-
ments. This has proved very successful,
especially in the Parry Sound district. We
have figures to show that this has really
helped to increase the deer population and
we will be doing more of this, so we are
spending this money to intensify our fishery
and wildlife management programmes.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister tell the House how much the non-
resident deer hunting licence is? It is $10
for the resident. What is it for the non-
resident?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The non-resident deer
licence is $26.
Mr. Knight: Do I understand correctly,
Mr. Chairman, from the hon. Minister that
there is no intention in the near future to
increase that licence fee?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would not say, Mr.
Chairman, there is no intention. It is not
the intention to increase it this year but these
things are always under review. This year
we do not intend to increase the non-resident
hunters' licence because we feel that they
are fairly substantial.
Mr. Knight: Very good. One other matter,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to belabour the
guiding system to some extent. I wonder if
the Minister could tell the House approxi-
mately how many available guides we have
now? How many guides would the depart-
ment have at its disposal to call out? Is it
relatively easy for a hunter, a visiting hunter,
to find a guide in Ontario? What system does
he follow? Whom does he call? Whom does
a hunter call— I mean a hunter who is not
used to obtaining or securing a guide? Does
he go through the department or does he
go through the tourist operator? Just how
much is our guiding system at the present
time organized?
JUNE 27, 1968
4875
At the Lakehead, for example, if someone
wants a guide, whom do they call, the cham-
ber of commerce, The Department of Lands
and Forests— you know: Wieben, Superior
Airways? What are they doing right now in
order to get a guide, and does the Minister
not see how there could be perhaps greater
organization in the guiding system, like a
pool, an information centre in each of your
major hunting centres of northern Ontario
where a person would always know where
there would be a guide, or where he could
reserve a guide?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, first I
would like to correct the figure for licence
fees for non-resident deer hunters. I said
$26, it should be $36; $36 is the fee.
With reference to guides, if a non-resident
hunter wants to obtain the services of a
guide, normally he contacts tourist outfitters
or the local district oflBce of The Department
of Lands and Forests. I believe there is a
lot of merit in his suggestion that our depart-
ment, in conjunction with The Department
of Tourism and Information, should be giving
more attention to providing more informa-
tion. I think it is a very good suggestion and
this could be done maybe through literature
that we issue to hunters. We will certainly
look into it.
Mr. Knight: Just one more question. I am
sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Your present guide training programme-
does it pay the trainee? Is he paid to learn?
I mean, is it economically possible for an
Indian person— an Indian gentleman from the
north to stop his work, stop what he is doing
and go and train for a certain period of time?
Is it economically feasible the way it is now?
In other words, is it in the reach of the
people who should be taking this training?
Is it really— do they have any incentive to go
and take that programme and become in-
volved?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am a strong believer
in the Moosonee area, for instance, with
which I am quite familiar, where we have a
population of approximately, at least, 5,000
Indians. This new school— this new educa-
tion complex will provide courses geared to
the needs of the people who are pre-
dominantly Indian. A lot of these courses
are given under the federal programme— I
think it is called programme 5— whereby
they go to school, they are paid while they
are taking instruction, and at the same time
they learn a trade. I would think that this is
what we intend doing in the James Bay area
and I would think that we should be doin^g
more of this in other areas.
Mr. Knight: Will the course at Quetico in
guide training be run again this year, do you
know? Does the department have any plans
to move ahead with that again this year?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Quetico training
school is not under The Department of Lands
and Forests. To my knowledge, it is a pri-
vate organization which is operated through
private funds and the Ontario government
does not make any contribution to this
centre-
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I just have
two brief questions for the Minister.
First of all, would he comment on black
fly control and the progress we are making?
Second, I have hunted in Ontario most of
my life, in fact the first season I missed was
last year during the election—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Name that place again?
Mr. Jackson: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Would you mind re-
peating—
Mr. Jackson: I say, would you comment on
black fly control and the progress that is
being made by the department? Second, I
have hunted most of my life and very seldom
miss a hunting season, and for the first time
this year, I ran into two conservation ofiRcers
who were carrying side arms. Is this some-
thing new in the department or is it the de-
partment policy to arm the conservation
officers, since the increase in the licence fees?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to the
black fly control, the only areas where we
provide control are in our provincial parks.
We do spray and provide fly control.
With reference to conservation officers, I
am not aware of any change in regulations
and I do not believe— they have been doing
this— they do carry a revolver-
Mr. Jackson: Might I ask you, the hon.
Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if he
would explain why they need to be armed.
I just cannot see why they should have to
carry side arms. I believe, in fact, it puts
them in a very dangerous position to go
armed in the bush.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): You figure the bears will shoot
back?
4876
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Jackson: Some hunters might.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not too qualified,
Mr. Chairman, to speak on the merits or
demerits of conservation officers carrying fire-
arms but they are law enforcement ofiicers.
I believe that this applies, to my knowledge,
in other jurisdictions in Canada; conservation
officers do carry firearms. We have a very
good record in the province and I do not,
at this moment, plan to change our policy.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Nobody
missed anybody yet.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: At this moment, I
would be reluctant to make any changes.
Mr. Jackson: I would just like to point out,
Mr. Chairman, that I personally have hunted
for 20 years in Ontario and this is the first
time I have ever seen one of the conservation
officers carrying sidearms. If we have gone
for 20 years and not found the necessity for
carrying them, I cannot see why it has be-
come necessary this season.
Mr. Stokes: The member for York South
has mentioned the Indian problem, and I
would like to find out from the Minister if
there are any mechanics in your department,
in your basic organization, whereby you set
up agreements with Indian bands to go in
and harvest timber on land held by prime
licence holders. If you do set up this kind
of an agreement, is there any assurance that
the Indian end of the bargain will be met?
I have some indication of an Indian band
somewhere down around Wawa that agreed
to work for a contractor on this particular
cutting operation and the contractor sup-
posedly went broke. Of course, the Indians
worked all winter for nothing.
I was just wondering, do you enter into
agreements like that? Is tliere some branch
in your department that looks after the inter-
ests of the Indian people when they enter
into agreements? Is there any money held
back, or how could the interests of the In-
dian people themselves be looked after? Is
there any provision in your department for
this?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, gener-
ally speaking, we have employed Indians, we
find that they are very skilful in the forest
industries, and we do everything to encour-
age them. We have entered, with bands, into
licensing agreements. The forest resources
come under the timber branch and we have
no specific personnel that deals with the In-
dians. We do certainly want to encourage
the Indians as much as possible in this type
of work which they are so proficient at, and
we are encouraging them in those areas
where it is suitable to provide licences to
Indian bands.
Mr. Stokes: But specifically where it would
appear that some contractor is trying to ex-
ploit the Indian people, would there be any
way of you recovering this from the con-
tractor or would the Indian band or group
of Indians, which has nothing to start with,
have to go through court proceedings to get
it back?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
say that if the hon. member has a specific
reference that Indians have been deprived of
their salaries, I would be pleased to look
into it and we certainly will do all we can
in the department to see that they are paid
their full allotment.
Vote 1110 agreed to.
On vote 1111:
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I presume
this is for contingency and the possible use
and requirement for these funds. I am won-
dering what the funds spent in the previous
year were and what the Minister's expecta-
tion for this expenditure is for the current
year?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The funds, Mr. Chair-
man, for last year for extra firefighting were
$1.8 million and of course, this year they
are $750,000. There is a decrease, sir, of
$1,050,000.
Vote 1111 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: The capital disbursements
on page 85, vote 1112?
On vote 1112:
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, if I might on
1112, I would like to ask a question. On the
construction of access roads for development
of summer resort subdivisions, is this money
recovered in the cost of the lots?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
$300,000 will be spent this year for roads
for summer resorts and this mony is recov-
ered. The cost of the road is added to the
cost of the cottages. In other words, it is a
self-sustaining operation.
Votes 1112 and 1113 agreed to.
JUNE 27, 1968
4877
On vote 1114:
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1114 agreed to?
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on 1114
I would like to ask—
Mr. Chairman: The member was a httle
slow. However, I will spare him because
maybe the Chairman was a little fast.
Mr. B. Newman: It was a little bit of both,
Mr. Chairman, I really was not slow at all.
May I here put in my annual plea to the
Minister for the consideration of park sites
along Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River,
as there are still some undeveloped properties
that should be taken up immediately, or they
will never be available. The proposition was
first raised by the city of Windsor in 1958. I
will read the assessed values of the proper-
ties. When I asked the government back in
1960 to acquire the properties it refused.
Today the properties have probably increased
tenfold in value.
There had been the Gignac property with
6,380-foot frontage, west of the Ruscomb
River, assessed at $8,000 in 1958; there had
been little or no development at that time.
The next was the Surf club property, east of
the Ruscomb River, assessed at $43,000, in-
cluding club house, motels, several other
buildings, and 36 privately owned lots. There
was a 5,600-foot lake frontage, over a mile,
combining both properties, giving a distance
of 2.2 miles, a total assessment of $51,000.
The department refused at the time to con-
sider the purchase yet they could have been
bought for a song, and could have provided
a needed recreation area. The government
could have developed a park similar to the
park across Lake St. Clair on the American
side, the metropolitan Huron park authority,
an outstanding park development, and we
still should duplicate that on the Canadian
side, not for our American friends, but for
Canadians.
If you follow the Doxiades report, which
mentions that the area of Minneapolis-St.
Paul right through to Montreal, and on to
New York City, will be one large megalopolis,
you can see that we should be acquiring all
available park land and lakeshore land im-
mediately. Now, the Minister may say that
the land does not have enough depth. In
some cases it might be within 100 feet of
the waterline, true enough, but if you send
your oflScials to study the development across
the lake, the Detroit metropolitan park auth-
ority there, or Clinton metropolitan park
authority, you can see that we could very
easily do the same tiling on this side. And
I cannot strongly enough urge the Minister
to acquire properties there today. They are
not going to be available in the not-too-
distant future. The land is probably now
ten times as valuable as it was in 1958. We
do have the Holiday beach, and you are
expanding it and we thank you; we appreci-
ate that. But the area keeps growing and
developing, and you are going to have to
provide facilities on the north shore of the
Essex county area.
There are still properties available at the
mouth of the Canard River, and I think you
would want to extend all the efiFort possible
to acquire this property now, even if you do
not develop it today. Acquire it today and
develop it in the future, but let us get
hold of it before the Americans, who have
all kinds of money available and practically
own Essex county. Please get your officials
on the ball and buy the property on the north
shore of Essex county and the south shore
of the Detroit River. Have your oflficials
come there. You promised us that you were
going to visit the area prior to the election,
Mr. Minister, and it looks kind of phoney;
but if you come after, you sort of look askance
at us. The election is over. I will be glad
to take you around the county, and show
you the land available. For heaven's sake,
let us buy up some of this land.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I agree with the hon.
member that we need more park land areas
in that beautiful Windsor area, and I cer-
tainly was very sincere in my intentions to
visit the area last summer, but for various
reasons which he knows, time did not permit.
But I can promise you that I will be going
there this summer. My officials are very
familiar with the area, and we have at the
present time, under negotiation, another
acquisition of more than 380,000 acres. Also,
the Surf club property was well used by
members, but it is now less used, and a meet-
ing is planned with this group in the not-
too-distant future. The parks integration
board has approved negotiations for the
acquisition of the Brissette property at the
Ruscomb River. The Gignac has been looked
at very closely and our people feel that the
Gignac property is not the most suitable.
However, again, as I said, we are giving the
area our attention, and this summer I will
get in touch with the hon. member when I
am in the area.
Mr. B. Newman: The Gignac property may
not be the most suitable because of its lack-
ing depth, but if you will get across the river
4878
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and see what they have done with a similar
amount and see how they have brought in
the sand from the shallow depths of Lake
St. Clair, and have extended the park well
out— we could do the same thing. We could
build a tremendous park in the area for the
future citizenry, so if you cannot find some-
thing else, we will take the Gignac, or the
Gignac property rather. But do have your
oflBcials take the thing seriously. Let us not
have this come up as an election promise in
1971.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to bring this up at this time also. The hon.
member for Windsor-Walkerville has done
this very capably over the last few years. I
think that time is catching up on us as far as
available property is concerned and I do not
think that we can keep looking around. We
are going to have to take action. The popu-
lation of the city of Windsor is now 190,000,
and of course we have accesses from the
United States for about 2 million people
from the Detroit area, and a large group of
them do come across into Essex county. The
population of Essex county is about 90,000
and it is in an area that is increasing greatly
year by year. The land is getting scarcer
year by year. Now, on the north shore of
Essex county, there are a number of town-
ships that go along there, and Maidstone
township, where I have the honour of living
myself, has practically no shore line left now.
There is one private beach that is operated
during the summer months, and I think it
has about 500 feet of frontage. There is one
other private one, that has about 1,000 feet
of frontage, and looks like it may be closed
up and sold for building lots. And I do not
think this should happen. I think this land
should be bought by the province. Our own
township bought a park only last year, but
we stayed off the lake because of the cost for
a small municipailty.
Lake frontage, of course, we know, is
rather high-priced now, but with people
using it from all over the area, it is really
the responsibility of the province, and not of
the local municipality to furnish these lake-
side parks. Now I hear people say that they
are too small, but I think that these parks,
as small as they may be, can no doubt do,
someone can handle the one I am thinking
of, that may close up. It has handled as high
as 1,000 people in a day without any trouble.
The swimming is good, and this could be
developed into a nice day park. It seems
rather a shame to see these things just let
go back into private hands where the people
will never have access to the lake.
We have about 40 miles of frontage there
along Lake St. Clair, and it is really a shame
to see this going so that the public does not
have some use of it. Farther down there are
some areas in Rochester township. Tilbury
North township; and I am sure that there
could very easily be at least a half-mile of
beach picked up there at a reasonable price
to make this area into a beautiful day park.
I do not believe there is room as I have
heard mentioned from the department for
facilities like camp sites and trailer parks
and so forth. I do not think we need that so
much in that area probably as we do need
some day parks, and I think the most im-
portant part is for the province to buy the
property and have it, because the trend of
the property in that area— they are buying it
up something fierce, all the land in tiiere
and people are moving out from Windsor
areas. The lake frontage is choice property,
and it just is a shame that we sit back and
let this beautiful land go into private hands.
I think we should maintain this for our
futiu-e generations, and I think the govern-
ment should take immediate steps to do so,
even if they have to expropriate this prop-
erty, at a reasonable price. But whatever
method they will have to negotiate to buy
it, I am sure that it would be better to buy
it now, than five years from now. It is not
going to get any cheaper. We could have
bought it, of course, in the 1930s for $1 a
lot, but however, that was a time that no-
one had $1 to spend. This is a time that
we should be buying it, and with the popu-
lation of say, 280,000 in Essex county in the
city of Windsor and then with visitors from
the United States, it is solely the responsi-
bility of the province to furnish more of this
park site and not just local municipalities.
I just want to stress very strongly, that this
is very important, that tlie province buy this
land now, and have it available for future
use.
Mr. Chairman: The member for York
Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): During
the Minister's discussion on the operation of
parks he mentioned different classifications of
parks in the interest of people using them.
One of the questions I would hke to ask the
Minister, in this connection, is what plans
there are for acquisition of more sites which
would be suitable for use by water skiers.
JUNE 27, 1968
4879
This is not nature trails, or swimming, but
there are people who would like to have
more public access points for power boats in
areas that are not interfering with normal
swimming and other similar recreational uses.
Maybe in lakes where there are a lot of
power boats already, but it is nearly all
privately held property. Is there boat pro-
vision made for additional access points into
lakes suitable for water skiing—
Hon. Mr. Brunelle. It is quite true that
there is an increasing demand for facilities
for water skiers. We have, for instance, ap-
proximately 381 access points located on
various lakes, and we are spending $300,000
to develop these access points. I would think
these would be areas that could be used for
water skiers.
As the hon. member mentioned with refer-
ence to otir park classification, each provin-
cial park is in the process of having a master
plan, and in this master plan, of course, we
are giving recreational areas as one of the
main aspects that we are looking into. I can
assure the hon. member that we will certainly
do all we can to provide water skiing for this
increase in numbers.
Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister be able to tell us if he does have
lists of such access points? Is there any place
where people interested in this type of
recreation can find out where they can most
conveniently use their power boats and do
water skiing?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would be pleased,
Mr. Chairman, to send the hon. member a
list of access points where water skiing could
be carried out. Again, if I may refer to a
master plan for each provincial park, once
we have this information then we will have
considerably more information to give to park
users in each park, as they arrive, or as they
write to the department. Those who are
mainly interested in, say, water skiing can
go to certain areas, and those who are mainly
interested in nature trails or other forms of
recreation can go to others.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1114; the member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I would like
to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, the
amount of money that is already spent in
land acquisition for the Bruce peninsula park
development?
Hon. Mr. Bnmelle: Mr. Chairman, we will
get this information for the hon. member.
The amount of money spent in just parkland
acquisition in Bruce peninsula?
Mr. Sargent: Well, the thing is, that there
are a number of headaches for people in-
volved up there. You pay fabulous amounts
of money to outside interests for acquiring
parkland and the people who are involved
there do not get a fair shake. The farmers
do not get a fair shake when they sell their
land. A case in point was an individual who
had 119 acres listed for $21,000 with a real-
tor, and he is walking around the peninsula
showing off a cheque from you people for
$500. You expropriated the land. You gave
him $500 for it and he vvill not cash the
cheque. Here is a man who has land worth
$21,000 and you walk in and take the land.
You give him $500 and it is worth $21,000.
He has your cheque, and will never cash the
cheque. What kind of an operation are you
carrying on? It is a despicable operation be-
cause of the way they treat people from
there on up. It is hard to believe what goes
on.
A contractor up in that same development
had the contract for gravel and hauling and
they went out and spent a large amount of
money in acquiring heavy truck equipment on
finance. All of a sudden you call off the proj-
ect, and because you allegedly ran out of
money. The man had previously a good op-
eration and had to lose all his equipment and
lose his business, because of the way you
operate up there. I would like to know what
you are paying for land. How much money
do you plan to spend, and—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have a point
of order. It is pretty hard to take coming
from the member for Kenora—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: I think that you should have
this information available, Mr. Minister. We
are not a bit happy at the way you are
handling things up there. Your public rela-
tions is very bad. You have been up there a
lot yourself, and I think should. You probably
tried to bolster the PR. Your presence there
has been good for the operation, but I think
you are playing dirty pool on a lot of occa-
sions up there in a lot of cases. So let us
have some information on what you are
paying for the land and how much money
you have spent.
4880
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Bi^unelle: Mr. Chairman, as the
hon. member knows, the acquisition of land
is carried out with The Department of PubHc
Works, and we are in the process of getting
the information he wanted.
Mr. Sargent: Well, what recourse has a
citizen when you walk in and take his land?
It was listed for $21,000 and you give him
a cheque for $500. What kind of an opera-
tion is this? You can dodge this and say it
is Public Works, but you are the motivator, it
is your project that is going on, why do you
not play square with people?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, gen-
erally speaking I think the government has
been paying, I would say, very good prices
for land acquisition, and I am surprised to
hear—
Mr. BuUbrook: Good from whose point of
Mr. Sargent: That is good— from whose
point of view is it good?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I said earlier, we
are getting this specific information and as I
also said, land acquisition comes under The
Department of Public Works. They are the
ones who negotiate.
Mr. Sargent: What are your plans for
future development in the peninsula?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, the peninsula is
certainly one of the very attractive parts of
this great province of Ontario and the
Niagara escarpment committee is carrying
out a major proposal. As I mentioned a day
or so ago Professor Gaetler's report will be
available some time within the next two
months.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Chairman, I have one or two questions in
relation to Holiday beach provincial park
and their land acquisition programme in that
area.
First I might like to underline the com-
ments of my two Liberal colleagues in rela-
tion to acquisition of land in the north part
of Essex county. Some seven or eight years
ago when I was president of the county
tourist association and regional tourist associa-
tion, we did have very intensive tours by the
previous Minister of this department in this
area looking at sites. I would hope that this
Minister, when he does come down into our
part of the province, will take a close look
at this area for two or three reasons. Most
of these have been already mentioned, but I
would point out the proximity of rail service
in that area might lend itself to a GO transit
operation out of the city of Windsor for a
day park use. This has potential. Further, in
my own part of the county, in the south, our
hrghways are quite clogged with vehicles at
the present time and a park established at the
north might help relieve some of this con-
gestion, while we are proceeding to construct
a major highway in the area.
Turning to the southern part of the county,
I wonder what further plans the parks in-
tegration board has in acquiring more lands
or possibly islands out in Lake Erie as pro-
vincial park sites or holding areas? Specifi-
cally I realize that you have acquired the
Dr. King property adjacent to Holiday beach
provincial park, but there has been an ex-
propriation going on for approximately two
years by Public Works on property owned by
one Mr. Hlavac. I wonder if anything can
be expedited by this department to bring
this to a successful conclusion? The only
other point on this particular park is that I
recall vividly the previous Minister, when
visiting that park some three years ago, in-
dicated that they may put a hard surface on
the gravel roadways in that area because of
the dust problems. I wonder if the Minister
could comment at this point?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr, Chairman, it is
quite true, when the hon. member mentions
that this is an area where more beach land
is necessary. We are taking steps to acquire
more beach land. For instance, the Dr. King
property, of several hundred acres, has been
acquired, and presently we are negotiating
for the Hlavac property.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, some years
ago a committee of the Wei land county
council came to Queen's Park and made
representations with regard to a beach park
that would be established involving that con-
troversial Sherkston beach. They were in-
formed at the time, by people who purported
to be speaking with knowledge if not on
behalf of the parks integration board, that a
recommendation had been made by the parks
integration board for purchase of the neces-
sary land and the establishment of a beach
park there. But the whole project seems to
have died, disappeared, drifted off into
limbo; nothing more has happened. My
question to the Minister is: Is there any
active contemplation of that request from the
Welland county council for a beach park in
the Lake Erie area in the southern part of
Welland county?
JUNE 27, 1968
4881
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I am
not familiar with this proposal. I am fairly
familiar with the Sherkston beach and there
are people who feel that we should acquire
this. Our figures indicate that 90 per cent
of the users are Americans. We feel that to
acquire this would cost several millions of
dollars— more than $2 million, I believe— that
if we did acquire this, it would not add to
the beach land area. All it would do really
would be to subsidize the Americans, be-
cause, as I said, 90 per cent of the users are
Americans. What we are doing is acquiring
beach land on adjacent areas, adjoining areas,
and we have under negotiation several areas,
but the cost, as you can imagine, is very high.
Mr. MacDonald: As was indicated in one
of the studies that was done, they pointed
out that most of the other areas along the
Great Lakes had beach parks, not just involv-
ing the beach but including some hinterland,
so that there would be an opportunity for
cottage development and things of that
nature.
At the moment, I am interested in the
Minister's figure that 90 per cent of the
people using the Sherkston beach are Ameri-
cans. It is alleged that the take by the pri-
vate operators is in the range of $40,000 to
$50,000 a week, by charges of $1 per person
coming in in the cars tliere, so that the feel-
ing around is that it is a real gold mine by
a private operator who has been given this
concession. But it is not just the beach, it
is getting back into a park area as well as
the beach. So you would have some native
development, if I may describe it as such,
of cottages and concessions and things of
that nature back off the beach itself.
I judge from what the Minister says that
there is nothing contemplated there. But
there are neighbouring beaches and I pre-
sume he wants to play it close to the vest
until he has acquired the land. Am I cor-
rect, or can you give us specific information
as to where other developments and pur-
chases are contemplated?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am advised that near
the west side of Bertie township there is an
excellent American-owned half mile of beach
that the province is presently in the process
of acquiring. This will be developed as a
provincial park for public use.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the Minister how much has been
spent on access points along the shore of
Lake Superior, and at what locations was
the money spent, and if he has not spent
any, does he intend spending any?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I would
be pleased to have this information sent over
to the hon. member.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask the hon. Minister whether he is ac-
quainted with Ouimet canyon, about 40
miles east of Port Arthur?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not, but I will
be going to Port Arthur within the next
month.
Mr. Knight: I would like to call it to the
hon. Minister's attention, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause while I admit not having been there
myself in years, I have heard so much about
this natural attraction. Scenically, they say
it is the Grand canyon of Canada, that it is
just a fabulous sight that has sat there for
many years.
One of the things that was brought to my
attention, Mr. Chairman— and perhaps the
Minister will have a chance to look into this
or examine it from this aspect— is that appar-
ently the approach to the canyon is on the
wrong side of the canyon. An oldtimer who
has lived around that area for quite a few
years tells me if there would be some way
of getting the tourist into the other side of
the canyon, it would be something that the
people really would talk about, because it is
a fabulous sight, a fabulous area.
I am not necessarily suggesting the de-
partment should make a provincial park out
of it, but I think there should be some
attempt made to conserve it in its present
state and to attract more attention to it,
possibly some co-operative effort with The
Department of Tourism and Information. It
is one of our really big attractions up there,
and if it is promoted in the proper way, it
will become something like the sleeping
giant that we have in Sibley park, the land
mass that lies out in Thunder Bay there. I
wanted to call that to the Minister's attention.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chainnan, I am
advised that it is a wilderness area and we
will look into the hon. member's suggestion.
Mr. B. Newman: I would like to speak on
the development of a park and I am going
to refer to the Holiday beach in the Essex
county area. I would like, if it were possible,
Mr. Chairman, and I think it is, for you to
have that park developed so that it could
have winter use; you have an excellent
facilitv' there and the use in the winter is
4882
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
very limited. As you know, the Essex county
is all flat— the city of Windsor, in an attempt
to provide recreation for its residents, is
building a ski hill. And I would suggest to
the Minister that maybe, over a period of
time, we would develop a hill in that park
so that the residents of the county would
likewise have an area which they could use
in the winter time and possibly even use for
skiing. You know you look upon Essex
county area as being the sunshine parlour; you
figure there is no winter skiing whatsoever;
yet you go 30 miles north of Windsor into
the state of Michigan just outside the city of
Detroit and there are large ski resort areas
developed, and most of them using artificial
snow. I think the Holiday beach area could
be developed into some type of a ski area
after a fashion so that you could get year-
round use out of the facility there rather
than simply summer and springtime use. I
would like to ask the Minister if the depart-
ment is acquiring any water fowl areas in
the county, in the adjacent area? The federal
authorities, I understand, have purchased or
leased 12,000 acres. We happen to be the
only county, or one of the few counties that
does not have a conservation authority. And
because we do not have a conservation
authority in Essex county there is no way of
acquiring the land by the municipalities,
whereas the provincial authorities, maybe, in
co-operation with the federal authorities,
could acquire water fowl areas and in that
way have an area that could be put to use
by the hunters.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, with
reference to the hon. member's suggestion
about year-round recreation, it is quite true
we are giving a lot of thought to opening
some of our parks on a year-round basis,
especially today with the emphasis on snow-
mobiles. This is an area where we are doing
something; in fact, we are spending this year
about $300,000 or $400,000 to provide snow-
mobile trails in some of our parks. As far as
developing a ski hill is concerned, I think we
would have to take a close look at this, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. B. Newman: All you need is a hill, sir,
you need nothing else. Look in the city of
Windsor and see what they have done with
a pile of garbage by building a hill there. I
think once you see tliat you will be more
than pleased to copy the idea.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): And Toronto will
supply the garbage— we have lots of it sitting
around right now.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to
water fowl acquisitions, it appears that we
do not have any water fowl acquisition in
that area.
Mr. B. Newman: I did not hear that; there
were no water fowl areas being acquired
whatsoever?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, that is right but
there is some excellent water fowl hunting
not too far away from Windsor at Long
Point, near Rondeau Park and other areas
nearby.
Mr. B. Newman: There are other areas in
the county, but they are privately owned;
they are owned by our friends north of us
and as a result our own residents cannot do
any hunting in these areas. Has the Minister
ever considered a different level of fees for
park use? You see we have Point Pelee
national park. The admission to that park
is 25 cents. Your park is $L50. Where would
you go, Mr. Chairman? You woTild go to
Point Pelee would you not?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The hon. member will
agree the federal government is spending—
I believe their budget for parks is about $23
million, and therefore they can afford to
provide these services at a much lesser
Mr. B. Newman: Yes, but you see, the
$L50 fee has put the park out of the reach
of many.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, $L
Mr. B. Newman: Even a dollar— the at-
tendance dropped in the park last year,
whereas Point Pelee national park attend-
ance increased. If it was not last year, it was
the year before. And why did it increase at
Point Pelee and decrease in your area? Be-
cause a dollar is a lot of money for a family
when they can drive a little distance farther
and pay only 25 cents.
Vote 1114 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates for The Department of Lands and
Forests.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chair-
man, before these estimates commence, I want
to rise on a point of privilege. Since it is so
JUNE 27, 1968
4883
close to 6 o'clock, I would prefer to raise
this point at 8 o'clock when I will have some
additional information. Call it 6 o'clock?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): It is only 5 to
6.
Mr. Singer: No, it is two minutes to 6
according to the clock. So I would suggest to
you sir, that you can call it 6 o'clock or not,
because my point will take several minutes
to expand upon.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I think that would be
desirable— I have had no notice of this. If
you would just outline what the nature of
the point is, then we can continue.
Mr. Singer: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to
present it as a whole. I think there is no
point in commencing on a matter that affects
the privileges of all members of the House,
at a time when you are going to adjourn the
House, in one or two minutes from now.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I might say to the
member that the point of personal privilege
should not be raised in the committee of
supply. If it is a point of order dealing with
the estimates before us, then, of course, we
may consider the point of order, but a point
of privilege concerning the privileges of any
individual members or the members collec-
tively cannot be raised in committee of
supply, and we are here, in committee of
supply, dealing only with the estimates be-
fore us.
Mr. Singer: Well, I draw your attention,
sir, on a point of order, to rule No. 50 of the
rules of this House which says: "When-
ever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be
taken into consideration immediately." Now
"immediately" is now.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well, that is the point
I was trying to get at. "Immediately" is now.
Mr. Singer: All right; there is no point
doing something that is going to take ten
minutes to deliver when there is only one
minute available.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: You said that now is
two hours and some time from now.
Mr. Chaimuui: Of course, it is tlie Chair-
man's opinion that tlie committee is dealing
only widi the estimates and any point of
order pertaining to the estimates may be
raised by any member. A point of personal
privilege, which is clearly defined, has noth-
ing to do with the estimates and therefore
the Chairman has no alternative but to rule
the introduction of the point of privilege out
of order.
Mr. Singer: Well, with great respect, sir,
then I would ask that we appeal your ruling,
and that we call in the Speaker to rule on
this and I again refer to rule No. 50.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): We are in
committee.
Mr. Singer: The rules of tlie House apply
to committee and I would like you to quote
some authority that indicates otherwise.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman has indi-
cated that the particular rule to which the
member refers does not refer to the com-
mittee of supply and we have no authority
to deal witli any matters pertaining to any-
thing other than the estimates.
Mr. Singer: Then I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Chairman: It being 6 o'clock, I do
now leave the chair and we shall resume
at 8 o'clock.
No. 130
ONTARIO
Hegisilature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, June 27, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 27, 1968
Estimates, Department of the Attorney General, Mr. Wishart, continued 4887
Point of privilege, Mr. Singer 4887
Estimates, Department of the Attorney General, Mr. Wishart, continued 4892
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 4917
4887
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Continued)
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Chairman, at
the opening of this evening's session we are
in the estimates of the Attorney General; and
I wish to move that the committee of supply
rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, and I
charge, sir, that the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) has breached the privileges of this
House in two ways.
First of all, sir, you will recall that yester-
day I posed a question with written notice,
the question was not in fact asked, it was
question number 12 in my list of some 14
questions and after some discussion we
agreed that the question would not be put
yesterday.
The question read this way: "Will the
Attorney General advise whether those inves-
tigating the series of events which led to this
action"— that was the action concerning the
two magistrates we have been discussing—
^'indulged in wire tapping and listened in on
telephone conversations of any of the per-
sons involved in these incidents?"
That was (a) part; and (b) part: "If so,
who amongst those who will be charged
with criminal offences or will be subject to
public inquiries had their telephone calls
listened into, on how many occasions, when;
if so, on whose authority did the wire tap-
ping take place?"
As I say, sir, as a result of those discus-
sions and relying on some of the things you
Thursday, June 27, 1968
said in the discussions that we had, I agreed
with you that in view of the fact that the
Attorney General had announced details of
certain orders in council passed, that the
putting of that question in that form would
be in breach of the sub judice rule and, there-
fore, I withdrew it.
However, I did today pose a different
question and that question was asked. You
and I discussed that this morning and that
question was asked in this form: "Will the
Attorney General advise on how many occa-
sions in the last three months, in the muni-
cipality of Metropohtan Toronto, has wire
tapping been used in the course of police
investigations, (b) Give the details of each
of these occasions, (c) On whose authority
was wire tapping used on each of these occa-
sions?"
That question, I think, and I think you
agree with me, was within the rules and was
not in breach of the sub judice rule. The
Attorney General answered that question in
in this way and I have copied from the
Hansard proof, his exact words:
I have knowledge of only one instance. This is
relating to the question of wire tapping, the circum-
stances of which I do not propose to reveal at this
time.
And that was his complete answer to that
question.
Subsequently, the Attorney General went
out into the corridors, spoke to members of
the news media and appeared on television.
I watched him on television tonight and he
conveyed to the news media and to television
information that he was not prepared to dis-
close to this House.
I will not just rely on what I saw on tele-
vision at 6:45 this evening. I have here the
final edition of the Toronto Daily Star and in
the upper right hand corner headed, "Test
Case for Commission— Police Say They Tap-
ped Telephones in Magistrates' Case". Under
the by-line of Gwynn Thomas, Daily Star
writer, these words appear:
Outside the Legislature, the Attorney
General, Arthur Wishart, said wire tapping
was used in the magistrates case although
their telephones were not tapped. He said
police [this is in quotation marks] used
4888
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
electronic devices to pick up certain mes-
sages on the phones of certain criminals
during the investigation.
The story goes on and the implication is that
the commission is going to have to rule on
the admissibility or not.
Now I say that the privileges of this House
have been abused in two ways.
The first way is that the Attorney General
chose to convey to the news media informa-
tion that he was not prepared to give to this
House, in fact, that he denied to this House.
I refer to the 17th edition of May at page
377, headed, "Raising Matters of Privilege
in the Commons", these words appear:
Proceedings have been interrupted to
allow the raising of a communication to
the newspaper of a memorandum explana-
tory of the bill which will be introduced
the next day, after the memorandum has
been presented, but before it was avail-
able to the members.
Now, that is the exact parallel, but surely,
sir, the principle is tliere. What happened in
the House of Commons on that occasion, I
am advised, is that Lloyd George, who was
the Prime Minister of the day, had conveyed
to the news media certain information relat-
ing to a bill at a time when he thought that
the members would have it prior to it being
released to the press. In fact what hap-
pend on that day was that the news media
got it at four o'clock, and tlie members were
not given it until ten.
The end result of that case was that the
Speaker in the House of Commons in Eng-
land ruled that the action was wrong, and
the Prime Minister of the day apologized to
the House for that breach. Now, this is much
more serious, sir. This is not just conveying
to the news media information in advance
of the time that it was going to be conveyed
to the members of the House. This incident
is the conveyance to the news media of infor-
mation diat was specifically denied the mem-
bers of this House, and, as I say, in doing
that the Attorney General seriously breached
the privilege of all the members of this
House.
The second point that I want to make is
this. We know about the sub judice rule, and
I was prepared to accept your ruling, sir, as
I did, and the Attorney General's answer to
my question today, while he did not say so,
I concluded from his answer that the reason
he used the words "Which I do not propose
to reveal at this time" was because it re-
lated to a matter which was the subject of
a public inquiry, and an investigation under
section tliree of The Magistrates Act. I was
prepared to accept that because of the sub
judice rule.
Now, as I say, what the Attorney General
has done is to breach the sub judice rule.
He has gone out and told the news media
about evidence that will be presented at the
Royal commission, and he has perhaps
prejudiced the hearings of that sitting.
May I draw a parallel? If this sort of
thing appeared in a criminal trial, where a
judge and jury were listening to the evidence,
I feel quite certain that any competent judge
would have called before him the people
responsible for this, given them his views
of the sort of discussion that can take place
while the trial was going on and probably
dismissed the jury. It probably would have
been ample cause for mistrial.
Now, of all people in the province, the
Attorney General, least of all, should be one
that either will destroy the privileges of the
members of this House, or secondly, breach
an important rule of this House. I say the
privileges have been breached, and that the
Attorney General should be brought before
the Bar of this House, and dealt with ac-
cordingly.
Mr. Speaker: The matter which has been
raised by the member for Downsview is one
which normally and ordinarily I would wish
to take under consideration. But in view of
the fact that the estimates of The Depart-
ment of the Attorney General are presently,
or were recently and will shortly be, before
the committee of the whole House, it would
appear to me that this matter should be dealt
with forthwith.
Not knowing, of course, the reason for
tlie member stating, before the committee
rose at 6 o'clock, he had a point of personal
privilege, I nevertheless had the opportunity
of consulting with the authorities. I am
pleased to see that the procedures outlined
in our rules and expounded in May, and
about which I have been advised by the
preceding Speaker, who is very good with
these matters, and the clerk, I am pleased
to see that we have followed the proper
procedure.
I think, therefore, that it is only right at
this time that as the member of this House-
that is, the member for Downsview— has
stated that the Attorney General should be
given the opportunity to speak on the point
that has been raised by the member: for
JUNE 27, 1968
Downsview; therefore I would give tlie floor
to the Attorney General.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker,
before the Attorney General speaks, and
on a point of order, I would believe that it
would be correct to designate it thus. I
think that the member for Downsview, quite
properly, referred to sections from May
dealing with the procedure by which the
matter would be brought before the House
when the House was sitting in committee.
I do not think that it had anything to do
with the substance of the question and I
question very clearly, whether the hon. mem-
ber for Downsview has in fact, established
a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It
would appear to me that, in the light of his
remarks, the first step that Mr. Speaker
.should take would be to decide whether he
has a prima facie case of breach of any of
the privileges of the member of the House.
I listened to what the member for Downs-
view had to say very carefully, and I must
confess that the sense of the breach of my
privilege escaped me entirely. I would there-
fore ask if you would decide, in the hght of
what the member for Downsview has said,
and before the Attorney General is required
to reply, whether in fact there is a prima
facie case of breach of privilege made out
by the member for Downsview.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale
has taken his point well.
With respect to the (b) part of the member
for Downsview's submission, I do not think
that there has been a prima facie case made
out, in my opinion. With respect to the part
(a) of his submission, it is my opinion that
there is sufficient— if not a prima facie case,
because there is quite an area between a
prima facie case and a proven case— if not a
prima facie case, enough has been said on the
subject by the member for Downsview to
make it seem reasonable to me that the mem-
ber about whose actions he has complained
to Mr. Speaker in this House should be given
the opportunity to speak to the matter. I
would so again yield him the floor, particu-
larly with respect to point (a) raised by the
miember for Downsview.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would submit
first that there is no real point of privilege
here at all, but I welcome the opportunity
to deal with the question raised by the hon.
member for Downsview, which he calls a
point of privilege. - .
He is quite correct when he says that the
question that he had designed yesterday with
regard to wire tapping was not asked. Today,
in this House, he did submit the question,
which was his number 4, I believe: "Would
tlie Attorney General advise on how many
occasions in the last three months in the
municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has
wire tapping been used in the course of
police investigation?" He is quite correct in
stating the ans-wer I gave, which was: "I
have knowledge of only one instance, the
circumstances of which I will not reveal at
tliis time." And that one instance, Mr.
Speaker, was this instance, the subject of
this public inquiry, the whole matter, and
that is the only instance. That is the only
situation of which I have knowledge.
At the time I answered that question, Mr.
Speaker, I did not know that any publicity
had been given from any other source on the
matter of wire tapping. Shortly after I had
answered that question, perhaps an hour
later, I was outside the House, and I saw
this paper, the Toronto Daily Star of today,
the four star edition, which had this head-
line: "Test Case for Commission— Police Say
They Tapped Phones in Magistrates Case."
The press approached me and asked me if
this was so, and I then confirmed it. It was
then public knowledge, but I restrained and
restricted myself to saying that the only case,
to my knowledge, was this instance, as I had
answered in the House.
I went this much further, Mr. Speaker,
because there seemed to be some specula-
tion that the magistrates' phones had been
tapped. I took the occasion to say that so
far as my knowledge runs, there was no
tapping of the phones of the two magistrates
in question. I felt that was fair, proper, and
advisable to say. Had I known that this
information was public at the time I was
answering the question in the House, if it
was then public, I would have perhaps been
free to give detail to the extent that I gave
it outside the House. I said the phone of a
criminal person with a criminal record had
been tapped, or at least had been tapped by
electronic means.
That I said, Mr. Speaker. This edition
which I saw does not carry any comment of
an interview with me, as to what the At-
torney General said outside the House. In
the edition from which the hon. member
quotes; "the Attorney General said outside
the House," that must be a later edition, and
I did say what I have said now outside the
House.. I answered the question of the hon.
4890
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member in the House to the extent I felt
proper at the time. I confirmed the matter,
since it had become pubhc knowledge to the
press outside. This was really a confirmation
of what I said in the House. I have knowl-
edge of this instance. At that time I did not
wish to give details. The only detail I gave
was that the magistrate's phone had not
been tapped but that the phone of some
person with a criminal record had been
tapped.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the
second part of the hon. member's complaint,
the question of privilege, as to the matter of
the inquiry being sub judice, I agree with
him entirely that it is entirely sub judice.
To make any comment on evidence, to say
anything about the content of what was ob-
tained by the tapping, would have been com-
pletely out of order, would have been a
breach, which I did not make.
To merely say that the phone had been
tapped, I think was what I had said in the
House. I have no intention of denying mem-
bers in the House knowledge of anything
which was said outside, I made no comment
on the type of evidence, or the nature of the
evidence, except to say when I was asked,
what the evidence is. I said this type of evi-
dence will be for the commisison to weigh
and decide its weight. I did not say what it
was or make any comment upon it.
So I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I have broken
no rule of this House or treated these mem-
bers with any prejudice; certainly I had no
intention of doing so. If your honour should
rule that I have, I would be the first, sir, to
say if I did, it was not intentional. I do not
think I did breach any rule of the House or
any rule of privilege. I think I have made no
comment in the House or outside the House
which would be prejudicial to this inquiry.
No comment of mine will be found to ex-
press any opinion as to weight, value or
nature of evidence except the way it was
taken, which I admitted to the House in
answer to the question of the hon. members
there was an instance of wire tapping. That
is all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I would say only
this: I do not suggest the Attorney General
did this with evil intent. I suggest that he
talks too much.
I suggest, sir, that he had no right— and I
suggest this in all seriousness and it emanates
from everything he has said— he had no right
to go outside the confines of this House, no
matter what appeared in the newspapers, and
to tell the press or to tell the news media
something that he was not prepared to tell
the members of this House. That, sir, is a
serious breach of privilege.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): That comes
from the member with ill grace.
Mr. Speaker: It is quite apparent to me,
and I presume to the members of the House,
that Mdth respect to the second part of the
submission of the member for Downsview
there would not appear to be any basis in
fact for the same and I would reject it.
With respect to the first part, I think the
Attorney General has been most unwise. I
think he would have been much better ad-
vised, having found in the interests of appear-
ing to have justice done in the province and
having made the statement which he felt was
necessary under those circumstances to the
press, tliat he should have made the occasion
to report to this House similar things to those
which he had told the press, which he could
have done at the beginning of the estimates
of that department.
However, it is also quite apparent that, so
far as the Attorney General is concerned,
there was no premeditation and it was one of
those things which can happen to any mem-
ber, or even a Minister of the Crown. It has
not caused any serious harm to the privileges
of the members of tliis House. I agree some-
what with the member for Riverdale, that
except technically, there has been no breach
of the privileges of the members of this
House.
Therefore, I do not feel that this is a case
where I should find that the Minister has
breached the privileges of this House and I
would hope that, with the explanations and
discussions which we have had up to now,
that the House will be able to resume its
work in committee and deal with the im-
portant business of the House and of the
province.
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, before the
order is called— j
Interjections by hon. members. j
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, before the il
order is called, I wonder if the Speaker would ''
take under consideration and advise us, at his
convenience, of whether or not the so-called
sub judice rule applies to this kind of an in-
quiry. I am not an expert on the rules, but
I have looked a litde bit at May and it would
appear to me to be restricted solely to matters
before a court of law— criminal matters fronH
il
JUNE 27, 1968
4891
the time they are instituted and civil matters
from the time at which the particular action
is set down for trial.
It has been customary here, I think, to use
the term sub judice loosely and inaccurately,
perhaps by all sides of the House. And I
question, under the reading as I have it in
May, whether the reference by the govern-
ment under The Public Inquiries Act or under
The Magistrates Act in the appointment of a
judge to hold that wide-ranging investigation
is, in fact, a matter which is sub judice.
I note that, apart from criminal cases in
courts of law and civil cases, May, 17th
edition, on page 454, refers only to one other
type of matter which could be considered
sub judice. I quote very briefly: "The ban
also applies in the case of any judicial body".
I assume that the judge in this case would be
considered a judicial body. But that is
hmited in the following way, and I continue
the quotation-
Mr. Singer: May I ask the hon. member
what page?
Mr. J. Renwick: Page 454.
Mr. Singer: The 17th edition?
Mr. J. Renwick: I think so. Yes, 17th
edition. If I may just continue to quote:
To which the House has expressly re-
referred a specific matter for decision and
report from the time when the resolution
of the House is passed but ceases to have
effect as soon as the report is laid before
the House.
It would appear to me that if this matter
were referred after debate in this House by
resolution of this House for a judicial inquiry
the rule would apply. But the government
has, in this instance and in past instances,
chosen not to bring the matter forward as a
resolution to be debated in this House as to
the terms of reference, both in the inquiry
relating to the then chief coroner in Metro-
politan Toronto— the present member for High
Park (Mr. Shulman)— and in this instance. I
would respectfully submit and request your
ruling, at your convenience, that this matter,
having been referred to a Supreme Court
judge under The Magistrates Act, and in the
case of Magistrate Bannon under The Public
Inquiries Act, is not a matter which is sub
judice.
I would make this other comment that I
think it would be quite in order for discussion
in the House to be ruled out of order, but not
because it is sub judice, simply because it is
being better and more expeditiously handled
elsewhere, which is a different point from
being sub judice. We tend to use sub judice
as a cloak rather than as a mechanism for
furthering the intelligent discussion of politi-
cal affairs.
As I say, I can see the matter being ruled
out of order on a different ground if it
made sense to do so in a specific instance.
It may not be a blanket rule but, generally
speaking, not a matter properly to be de-
bated. But I am very reluctant, particularly
so long as we sit in opposition, to see the
term sub judice used loosely as a method
of cloaking what, to my mind, are matters
which may well in various of their implica-
tions be matters which should be debated
in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker: May I first of all say I am
pleased that the member for Riverdale is in
good voice again and able to use his voice,
because there are many times when he does
bring to the House interesting comments.
I enjoyed the one just now where he quali-
fied his statement by the words "so long as
we are on this side of the House". I thought
that was a gem and I wish to commend him
on the manner in which he placed his point
of order.
I must say, that I was prepared earlier
today to deal with this particular point
because it is a matter which was in discus-
sion earlier. I had then a ruling, I think by
Mr. Speaker Morrow, with respect to it which
is not at the moment available to me but
I would be most pleased to deal with that
matter, I hope, by tomorrow morning. My
recollection of the ruling in somewhat similar
cases was that the sub judice rule has been
extended, by this House, to cover such ^
commissions and authorities appointed under ,
the two Acts, or similar Acts referred to by
the member. But this is one point that I f
will take under consideration and endeavour
to deal with tomorrow.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, in so
doing, would you please give the House \,
your opinion on distinction between a judge I
and a persona designata? \
Mr. Speaker: I would be pleased to bear
that submission in mind.
Clerk of the House: The 18th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
( Continued )
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, it is
again my privilege and responsibility to pre-
sent to this Legislature the estimates for The
Department of the Attorney General for the
year 1968-69.
It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to
review in detail the financial operations of
my department for the previous year since,
I believe, all of this has become apparent to
the Legislature through the public accounts
committee which devoted considerable time
to a review of my department at approxi-
mately ten meetings which were devoted to
this subject over the past months. These
recent meetings with the standing committee
on public accounts were perhaps the most
exhaustive that have been held in recent
years, certainly as far as my own department
is concerned and I should advise this House,
Mr. Chairman, that we considered it a privi-
lege and a very worthwhile experience to
be able to spend that amount of time with
the members of the Legislature who sat on
that committee. The civil servants who had
the opportimity of explaining the operations
in which they are involved and of answering
the pertinent questions of the members of
the committee found the comments and con-
structive criticisms not only helpful but
encouraging. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the
exhaustive review which we had in this other
forum will, in some way, shorten the pro-
cedings at this time since, no doubt, many
of the members have already received
information which will obviate the necessity
for pursuing some of the matters that have
already been discussed,
I feel that it might be helpful to the hen.
members if I did pursue for just a moment
the various principles inherent in the office
of the Minister of Justice and Attorney Gen-
eral since these principles, in my ov^oi view,
provide the context within which I attempt
to discharge my responsibilities. I am sure
that if the hon. members understand these
principles they will be able to consider in
a more constructive sense the estimates
which I will shortly place before them for
their consideration.
The office which I have the privilege to
hold has always been singular in its difficul-
ties because of the variety of responsibilities
which the unfortunate or fortunate incum-
bent must discharge to the government, the
Legislature, the people of the province and
the administration of justice. It was only
three hundred years ago, a relatively short
time in our constitutional history, that the
attitude of the members of the House of
Commons in the United Kingdom evolved
to an extent that would permit the Attorney
General to take a seat in the House of Com-
mons because up until that time he had
always been considered an adviser to the
House of Lords and tlie Crown rather than
to the Commons. We all recall that at the
opening of every session of this Legislature
the justices of the Supreme Court assemble
with us to receive the Speech from the
Throne. At one time the law officers of the
Crown were summoned to attend at Parlia-
ment in the same capacity as the judges of
the Supreme Court, for all of these legally
trained people were summoned to attend,
not as council members but rather as
advisers.
This brief excursion into history demon-
strates two of the major capacities which
the present law officers of the Crown must
discharge in our own province. This dual-
ism in his participation in the affairs of the
state has been recognized for hundreds of
years and is still recognized frequently both
in Canada and in the United Kingdom. The
law officer today must, on matters of law,
adopt an attitude of independence so that
he may speak as a lawyer advising the Legis-
lature and not as a politician supporting the
government's position. The Rt. Hon. Harold
Wilson, when he was leader of the Opposi-
tion at Westminster, put it very well in 1963
when he said, and I quote,
The Attorney General, whoever he may
be, is not only the legal adviser to the
Crown and to the government. He is also
the servant of the House. It is, from time
to time, his duty to advise the House on
legal matters— a duty going beyond his
responsibility to the government and to
the Crown—
At the same time, however, the Attorney
General as a member of the government has
a political responsibility and must share in
the collective responsibility of the govern-
ment. Sir Hartly Shawcross, after his expe-
rience as the chief law officer of tlie Crown
in the United Kingdom stated.
Rut whilst participation in party politics,
and, of course, a share in the collective
responsibility of the government for action
that is taken, are normally incidental to
the office of the Attorney General, it re-
mains the clearest rule that in the dis-
JUNE 27, 1968
4893
charge of his legal and discretionary
duties the Attorney General is completely
divorced from party political considera-
tions and from any kind of political con-
trol.
I mention these principles, Mr. Chairman,
because I have conscientiously attempted
over my period of service to provide inde-
pendent and accurate legal advice wherever
possible and have attempted, to the best of
my abilities, to maintain an independence in
the operation of my oflBce as a servant of this
Legislature in order that all of the hon.
members may have such assistance as I may
offer, inadequate though it may be.
However, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it
is singular within the provinces of Canada
that the responsibilities of the Attorney Gen-
eral extend beyond the duality that exists in
the United Kingdom, for in Ontario the Min-
ister of Justice and Attorney General also
assumes the responsibilities of the Secretary
of State for Home Affairs which office exists
in the government at Westminster upon
which our parliamentary system is estab-
lished.
Thus we find that in addition to the re-
sponsibilities as chief law officer, our Attor-
ney General also has the responsibility for
the administration of the courts, the admin-
istration of a large police force and the addi-
tional administrative responsibilities for the
operation of so many offices such as the
registry and land titles offices and the cor-
oners' offices, and many other agencies asso-
ciated with the courts, the public safety and
the public protection.
The responsibility inherent in the duties I
have just outlined is perhaps one of the
highest responsibilities which a member of
this Legislature may discharge, for these
matters represent the administration of jus-
tice which is the basis for our whole social
structure. My responsibility in this arena
must be more political, in the higher sense
of that word, and it is here that every mem-
ber of this Legislature will share in express-
ing those comments that are needed in order
that our system for the administration of
justice may reflect the needs of our growing
society.
A further responsibility which, in my own
view, is different from those to which I have
already referred, is that which the chief law
officer has, to ensure the independent prosecu-
tion of offenders under the criminal law.
Here again the responsibility must be com-
pletely divorced from any political or
governmental considerations and the discre-
tion which the chief law officer has must be
exercised without any executive interference.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, governments have
been defeated where a question has arisen
as to the possibility of executive interference
in the exercise of the discretion of the chief
law officer of the Crown. The Lalx)ur govern-
ment of Great Britain in 1924 was defeated
largely as a result of a question that arose at
that time about the Campbell case, when it
was alleged that there had been an inter-
ference by the government with the approach
which Sir Patrick Hastings took to a case
when he was serving as Attorney General.
This question arose in the prosecution of
Thomas Paine in 1793 when Sir John Scott,
the then Attorney General, was conducting
that particular prosecution for sedition. In
the classical language of the English bar Sir
John Scott stated the proposition then, but
I repeat it since it is valid in this Legislature
today.
The Attorney General must discharge his
duty in criminal prosecutions by a con-
scientious pursuance of his own judgment,
which may well be guided by the opinions
and advice of many persons in all stations
of life, but he must ultimately be guided
by his own conscience for he alone is
ultimately responsible.
That is the end of the quotation.
Within the context of these principles, Mr.
Chairman, and as a member of the govern-
ment, as an independent legal adviser to this
Legislature, as an independent prosecutor for
the Crown and as the supervisor of the ad-
ministration of justice I would now proceed
to review with this Legislature my proposed
estimates for the ensuing year.
I am sure that the hon. members will
recognize that there is an increase in the
estimates of $20,712,500, exclusive of the
Ontario provincial pohce force. Of this very
substantial increase, approximately $14
million is represented by the costs we will
incur with the assumption of the responsi-
bility for the financing of the administration
of justice throughout this province. This, of
course, is a most significant step forward and
the hon. members are all familiar with the
principles relative to this programme since
these have been discussed in substantial
detail during the passage of the various bills
which have been introduced to accomplish
this ultimate objective. I should note, Mr.
Chairman, that this substantial increase does
not include the anticipated cost relative to
the buildings that house the administration of
4894
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
justice throughout Ontario and that particular
cost will be reflected in the estimates of The
Department of Public Works which has the
responsibility for that portion of this pro-
gramme.
The legal aid fund represents the second
largest area of increase in these estimates
and the hon. members will note that we are
seeking the sum of $6 million this year to
sustain the legal aid plan as compared with
the $2 million which was provided last year.
I do wish to make just a few comments
respecting the legal aid plan, Mr. Chairman,
but before leaving the matter of the increase
in our estimates may I point out that the
additional increase of $2 million is almost
completely represented by the rising costs
with which we are all faced and does not
represent any expansion of any significant
size in any of the other programmes of the
department. While our total complement is
now approximately 3,700 persons as com-
pared with approximately 2,300 persons as of
the end of 1967 I would point out that we
are only seeking 40 additional positions for
the department despite tremendously in-
creased responsibility demonstrated by the
additional work that is entailed in the
assumption of all of the outside offices related
to the administration of justice.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, just for a
moment revert to the legal aid plan may I
say that in the opinion of those who have
worked with it the plan has been a sub-
stantial and significant contribution to the
administration of justice in this province.
While it has entailed the expenditure of
public moneys, I would hope that all of the
hon. members would recognize with me that
the plan has made available to all persons
in this province tliat legal assistance which
is so desirable in our present society.
I believe that a few brief statistics might
be interesting to the hon. members at this
time.
During the year ending March 31, 1968
54,760 applications were received for legal
aid in Ontario, and of this number 51,424
were referred to the welfare officers for
consideration. Provisional certificates, which
are those certificates issued prior to the
welfare investigation, were issued in 9,550
cases primarily to those in need of advice in
criminal matters of a highly emergent nature.
Certificates of eligibility which permits the
individual to proceed with his legal matter
were issued in 38,860 cases approximately
45 per cent of which were criminal in nature.
The balance of the applications for which
certificates have not yet been issued are
still being considered as at any given time
there must always be a number of applica-
tions which have not yet been completely
dealt with by the legal aid plan.
Of the total number of cases in which
certificates have been issued approximately
5,281 are cases in which the applicant is
contributing to some extent towards his own
legal assistance so that in 14 per cent of the
cases we do have this participation by the
applicant.
One other area which I feel is exceedingly
important in our system of legal aid is that
relating to the duty counsel who appears in
every criminal court in the province as well
as in most of the civil courts and who is
available to persons who are appearing for
the first time and have not yet had the
opportunity of retaining counsel. Over the
last year these duty counsel have represented
67,204 individuals of whom 52,668 were
appearing in our criminal courts.
While statistics are often misleading, I do
feel, Mr. Chairman, that these figures repre-
sent how effective the legal aid plan has
been in bringing legal assistance to those
people in this province who might not other-
wise have had it available to them. The cost
has not been as substantial as some people
have anticipated although I must acknowl-
edge that the cost is increasing and will
perhaps continue to increase as the plan
develops. However, the benefits received by
our citizens from the plan, I feel, far out-
weigh the expenses which have accrued and
with the continuing co-operaiton and contri-
bution of the legal profession I am sure this
plan will continue to be the outstanding
system of legal aid, botli on this continent
and abroad.
May I now present to this Legislature, Mr.
Chairman, the estimates for The Department
of the Attorney General for the year 1968-
1969.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Mr. Chair-
man, might I first take this opportunity of
commending the Attorney General in con-
nection with his comments and prepared
statement that he furnished us, his col-
leagues, with this evening. I was most taken
with his historical approach. I had the op-
portunity of reading Hansard for the last
three or four years and I think this is some-
what of a novel approach towards the pres-
entation of his estimates.
JUNE 27, 1968
4895
I want to make some comment also during
the course of perhaps my opening remarks,
but certainly when we come to digest the
expenditure of $6.7 million in connection
with the legal aid system. I believe the gov-
ernment is generally to be complimented in
connection with this somewhat unique and,
I would say, far-sighted approach towards
the necessary application of the principle of
a just society, at least in this province, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like to attempt to assure my col-
leagues that I will not be too long. I believe
there have been some arrangements, Mr.
Chairman, between our leaders in connec-
tion with the length of the opening state-
ments.
I must say that I feel, having digested
somewhat those remarks that have been
made by my predecessors in this present
responsibility, that there is somewhat of a
burden on me tonight that I do not entirely
accept with joy, and that is I feel that to
criticize The Department of the Attorney
General and mainly The Department of the
Minister of Justice of this province is a deli-
cate task in itself.
Every member of this Legislature, Mr.
Chairman, I am sure feels a responsibility at
all times in no way showing any disposition
towards disrespect either to the administra-
tion of justice or to the bench of this prov-
ince, no matter what level. And I would
hope my colleagues in the profession here in
the House would agree with me—that when
you have a background in the legal profes-
sion you recognize this responsibility even
more so.
Over and above that, I must confess that
the responsibility to criticize this department,
aside from those matters that I just men-
tioned, is a diflScult one because we are deal-
ing here with a fine gentleman who occupies
this position of responsibility.
However, be that as it may, I have taken
issue with him in the past, and I am sure
I will continue to take issue with him. I sat
here tonight listening to his explanation in
connection with those unfortunate circum-
stances that transpired between the hours of
two o'clock this afternoon and eight o'clock,
and I must say— and I say it most respectfully
—that his rationalization of his position in this
connection was in my opinion quite thin.
However, what has happened since my
predecessor rose in this House in 1967 to the
present time has, in my opinion, been some-
what of an evolutionary and revolutionary
year in the administration of justice.
Here in the province of Ontario we have
seen many things happen, but more im-
portantly I suggest to my colleagues here,
that in the Parliament of Canada we have
seen things happen. Finally, Mr. Chairman,
Hamurabbi has been laid to rest and the
concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth is leaving the thought of the law and
the legislators of this great Dominion of ours,
and very nearly time, I put it, very nearly
time.
And I say this to you, sir, also, that I can
well nigh not contain my entiiuslasm for what
is happening in our great country and in our
province. The concept of new approaches
to the problems of abortion, the fact that
finally we are tearing ourselves away from the
ridiculous skirts of undue philosophical and
theological rationalization of positions.
I should leave this type of comment to my
great colleague, the Montesquieu from Lake-
shore, but I do have to say this: I think, Mr.
Chairman, this shows a vitalization in our
approach to life. Thank God that shortly a
man in this great country can say yes, I want
the wife of my five children to live, and
thank God that finally we are getting to a
situation where he can say that and it is not
against the law.
And I say thank God finally the legislators
of this country and this House, we ourselves,
are looking at a new approach to divorce;
thank God, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attor-
ney General, thank God he and I do not have
to look at the charade of adultery before the
justices of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Thank God— and I do not mean this to be
unduly political— that we are finally looking at
a situation of social justice in the Dominion
of Canada.
This is really what we have been looking
at in the last year. It has taken a great deal
of courage, but the people of this country, I
think, are reciprocating to this attitude. And
I wanted to make this comment because I
feel quite sincerely, vigorously about it, it is
very nearly time, sir, that we have had leader-
ship of tliis nature.
We, too, in this House here, although I
will say that our role primarily is a technical
role- we do not have the opportunities I think
because of the constitutional aspect of things,
to look at the very foundation of criminal
matters— I think our role is more one of ad-
ministration and supervision.
I think we can take pride in this govern-
ment and we in our position, because as you
look at Hansard, the majority of things that
have happened have been initiated right here
4896
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on tliis side of the House. I think we can
take pride in the attitude that has flown
from our four reports that have been tabled
thus far by the Ontario law reform commis-
sion. I do not think there is any doubt on
that question.
As I said before, Hansard discloses that
some three years ago this whole concept
came from this side of the House; this need
to look at these measures. Absolutely.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): And they
came from this party 10 years ago.
Mr. BuUbrook: I had practically the author-
ity from High Park once to say something.
What was that?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): The hon. member for High
Park figures you could not have thought of it
before he got here.
Mr. BuUbrook: Right!
In any event we can take pride in tlie
legislation that is coming to finality now in
connection with tlie elevation of our provin-
cial courts. This has been a thing that was
sadly needed. I am going to make mention
afterwards of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that
of course, the elevation of names, the chang-
ing of the name from a magistrate to a judge
and the elevation of his compensation does
not always assure justice. I recognize, sir, as
we all do, that you cannot always legislate
compassion, and we cannot always assure the
milk of human kindness on the bench,
although this is a responsibility that I feel
the Attorney General at times rationalizes
himself out of.
I am going to discuss one situation that I
think is absolutely flagrant and shocking that
was before this House in the month of April.
I recognize that this is a sincere attempt that,
together with the administration of the justice
bill, itself a sincere attempt to upgrade the
facility, upgrade the type of talent that is
available to us. We do need, there is no doubt
about it.
If I might be pennitted for one moment,
Mr. Chairman, to comment on something that
bothers me, as a new member of this House,
relatively new, but in connection with the
administration of justice I would like Hansard
to record this. I think the time has come to
the province of Ontario that in connection
with our supreme court justices, we have got
to stop calling them "lordships." There are
no lords in Ontario. This is anglicizing this
thing too much.
In my short experience before the bench,
the thing that we need more than anything
else is to bring to the attention of the pubhc
that those people who sit on that bench are
human beings, and that there is no fear to
be judged, because they are going to be
judged with equity, and with compassion.
Some of the trappings that surround the
bench, especially on the supreme court
level, bother me. This business of "our
lord." I know what is meant by it. We
want to convey the degree of respect that is
due to the bench. I know that is what we
want, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, I think
we go a little too far. We took the wigs oflE
them, and I think we should get down to
some common denominator, such as "your
honour," and perhaps a little less of the re-
finements that they are clothed with now.
Some of them— this is the delicate point
that I was talking about, this is very diflBcuIt
for me to say— but some of them really think
they are clothed with the mantle of the deity
when they go on tlie bench. They really do.
It is just awful. Some of them when they
go up there, and sit on that bench, from
then on it is complete omniscience. They
never make a mistake. They know every-
thing, and they never make a mistake. In-
fallible as corrected— however, I digress.
The most significent thing that happened
during the course of tlie last year, of course,
was the publication of the report by Mr.
McRuer on civil rights. That is a monu-
mental cornerstone as far as the operation
of justice in this province is concerned.
Chapters 61 to 64 dwell entirely on the
function, responsibility and the office of
Attorney General. A person could spend at
least two hours digesting the attitude and
the approach of Mr. McRuer to the office of
Attorney General. I commend it to every-
one in this House. I know the Attorney
General has read it because it exemplifies
itself in the statement that he made here
previously. But the main thing that I want
to bring to the attention of this House, and
I think the most important feature of that
which Mr. McRuer said is the question of
the responsibility of the Attorney General in
connection witli advising on legislation.
I must say this— that I have been some-
what shocked at times at the draftsmanship
of some of the laws presented to us and
frankly at the attempt at conveying the sub-
stance of the law in the bills that are pre-
sented to us. On five occasions I have risen
in this House— and I have counted them in
Hansard— on five occasions I have risen in
JUNE 27, 1968
4897
this House, and taken technical issue with
various interpretations of statutes that have
been put before us. I hate to say that on not
one occasion have I been right, because
every one of those bills went through with-
out any amendment as I suggested. Not
once in this House have I been right. But
every time out in the corridor I have been
right, every time.
This gets us to the point that the Attorney
General mentioned, and I suggest this to
you— the responsibility to be above party
politics in connection with legislative inter-
pretation. I must say that I find you fall
short there; with respect, you do fall short.
There are times when I feel that it
stretches even your capabilities to rationalize
that side of the House out of problems that
they find themselves in— legal problems that
they find themselves in. You do a good job
at attempting it, but you have not been able
to convince me on too many occasions.
However, Mr. McRuer, the basic position
taken by him, Mr. Chairman, is that there
has to be a consolidation of legal talent and
legal effort. There is just too much dif-
fusion. He says, on page 955 of his report,
under summary of recommendation on the
role of the Attorney General in government
—I am not going to deal with the first three
of them, they are really minor in nature,
they deal with the operation of Crown
attorneys throughout the province— but he
says, 4: "There should be a legislative
branch of the Attorney General's depart-
ment.'*
Prior to this he had gone into a break-
down of the number of law oflSces of the
Crown that we have here, operating in the
various departments of this government— 5,
he says: "Strict procedure should be adopted
for the preparation of legislative bills." Well,
the departmental Minister should be respon-
sible for the social policy of all bills. "It
should be clearly recognized that the Attor-
ney General is constitutionally responsible
for the legal policy of all the bills." You
have accepted that, but it has not been done
adequately in my submission, Mr. Chairman:
6. When a department proposes new
legislation a memorandum embodying the
principles of legislation should be sub-
mitted for approval to the Cabinet so that
the government's policy may be deter-
mined before the drafting begins.
I am skipping 7—
8. The legal services of the government
should be reorganized so that all legal
services come under the direction of the
Attorney General's department.
This is absolutely essential, Mr. Chairman.
It is very nearly time now.
This government has been prepared to
accept from McRuer some of the recoto-
mendations that seem politically expedient
to accept at that time. But this one is not
going to cause expenditure of a great
amount of money. But the central responsi-
bility for legislative opinion rests with the
Attorney General. And I think in fairness
to him, he must be given this concentricity
of approach that Mr. McRuer recommends.
As I said before, much time can be spent
in discussing Mr. McRuer and his approach
to The Department of the Attorney General.
This will be elaborated upon by my friends
and by myself during the course of the indi-
vidual votes in the estimates of the depart-
ment, but I feel frankly that I want to dwell
at some length on one matter that came up
before this House. And to me, I suggest it
is a typical example of the fact that the
Attorney General goes to great lengths at
times to act as an apologist, not only for the
ineptitude of government policy, but at times
for the bench, when the bench does not
deserve any apologia.
I refer to what I call the Bigelow inci-
dent. I sat here in this back bench, and I
listened to the repartee that went on be-
tween the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha) and the Attorney General in con-
nection with the attitudes and actions of
Magistrate Bigelow and his treatment of
drunks. Perhaps you think, Mr. Chairman,
that I waste the time of the House in bring-
ing this up. But I put it to you this way,
and I say it most respectfully, it has been
said before that that which you do to one of
these, the least of my brethren, you do to
me.
This is the way the Liberal Party feels
about justice. This is why we want to get
into this tonight, because I want to show
you, I want to read into the record, what
happened between the drunks and Magis-
trate Bigelow. Then I want to read again,
the criminal code and I want to read again
the apologia as I call it, of the hon.
Attorney General.
If I might read from tlie Glohc and Mail
of Monday, May 20, headed, "A Day In the
Court of Magistrate S. T. Bigelow, Q.C.:
Excerpts from court proceedings held at
Toronto on May 17 before His Worship
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
S. T. Bigelow, Q.C. D. Johnson appeared
for the Crown; S. Linden was duty counsel.
Mr. Johnson: Number 8 on Your Wor-
ship's hst is Donald Morrison. Is Donald
Morrison liere?
The accused: Here.
Mr. Johnson: How do you intend to
plead?
The accused: Guilty, Your Honour.
Mr. Johnson: Arraign the accused,
please.
And then, the clerk of the court reads the
charge.
The accused: Guilty, sir.
Clerk of the Court: No record.
Mr. Johnson: 1 have nothing unusual in
the circumstances. Your Worship.
The Court: The accused will be fined
$10 or two days.
Mr. Linden: Your Worship, on behalf of
tlie accused may I ask that he have time
to pay his fine?
The Cowt: No time to pay.
Mr. Linden: Your Worship, the accused
man is 40 years of age, he resides at ,
has been there for about three months
your Worship, he works for as dock
loader and he's been employed with that
company for approximately a year. Your
Worship.
The Court: Thank you. Next case please.
Mr. Johnson: Number 11 on Your Wor-
ship's list is David Campbell.
And we go on and in fairness, I wish to
shorten the reading of this and go down to
the third accused-
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): It will not
make any impression if you do not read it all.
Mr. BuHbrook: Well I hesitate not to read
it all because one must read the whole thing.
I think the member for Riverdale is right.
But we continue and keep this in mind, the
duty counsel for whom we are going to vote
$6.7 million — legal aid right — he is there
representing the accused intoxicates. We
finally get down, for example:
The accused: Guilty, Your Honour.
Clerk of the Court: No record. Your
Worship.
Mr. Johnson: Nothing unusual in the cir-
cumstances, Your Worship.
The Court: The accused will be fined
$10 or two days.
Mr. Linden: Your Worship, on behalf
of the accused may I ask that he have
time to pay?
This is the third time now.
The Court: May I save you a little time?
I don't give time to pay on any cfiFence
under The Liquor Control Act.
Mr. Linden: Your Worship, I prefer to
make my submissions. The accused man,
Mr. Campbell, is 56 years of age. He re-
sides at . He's been there for seven
years. Your Worship. He's employed by
as a maintenance mechanic for 2.5
years.
Now here come— in the vernacular— the beau-
tiful remarks of that compassionate man on
the bench. Here they come now:
Why do you make submissions when I
say I don't grant time to pay under The
Liquor Control Act?
Mr. Linden: Your Worship, I feel I
have an obligation to the person whom I
am appearing on behalf.
The Court: You are just wasting your
time.
Mr. Linden: Well with respect—
The Court: And the court's time and
everybody concerned with the court.
Now five more times that happened and let
Hansard also record tlie respect of tlie
member for Sarnia for one Mr. S. Linden,
because what he did that day was take care
of the very responsibility that our profession
and the legal aid system of Ontario gave
liim. Mr. Chairman, that is what he did.
He would not let that man wear him down.
He would not let that magistrate wear him
down, Mr. Chairman. Every time he got
up and spoke on behalf of those accused;
each time attempting to elicit from the bench,
one— an exercise of discretion, which he did
not get and, two— a little bot of compassion,
whicli he did not get. Instead, he got abuse
—that is what he got. He was told in effect:
"Do not waste my time, I have not got time
to listen. These men are really only drunks
and they have been here many, many times
before." Then we are involved, on May 22,
1968, in questions put forward by my col-
league from Sudbury and previously by the
hon. member for High Park in connection
with this report. Frankly I again wish I
could read it all, but you will find it gentle-
men on pages 3196 to 3198 of Hansard.
But what has happened there is that the
Attorney General went over the provisions of
JUNE 27, 1968
4899
section 694 of the code. I want to read this
to you because my friend from Sudbury
could have put this forward much better
on that occasion and this occasion, than I can
tonight, as is his talent and wont. But he
did not have tlie opportunity because this was
during the question period. But the section
694 says:
Where a summary conviction court
directs that an accused pay a fine, the
court shall not at the time the sentence is
imposed, direct that tlie fine be paid forth-
with unless—
Now that is the onus right there placed upon
the court. The court is told not to have the
fine paid forthwith unless one of three things
happen:
(a) The court is satisfied that the con-
victed person is possessed of sufficient
means to enable him to pay the fine forth-
with.
(b) Upon being asked by the court
whether he desires time for payment, the
convicted person does not request such
time or,
(c) For any other special reason, the
court deems it expedient that no time
should be allowed.
Now these words were read and a complete
rationalization taken by the hon. Attorney
General because, in my respectful opinion,
on this occasion the magistrate did not fall
watliin the purview of (a), (b) or (c) or
never attempted to put himself within that
purview. But what was not read that day
was subsection 5 which reads:
The court, in considering whether time
should be allowed for payment, and if so,
for what period shall consider any repre-
sentations made by the accused.
"Shall consider" any representations made by
the accused, not "may consider," not "pre-
judge" the man because he has been con-
victed 68 times before, because, strangely
enough, our system of justice says we do not
care if they have been convicted 68 times
before. The criminal code says we do not
care if they have been convicted 68 times
before and the book says we do not care if
they are a shell of humanity.
As my friend from Sudbury said, of any
people coming before the court who need
some understanding and compassion, it is
these poor drunks. But what did he get— he
got nothing and I suggest, Mr. Chairman,
what the Attorney General said— his statement
is in the record, but he ended up with these
words, and this is why I made up my mind
that I was going to discuss this again at
length. He said:
So far, Mr. Speaker, as I am concerned the
maKistratc in these cases actt-d completely within hi«
jiin.sdiction and in accordance; with proper principleu
which he applied with proper reason and under-
standing.
Those are the great words, with proper reason
and understanding.
I like to think, Mr. Chairman, that the
Attorney General did not write that. I like
to think that somebody within his staff wrote
that and because of the exigencies of the
moment or the burden of his office, he was
not able to fully digest tlie significance of
what he said there before he said it in this
House.
Because those words do not exemplify, to
me, the individual personality and attitude
of the Attorney General here. What they do
exemplify to me, and I say it most resjiect-
fully, is stupidity.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to say it, but
this is stupidity. The criminal code speaks—
and it does not speak equivocally at all; it
tells the magistrate what he has to do. It
gives him no alternative. He must listen to
representations. Not only did this man not
act with proper reason and understanding,
he acted outside the law.
I say this: perhaps I would not act other-
wise, Mr. Chairman. It is a most difficult
task. I went down and sat down there. We
are fortunate in the city of Samia. We have
wonderful accommodation both in our police
and in our court. I sat down there, in these
holes they call magistrate courts here, and
how these magistrates can contain themselves
in many circumstances I do not know. The
very stench of the court is enough, so I can
understand that at times there would perhaps
be lack of compassion, but I must say this:
The magistrate did not act with reason and
understanding; he acted entirely wrong.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): He preferred
horses.
Mr. Bullbrook: And in my opinion, Mr.
Chairman, this is why we must have the
Attorney General at all times diligent for the
rights of the individual. I do not really think
that he meant what he said there. But if he
did, he is entirely wrong. During the course
of the estimates I invite him to debate the
application of 694-4 a, b, and c, and sub-
section 5 to the circumstances that are now
on the record here.
We invite that type of debate. Our main
concern is this— and this is why we wanted
4900
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to put these thoughts on the record here
tonight. The main concern of this party is
that the very essence of justice is the law,
and if tliere is no apphcation of the law, you
do not have justice. We feel frankly that the
very soul of government has to be justice, and
that is why our great concern lies in the
proper application of principles and precepts
of both the law and justice.
Thank you.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor ( Lakeshore ) : Mr. Chair-
man, speaking on behalf of this group, on
tliese estimates, I wish to join with my friend
from Sarnia in basically commending the
Attorney General. I am sure that we will
have some very incisive things to say about
his role and his failure in many regards to live
up to the demands of that high office. I have
four matters which I wish to discuss with you
tonight, Mr. Chairman. One has to do with
the law as a whole, and its effect on the man
in the street, how he regards it, and his re-
action to it.
Second, I would like to deal with what
makes a law sick or healthy or what makes a
system of law, as say, operative in tliis prov-
inc(% healthy or the converse.
Third, I would like to discuss, not to any
great extent or depth but it is central to
McRuer, it is the thing tliat is the spring-
board out of which his report comes, a theory
of separation of powers and how it operates
to make a system healthy or sick.
Fourth, on the role of the Attorney Gen-
eral, I began to mention in the beginning
what is said by Mr. Justice McRuer in this
regard, to bring this fully before the House.
Because really, despite an effort at an earlier
time in the sittings to discuss the principles
and various propositions put forward here in
the three great volumes of McRuer, we have
never really had an opportunity to do so.
Nor will we, in the course of these estimates,
be in any position to really do it at length
and depth. It will take some years to do, but
may we say that all your actions, at least for
the foreseeable future, will unquestionably
be judged against these criteria, these tough
criteria. The man pulls no punches and he
means what he says.
We are very fortunate in the province,
against all the jurisdictions that I can think
of, to have a report on civil liberties. We
think that it might very well become some
sort of a magnum opus for the civilized world,
giving them an index as to what civil
liberties mean in actual practice. In a sense,
the volume, perforce, is too parochial; it is
concerned with the special wording of The
Condominium Act and therefore would lose
some of its universality. Nevertheless, I
know of no other such thorough-going inves-
tigation than this into English and common
law.
To open my first point as to the role of
law in society, I would like to read from
the first page of the new book by the fore-
most, in my opinion, legalist in North
America at this time. Professor Lon Fuller
from Harvard. In his new book entitled
"The Anatomy of the Law," he says as
follows:
To the thoughtful and sensitive citizen,
the law can present itself in a bewildering
array of moods. It can appear as the
highest achievement of civilization, liber-
ating for creative use human resources
otherwise dedicated to destruction. It can
be seen as the foundation of human dig-
nity and freedom, and our best hope for
a peaceful world. In man's capacity to
perceive and legislate against his own de-
fects, we can discern his chief claim to
stand clearly above the animal level.
Philosophers of former ages have not, in-
deed, hesitated to see some kinship with
the divine in man's ability to reorder his
own faulty nature and in effect to recreate
himself by the use of reason.
A shift in mood, and all this bright
glitter surrounding the law can collapse
into dust. Law can become man's badge
of infamy, his confession of ineradicable
perfidy. To say that man can reshape
himself by rules is to confess that he is a
creature who has to put a halter on him-
self before he can live safely with his
fellows. It is something that no other
animal can do, it is something that no
other animal needs to do, for mankind is
tlie only species that chooses its own kind
as its preferred prey. Viewing the law in
this gloomy light, we can gladly share the
dreams of Tolstoy and of Marx, that a
future may come in which men can live
simply and affectionately with one another,
and without the crutch of rules.
The law as seen by a layman— we get the
complaint from the member for Grey-Bruce
from time to time that it is too laboured and
prolix. I would just remind the members of
the House that in any area of human en-
deavour, however or whenever man sets his
mind or hand to a task, he generates a spe-
cial vocabulary and a very definite mode of
speech in approaching it. I think of knitting,
and of the words "purl" and "slip," and I
JUNE 27, 1968
4901
think of golf where they have "bogies" and
birdies," and such things. This is all very
lofty and if you are not inside the game, you
do not know what it is all about.
It is the same thing with the law. I see
no unique position for the law in this way
of things; but nevertheless, the paragraphs
of the law seem to a layman to be too
laboured. There are too many "as ifs" in the
thing, and I agree with him. It can be sim-
phfied, as Mr. McRuer simplifies it in the
course of his great statement.
The witness gets into a witness box and
he cannot and is not allowed and is stopped
in mid-sentence in trying to speak the lan-
guage of everyday life. He tries to give
evidence in the only language in which he
knows how to tell the truth, and what hap-
pens? He is told he is not able to do so.
The law stops him from giving his evidence
in this particular way. To the man on the
street, the law appears as a sort of brute
fact, where it is often more persuasive to
argue that a precedent or rule has been
applied for centuries than that it is either
sensible or just.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said and I
quote:
It is revolting to have no better reason
for a rule than that it was laid down in the
time of Henry IV,
The law, I suppose for many laymen and
members in this chamber, and some of the
lawyers in this chamber, may be to all of us
at some time or other, is very much like the
weather. You try to get in between the rain
drops, or under cover before the lightning
strikes. In this peculiar case the lightning
has an uncommon quality of striking more
than once. One is very vulnerable. It seems
pervasive and unavoidable. It is terrifying
in its effect, and many men feel helpless-
ness on the one side or indifference on the
other before its fatal power.
But it is the work of human minds and
hands; it is as good as the people, as the
people who promulgate it, for the intents
and purposes for which they promulgate it.
It is readily amendable; it is a flexible and
ought to be a flexible interest. The business
of a Kantian worshipping of law as a respect
for something in itself seems to me a simple
reaflBrmation of the status quo and a giving
in to a host of things tliat ought to be
removed.
We must look at the law in a healthy way
and in a moment I think we should take a
look at some of the things that would or
would not make a law healtliy. Fuller says
at page 4:
In an opposing light, law can seem as
the emptiest of sciences; it is all means
and no end; a science frightening in its
adaptabiUty, holding its rough engine ready
to serve all comers who can show the
proper papers. The law has indeed been
said to be the only human study having
no distinctive ends of its own. Where its
ends can be regarded as grounded in
reason, and not brute expressions of
pohtical power, those ends must be derived
not from the law itself but from ethics
and sociology and economics. If it is empty
of ends, the law can hardly be said to be
attractive in the means it employs. At
their best, these means represent measures
designed to restore a condition of social
health, itself not a direct product of law.
At their worst, they involve the deliberate
infliction of pain. Economics has been
described as "the dismal science" but
economics at least deals with the alloca-
tions of scarce goods, while the law
deliberately apportions evils in a world
already over-supplied with suffering.
The indices, I suppose, would be along the
lines that if laws, when they are on the
books are put on the books and ignored, or
put on the books and unenforced; or are put
on the books and are unenforceable. And,
nevertheless, they manage to get themselves
passed and we have many, as you go through
McRuer, in all three categories. Some laws
were passed for straight political reasons and
they were never meant to be studiously and
actually enforced; they were thrown as a
sop to certain interest and pressure groups
in the community.
I suggest to you that up to a point a con-
siderable amount of our Hquor legislation is
precisely of that kind. We all smile behind
our hands at the liquor laws and evade them;
we know this to our intimate knowledge in
this House. And yet, at the same time, we
will hypocritically hold it out to the public
that these things have abiding and overall
effect. Some rather innocent fellow coming
home with a few friends some evening feels
the full impact of that foolish law fall upon
his shoulders and he is convicted and receives
a criminal record. The principal of selec-
tivity is all awry.
And that is the next point I make— that
laws are posed on a selective enforcement
basis, to be only enforced in selected cases,
and this, of course, is applied particularly to
4902
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the laws respecting commercialized gambling
and tlie difficulty of segregating out the bingo
games and the church socials and the little
parties where a few dollars are exchanged
at some card game, over against the big-time
operators.
The law from that point of view is selec-
tively enforced, and it means that people in
authority and in power can ferret out or
single out, for their own uses, individuals
who would otherwise be disregarded. In
other words, it opens itself to abuse. The
whole purpose of law in a democratic society
and the purpose of legislature is to foreclose
those abuses by making the terminology
definite and preventing selective enforcements
of laws.
There are cases of laws which mean sick-
ness in a society where the penalties are dis-
proportionately severe over against the offence.
This happens in a good deal of our legisla-
tion, and I mean we are not particularly
struck by it. But again in McRuer we have
a couple of instances which I probably will
come to in the course of the estimates.
The reason for having severe penalties, of
course, is to use the law as a club, to beat
out confessions from individuals charged
saying: "Well now, you could suffer this
particular sanction, but we will let you off
easy if you tell who your buddies are, or you
will locate your collaborators"— that is an
abuse of the process.
There are many laws not brought before
this Legislature at all. These are made
through the processes of the regulations and
the orders in-council; many commissions and
boards in effect are passing their own laws;
and there is a further defect in all this— and
this is a deep-seated one— a good many of
these laws, with which commissions and
boards are operating, are unavailable to the
legal profession in this province; they are
never published; they are kept in the secret
chambers of Judge Robb's heart.
Nobody knows what is the basis of making
discriminations, of handing down or refusing
people licences. In many cases in the boards
of this province, including— you name them,
you knov/ them as well as I do— the work-
men's compensation board is of the same ilk,
you cannot get reasoned and forthright deci-
sions which have any consistency from a great
number of the boards in this province.
Again, the good judge has pointed this up
in no uncertain language.
I would think that in due course, over the
next few years, we shall see all that altered,
when you get the model code of procedure.
Some types of enforcement in our law
does not so much affect the Attorney Gen-
eral in a way— I am thinking of tlie criminal
code particularly— but which necessarily in-
volve sordid methods of detection and so on.
Those are particularly the case in those so-
called "crimes without victims," where the
crimes of prostitution or trafficking in nar-
cotics, or the homosexuality between con-
senting adults; and it is part of the reason
for the change.
These crimes without victims very seldom
have any prosecuting witnesses available;
they just do not want to testify. And with
that, the police have to use invidious
methods— wire tapping up to a point, and
spying on people, and using various under-
hand ways of ferreting out these offences
and bringing them to light. To the extent
that this happens, the system is sick.
In other words, it involves the police
mechanism in the same sort of underhand
machinations as what they are trying to root
out. Surely this is the sticking of the molas-
ses where it hurts.
There are cases, and this would be the
seventh index of what would make a law
unhealthy, where the Legislature confers
arbitrary and far-reaching powers on a Min-
ister and provides for no review. Now, my
friend from Sarnia has mentioned a number
of cases, but I remember very well when
The Planning Act was before us a few weeks
ago, precisely that situation occurred. There
was no bending back, nor did the chief law
officer of the Crown, here floating a little
above the whole political partisan arena,
intervene.
Did he step forward and say either in
closet so far as I could see, or openly in this
House, that this was a traducing of our
liberties, that the Minister had arrogated to
himself powers and functions which he had
no right to, under any doctrine of common
sense?
The very thing that was done was the
thing that I say that the three volumes were
designed to overcome.
Now, this is fairly common. If there is
any validity or virtue, or if this report is
going to be carried out, then the Attorney
General is going to have to alter his whole
mentality towards his office. He has to no
longer regard himself in the same position
as his Cabinet colleagues. He is above them.
JUNE 27, 1968
4903
He is above them under British justice. He
is above them in our traditions coming
through, in many provinces of this country.
There is an Act which gives them that
authority and it is a unique position, a diffi-
cult position.
He is walking a tightrope every day of
his life. He is the critique, the critic of his
own people, and, therefore, he is allied in a
singular sense with us on the other side of
the Rouse, at least when we are reasonable
and when we are making tlie points well,
and safeguarding the interests of the whole
province, because our interests at that point
meet, coincide, are identical.
I would ask in the future— and if he does
not carry it out in my opinion it should be
brought to your attention very much in the
future— about this particular role that you
must play. I do not think it has ever been
spelled out for the purposes of this House
or the provinces previously. It is now done
in five chapters and there is no reason we
should not start living it.
It may be a bit of an ideal thing, at the
same time that is the whole job, to try to
make it a living reality.
McRuer said in a speech which he gave to
the Empire club some weeks ago that all this
leads to these various failures to observe cer-
tain standards, certain general principles that
must run through our law, that it breeds
disrespect.
Law and authority are not synonymous,
laws that are not based on modem con-
cepts of justice may have to be obeyed,
but they will not be respected. Authority
that is not based on just laws may be
obeyed rather than submit to sanctions,
but it will not be respected, and is not
likely to be obeyed if a way of evasion
can be found. Laws that invite disobedi-
ence are not only bad laws, but promote
disrespect for all law. They infect and
corrupt the whole machinery of law en-
forcement.
We have— and we will come to this— numer-
ous laws in effect in the province of Ontario
which breed precisely this mentality of dis-
respect and rejection and, therefore, infect
the whole system in this province and
society against the laws which would be
inherently just and would demand on that
basis respect of other such laws.
There was an interesting comment made
both by McRuer, and I notice it coming out
in Fuller also. I would just like to mention
it because there is a nostalgic flavour to the
thing, and that has to do with procedure.
You know, there is very little substantive
of law in McRuer's volumes.
The way, he says himself, is the thing;
which is also borne out in what Fuller says
—which I will read in a moment-is that men
as they get older and look more deeply into
the intricacies of the bar, the law which they
love and wish to have; that people come to
and understand and respect along with them.
As you get older the procedure becomes ter-
ribly important, just how things are done,
not so much what is done.
We will assume we are living in a demo-
cratic country, we share a great many things
in common, and we would not expect any-
body to go off on some crazy bender with
the law— you just would not get away with
it anyway. But the fact is that the procedures,
the machinery by which things are achieved,
may be inherently unjust. And the news-
papers and others do not look with that type
of microscope at the operations of the law.
That is precisely our job. And it is McRuer's
job and the whole thing is procedure. One
more contention, as to how the thing ought
to operate in terms of review, towers largely
over any other:
The first question anyone experienced in
dealing with legal problems would ask is
one that would not likely occur to most
laymen at all; it is the question of pro-
cedure. Men who participate in affairs
—whether in politics, law, business or edu-
cation—characteristically become, as their
experience accumulates, increasingly con-
cerned with how things should be done
and not just with what should be done.
One can cite eminent men, including
Senator Paul Douglas and Wilhelm von
Humboldt, who have described a deepen-
ing concern for procedure as the principal
change they underwent between youth and
mature age.
And I say I am sure Mr. Justice McRuer has
never read that, but there is a similar state-
ment to that contained both in the report
itself and on page 15 of the recent speech to
the Empire club. I think the point bears
mentioning.
The third thing that I have been con-
cerned to speak about was a separation of
powers as the focal point in the bringing
about of a healthy legal system. Just to be
philosophical a moment there was mention
by Aristotle of this in his "Politics," but the
great book of Montesquieu on the "Spirit of
4904
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the Laws" contains the foundation for the
modern world.
Now, as McRuer points out— and a number
of others— Montesquieu was all wrong, he did
not understand the British system. He thought
he had borrowed it from the British but the
Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords
thought they had completely distinct judicial
legislative and executory powers. The Lord
Chancellor was judicial officer with high
executory powers. No one pretends that you
can really segregate tliese things; we have
a "mixed system" here in legal affairs, just
as we have a mixed economy; in a complex
society perforce things are mixed. It is a
question of just what is the right mixture to
that particular pudding. It comes down then
to the internal system of checks and balances
which would give the role of the judiciary
against this Legislature its proper scope and
direction. And it is out of this core, out of
trying to segregate them off legitimately— they
ought not to overlap— that McRuer's whole
approach and theory is based. Out of that
particular situation he then generates the
rules and the role of the functions of the
Attorney General's office. He says that the
Attorney General is not as other men, at least,
in his office within our constitutional struc-
ture; his role is not that, his role is above
that and in assessment of that of other
Cabinet Ministers.
As the Attorney General's report tonight
indicates, historically he was not, nor could
he be a member of the House of Commons,
much less a Cabinet Minister. Why? Be-
cause he had several roles, two of which
elevate him or should elevate him above the
day-to-day partisan in-fighting of the political
arena. These two roles stem from the fact
that he is the chief law officer of the Crown
and in this regard I would like to mention
page 932 of "the bible" where— well, let us
just see what McRuer does say. I think at
tiiis stage in the proceedings— this is again
the first opportunity— it should be read into
the record of this House:
Tlie Attorney General is the chief law
officer of the Crown and in that sense is
an officer of the public. It is to him that
the individual must look for the protection
of his civil rights, whether it be through
the enforcement of the criminal law— to
provide adequate protection of the innocent
and ensure as far as possible the just pun-
ishment of the guilty— or whether it be as
guardian of the interests of the public
against legislation that may confer excessive
or oppressive powers on tribunals, bodies
or individuals.
As the chief law officer of the Crown,
the Attorney General performs two main
functions. He is the Queen's attorney and
as such is responsible for the public, as
distinct from the private, prosecution of
offenders, and he is the responsible adviser
of the government with respect to legis-
lation. Historically and traditionally, in the
exercise of these functions, the holder of
the office must exercise a degree of
independence quite different from that
required of any other member of the
Cabinet.
And so in this double sense he occupies a
unique position immediately next to that of
the Premier. He goes on to say that in
Britain and in Canada the sounder view has
evolved and that it is legitimate, good and
proper that he be both a Cabinet Minister and
a member of the House where he is answer-
able for the consequences and the adminis-
tration of justice or its effects on human
rights.
I am more concerned within the limited
time available here at the moment with re-
spect to his second function, that is, the
function as prosecutor and defending the
innocent and prosecuting the guilty with
results. In tliis regard McRuer's chapters 62,
63 and 64 are completely concerned and at
page 934, he says:
The duty of tlie Attorney General to
give legal advice on legislation and to ad-
vise departments of government requires a
lesser degree of independence than his
decision to prosecute or to discontinue a
prosecution. In that capacity he is not, in
the same sense, the adviser of the Queen.
Nevertheless, this function requires a sub-
stantial degree of independence. The
members of the public must be dependent
on the vigilance of the Attorney General
for their protection against legislative in-
vasion of their civil rights. Departments
of government must realize that in advis-
ing on legislation and advising depart-
ments, the Attorney General has a duty
that transcends goverrunent policy, in the
performance of which he is responsible
only to the Legislature. This we shall dis-
cuss in greater detail later.
There are then set forth four functions which
the Attorney General will perform; the first
is that he has supervision of the machinery
of justice, which includes the supervision of
the Ontario provincial police, which I can
JUNE 27, 1968
4905
discuss when we come to those particular
estimates.
The recent series of bilk becomes more
onerous on him— a most onerous responsibil-
ity now in his department with respect to
assuming the costs all the way along the line,
with respect to the operation of the courts.
The second duty tliat is mentioned is with
respect to law enforcement. We could spend
an awful long time on that because it is
divided up into three headings. 1, policing;
2, investigation; and 3, the prosecutioners
themselves.
Under policing, I will say at this stage
only one thing, that— well, I think it is the
most sensible thing to read some McRuer
again. At 727 he says that one of the out-
standing Crown attorneys in Ontario stated
to the commission:
Apparently oflBcers only rarely exercise
any discretion as to whether it is necessary
to arrest a person rather than summons
him. Some simply are not aware that the
discretion exists. Others view arrests as a
sort of pre-trial. Others still view it as
more convenient. Plainly there are too
many unnecessary arrests without a warrant.
He makes the case that the power of arrest
under policing is deeply abused in this prov-
ince. Of course, once they are arrested the
ability to get out on their own recognizance
is a thing that I find to be deeply abused in
the province, too.
We shall come to that in due course.
Turning to investigations— a large part of the
volume from page 383 to 497— over 100
pages— is concerned with investigating the
investigatory powers of this department, and
Mr. McRuer cites instance after instance of
arbitrary and discretionary powers vested in
bodies or persons other than the Legislature,
either directly or indirectly; either by the
Act itself, or it is conferred by regulations.
These are sometimes drawn up by the
subordinate body for their own purposes;
and either by regulations having objective
limitations, or by those with merely subjec-
tive ones. He goes through a whole host of
them for over 300 pages, and gives instance
after instance of deep abuses of authority
and power in this province.
The Attorney General for the next few
years has his job cut out for him.
In this regard, at page 386, he sets forth
the areas in which the investigatory powers
take place, and where the abuses lie, and
without going again very deeply into them,
it has to do with the issuing of summons and
subpoenas and the right to search and seize
people, and to compel people to testify
against themselves in court proceedings, and
they are very wide ranging, impressive
powers right there.
In kind of summary of that situation at
946 he says:
Powers of investigation have been con-
ferred on boards with reckless abandon
without any statutory safeguards as to
non-disclosure of the information obtained
to unauthorized persons. There are at
least 80 statutes which confer such
powers, and in very few is there any re-
striction on the use of the information
gained.
There has been a growing indiflFerence
to the delegation of legislative authority
to the Lieutenant-Governor in council and
other bodies. Repeatedly, power is given
to the Lieutenant-Governor to make regu-
lations respecting any matter necessary or
advisably to carry out effectively the in-
tent and purpose of this Act or any part
thereof. It is a power that is rarely neces-
sary, but it appears with great frequency
in The Conservation Authorities Act.
Then he goes through a whole host of Acts
and so on in which this power is exercised.
Could anything be more incisive, could any-
thing be more categorical as to the almost
flippant disregard of the rights of the citi-
zens of this province in passing such legisla-
tion?
It is a fact that has struck me forcibly
without McRuer, but enforced multiple times
by tlie text of this document, in making a
judgment upon the workings of this depart-
ment as it stands at the present time.
Now, I shall try to bring my remarks to a
close, there are two other matters which he
goes into at some length. I shall just men-
tion them.
His third function of your department, sir,
has to do with the supervision of govern-
ment litigation. He says, and I cannot see
how we can really argue against it, that all
lawyers in the government ought to \ye
brought under your umbrella, supervised by
you, taught those overriding general princi-
ples to safeguard citizens rights in the
province, over against their very special in-
terest in serving their own minister with
limited goals, and without having the fore-
sight to see what the detrimental effects
upon others outside that area be in other
parts of the province and its laws.
4906
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Fourthly, and this is complementary to
bringing the whole of justice and the legal
steps together under your department, and
really is the raison d'Stre of this bringing
together, he argues that to safeguard civil
liberties, the chief law officer of the Crown
in order to be such, must in the last analysis
supervise all legislation.
We are concerned with something much
more than ordinary drafting; we are con-
cerned with legislative supervision. In the
broad sense, the duty of the Attorney
General to supervise legislation imposes on
him a responsibility to the public that
transcends his responsibility to his col-
leagues in the Cabinet. It requires him to
exercise constant vigilance to sustain and
defend the rule of law against depart-
mental attempts to grasp unhampered
arbitrary powers.
Just as the Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. McKeough) acts by the yearning— you
know— to grasp unhampered arbitrary powers
—which may be done in many ways.
Sometimes clear language is used, but
more often subtle devices are resorted to
by incorporating in legislation such phrases
as "if the Minister is satisfied" and "if the
Minister believes", or the inspector. TJiese
devices may be just as eflFective to limit the
authority of the courts to control the exer-
cise of that power conferred as would clear
direct language.
It goes on to considerable extent on that
same theme. To develop this is the whole
intent and purpose of the report. It is an
elixir of good for us. It breaks through into
a new life and its problems. We applaud, we
have a solid foundation, an authoritative
text to point to; something that you accept
and I accept; both of us in a perfectly objec-
tive way we can find in common, so that if
you disregard it, you are disregarding your-
s-elf.
If you bring yourself into contradiction
then you become the laughing stock of the
province, and if this is the case we shall help
to do the laughing.
The Empire day speech if only in closing,
makes reference to Pollack who in one of his
statements in 1882 spoke of "the capricious
orders of a crazy despot." He felt that per-
haps some of these capricious orders were
floating around Ontario, and in the misuse of
the law to serve special interest. This is me
not McRuer. And to private ends, laws, as
McRuer says, are not weapons, but shields
serving to protect and regulate the respective
rights and freedoms and liberties of the indi-
viduals from whom the authority and power
of the state is derived.
One could say, with some emotion, in re-
viewing the thing, that your department and
its role could be improved in very many
ways. One could talk about the operation
of justice and its relation to compassion
which we hear a good deal of these days.
There is a lot of law without any compassion,
and there is an awful lot of compassion
with any law, and I think they are both
equally at fault.
There are mentalities abroad who in their
hardness and callousness with respect to the
role of others will nevertheless as a gracious
act, as a piece of grace, thinking that the
law is obdurate and unable to bend and cruel
—and it ought not to be cruel— thinking that
the laws are necessarily cruel, will out of the
air and out of grace sometimes on a com-
pletely unpredictable basis grant some
clemency. Such are the magistrates' courts
of this province, on more occasions than not.
I may as well end with the great man as
I began, and he says at page 10 of his little
talk on the State of The Individual:
The theory underlining democratic
government is that when Legislators make
the law, tlie rights of the individual will
be safeguarded through public debate and
public vote in the Legislature.
My friend from Samia and I feel, I think I
can say this for him, that they are not
always safeguarded in this Legislature in
public debate. They are ignored and there
is no reason for it. There is no reason we
cannot be bigger than that and be bigger, if
we want, than ourselves. That partisan
political advantage should take on small
jealousies and a narrowness of purpose simply
to protect. I do not know what!
The Minister ought to be able to bend
with reason. His task is a bigger one than
he has given himself, and he could grow into
it and he can confer the greatest benefits
because he has, behind him, all kinds of
support.
Where did we have such a plenitude of
new law making— we will come to the reform
commission as to what v/ork it is doing. The
whole course on family law. The business
that we have with this civil hberties report
before us. The Smith committee report which
we are presently studying. We are blessed
with a plentitude of good work to do, let us^
JUNE 27, 1968
4907
not do it necessarily in any partisan spirit,
at least, where it can be avoided. Really our
purposes are in common.
So he says it is the Legislature, or nowhere
else, that this thing is really done and
when the judges administer justice, the
civil rights of the individual, must be safe-
guarded by the independence and wisdom
of the judges.
I think that in summary, the various points
tliat have been brought to the attention of
the Attorney General, particularly the police
and investigatory powers, should be recapitu-
lated and driven home.
There are great abuses presently, at the
heart of our society, too complacently ac-
cepted. You seem to think over there that
somehow you have come into the promised
land, or you are standing there overlooking
it and maybe never entering, but at least,
you have led the way. I suspect that our
children will judge us on that and that we
are very far from many such things and to
pretend that we should, in all humanity beat
our breasts and say: "That's where the fault
lies." The strength of a man is in acknowl-
edging his fault and not in pluming yourself
on his virtues.
Mr. Chairman: The Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think, Mr. Chairman,
I shall make such comments as might be re-
quired on these remarks as we approach the
individual vote in my estimates.
Mr. Chairman: Very good, sir.
On vote 201:
Mr. V. M. Singer (Dovrasview): Mr. Chair-
man, on vote 201: for a number of years
now my colleague from Sudbury and I have
put forward the view that the Attorney Gen-
eral could be all of the law to all of the
government in Ontario. We have made this
point and we have made it philosophically,
we have made it in a practical way. I think
that we have had some acceptance, at least
in principle, of the fault from this Attorney
General, but very little action is taking place
in this regard.
Our approach to this point, which we think
is a very important one, certainly has been
very substantially fortified by the opinions
given by Mr. McRuer in his report. And
certainly sir, our approach must be obviously
fortified by several incidents that have hap-
pened in this session of this Legislature.
Tlie first one is The Provincial Auctioneers
Act. The others come from The Department
of Agriculture and Food and these are just
points that are particularly outstanding, there
have been others.
You will recall, sir, that the Minister of
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) some
time ago introduced An Act to amend The
Provincial Auctioneers Act. We put forward
the argument that it was bad in principle. It
was a badly drafted Act and gave arbitrary
power to a commissioner. It gave power
which the Legislature had no possibility of
reviewing. There were no appeal procedures
and so on. To the government's credit, the
Act was not proceeded with and it still stands
on the order paper as the first item under
order number seven.
I would hope, sir, that tliat Act in the
form in which it was presented will never
come before this House again.
The second item is The Beef Marketing
Act. I can well recall the hoots and hollers
emanating from the Tory back benches, from
the rural members who suggested that it was
the height of cheek for a I'oronto lawyer to
suggest that there could be something wrong
with an agricultural bill.
Eventually we got through, even despite
the barracking that emanated from the
nether regions and proper safeguards were
written into that bill.
The third item came from The Department
of Health. It arose as a result of a series of
questions concerning a nursing home and the
handling of certain patients in that home,
and to say the least, the procedure was
unusual. I recall, sir, asking the hon. Minis-
ter of Health (Mr. Dymond), if during the
course of his investigations and before he
had decided to embark upon the action that
he took or his officials took, had he consulted
the Attorney General.
The Minister of Health— I give him credit,
he is an honest man— said it just did not
occur to him, but he would do it right away.
He did, and in due course certain charges
were laid. I gather those are going to be
determined or they may have already been
determined. They are coming before the
court or have been dealt with by the court.
The fourth item that I want to mention is
The Planning Act. We had the frightening
bill which gives, to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, the right to amend any zoning bylaw
in any municipality in the province of On-
tario witiiout notice, without hearing and
without assigning reason.
4908
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Well, that Minister— to his discredit— re-
fused to budge an inch from the invidious
position that he had taken, and the govern-
ment majority pushed that bill through the
House, notwithstanding all the criticism that
was levied here and— fascinatingly— the criti-
cism tliat appeared in the important editorial
in the Toronto Telegram, a newspaper that is
not overly well recognized as being quick to
adopt most of the ideas that come from this
side of the House.
However, in that particular editorial the
writer said that they agreed completely wdth
the view that we put forward, that it was an
infamous provision, that no single Minister
of the Crown should ever be given that kind
of power and authority and they hoped, vainly
unfortunately, that the government would
reconsider its position and put in proper safe-
guards if this kind of procedure was going
to become part of our law. As I say, the
government did not see fit to do that.
Now those are four incidents, sir, touching
three departments and there are more. But
those are four of the outstanding ones and
they indicate to me beyond any doubt that
the position we, on this side of the House, the
official Opposition, have taken over the years
is a most valid one.
We cannot have a series of little empires,
little legal empires in all of the 20-odd gov-
ernment depaitments, each one of which
becomes its own authority, each one of which
drafts statutes, each one of which advises its
particular Minister in a difiFerent way and
each one of which— unfortunately on so many
occasions— has no proper understanding or
appreciation of the horrifying responsibility
that that little legal department has in draw-
ing a statute, presenting it to the Minister,
having the Minister put it through Cabinet
counsel and tlien it comes forward with all
the blessing of the majority in this House.
The point is a very simple one, sir. The
point is that there should be one set of legal
advisors for all of the government of Ontario.
If tliat is done as we have recommended,
and as Mr. McRuer has recommended, I
would suggest to you sir, that we would
have a series of statutes on our books that
at least pay substantial concern, interest and
attention to the rights of individuals. Now,
those are four incidents that happened in
this session of this Legislature, and I say
that they never should have come before us
at all.
Again I will give credit to the Ministers
who were responsible and will admit the
first three cases, the Minister of Agriculture,
saw fit to amend one Act before it went
through, to withhold the other one, and it
still sits on the order paper. The Minister of
Health saw fit, when it was drawn to his
attention, to refer the matter to the Attorney
General. The Minister of Municipal Affairs
did not see fit to act at all, except to bull-
doze that Act through the House, and I say
that this is wrong, and unfair to those Min-
isters that they do not have advising them
all of the intelligence and experience of the
chief law officer of the Crown. I wonder if
the Attorney General is prepared to say at
this time whether or not there is any inten-
tion in the mind of the government that this
situation is going to change? If so, when,
and how are the changes going to be brought
about?
Mr. BuIIbrook: Mr. Chairman, does the
Attorney General wish to reply now?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I agree
with the hon. member that it is advisable
and proper that all government legislation
come through and be examined by The De-
partment of the Attorney General as the law
office of the Crown. As a matter of fact, this
generally is the policy of all the legislation
prepared by all the departments to be sub-
mitted to the legislative counsel. There have
been occasions— I think even some of the
cases which the hon. member cited— where
the bills came forward, but the legislative
counsel, who are not critics or makers of
policy, examined the legislation particularly
as to draughtsmanship, and cleared it in that
respect.
There may have been occasions where
they have failed to have the bills submitted
to them, but I think that these are rare. It
is a definite policy of government that the
legislation of departments of govenmient
shall be cleared through the office of the
Attorney General and the legislative counsel.
The legislative counsel are servants of this
Legislature, and they do examine private
members' bills which do not come to the
Attorney General. I think that a Minister
has no right to obstruct them in some things.
I would say, further, tliat I have, of course,
read the recommendations of the McRuer
report, referred to by all the speakers to-
night. We have examined the legislatiwi
related to the office of the Attorney General
or the Minister of Justice in the provinces,
and have our views as to what should be
done to formulate an Act for this province,
which, of course, will not be in this session,
but we are moving in the direction of carry-
ing out those recommendations.
JUNE 27, 1968
4909
I would hope that next time when the
estimates of the Attorney General are before
you you will find that we have accomplished
many of the suggestions that were put for-
ward in that respect. I can only say that I
agree entirely with the comments of the hon.
member and we are trying to achieve the
objective.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I have a few
preliminary questions before I proceed.
I would like to know, under what vote
the inspector of legal officers should be dis-
cussed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Vote 207, Mr. Chair-
man—administration of justice.
Mr. Shulman: Under what vote would the
administration of private detective agencies
come?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That would be the vote
covering the Ontario provincial police, which
is vote 211.
Mr. Shulman: Would the administration of
the law society come under any of the votes
in this particular estimate?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We do not administer
the law society of Upper Canada, if that is
what you refer to.
Mr. Shulman: Are the reports in any way
f of their findings sent to The Department of
i the Attorney General? I am referring to
'^ matters of discipline.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Only with respect to
legal aid; that is administered by the law
society.
Mr. Shulman: Now, one more. Wire tap-
ping—provision or authority for such— would
that come under this particular vote? Would
it come under the Ontario provincial police?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: If we were to discuss
that it would be under vote 210, the Ontario
police commission.
Mr. Shulman: Under vote 201, Mr. Chair-
man, I would hke to make a few remarks
with respect to Royal commissions.
I think that, in this House, I have perhaps
a little closer contact with this particular
animal than the other members, in having
come through one rather interesting Royal
commission. I would like to make one sug-
gestion. It is absolutely essential for a -per-
son who is involved in a Royal commission,
and whose reputation is at stake, to have the
very best legal counsel.
In my innocence and ignorance, I person-
ally entered a Royal commission without
counsel, and very rapidly found that I had
entered an arena without proper weapons.
You should have the best weapons in trying
to fight the machine. Let me say that in
some Royal commissions, the best lawyers in
the world cannot help you, but you should
at least have the benefit of legal counsel,
and the very best legal counsel.
We have seen two Royal commissions
recently in the province— the Timbrell in-
quiry, and my own particular Parker inquiry.
In one case we found that a young lawyer,
young in terms of experience, became pitted
against a very senior member of the legal
society. In my own case, I ultimately ended
up with excellent legal counsel, Ijut the
counsel found himself in the rather difficult
position of fighting an apparently impartial
commission counsel.
The point that I am coming to is that if
you are very poor and you get involved in a
situation like this, as Mrs. Timbrell was, you
are given legal aid. If you are wealthy and
can afford to hire the best you are all right.
But if you happen to be an ordinary citizen
—and in this province we now have two
ordinary citizens who have been thrown into
this situation— you cannot really afiFord to
hire the best and you are pitted against the
very, very best counsel which the govern-
ment will hire at very high prices.
Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): We have
legal aid.
Mr. Shulman: But these men cannot apply
for legal aid. I am not talking about the
poor, but the average individual, so what he
has to do is to either hire a second-rate
counsel, or more likely— because these are
intelligent men, and I will not go into the
details of this case— they will hire the best
counsel, and impoverish themselves.
Today I asked the Attorney General, Mr.
Chairman, if, in a Royal commission, the men
are exonerated, will the government pay the
legal expenses? I hoped, being a just man,
that the Attorney General would have
jumped to his feet and said, "Yes," but he
did not. He said, "We will think about it."
This is not now a matter of these two men
in front of this Royal commission; this is a
matter of principle.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman if I may
be permitted, the comments that the hon.
4910
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
member is making, while I am very glad to
listen to them, apply to our system of legal
proceedings— not only to the commissions,
but before the courts. And he mentioned that
if you are poor— unable to afford to pay legal
counsel, you can get counsel. This is the
whole context, and purpose and scheme which
is carried out under the legal aid plan. If
you are rich, or well-to-do, or fairly well
off, we have not seen fit to supply counsel.
I do not think anyone has ever suggested
that we should supply legal counsel to every-
one. This does not apply to the commission.
And if I might just say, today, I believe Mr.
Justice Grant announced— so it is known to
members of this House— that with respect to
the counsel we are supplying we have not
gone outside the office of the Attorney
General. It will be Mr. Frank Callaghan,
Q.C., one of the senior law officers of my
department.
We do not think, again, of supplying this
to the whole legal system. Persons go before
tlie courts— and I believe this has been before
the House this session as a question— we do
not pay persons if they are brought to the
court and acquitted, either in civil or criminal
matters. Particularly in criminal matters, we
do not pay. There is not a policy— I do not
think it has ever been suggested— that a
person who is tried for an ofiFence or a charge
should be compensated because they are
found not guilty. I think we have never
contemplated going that far.
I think there have been cases where there
has been a mistaken prosecution or an unjust
prosecution. We have contemplated some
compensation in those cases, but the whole
system of our administration of justice does
not contemplate that persons who go to court
on criminal charges and are not, for one
reason or another, found guilty are to be
compensated. This does not apply just to
commissions.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I thank the
Attorney General for his interjection, because
it really makes the very point which I am
coming to and that is that Royal commissions
are not the same as criminal or civil pro-
ceedings. But before I go back to that point,
in relation to what he has just said, I think
perhaps in our system and our just society,
which we hear so much about, perhaps the
Attorney General should be thinking that if
someone has a criminal charge laid against
him and is found not guilty, perhaps their
legal costs should be paid by the state. I
think so. The Attorney General has said no
one has ever suggested it. Well, let me
suggest it now. If someone has been charged
with a criminal act and is found not guilty,
I believe they are not guilty, and if they are
not guilty why are they being punished?
Mr. Kerr: Because there are reasonable
grounds to believe—
Mr. Shulman: Here we see the Conservative
mentality, Mr. Chairman, he says if they are
charged there are reasonable grounds, there-
fore they should be punished. What druck,
what nonsensel
Mr. Kerr: I did not say that.
Mr. Shulman: What nonsense! If a man is
charged and is found not guilty, he is not
guilty, and he should not be punished and
his legal costs should be paid by the state.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
You just bring back the old charge of a
verdict of not proven.
Mr. Shulman: Obviously they do not under-
stand.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: To come back to Royal
commissions. Royal commissions, unfortun-
ately or fortunately, are a little different
from criminal charges. In a criminal charge,
we have not two adversaries, I like to believe,
but we have a lawyer for the person who is
charged and a Crown attorney whose job
should not be to provide a conviction, but
whose job it should be to produce the truth,
and I think by and large our Crown attorneys
do that.
So that we do not have this fantastic
adversary situation where a very high-priced
lawyer— and we have seen this in this prov-
ince very recently— is doing his damndest to
condemn a man, while on the other side the
person involved is fighting back with his own
legal help to clear himself.
This is the entire diflFerence. You have
the adversary system here. The same princi-
ple applies really as when a criminal charge
is laid. If a man, and again as an example
I will refer to tlie Royal commission coming
up now, if a man suddenly finds himself in-
volved in a Royal commission, and it may
very well be they may be involved in a Royal
commission through no fault of their own, and
if subsequently the person at the head of
tliat Royal commission exonerates or finds
correct these people, surely it is not unreason-
JUNE 27, 1968
4911
able for the state to pay the legal expenses of
the person involved.
And let me say there is not a great deal
of money involved here because, thank good-
ness, we do not have that many Royal com-
missions. When we do have Royal commis-
sions, many of them are fact-finding com-
missions, they are not this rather horrible
type which we see once or twice every year
foisted upon us by the Conservative govern-
ment. Most of them are honest, fact-finding
commissions, but some of them have political
purposes.
Mr. Kerr: Will this change be retroactive?
Mr. Shulman: That is not a bad idea. Let
me say I have no desire for any retroactivity.
I was quite able in my own case to manage
things.
Similarly, in the other Royal commission
which came up last year there was legal aid
which looked after a woman involved. But
the Royal commission that is coming up now
typifies tlie injustice of this situation.
I can very well foresee where a man may
be bankrupted or hterally spend his entire
5, savings in an eflFort to protect himself. Let me
t tell you about the costs of lawyers, we have
heard a great deal about lawyers in this
House, well, I have some comments about
I lawyers, the cost of lawyers is beyond all
I reasonableness.
Mr. D. M. De Monte ( Dovercourt ) : Oh,
stop it, that is ridiculous.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: We have other professions
—the lawyers are getting a little upset, and
with good reason, they have good reason to
get upset.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): They are
almost as good as the doctors.
Mr. Shulman: Doctors, I think, are as
reasonably well trained as lawyers. They take
as many years in school, they take longer in
post-graduate work, and yet their fees come
nowhere near that of the top lawyers.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. De Monte: When are we going to get
back on the issue here?
On a point of order, has this anything to
do with the estimates?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. De Monte t On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman. I suggest that the hon. member
for High Park stick to the estimates. We are
sick and tired of hearing this—
Mr. Chairman: In the opinion of the chair,
the member does not have a point of order.
The member for High Park may proceed.
Mr. Shulman: It seems that some of the
members, Mr. Chairman, are a little touchy
on one particular subject and with good
reason. However, for the benefit of the mem-
bers, since he does not understand, I will
explain. I am talking about Royal commis-
sions, that is item 4 of vote 201, it is in the
estimates.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: Gel on to medi-
cine, doctor.
Mr. Shulman: We will get to that in an-
other estimate.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: Stick to medicine.
Mr. Shulman: The point I am making is
under Royal commissions, and I hope that the
Attorney General will take it more seriously
than the backbench lawyers who do not
understand the problem, and that is that this
is a serious problem. It can be a very serious
injustice, and I request the Attorney General,
I ask him humbly, will he reconsider his stand
on this particular matter, because surely if a
man is found innocent he should not be
punished.
Mr. Chairman: I believe the member
directed a question to the Attorney General?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I did, sir.
Mr. Chairman: Would the Attorney Gen-
eral Hke to reply at this particular time?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I could take the matter
under consideration.
Mr. Shulman: I thank the Attorney Gen-
eral, I appreciate tliat.
I just have one further brief question under
this vote. I see in the pubUc accounts of the
province of Ontario for the year ended March
31, 1967, that we have spent up to that point
some $750,000 on the Atlantic Acceptance
investigation. May I ask at what time we can
expect some results from this investigation?
It seems to have been going on for a very
long time. When will the findings be down?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: From what I am aware,
Mr. Chairman, of the extent and the pro-
gress of this commission, I would not expect
4912
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Justice Hughes to make his report cer-
tainly before the end of this year I am doubt-
ful if we might receive it in this year. I
would think it ought to be along shortly after.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, if I might
just digress for a moment, I do not want to
unduly personalize, but I do feel that I would
like to record to this House one personal
comment in defence of the profession.
In October of 1966, I defended-
Mr. Chairman: On vote 201?
Mr. Bullbrook: Vote 201. You permitted
some aspersion to be cast upon our profession
by the hon. member for High Park.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might say this to you,
that month of October I spent five days de-
fending a young lady for murder. It cost me
approximately $426 in investigatory fees and
I was not paid one red cent for defending that
lady for murder.
Now, the point I make is this, not for self-
adulation, but before our legal aid system
came in, I would like the hon. member for
High Park to know that many of us served
without fees and expense out of our own
pocket in connection with serving the public.
I know the hon. member for Riverdale
serves many of his constituents and other
people here in Metropolitan Toronto without
charge. Perhaps our services are worth that,
I do not know.
But, you know, one has to say this, this
digresses somewhat from vote 201, but the
hon. member for High Park is a veritable
"Thesaurus" on everything. He knows every-
thing, really.
I was taking the car down to the hotel
tonight and I heard a news flash. "Flash—
Dr. Shulman, member for High Park, is going
to bring in a resolution tomorrow morning
in connection with wire-tapping."
Now this is—
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Have
we not had enough? To quote yourself from
an hour or so ago: Have we not had enough?
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 201 carried?
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I want to
continue if I might-
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I have not said any-
thing yet, really.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Bullbrook: First of all, just a very
minor matter. I am interested from a finan-
cial point of view here as I analyze your
estimates previously under this 201 item.
You estimated in 1966-1967 $368,000; you
of $97,000; you spent $389,722 as I see it
You estimated in 1966- 1967 $368,000; you
spent $679,968. I believe your estimate last
year was $428,000, and this year, aside from
statutory, it is $254,000.
It seems to me, respectfully, and this
might have been before your term, I am not
certain, but your estimating of your expendi-
ture on main office seems to be far from
actual. I am wondering if you have any
idea what your actual was last year as it
relates to your estimates, and I am wonder-
ing also, if you are not taking a less than
realistic approach in connection with your
expenditures on this. I have further ques-
tions to ask but perhaps you might comment
on this.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I think
the only item that is not estimated with
reasonably good accuracy, and we cannot
estimate that, is the item which we require
for Royal commissions.
Mr. MacDonald: Most of that may be
legal fees.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Part of the expense is
legal fees but these come on at any time
during the year. The Atlantic one, for in-
stance, has been nmning since 1965 and as
the hon. member for High Park pointed out,
it has cost close to $750,000 in that time.
That, I think, is the only element of the
estimate for the main office which is not
estimated very closely. We cannot do better.
Mr. Bulbrook: For the contingency aspect
of Royal commissions, you have set aside
$125,000 in this connection. Now, if I might
not unduly belabour my colleagues in the
House in connection witli something that
was brought up by the member for Downs-
view, I intended to remark upon it. It does
bring McRuer in, but I would hke to request
the attitude of the Attorney General in this
connection. What is his attitude going to be
in the future?
I think you will agree with me that it has
been obvious that some legislation has come
into this House without your knowledge in
the past. You have been called upon, as I
JUNE 27, 1968
4913
did mention before, to rationalize the posi-
tion of the government in connection with
the substance contained in that legislation. I
think back to the second section of the
amendment to The Planning Act vesting
powers in the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
relative to rezoning matters.
I am fortunate in this respect, that I am
able to say that we have a Minister of
Municipal AflFairs who is somewhat jealous
in connection with that discretion. I am
happy to say that. I, unfortunately, re-
quested the exercise of this discretion and
he set me straight; in supporting my munici-
pal council, he set me straight. But I say
this to you, through you, Mr. Chairman, to
the hon. Attorney General, you realize what
we have given to this man and his successors
in title.
What we have told him, in effect, and we
cannot magnify this imduly, is that he can
go out anywhere in the province of Ontario
and notwithstanding the wishes of elected
officials, notwithstanding the attitudes of
people in areas, notwithstanding the statu-
tory recourse that they should have to the
Ontario municipal board, he can do that
which he wishes, at his whim. That is not
good law; that never will be, in my respect-
ful submission, good law.
You have also been faced on several occa-
sions with interpretations of matters in this
House. I relate back to that particular one
where you did, in effect, feel that it was
some substitutional eflFect for an appeal to
the Ontario municipal board. I think if you
review Hansard, in connection with your
comments there, you will find that this was
the tone of your remark.
I suggest again to you, respectfully, that
this was far from the situation in effect. And
perhaps you nod in agreement; if you do, I
very much appreciate the frankness of your
present attitude because really the intent of
that legislation was to give to this office, not
the man but this office, these rights.
Now to give these rights is not proper. I
am very interested in connection with this
vote— where does your responsibility come?
I realize there is some private information
there that you cannot give to me in connec-
tion probably with your Cabinet situation,
but when do you first get a look at these?
McRuer says, in effect, you should be look-
ing at them ahead of time so that you come
in here and you are able to intelligently put
forward the legal position here.
When do you really get the opportunity to
say, in effect, to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs— since I am directing a question, I
want it to have the hon. Attorney General's
attention— when do you get the opportunity
of saying to your Cabinet colleagues, "This
is too much power," if you feel it is too
much power? I would like you, perhaps, to
relate to this situation.
It might not remain on vote 201, but when
do you get to the situation that you say "in
my opinion" as you are supposed to? His-
torically, as you have said yourself in your
opening statement, the background of your
position is one of relative independence.
When do you say to these people "these
powers are too broad, you should not have
them; they are against the proper principles
of justice"?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I think
I have pointed out to some extent, at least,
in my remarks in reply to the hon. member
for Downsview, that legislative counsel is
historically the advisor to the Legislature. All
bills, all legislation, as a matter of govern-
ment policy, are submitted to legislative
counsel. As I pointed out also before, it is
not the function of that counsel perhaps to
advise on matters of policy. Now, I think I
can go further than that and say this to you,
that generally, as a member of the council,
the Cabinet, I see and observe and study
the legislation of my colleagues as it is pre-
sented to the council. It is conceivable that
—although I think my attendance record is
pretty good in that respect— a bill might pass
without my having an opportunity to exam-
ine it. But this is very, very seldom.
I would say this, further, that the recom-
mendations made by the hon. Mr. McRuer in
his report "Inquiry as to Civil Rights" was
immediately examined by government. Direc-
tion was given that the recommendations be
studied by the heads of all departments to
see how they were affected. We have com-
mittees working on this particular matter,
which the hon. member refers to, as well as
on the various other recommendations.
Legislative counsel themselves have been
directed to study this area. It is curious, I
think I might mention, to say that I did not
enlarge upon this in speaking of the func-
tions of the Attorney General. In this prov-
ince, there is no department of the Attorney
General; there is an Attorney General. If
you look at the Act, you will see The Legis-
lative Assembly Act provides for an Attorney
General; there is no department of the
Attorney General. There are no duties set
for the Attorney General so that—
4914
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Ben: That is not what you said.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He must assume and
understand, historically, what his duties are.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I am right in
saying that.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I am looking
here at the province of Ontario public
accounts and it lists a Department of the
Attorney General. Evidently this misprint
has been carried on for a long time. They
should correct it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There is no statute
establishing The Department of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Ben: Then correct the misprint in the
public accounts!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is the title we
use, but there is none established by any
statute.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. McRuer does recom-
mend the establishment by statute of your
responsibilities.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is right and I say
we are moving to that.
Mr. Bullbrook: Without unduly belabour-
ing this point, we recognize that the legis-
lative counsel have no function in analyzing
the substantive portion of legislation. I take
it then from your comments that you agree,
in principle, with the responsibility on your
part. But I must say this to you and I have
heard this before, I think your duties are so
onerous that one cannot really expect you,
personally, to analyze the intricacies of every
piece of legislation. To be overly technical
for the moment, I ask you to barken back to
the provincial courts bit. I argued with you
over the interpretation— what is it the rule
inclusio unius exclusio alterius between sec-
tions 4 and 8.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Keep it clean.
Mr. Bullbrook: No, but in fairness. It is
all right for me, at my leisure, to be able to
sit down but you have got a great deal of
responsibility. Now do you agree, too, that
there is some merit in McRuer's recommen-
dations and, too, that probably you should
be surrounding yourself with more people to
assist you in this connection? Would that be
unfair?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The latter part yes. I
certainly think I i^hould have assistance.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I help the Attorney
General—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And you are-
Mr. Singer: That is what is wrong.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: If you are referring to
all of Mr. McRuer's recommendations in this
area I take it, you are speaking-
Mr. Bullbrook: No, just the reference to
your oflBce.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes. I think generally
I say, yes, I do.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, under this
vote— the Royal commission— I am concerned
about the facts, the growing tendency to
carry on these witch hunts as it were. Last
year, you spent $500,000 on Royal commis-
sions and we have another Royal commission
upon us at this point.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that
tlie Minister may or may not have any control
insofar as the calling of a Royal commission,
but I am shocked at the way this Gardhouse-
Bannon aflFair has grown into the serious
thing it can be for these men. If they are
not guilty of these things then they are
ruined forever.
Here we have a Royal commission being
planned for these men and the matter, with
all the intricacies of a great melodrama— the
wire tapping going on and the thing could
have been very-
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for
Downsview has done most to make it a melo-
drama.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Sargent: Just a moment now—
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about Royal
commissions.
Mr. Chairman: Order please. I would say
to the member that he should refrain from
any specific reference at this time to the
Royal commission to which references were
made earlier today during the questions. He
is speaking generally on Royal commissions.
Mr. Sargent: Well I think, Mr. Chairman—
JUNE 27, 1968
4915
Mr. Bullbrook: Well on a point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Point of order.
Mr. Bullbrook: Surely the mention of the
name— it cannot be excluded.
Mr. Chairman: No, I—
Mr. Bullbrook: I recognise the mention of
the basic foundation of the inquiry should not
be gone into, but you certainly—
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
this is just what I wanted to prevent. I
wanted to prevent the member from getting
into any specific, when he started mention-
ing wire tapping if I may point out respect-
fully. I think he should not go on any
further.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your ruling on this, but you can look in
the paper tonight and listen to television or
radio and the whole thing is there and we
cannot even talk about it in the House. I
think this is wrong. This matter could have
been very simply handled. If there is a sus-
picion of wrong-doing on these men, they
could have been advised not to show up in
court, to call in sick or something until the
investigation went along quietly to see if any-
thing could be done. What is the commission
called for? Here we have the lives of two
men ruined because of lack of co-ordination.
Here we have Royal commission aobut some-
tliing that may be nothing, or it may be a
great part of a wrong doing. Maybe there
should be an investigation of the magistrates,
not only in Metro Toronto. I know magis-
trates in our area who should have been
investigated a long time ago.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: But I am saying insofar as
public knowledge of what has gone on but—
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): What
were you up on, Eddie?
Mr. MacDonald: Nobody has done so much
to bring the magistrates under a cloud than
the hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I say, Mr. Chairman, very
honestly that I have never tried to hurt any
man in my life who did not deserve criticism.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It just comes out that
way.
Mr. Sargent: But I am concerned about
the right of the individual and these two
men. These are human beings too and I think
that the matter has been very wrongly
handled—
Mr. MacDonald: Well, let us gel the facts
first-
Mr. Sargent: Wrongly handled! And they
should have been investigated— they should
have had the investigations going on quietly
before all this hullabaloo in the press.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order! I think that
the member should refrain from any such
references to the particular incident-
Mr. Sargent: Well, it is in the paper.
Mr. Chairman: We can deal with item 4
and vote 201 on Royal commissions.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, is it
your ruling then that we cannot talk of the
modus operandi— that is a good one-
Mr. Chairman: No that is not—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: But if you are going to—
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman has not
ruled that you may not discuss the modus
operandi.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, you are now
on the verge of another inquiry into the
Myer Rush case and I want to ask the Attor-
ney General how you can arrest a man in
London without a warrant? This man Rush
has been arrested in London, England, with-
out a warrant-
Mr. Chairman: This has nothing to do
with tlie Royal commissions. If the member
is speaking about Royal commissions he may
proceed—
Mr. Sargent: Well, you are on the verge
of-
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I could
not hear what you were saying, but certainly
this has not anything to do with Royal con*-
missions— the Myer Rush case.
Mr. Sargent: Well, in your department-
Mr. MacDonald: It is in Canada where
legal action was initiated.
Mr. Sargent: He is in England—
4916
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Vote 201, main office vote.
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
talking about Royal commissions. Will the
Attorney General tell me what are the terms
of reference to call a Royal commission? What
do you have to do to have a Royal commis-
sion on you?
Mr. Chairman: Well, the member is—
Mr. Sargent: I would like to know what
we are paying them.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I do not
have before me— although I could get it,
perhaps very quickly— The Public Inquiries
Act. The first section of that Act sets out tlie
matters which may be investigated by a
Royal commission— commission of inquiry.
One of those things is the administration of
justice. There are a number of others. I do
not have it before me, but that Act is an Act
on our statute books, an Act of this province
which sets forth certain matters of great
public concern where there should be a full
and open public inquiry before a commis-
sioner appointed by the government— Lieu-
tenant-Governor in council for that purpose.
That is what you do.
Mr. Sargent: Who pulls the switch?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Perhaps if I could have
volume four of the statutes which must be
here, I could answer a Httle more specifically
and in detail and I will give you the language
and then I will tell you how it is done. This
will help the hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I do not know that much
about it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I will
try to be brief. I know the hon. member
does not want to have great detail but The
Public Inquiries Act is chapter 323 of the
Revised Statutes of Ontario and here is the
way the section reads:
Mr. Singer: It is not quite volume one!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is volume 4. The
section 1 of that Act reads— it is not too long
and perhaps I might read it:
Whenever the Lieutenant Governor in
council deems it expedient to cause inquiry
to be made concerning any matter con-
nected with or affecting the good govern-
ment of Ontario, or the conduct of any
part of the public business thereof, or of
tlie administration of justice therein and
such inquiry is not regulated by any special
law, he may; by commis^sion, appoint one
or more persons to conduct such inquiry
and may confer the power of summoning
any person and requiring him to give
evidence on oath and to produce such
documents and things as the commissioner
or commissioners deem requisite for the
full investigation of the matters into he
or they are appointed to examine.
Now that is the authority— subjects which
may be investigated, those are the powers
that the commissioner has.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What could be
simpler?
Mr. Sargent: So in effect, Mr. Chairman,
on the Attorney General's advice the Lieu-
tenant-Governor then calls a Royal commis-
sion.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not necessarily.
Mr. Sargent: Well on your recommenda-
tion to the Cabinet.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, not necessarily
on the advice alone of the Attorney General;
that might be the case but it might very
well be the consensus and I think, generally
would be the opinion of the members of the
Cabinet or government.
Mr. Sargent: It would not go through
Agriculture?
An hon. member: It might!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would think it would
be, if you will allow me to say, the con-
sensus of all the members of the council
which advises the Lieutenant-Governor. It
could very well be reviewed by the Attorney
General, and most certainly would be where
it is a matter of law. But as I read to you
the matter concerning good government of
Ontario would not necessarily be in the field
of justice. It might be some other field. As
I say, it would generally be, I think, the
concensus of those who advise the Lieuten-
ant-Governor, otherwise his council, and the
section is very clear.
Mr. Sargent: One more point then. The
evidence that you have now is sufficient evi-
dence for you to call a Royal commission on
this matter?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to discuss specific evidence of a
commission that is sitting now, because I feel
this is sub judice.
JUNE 27, 1968
4917
Mr. Sargent: No this is not sub judice at
all. The most important study point is: Do
you have suflBcient to call a Royal commis-
sion?
Mr. Chairman: Is the member referring to
the Royal commission to investigate the mat-
ter of the two magistrates mentioned earlier
in this House? Well, I would say to the
member that any reference about evidence
or activities further than has been previously
discussed is out of order.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee rise and report.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of supply reports progress and begs leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Tomorrow we
will continue with the estimates of The De-
partment of the Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
ment of the House.,
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11.00 of the
clock, p.m.
No. 131
ONTARIO
ItqMutmt of (J^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, June 28, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, June 28, 1968
Public Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4921
Department of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4921
Secondary Schools and Boards of Education Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4921
Separate Schools Act, bill to amend, Mr. Davis, first reading 4921
Resident fishing licences, statement by Mr. Brunelle 4923
Fluid milk producers in Essex and Kent counties, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Ruston 4924
Magistrates Gardhouse and Bannon, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer and
Mr. MacDonald 4925
Estimates, Department of the Attorney General, Mr. Wishart, continued 4927
Resumption of the debate on the Budget, Mr. Sargent, Mr. T. Reid 4958
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. T. Reid, agreed to 4966
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Dymond, agreed to 4966
4921
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 9:30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This is a most unusual morn-
ing as we have no students to welcome. I
am not sure that I can remember a sitting
this session that we have not had students
during the proceedings of this House.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions. ■'
Introduction of bills. "• ■
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to
amend The Public Schools Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Department
of Education Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Secondary
Schools and Boards of Education Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, these three
bills are basically housekeeping, but they
relate to Bill 44 and to the bill that I am
now going to introduce. These bills will go
to the education committee.
THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS ACT
Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Separate
Schools Act.
Friday, June 28, 1968
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to present to this House legis-
lation to establish larger units of administra-
tion for Roman Catholic separate school
purposes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
indicated that the government was con-
templating this action in his announcement
concerning the establishment of boards of
education on a county-wide basis.
The legislation completes the basic reor-
ganization of school jurisdictions in the prov-
ince of Ontario. When I introduced Bill 44
on March 15, I stated:
The major goal of the reorganizaHon is to create
educational jurisdictions capable of extending equal
educational opportunity to the boys and girls of
Ontario. This goal applies equally to the separate
school reorganization which I now propose.
The availability of broader school pro-
grammes, the provision of special services to
schools, and improvement in the abihty to
attract, retain and organize to best advantage
its professional resources are all factors
which will be an advantage to the new sep-
arate school boards as they seek to extend
and improve the quahty of education.
As will be the case for the new county and
district boards of education, the new separate
school boards will faciHtate planning on a
broader base than is now possible in most
situations, and will permit the establishment
and implementation of a system of priorities
in the programming and financing of educa-
tion in their jurisdictions.
These boards, I am sure, will be able to
utilize to the maximum the accommodation,
transportation, special services and staffs, thus
estabhshing a sound basis for the expenditure
of the tax dollar without prejudice to the
educational needs of the children.
Other benefits will also accrue from the
reorganization in the area of equalization of
costs. The larger units will l^e supported by
a broader tax base. The cost of the educa-
tional programme will be spread across the
entire tax base, thus eliminating many of the
inequities which may now exist among the
present boards. The creation of tlie new units
for public, secondary and separate school
purposes will permit the development of a
4922
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
simplified grants plan designed to reduce fur-
ther any imbalances which may still exist.
The legislation provides, by regulation, for
the establishment of combined Roman Ca-
tholic separate school zones by uniting the
existing zones and any new zones established
in the future, whose centres are within a
county or combination of counties. Provision
is also made for the future alteration of tlie
boundaries within which a combined Roman
Catholic separate school zone may be formed.
Cities and separated towns, except those
which I will specify in a moment, will be
included in the new zones.
Windsor will continue as a separate school
zone. The Ottawa zone will include the city
of Eastview and the village of Rockcliffe
Park. The Carleton zone will include the
remaining area municipalities as defined in
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carle-
ton Act, 1968.
Each separate school zone now in existence
in a county will be combined, eJffective Janu-
ary 1, 1969, to form the new county combined
Roman Catholic separate school zone, and
only those portions of a coimty now lying
within the three-mile limit of a zone will be
included in the new combined zone.
The separate school jurisdictions for Metro-
politan Toronto shall be provided in The
Metropohtan Separate School Board Act,
1953.
A combined separate school board will be
elected in each zone. Each separate school
board will consist of 8, 10, 12, 14 or 16
elected trustees based on the total population
within the county or combination of counties.
In a county zone that includes one or more
cities or separated towns, the number of
trustees to be elected in such cities or separ-
ated towns will be determined by the ratio of
the provincial equalized residential and farm
assessment for separate school purposes of
the cities or separated towns to that of the
entire combined zone.
The number of trustees to be elected to the
county separate school boards will be allo-
cated to a municipality or group of munici-
palities as nearly as is practicable on the basis
of provincial equalized residential and farm
assessment for separate school purposes.
Where two or more members are to be elected
in one municipality, wards may be estab-
lished.
All separate school trustees will be elected
at biennial elections for two-year terms with
the first elections to be held on the first
Monday in December, 1968. Special provi-
sion, however, is made in connection with
the Windsor, Ottawa and Carleton boards.
The legislation also provides for the desig-
nation, by regulation, of district combined
separate school zones in the territorial dis-
tricts, with similar provision for the election
of trustees in the district zones. A few separ-
ate school zones, Mr. Speaker, that are too
remote to be included in a district combined
separate school zone will remain under the
jurisdiction of local boards as at present.
Provisions parallel to those made for pub-
lic and secondary school boards in Bill 44
have been made in this bill for separate school
boards with respect to assets and liabilities,
appointment of auditors, the machinery neces-
sary for the nomination and election of
trustees, the transitional period, the right of
attendance of pupils, and the appointment of
supervisory officers.
In the preparation of this legislation, Mr.
Speaker, I have consulted with the Ontario
separate school trustees' association, I'asso-
cition des commission des ecoles bilingues
d'Ontario, and otlier interested groups. I
should like to indicate at this time my sincere
appreciation to these organizations for their
suggestions and the overall contribution which
they have made in the development of this
legislation.
As is the case with the reorganization of
public and secondary school boards, Mr.
Speaker, this is a major undertaking. There
may be some administrative problems in the
transitional period. I am assured that the
tnistees, officials and teachers of the separate
schools will look beyond these problems to
the opportunity to do a better job for our
students.
Guides for the reorganization of Roman
Catholic separate school jurisdictions will be
provided for separate school boards and
officials in order that they may study the plan
and effectively prepare for the transition to
the new combined separate school boards. In
the guides, suggestions will be made for the
establishment of an interim separate school
organization committee for each new zone.
Furtlier assistance will be provided to the
committees, existing school boards and the
new combined boards to facilitate the transi-
tion. In addition, it is proposed to hold a
series of conferences to discuss the implica-
tions of, and the possibilities inherent in,
the new organization.
The Ontario teachers' federation is arrang-
ing to appoint a committee of teachers in
each combined separate school zone to meet
JUNE 28, 1968
4923
with the interim separate school organization
committee to discuss matters of mutual in-
terest. This action is in accordance with the
suggestion which will be contained in the
guides.
With the introduction, Mr. Speaker, of
legislation to establish county and district
divisional boards of education, as in Bill 144,
and the subsequent legislation to bring the
schools for trainable retarded children under
the jurisdiction of these boards in Bill 120,
I believe that we have completed the founda-
tion upon which we can build a future full
of promise for the young people of this
province.
Mr. Speaker: Last evening the member for
Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick) raised a point
with respect to the application of the so-called
rule of sub jtidice, and I promised that, if at
all possible, I would take it into considera-
tion and bring in a rulin<? this morning. I
have had the opportunity of consulting with
the Clerk of the House, and I am now in a
position to give my ruling with respect to
this matter which, actually, as I mentioned
last evening, is based very definitely on the
ruling given by Mr. Speaker Morrow a year
or two ago.
As requested, I have considered the
application of the sub judice rule to the pro-
ceedings of the House, particularly taking
into consideration the suggestion that the rule
is not applied as broadly in the Parliament of
the United Kingdom as in this House. I find
the contrary to be true. There is no doubt
that in all jurisdictions that have been ex-
amined, including the United Kingdom, the
matters referred to Royal commissions are
sub judice whether referred by order in
council or by the House itself.
In the United Kingdom, the rule has also
been extended to matters referred by the
House to such tribunals, or even to select
committees of the House. As Mr. Speaker
Morrow pointed out in his review of the
sub judice rule on. -March 30^.1966, the rule
has even been extended to minor boards and
commissions siich as arbitration boards, or
any other boards to which matters have been
referred, and tlie discussion of which could
prejudice the rights of people being examined
thereby.
However, as Mr. Speaker Morrow pointed
out at that time, wider discretion is per-
mitted to the Speaker in matters referred to
these minor boards. If he is concerned that
the rights of someone may be prejudiced, he
will intervene immediately, otherwise he may
allow the discussion to proceed. This dis-
cretion also applies to the Chairman, of the
committee of the whole House. To sum up,
the whole basis of the rule— and I think this
is most important— ii that the House must be
extremely careful not to discuss any matter
when that discussion is recorded in the
public press, and might prejudice someone's
right to a fair hearing.
For a comprehensive review of the rule, I
refer members to the ruling of Mr. Speaker
Morrow, referred to above and found on
page 106 of the journals of the House for
1966.
The Minister of Lands and Forests has a
statement to make.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker I have an announce-
ment that I believe will meet the appro\'aI of
all the hon. members of this House.
After further consideration, as to our fee-
structure for angling rates in the province, it
has now been decided that the resident ladies
of this great province of Ontario— and may I
add, Mr. Speaker, that we are very fortunate
to have such charming and beautiful ladies-
will not be required to have a fishing licence.
It is also my pleasure to announce that the
fee for resident hunting licences has been set
at $3, effective September 1, 1968, and not
$5 as previously announced.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: According to my records, the
member for High Park has a question from
yesterday. This is question 720 about the
brief from the Port Elgin police.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have sub-
mitted that question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That was asked? I am sorrj-.
Will you proceed to today's questions?
Mr. Shulman: I have a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. On Thursday last I asked the Prime
Minister a series of questions about a
$200,000 cheque that was sent to the Halton
council. One of the questions asked if a
complaint had come from the county clerk,
to the government, and the Prime Minister
answered that it had not. I would like to
inform the Prime Minister and the House
that Mr. Garfield Brown, the county clerk
administrator, informed the Halton county
council that a protest had been made to "Mr.
John Yaremko, the Minister of Social and
Family Services, over the delay in turning
the cheque over to the county."
4924
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Now, I am quite certain that the Premier
would not knowingly mislead the House,
and I would like to request him to make a
further in\'estigation into this* matter and
perhaps report back to us.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform In-
stitutions): Is it not kind of tlie hon. mem-
ber to state the Premier would not mislead
the House?
Mr. Shulman: I have more faith in him
than I have in you.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question today, but
in your v/isdom, you have ruled out the first
portion of it and this makes the balance of
it rather senseless. Inasmuch as the estimates
of the Attorney General are now up and I
can ask that question in the estimates, I shall
do so and I sliall not appeal your ruling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then why bother
doing so?
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the
Minister aware of the reduced income of
fluid milk producers in Essex and Kent
counties as reported in the Windsor Star
of June 20, 1968, which states that losses
varied from $141 to $443 per month? Is the
Minister aware of the dissatisfaction and
unrest of the advisory boards of these coun-
ties and the statement, as quoted in the
Windsor Star, of Mr. Lee Montgomery who
recently resigned from the Kent board, that—
and I quote:
The Ontario milk marketing board was
destroying the fluid milk industry in the
province, and that it was bureaucratic and
arrogant and made arbitrary quotas that
could be cut at any time.
What action will the Minister take to correct
the present serious condition faced by milk
producers in Essex and Kent counties who
are faced with large financial responsibilities
and reduced income?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Well, Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I did not know anything about this
question until I arrived at my desk a few
minutes ago. I can only speak from memory
of the discussions that were held on June
18 in the standing committee on agriculture
when the chairman of the Ontario milk
marketing board, Mr. McLaughlin, appeared
before the committee and for a i>eriod of, I
believe, about two hours discussed matters
concerning the Ontario milk marketing board
in the establishment of quotas. The hon.
member who has asked this question today,
was in attendance at the committee, and dis-
cussed in great detail and length these very
points, with Mr. McLaughlin.
Now first of all there are no such things
as advisory boards in the various counties.
There are county milk committees which are
appointed by the milk producers in the
respective counties. If there is dissatisfac^
tion and unrest in the county milk com-
mittees referred to by the hon. member in
Essex and Kent counties, I have no knowl-
edge of it other than the letter of resignation
that was directed to me by Mr. Lee Mont-
gomery.
In the first place, Mr. Montgomery— while
he wrote to me resigning from the com-
mittee—really should have advised the local
county milk committee that he was resigning,
because we have nothing whatever to do
with the appointment of the county milk
committees. And if he felt that he wanted
to resign from the Kent county milk com-
mittee he might very well have addressed
his resignation to tliat committee.
I would say this, that in the letter of
resignation— which he directed to very many
people including your party, the leader of
the Opposition as well as the chairman of
the milk marketing board— he mentions, as
is quoted here in this letter, the way the
quotas were established by the milk market-
ing board. All I can do is say that the
quotas were established by the Ontario milk
marketing board after, I believe, three or
four meetings. Three that I know of, and
I believe it was four, were held between the
milk marketing board of this province and
the local county committees of every county
and district across this province.
Now if that is an arbitrary and bureau-
cratic way to establish milk quotas, then I
would wonder just how better they could
be established. It was done in full consulta-
tion at every move with those local producer
committees. Now, the Ontario milk market-
ing board, in its first instance, was appointed
by this government and I assume responsi-
bility for the choice of members that were
on that milk marketing board. Elections
have been held, including the area of
Kent and Essex counties who are members
of a zone of counties in southwestern
Ontario who elected their own representative
last year to the Ontario milk marketing
board. I believe in Kent county there are
60 whole milk producers.
How better we could establish a demo-
cratic process for the development of policy,
JUNE 28, 1968
4925
which admittedly is complex and of great
concern to all the milk producers in this
province, I do not know. Certainly those
people who enjoyed fluid milk quotas prior
to the introduction of The Milk Act of 1965
enjoyed those quotas at the expense of other
producers throughout this province by
legislation that had been drafted by this
Legislature of many years ago. They were
protected in their own individual markets by
that legislation.
That legislation was challenged by indus-
trial producers across this province who
said we have produced in many cases just
as good and just as high quality milk as that
being produced by fluid producers and we
will no longer be denied access to the fluid
market. This is what generated The Milk
Act of 1965. I sympathize with and respect
the position of the milk producers of Essex
and Kent counties and certain other pro-
ducers in this province who admittedly have
suffered because of the pooling of the milk
quotas across this province.
We must remember that 70 per cent of the
fluid milk producers of this province are as
well off or better off than they were before
pooling started; and about 30 per cent, includ-
ing the group in Essex and Kent counties, are
not as well off. But I believe that as time
goes on the matter will straighten itself out.
I do not think that tlie Legislature of On-
tario would wish the Minister of Agriculture
and Food to step into the picture and say to
the milk marketing board: "T^ie policy which
you have established through such a demo-
cratic process of consultation with the com-
mittees that have been elected by producers
across this province is not good, it is not
sound, and you should abandon it and take
some other course of action."
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside). Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Health (Mr. D)anond) but he is not present.
Mr. Spealcer: Yes, that question is auto-
matically held until the Minister and the
member are both here.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker,
I had two questions which I posed on Wed-
nesday to the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart);
yesterday there was some confusion about
whether they were still standing, and I
thought we had cleared that up. I have since
been through the Hansard report for Wednes-
day, and the Attorney General undertook to
answer them. Are there any answers available
now? Questions 2 and 3 of my first set of
questions-
Mr. Speaker: Those were the questions
with respect to the power of the Attorney
General on a summons to suspend magis-
trates-
Mr. Singer: That is right, and specific de-
tails about notice to the two magistrates.
Mr. Speaker: I beUeve that last evening or
yesterday afternoon when the question was
raised the Attorney General agreed that he
would produce the answers. They may or
may not be ready this morning,
Mr. Singer: That is my enquiry.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have not had an
opportunity to study the questions or prepare
an answer, but I think I can answer them if
I recall them.
Mr. Singer: I would like diem answered in
detail.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think the first one was
as to the power to direct the magistrate in
his duties. I think that was dealt with two
days ago or thereabouts under section 19,
I believe it is subsection 2 of The Magistrates
Act, which authorizes the chief magistrate to
direct the magistrate in his duties. We dis-
cussed that at the time.
If the other question was as to the notice
given, the two magistrates are now the sub-
ject of the judicial enquiry, or the public
enquiry. I can inform the hon. member in
the presence of the House, Mr. Speaker, that
immediately tlie enquiry was established I
had an interview with Mr. Justice Grant.
Yesterday he appointed a counsel, senior coun-
sel of the Attorney General's office, Mr. Frank
Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan in turn immediately
consulted with counsel for Magistrate Gard-
house and Magistrate Bannon and acquainted
them with all the material which was avail-
able to the Attorney General. He undertook
to make copies of certain of the material for
them so that they were informed and made
fully aware of the nature of the matter, and
all the material which is in their hands.
Now this was done as promptly, 1 tliink, as
could possibly be done. The enquiry was
estabhshed on Wednesday, and immediately
the commissioner has moved to get the en-
quiry under way and the counsel for the
persons involved have been fully informed.
Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary
question— am I correct in assuming that
neither of the two magistrates concerned were
told anything about it until yesterday?
4926
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is not quite right,
Mr. Speaker. The two magistrates concerned,
when they were first informed of the informa-
tion which had come to our attention, were
told through the chief magistrate that as a
result of information which had come to the
attention of the Attorney General they would
not be assigned to any further duties in
court, that the matter was being investigated,
and that until that investigation was com-
pleted they would not be serving or presid-
ing in court, and when tlie investigation was
completed it would be decided what further
action it will be necessary to take. They
know, therefore, that certain information
affecting their conduct or the conduct of their
courts was in the hands of the Attorney Gen-
eral. They knew that this matter was being
further investigated. They knew that when
the investigation was completed they would
be informed of what further action would be
taken. I think they were not informed as to
detail, as to how tlie investigation was to be
carried on. They were just asked—
Mr. Shulman: Or what was being investi-
gated?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, they did not, nor
did the public, nor did we give out any in-
formation to anyone, neither my department
nor the investigating detail of police. Nobody.
It was done quietly, as I pointed out in my
statement to the House.
If the information which came to our
hands had proven baseless or untrue there
would have been nothing known or said and
the magistrates would have been restored to
their courts; the matter would have gone on.
On the other hand-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): It has not
yet been proven.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On the other hand, I
do not say it has been proven true yet.
Mr. Bullbrook: Well, do not say it even
if it had been proven untrue.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No. I say if it had
been proven untrue, yes, I say that. It could
have been proven untrue. I also said in
my statement to the House that if that in-
vestigation indicated good grounds for be-
lieving there had been misconduct, then it
would be wrong for us to allow those magis-
trates to continue and preside in court and
carry on their administration of justice. I
think there was no other course open. It
was a normal, proper way to proceed and
we did not publicize the investigation to
anyone.
Mr. Singer: By way of a further supple-
mentary question. The information that was
given to them yesterday, was it any more ex-
tensive than providing for them copies of
the orders in council?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, it was all— the
whole— material as we have it, and with an
undertaking to make copies of certain of the
material for counsel, for those magistrates.
Mr. Singer: Why did you not tell us that
yesterday? That is what we were trying to
get at. Suddenly, we have the great revela-
tion. That is why we were so perturbed.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, if the hon. mem-
ber had not been so perturbed perhaps he
might understand that when I answered the
questions of the House yesterday, counsel for
the enquiry was, at that time, arranging to
meet with counsel for the magistrates and
this was done yesterday afternoon. His dis-
cussions with them, his disclosures to them
was done yesterday afternoon.
I was not in a position to say, when the
House opened yesterday, that this had actu-
ally been done and I know the hon. member
wants me to be very accurate and careful in
anything I say.
Mr. Singer: Indeed I do. It is a good
thing there is an Opposition here.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Oh no. Let me inform
you—
Hon. A. F. Lavn-ence (Minister of Mines):
We are all agreed that it is a good thing
hon. members opposite are there.
Mr. Singer: It is a good thing somebody
is here.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Orderl
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, let me say that
my conduct is not governed by any atti-
tudes or comments of any other member of
tliis House except my own conscience, my
own belief in what is right and proper—
An hon. member: That is what the mem-
ber for Sarnia said last night.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I
wonder if I might be permitted to ask a
supplementary question? ^
Mr. Speaker: The rules and the procedures
do not, I think, allow any member who has
not asked the original question to ask a sup-
JUNE 28, 1968
4927
plementary question. If the member can
phrase it by way of personal privilege or
order, then I think he is entitled to the
floor.
Mr. MacDonald: I think that can be done
without too much difficulty, Mr. Speaker.
I think in hght of the number of state-
ments that the Minister has made there is
one point on which I would like clarification,
and I am certain the public would.
The Attorney General has spelled out,
with considerable detail, the care that he
has taken to avoid premature public dis-
cussion of this whole matter. Quite frankly,
I am rather impressed with the care that he
has taken, though it is a very tricky kind of
situation.
Can the Attorney General inform the
House as to where the leak came in the
premature break of the whole thing and,
therefore, all of the difficulties?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, no, I do
not know. I wish I did.
Mr. MacDonald: Are you going to investi-
gate it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think for me to say
anything more would be to speculate as to
how it came about.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, my question to
the Attorney General is, are you going to
seek and find out who it was that frustrated
all your careful efforts to handle this in an
orderly way that would protect the interest
of everybody, both the magistrates and the
public?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, when this
news broke I made enquiries as full and de-
tailed as I could, to see if I could ascertain
how this news broke in the press, the news
media. The investigations, as I said in my
statement, have been going on— police in-
vestigations—for some three months. It came
to me some four or five weeks ago and we
worked without any comments whatever.
There were just a few persons who knew
and just a small detail of police who knew.
We were unable to find out how that news
broke. It was certainly not our intention to
give it any publicity.
I can suppose, if I may say this, that when
two magistrates who are daily in the courts
no longer appear, possibly this would excite
some curiosity in those who attend the court
—reporters, lawyers— and whether someone
then sought out the reason from some per-
sons involved I do not know. Certainly, it
did not come out of our office, and as far as
I can ascertain, from the police, they say
there was no information given out and I
think that is so. To say further than that
would just be to speculate.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I speak
to the point of order for just a moment by
way of enquiry?
One recognizes your regret as expressed,
Mr. Speaker, that is the regret of the At-
torney General in connection with the pre-
mature publicity relative to this investigation
initially, but again, in this House, yesterday
evening in response to a point of personal
privilege or order taken by the hon. member
for Downsview, the hon. Attorney General
attempted to rationahze his change of posi-
tion both inside and outside of the House
because of the fact that certain publicity
was also given in one of the editions of the
Toronto Daily Star yesterday.
I ask the Attorney General to recognize
that when he brought to our attention this
edition of the Toronto Daily Star yesterday,
it said that the police admit wire tapping.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the leak
comes from the police department, and I
suggest that there is some incumbency upon
the Attorney General to look into the leak
that took place yesterday from the police
department.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister
will deal with the matters which have been
raised here quite properly, and I tliink that
this discussion at this time should be con-
cluded.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 23rd order.
House in committee of supply; Mr. A. E.
Reuter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Continued)
On vote 201:
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I
was interested in listening to the Attorney
General yesterday afternoon and evening
making his preliminary address on the re-
sponsibilities of the Attorney General, and
giving a summary of how the office of the
Attorney General had come to be one that
involved a seat in the House.
4928
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I sort of suspected that perhaps the words
of Sir Hartley Shawcross and the Rt. Hon.
Harold Wilson may have stuck in his throat
as he was reading them.
May I just read those quotes again? This
is the one from the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson:
The Attorney General, whoever he may
be, is not only tlie legal adviser to the
Crown and to the government, he is also
the servant of the House. It is, from time
to time, his duty to advise the House on
legal matters, a duty going on beyond his
responsibility to the government and to
the Crown.
In other words, he is a servant of this
whole House and he should protect the
interests of this House.
Then, quoting from the statement of Sir
Hartley Shawcross:
Whilst participation in party politics
and, of course, a shared collective respon-
sibility of the government for action that
is taken are normally incidental to the
oflBce of the Attorney General, it remains
the clearest rule that in the discharge of
his legal and discretionar>' duties the At-
torney General is completely divorced from
party political considerations and from any
kind of political control.
I raise this point, Mr. Chairman, with refer-
ence to this question of sub judice, because
no doubt Mr. Speaker was right— I should
add here that in law school we were taught
to use the English expression sub judice—
the Speaker was undoubtedly right in that
there are precedents which would support his
interpretation of the nile, but I say it was
incumbent upon the Attorney General to get
up as a servant of this House to say that
ruling does not hold water, tliat the ruling
grew out of an arrogant government's desire
and decision to gag the Opposition. I will
elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I asked the Speaker yesterday
that he consider the phrase persona designata
in arriving at his ruling or considering what
ruling he should arrive at on this question of
sub judice, because there is a marked dif-
ference between a judge and a persona
designata, although a persona designata may
in fact be a judge.
Yesterday, the Attorney General read sec-
tion 1 of The Public Inquiries Act and in
order to make my argument clear, I will have
to read it:
Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in
council deems it expedient to cause
enquiry to be made concerning any matter
connected with or aflFecting the good gov-
ernment of Ontario or the conduct of any
part of the public business thereof or of
the administration of justice therein, and
such enquiry is not regulated by any
special law, he may, by commission,
appoint one or more persons to conduct
such enquiry—
The words I want to stress are "appoint one
or more persons"; it does not refer to the
appointment of a judge. Any member of this
House could be persona designata, any man
off the street, tlie way they impanel the
jurors. Therefore, it is not the holding of the
office of the enquiring individual that makes
a person a judge, it is the fact that he has
already been appointed a judge. So the
mere fact that the person who was designated
to hold this enquiry is a judge does not make
this a court.
Now, the Attorney General knows this,
because it is trite law, it is something you
take up in first year of law school. There
is a diflPerence between a persona designata
and a judge. There have been many com-
missions that were not headed by a judge.
All I have to do is mention the Smith com-
mission, the Glassco commission, the Watkins
report, the most recent and famous ones.
Therefore I say that a commission under The
Public Inquiries Act is not a court.
Now, what does sub judice mean? It
means "under judicial consideration". And
90 per cent of the commissions appointed are
not commissions where anything is under
judicial consideration. Therefore, 90 per cent
of the commissions, I suggest to you, are or
could not under the wildest stretch of the
imagination be sub judice. An example, for
instance, is the workmen's compensation
board. Did the mere fact that Mr. Justice
McGillivray was sitting as the persona
designata to enquire into proposed amend-
ments to the workmen's compensation board,
deprive us of the right to discuss The
Workmen's Compensation Act in this House
or in the committee? It did not. Where
was the distinction, Mr. Chairman? Obvi-
ously it was not sub judice as far as that
commission was concerned. We discussed
many aspects of the workmen's compensa-
tion board in this House and in the com-
mittees of this House during the time that the
commission was sitting. The same with the
Watkins report; we discussed many aspects—
although it was not our commission— per-
taining to control of our industry. We raised
the issues covered by the Smith report
many, many times while that commission
JUNE 28, 1968
4929
was sitting and nobody got up and said,
"We cannot discuss this because it is sub
judice".
For instance, if this government assigns a
commission to some individual, be he judge
or otherwise, enquiring into the marketing
and the growing of farm produce, the market-
ing of that farm produce and the selhng to
supermarkets, would that mean that we could
not discuss agriculture at all? I think any-
one who made such a submission would be
laughed at.
And yet if we follow the ruling that was
made by Mr. Speaker— a mhng which the
Attorney General, a servant of this House,
did not get up to contradict— we would in
effect be gagged completely. There may be
a precedent for this but it is a precedent
brought in by an arrogant government trying
to stifle the Opposition and the right of the
Opposition to enquire into aspects of govern-
ment operation. And why did the Attorney
General not get up and say that is wrong,
that the members of this House are being
gagged? The riding is there, there is no
way we can upset tlie ruling unless the
House agrees to change that ruling; but I
just want to suggest that the Attorney Gen-
eral was derelict in his duty as a servant
of this House in not getting up and point-
ing out the weaknesses in the ruling of Mr.
Speaker.
If the Attorney General wants to rise, I
will yield.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
I just wanted to know if the hon. member
would permit me to ask him, Mr. Chairman,
does he accept the Speaker's ruling insofar
as it affects the present enquiry into the
conduct of these magistrates? Would he say
that was sub judice?
Mr. Ben: I would say it is not sub judice,
Mr. Chairman, but I would say that it is
incumbent upon every member of the House
to so govern himself— while he is protected
by tlie rule that we cannot be sued for
libel or slander— that he in no way prejudices
the right of any individual.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate that.
Mr. Ben: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to deal with just one other thing that
arose out of the discussion this morning
before the orders of the day, and that is the
implication that there is, in fact, a different
type of justice for different people. This
may strike some members as being rather
odd but the Attorney General, Mr. Chair-
man, informed this House that Mr. Callaghan,
who had been appointed as counsel to Mr.
Justice Grant, was preparing copies of all
the material available to whom you might
refer to as the prosecution— making copies
of all the evidence and material that was
available to the government counsel— avail-
able to the sohcitors for Magistrates Gard-
house and Bannon. This morning's paper
dealt with the matter of the charge that was
laid against the pohce oflBcer resulting from
the shooting of a young juvenile who had
escaped from training school, and the
enquiry pertaining to that. The article in
question dealt with information being given
by the board of education.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think that
juvenile died.
Mr. Ben: No. Did I say he died?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not think there
was any death involved.
Mr. Ben: Oh, I am sorry, I thank you
very much.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He was shot in the
leg.
Mr. Ben: I thank the Attorney General,
Mr. Chairman, for correcting me. The shoot-
ing of a juvenile. The article dealt with
information that had been given by a vice-
principal touching on the character of one
of the witnesses and the fact that this
particular witness had an IQ, if my memory
serves me correctly, of between 85 and 95.
Mr. William Ross, one of the members of the
board of education, was quite incensed that
confidential information was given to a
police officer touching on a witness and
that this information then was given to the
defence. In other words, the police were
obtaining material to pass on to the defence.
It struck me as strange because normally
an accused does not receive even the benefit
of being told what is in the confidential
information to the Crown, the sheet that is
put in front of the Crown with reference
to every prosecution. There is a sheet put
in front of the Crown; it is confidential
information for the Crown.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Could I ask another
question right here? I think before the hon.
member goes furtlier, does he take exception
to the fact that the services of the pohce
are made available to the defence?
Mr. Ben: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman,
on the contrary. My whole reason for rising
4930
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is that I think it is wonderful and I want to
ask: Why are not all counsel for the accused,
or the accused tliemselves, given copies of all
information available to the Crown? I think
it is wonderful. And since the Minister got
up and expressed amazement that I might be
criticizing such a procedure, then I take it
that he agrees with my contention, and that
henceforth he will instruct all Crown attor-
neys to show to defence counsel this so-
called "confidential information" for the
Crown.
If magistrates can obtain copies of all the
evidence that will be adduced in a hearing;
if, where a policeman is charged, the police
can go out and gather evidence for the
defence, why cannot the Crown do the simple
little thing of showing to the defence coun-
sel the so-called "confidential information" so
that he may properly defend the accused?
This is why I imply that there are two types
of justices in this province as long as you
maintain this distinction. And there will re-
main two types of justices— one for the high
and mighty and one for the lowly man—
until such time as you do co-operate with
the defence coimsel and permit him to have
all this information. I am sorry, Mr. Chair-
man; the Attorney General did get up rather
incensed— if I may use that word for want
of a better one— that I might be implying that
they should not have done this.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Slightly
aroused.
Mr. Ben: Slightly aroused, tliat might be
a better expression.
As I say, I trust that henceforth all Crown
attorneys will be instructed to co-operate
witli the police department. You know it is
rather difficult, Mr. Chairman, to debate with
the Attorney General. Listening to my learned
friend from Sarnia, he was eulogizing yester-
day while the Attorney General was still
vertical. And you know, it is tough enough
tilting windmills, but when you try to—
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I was trying
to make him horizontal.
Mr. Ben: But when you try to stab a halo
it is too much.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): It is easier arguing with me, is
it not?
Mr. Ben: It is much easier, yes.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 201.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman,
I would just like to comment briefly on the
ruling of tlie Speaker this morning on the
sub judice rule. I think it is an incorrect
ruling and tlie reason why I think it is in-
correct is tlie very simple ground that the
salutary version of the sub judice rule is for
the protection of an individual who is appear-
ing before a court in a court action, in a
court of law. It is to preserve for him, in all
aspects of public affairs, the protection of the
rules of evidence.
In a criminal case, he is entitled to the
protection of the rules of evidence as he is
in a civil case. And it is the protection of the
rights of that individual in a court of law,
under the rules of evidence, which has led
the assembly to adopt a rule that they will
inhibit their discussion of the matter in order
not to intrude on that person's protection.
In an enquiry under The Public Inquiries
Act, or the enquiries which have been just
set up, or the enquiry that was held in the
case of Mrs. Timbrell and tlie children's aid
society, and tlie previous enquiry into the
allegations of my colleague, the member for
High Park (Mr. Shulman), it is perfectly clear
now that the enquiry is not limited by tlie
niles of evidence.
Indeed, sir, the objective of the enquiry
is to have such a wide-ranging enquiry as to
allay all doubts. Therefore, anyone who has
any knowledge or any information regardless
of how remote or how much hearsay is in-
volved in it, is either entitled or bound to
come before the enquiry and to tell what he
knows.
The person holding the enquiry is bound
to hear everything— whether it is mere rumour,
gossip of any kind. What the person holding
the enquiry then does witli what comes before
him, of course, is a different matter. He may
very well, in assessing the evidence, be
guided by the traditional rules of evidence.
But the fact of the matter is that so far as
the form of the enquiry is concerned it is
just as wide-ranging as it could possibly be
or as wide-ranging as it could be in this
assembly.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is im-
proper for a ruling of this House to apply
the sub judice rule to tlie enquiry which is
being held, which the Attorney General an-
nounced in the last day or so. It is quite true
that under the public enquiry, as in this
Legislature, in open debate and discussion,
somebody may get hurt, but we rely on the
judgment of people to say that, "All right,
JUNE 28, 1968
4931
if it is in the public interest that an individual
does get hurt, the public interest overrides
it," and that is a judgment we all must make
here, as is the judgment which must be made
by people who give evidence at a public
enquiry.
It may well be that the net result of the
public enquiry, when the hearing is com-
pleted and the report is made, will result in
charges being laid. That person would come
before the court, where he would be entitled
to the benefit of the rules of evidence,
regardless of what had been said at the
enquiry. It requires the exercise of a great
deal of skill and judgment in order to sep-
arate out what has been public knowledge,
because of the enquiry, from what is then
permitted to be heard in the court of law
as a result of the charges.
I think if the Attorney General would cast
his mind back to the spy probe in the years
immediately following the war, the point was
very clearly made when Mr. Justice Kellock
and Mr. Justice Taschereau both said that
it may well be that they were satisfied that
these specific individuals had in fact been
engaged in an espionage conspiracy, and they
went on to say in substance in their report,
but we doubt very much whether it would
be possible in all the instances in which we
are satisfied, that these persons could be
convicted in a court of law because of the
protection which those persons would be
entitled to by the rules of evidence.
And the event proved that to be so, be-
cause certain of the men who were charged
were convicted, certain others were not con-
victed, even though the two eminent justices
at that time, skilled as they were in the
knowledge of what is required to prove some-
thing, were satisfied, as commissioners, that
the espionage had taken place. Though they
were satisfied in their capacity as judges it
did not necessarily mean that a conviction
would follow when a charge was laid under
whatever the appropriate statute was at that
time.
I think we have got to be perfectly clear
when we use the sub judice rule that we
restrict its application to civil proceedings
in a court of law, criminal proceeding in a
court of law, and I think the other area is a
court martial which, again, is a military hear-
ing having all the aspects of a court of law.
We should not extend it to these enquiries
under The Public Inquiries Act, where the
persons who are involved in it, and the public
who are involved in it, are not entitled to the
rules of evidence. I think we should not ex-
tend the rule that far.
I think there may well be another aspect
to it. I tried to express this last night when
I was asking the Speaker for the ruling
which he has now given. It may well be
that because the matter is before the enquiry
that this House would say: "It is a proce-
dural matter; let us not waste the time of
the House in discussing this problem, when
a more adequate forum is available for a
proper airing of it." But that is a procedural
matter for the assembly and has nothing to
do with the rights of other people, which is
the basis of the suh judice rule.
We would not— by discussing in this
House, in a less professional way than will
be done at the enquiry, aspects of the
enquiry— in fact be hurting the persons
involved. It would be our right or our
privilege if we wanted to do so to discuss
it. I say, as a strictly procedural matter of
the House, the House may say: "Well, all
right, let us not waste our time. The en-
quiry has been set up; let it go ahead. When
the report comes in, we will discuss it. In
the meantime, we will go on with the other
aspects of public business."
I think that there is a great deal of merit
as a procedural matter but that is a basis
quite distinct from the other basis involved.
I think that the reason why an enquiry in
the British House of Commons is still called
sub judice is that the enquiry is created by
resolution of the House of Commons. I
think that this is also true in the House of
Commons at Ottawa— that when an enquiry
is set up, a resolution is introduced by the
government with the terms of reference of
the enquiry which is then subject to debate.
Then, when the resolution is adopted by the
House appointing and setting up the enquir>',
the House considers it sub judice, because
they have set it up, if it falls within this
category of a judicial enquiry.
Your government, for reasons which escape
me, insists that the appointment of all en-
quiries be an executive act of government,
without any reference to this assembly. We
had the same problem when the commission
was set up on the allegations made by the
then chief coroner of Toronto, my colleague
the member for High Park.
We had great diflRculty debating the terms
of reference. Indeed, there are quotations in
Hansard that would indicate that the very
limited opportunty we had to comment on
those terms of reference elicited abuse from
the government. Debate, in fact, never ever
did take place.
4932
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The record is perfectly clear, certainly in
my judgment, that, intentionally or uninten-
tionally, I was misled as to what the terms
of reference would be and what the enquiry
would, in fact, look into. I specifically asked
for and was specifically given the assurance
of the Prime Minister tliat the role of the
coroner would be looked into, and would be
an essential and fundamental part of that
enquiry. That was not done at all.
This is the trap that the government falls
into and the difficulty that we face if the
government, by executive order, decides that
it will set up an enquiry, instead of using
the procedure of bringing the matter on to
tlie floor of the House, my way of resolu-
tion, where the terms of reference could be
debated.
The frustration and the hang-up of the
interchange of the last few days in the
assembly has been the inability of anyone
to come to grips with the terms of reference.
To, in an orderly way, have before us the
resolution that sets out what the terms of
reference are, so that all members of the
House could debate tliose terms of reference.
True, the government in their majority can
always pass it as they wish, but at least
there would have been a proper forum under
which people could have exchanged views
as to what the terms of reference should
have been, and how specific they should
have been, whether there should have been
time limits beyond which the enquiry was
not to go. If I may use tlie exact words,
what is the time span during which the be-
haviour of the magistrates is to l^e enquired
into?
Does it stem from the date of their
respective appointments until the present
time? Or is it to be curtailed to the specific
matter which prompted this investigation?
Again, my colleague from High Park, and the
member for Downs view have been con-
cerned about the lack of specifics for the
terms of reference, that they should have
been more specific, and more informative,
rather than this general enquiry. They were
concerned that, in some way or another, this
was turning into a very wide-ranging fishing
expedition.
The reason why these problems persist is
that the government will not— when they
want to set up such an enquiry— introduce
a resolution setting out the terms of refer-
ence, which would then be the subject of
debate in the Legislature, Then when the
resolution was passed— whether it was a sub
judice matter or a procedural matter— the
House would say: "Look, having referred it by
resolution to another body, we are not going
to engage in debate about it until such time
as the report comes back on the reference."
I would ask the Attorney General— whether
he is talking about sub judice or procedural
matters— tliat tlie government seriously con-
sider bringing these matters forward by
resolution, so that we do not have this unin-
telligible confrontation in this House, or by
questions before the orders of the day,
limited as they are, in terms of eliciting
information.
We have the problem that the government
is faced with, and tlie trap that the Attorney
General came very close to falling into yes-
terday. If there is no debate in the House
that brings it out, he is subject to the ques-
tions of the press outside. The members of
the Opposition, who are frustrated by not
being able to come to grips with the matter
within the forum of the assembly, find that
they want to get their views out to the
media, instead of it being done here properly
on the floor. The government in my view
circumvents that by introducing it as an
executive order, which produces this inade-
quate public discussion of the matter.
That is the substance of my comments. I
tliink, in very brief summary, that the sub
judice rule is not applied to an enquiry, be-
cause the lilies of evidence are not involved
in an enquiry, and the protection of the in-
dividual is non-existent in public enquiry as
far as the mles of evidence are concerned.
Therefore there is no need to extend the
sub judice rule that far. Secondly, it may be
a procedural matter that this House would
say: "Well, we will go on witli other public
business until a report comes tlirough."
Third, I ask the government that when
they are going to institute enquiries, they
bring the matter forward as they do at West-
minster and as they do in Ottawa, by way
of resolution, so that the terms of reference
and the appointment of a commission can be
thoroughly debated here and, in due course,
passed. The government accomplishes its
objective anyway, but it has been properly
debated, so tliat we avoid the kind of un-
satisfactory give and take which took place
over that last few days in this assembly.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, before tlie
Attorney General replies, there is a footnote
that I would like to add to what my col-
league has just said. I think that this is an
extremely important matter, and it is rather
fortunate that we have got the Attorney
General's estimates before us, with Royal
JUNE 28, 1968
4933
commissions as an estimate to look at. At the
same time, we are contemplating reflecting
on the ruling that the Speaker has just given.
There is one aspect of the Speaker's ruling,
with reference to the operation of Royal com-
missions or pubhc enquiry, which disturbs
me profoundly. That is, if the ruling is ac-
cepted and obeyed completely, it means that
debate in this House is forbidden and will
go on outside the House. The proposition
is that what is before a Royal commission
or a pubhc enquiry, is not accepted by the
pubhc as sub judice and quite rightly so.
Mr. Chairman: Order please. I would
point out to tlie member for York South thiit
the Speaker's ruling is not debatable. It
seems to the Chairman that the member is
now debating the merit or otherwise of the
Speaker's ruling.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not really debating
it, although I agree with you, Mr. Chairman,
that tlie two of them are mixed up. I plead
with you, since you let something like an
hour of debate go on, that we complete this
matter now— and then hear the Attorney
General, because it is not going to end now.
If it ends in this House, it is not going to end
outside the House, because the proposition
tliat public enquiries established by the gov-
ernment be sub judice, so that what is going
on is not going to be subject to public com-
ment, is simply not accepted by the general
pubhc, and-as I said Mr. Chairman, rightly
so.
It is widely acknowledged that one of the
techniques or tactics of government when
they are faced with a hot issue, particularly
if it happens to be during an election cam-
paign, is to set up a Royal commission. Then
presumably the issue becomes sub judice and
it cannot even be discussed during the course
of the election. This happened in the last
campaign. People do not respect it, and there
is continuing discussion of it, but because of
reasons that my colleague has put on the
paper, it really is not sub judice.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as the man who
presides over this House, I draw to your
attention— though I agree that, in effect, I
am debating the Speaker's ruling within the
context of these estimates— that what we are
doing is saying that we cannot debate in this
House what will be debated outside the
House. That is surely a very anomalous
situation.
That a Parliament, which is normally given
the historic right to freer debate, should be
denied any opportunity to debate wlien it
goes on in the editorials and with the general
public is one of the consequences of the
situation that we now face. I think we have
go to continue to review it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I also
acknowledge— and am aware of the fact—
that the Speaker's ruhng is not debatable.
Last night when the hon. member for River-
view rose and asked the Speaker to define
sub judice^
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downosview): Riverdalc.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Riverdale, thank you.
At that point I was getting to my feet. I
was anxious to offer the Speaker some com-
ments I thought might be useful advice. I
might say this particularly for the benefit of
the hon. member for Humber, but the
Speaker did not allow me to get to my feet.
Had I been able to do so, I may very well
have said to him many things along the
same hne as have been said this morning by
the member for Riverdale. I was not allowed
to speak.
He made another ruling last night, a
portion of whicsh I did not certainly agree
with, but I did not debate that ruling either.
I understand that this ruling is not debatable,
but had there been an opportunity for debate
before the definition I should certainly have
offered views, though perhaps not going quite
so far as those expressed by the hon. mem-
ber for Riverdale.
I do agree that an enquiry under The
Public Inquiries Act is not the same as a
court hearing, that the rules of evidence do
not apply in the same way at all. They go
much wider under the enquiry, and almost
anything may be heard.
I think this matter may be perhaps
reviewed and settled at some other time.
This should not be a matter of my estimates
in the strict sense.
I do think I certainly agree that I do not
know whether this goes really far enough,
but that a matter such as is now before a
commissioner under The Public Inquiries
Act could very well be ruled by the
Speaker to be a matter improper to debate.
I think you might accept the definition of
sub judice perhaps to apply to that sort
of thing, because the reputations of persons
are being considered almost in the same
way as if they were charged with an offence
before a criminal court, before the criminal
jurisdiction.
There are many matters such as have been
mentioned here which are in the general
4934
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
line of public administration, government or
that sort of thing, where sub judice perhaps
in its most confining meaning should not
be applied.
On the question as to whether the gov-
ernment should bring forward by way of
a resolution the matter that is to be referred
to a commission under The Public Inquiries
Act or whether it should be done as an
executive act as was done in this most
recent case, and as has been done in the
past, I have this to say. I think there are
many cases perhaps where the government
could very well propose the matter by way
of resolution and have it debated.
I think there are cases where the govern-
ment must be allowed its discretion and its
authority to say we will do it as an execu-
tive act of government. I think that the
most recent case is one of those, because in
my thinking here again, where it is a case
where persons are being brought before this
type of enquiry, how are you going to dis-
cuss, how are you going to allow debate
when there has been no enquiry set up?
There is no charge as it were, before any
court of enquiry, and the matter is widely
open.
How then are you going to permit debate?
How are questions to be asked and answered
without impunging and infringing on the very
thing you want to avoid, that is damage
to the reputation of the persons concerned?
The whole extension of the sub judice rule
was designed so that persons would not in
the freedom of expression which is allowed
in Parliament be hurt, be unfairly prejudiced,
be damaged. To debate, let us say, the
terms of reference set forth in this enquiry
there would be bound to be questions saying:
Why are they framed in that way? What is
the reason? What is the background?
In saying those things, or in replying to
those things, or even refusing to reply, I
think there might well have been a situation
where, in the discretion of those who had
the knowledge, perhaps myself, if I may
say as the Attorney General, I would have
felt in fairness to the persons concerned
that they should not give out information.
I think you will be infringing upon the
very situation to which you apply the sub
judice rule and for the purposes for which
it has been designed. So, there is to my
mind some discretion to be exercised by a
government.
I think I would go so far as to say that
in many cases it might very well be proper
to advise the government to bring it for-
ward as a motion to be debated by the
House. As the hon. member for Riverdale
pointed out, he spoke of yesterday's situa-
tion as an expression of views, and I just
wanted to say that in whatever was said
yesterday there was no expression of views.
Anything that was said was simply fact. Very
briefly, certain facts inside the House and
out. I would prefer not to say anything
more at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): The Attorney General makes a nice
point when he refers to two kinds of Royal
commissions or public enquiries.
As I recall Mr. Speaker Morrow's ruling
some years ago, pertained to a public enquiry
that did not involve individuals nor their
reputation. It involved the civil servants'
pay scale and certain jurisdictions there. I
suppose it is as much out of order now to
debate Mr. Speaker Morrow's ruling as it
is to debate Mr. Speaker's ruling made this
morning.
But I do believe that we must be careful
in our efforts to safeguard the reputations
of individuals, that we, at the same time,
bear in mind our responsibility here in order
to keep this as the chief fonmi for public
discussion on matters of urgent public
importance.
I belie\'e there might be some means
whereby this House can amend its rule of
just what is sub judice with regard to these
matters. If we could follow the comments
made by the Attorney General and member
speaking previously and accept our respsonsi-
bihties to safeguard tlie individuals probably
as being primary, but draw some sort of dis-
tinction—and this would be a difficult thing
for the House to do under the leadership of
any Speaker— so that when individuals are
not concerned but specific action or matters
of policy are concerned with the decision,
that these be properly discussed here.
I do not know what the procedure would
be to arrive at some reasonable decision in
this House. Both the decisions made by
Mr. Speaker Morrow, and the Speaker this
morning seemed to preclude any discussion
of matters tliat are before a public enquiry.
I would agree with tlie members who have
spoken previously tliat this really does not
meet the needs of this House in the observ-
ance of our duties.
I cannot suggest what an alternative would
be, but one of them, surely, would be the
discussion and debate in the House of the
terms of reference of a Royal commission
JUNE 28, 1968
4935
when the House is in session. I would think
that when we were not in session the gov-
ernment would, of course, have to have the
responsibility to set up these enquiries by
order in council.
But the procedures carried out by the gov-
ernment in the last few days, in my view,
have been adequate and I hope that the
Attorney General would contemplate changes.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 201 agreed to?
Mr. Singer: No, Mr. Chairman, I have got
a couple of points that disturb me.
In connection with the ordering of the
Royal commission to investigate the conduct
of Magistrate Bannon, I am quite satisfied
that what I am going to say does not breach
the Speaker's ruling.
I just do not understand why, when an
investigation had taken place over a period
of three yeeks, the Attorney General took
certain actions on June 18 but neglected to
advise Magistrate Bannon of the reason that
those actions had been taken until June 27.
I think that this kind of action is completely
inexcusable.
I would think, Mr. Chairman, if I could
attempt to draw some kind of a parallel, that
if we ascertained in this House that John Doe
had been arrested and held without charge
for a period of eight days, that we would
have risen in righteous anger and demanded
an explanation from the people responsible
for that.
I do not think there is any difference.
Surely, magistrates are equal before the law
as well. The Attorney General tells us he
wanted to keep it quiet; it would disturb the
normal process of the administration of justice;
it might cast doubts on how we were func-
tioning.
But surely if the investigation had gone
on that length of time there must have come
a time in the Attorney General's mind when
he had to either put up or shut up.
On June 18 he half made up his mind so
he suspended those men. All right, he reheved
them of their duties and I am not going to
get into the technical argument under 19(a).
It is my respectful submission that you are
quite wrong under 19(a).
But he took certain action on June 18 that
half condemned them. It is my simple con-
tention, Mr. Chairman, that when he made up
his mind to move he should have moved
eitlier toward the Royal commission or to lay
criminal charges. And he acted in a most
unfair and arbitrary way in effecting those
suspensions without advising the persons
affected as to the reason why it was being
done.
The end result of this has been all the
newspapers' speculation. I would wonder,
even if the broadest clean bill of health was
given by Mr. Justice Grant, if these two men
have any further usefulness.
What I am suggesting in simple language,
Mr. Chairman, is these two men have been
found guilty without a trial right at the
beginning. Now, if the Attorney General in
good conscience did, on June 18, believe he
had to move, I suggest, very simply, that he
had to move at that time and that was the
day that the Royal commission should have
been ordered, or the day the criminal charges
laid. I do not think that magistrates can or
should be treated in a different way and my
second point is going to deal with that.
I do not know if the Attorney General
wants to comment on that one or not. But I
have a second point I will deal with in a
moment.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, before the Attorney General answers, I
have one particular point.
The thing that disturbs me in his having
relieved the magistrates of their duties tem-
porarily, without informing them as to the
reason, is that— and we do not know the cir-
cumstances—without giving the magistrates
the reason they had no opportunity to give
the Attorney General whatever explanation
was available. There may very well have been
some explanation which would have prevented
all of this occurring. That is why I would hke
to associate myself with the member for
Downsview. I suggest that the Attorney Gen-
eral acted very incorrectly in taking his action
without giving these magistrates an oppor-
tunity to explain.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, the only
way I could reply to either of the hon. mem-
bers would be to breach the very rules which
we have been debating and to state things
which I feel should not be said anywhere
except before the public enquiry. There, the
magistrates will have the right to say and
give any explanations that are available. For
me to start now detailing facts, allegations,
information which came forward as a result
of our investigation would be to try the
matter here in this House.
I do not propose to talk about that mat-
ter which is now before the enquiry. I
4936
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cannot. I am handicapped, I admit, I should
hke to. I have the answers but this is not
my place here to give them.
Mr. Singer: All right. Mr. Chairman, I do
not know if we can beat this point any
further. I feel very strongly about this and
I think this is such a paramount issue, I am
surprised it does not get through to the
Attorney General.
However, Mr. Chairman, tliere is another
point that disturbs me—
Mr. J. Renwick: Could I comment? Will
the member for Downsview yield?
Mr. Singer: Oh, all right.
Mr. J. Renwick: Thank you very much. I
do not think that that is quite the point and
I do not think the Attorney General, Mr.
Chairman, has to go into any of the matters
which will be dealt with before the Royal
commission. I think, the way it came through
to me from the member for Downsview and
the member for High Park, they were simply
saying why, on the day on which the two
magistrates were relieved of their duties in
court or not assigned duties in court, why
on that day did the Attorney General not
ask them what comment they had to make
because he, as Attorney General, was placed
in this very diflBcult position in protecting
the public interest and indirectly relieving
them of their responsibilities.
I think what bothers me— I think it is what
is bothering the member for Downsview and
the member for High Park— should they not,
privately with you, have been given an op-
portunity of answering why they were going
to be relieved of their duties? As the mem-
ber for Downsview has said, it is going to
be extremely difficult, in fact, for these men
to repair the damage which has been done.
They, perhaps, should have been given, up
to the very last moment, the opportunity of
forestalling the action which the Attorney
General was going to take, and by them-
selves vocally to him, of saying whether
this should be done or should not be done.
It would have made it somewhat, perhaps,
more difficult for the Attorney General to
go ahead but at least he would have had
benefit of what their reaction was to the
serious step which he took, which he tried to
keep quiet. I am not certain in my own mind
whether it should have been public or not
and, as he said yesterday, had it not leaped
into the press it probably would still be
quiet.
But on the day that he had them cease
their functions as magistrates it bothers me
that they should not have had the oppor-
tunity of communicating to the Attorney
General their comments about the action he
was then going to take, as a last step by
which they could have protected themselves
from the damage which, and I tend to agree
with the member for Downsview, regardless
of the outcome is likely to have been done
to the two men.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, just
briefly again, I would say this. I see that
point, perhaps I could say something on that.
Let us assmne that the magistrates have
been called before me. I have certain facts
which I feel very seriously impugn their
conduct. I say to them: Why? You do not
ordinarily, necessarily, say even at that point,
I am going to have to relieve you of your
duty, and I may charge you with a crim-
inal charge, or I may have to have an
enquiry into this.
I do not know what that might have ac-
compHshed; it would still have, perhaps,
taken a little time to have determined the
course of action. I cannot really see that
reputations of the persons involved would
have benefited or been affected other than
they have been.
Mr. Shulman: But you gave them no
chance to explain or defend—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: When the hon. member
becomes aware of the facts of this matter,
he will realize that explanation would, per-
haps, not have helped me in that situation.
And, as I say, it is very delicate ground on
which to speak because you force me to go
very close to a breach of the rule I am
trying to observe.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downs-
view was interrupted— were you going to
continue?
Mr. Singer: Yes, I was. I wanted to talk
for a moment about the telephone tapping
incident. When we asked the questions of
the Attorney General, one specific question
that I asked was— who authorized it? The
Attorney General did not answer that ques-
tion. Could the Attorney General answer
that question now?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It was not referred to
me, Mr. Chairman. I do not ordinarily direct
or authorize police in their investigations. I
did not.
Mr. Singer: You do not know?
JUNE 28, 1968
4937
Hon. Mr. Wisharl: No.
Mr. Singer: All right. Now, it puzzles me,
Mr. Chairman, that when the Attorney Gen-
eral talked to the press about this incident
yesterday afternoon, he went to particular
pains to say, "We did not tap the telephones
of the magistrates"— or whoever did, did not
tap the telephones of the magistrates— "but
we did tap the telephones of criminals."
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Singer: I said, "Whoever did tap the
telephones did not tap the telephones of the
magistrates, they tapped the telephones of
the criminals." Now, if the telephone tapping
was logical or justified at all, could the At-
torney General tell us possibly what the dis-
tinction is? If you were suspicious— and I use
the "you" collectively; I do not mean it as
directed to you in any other capacity than as
the Attorney General— if you were suspicious
that something serious had gone wrong with
the administration of justice, and that magi-
strates were involved, why did it seem almost
a point of honour that you should not tap
the telephones of magistrates but you should
tap the telephones only of known criminals?
Can you answer that one?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have no answer, Mr.
Chairman, I do not think this is relevant at
all. I do not propose to be drawn into this
debate at this time.
Mr. Chaiiman: Vote 201 agreed to?
Mr. Singer: No, I am not finished yet. A
third point is this: I would like to draw to
the Attorney General's attention— I am sure
he is aware of it— the provisions of The
Ontario Telephone Act, and more particularly
sections 110 and 112. I am not going to read
them; the Attorney General is familiar with
them— the provisions of section 372, subsec-
tion 1 of the criminal code-
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: A point of order raised
over here by the member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: I do not want to interrupt
the member for Downsview unnecessarily
but I specifically asked at the beginning of
this debate under what vote this particular
matter should be debated, and I was told by
the Attorney General, vote 210.
Mr. Chairman: Well, we are certainly off
vote 201.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am talking
in relation to the Royal commission to in-
vestigate the conduct of Magistrate Bannon,
and part of that investigation relates to what
was said in this House, and outside the
House, in connection with telephone tapping.
I am not talking about telephone tapping
generally; I am talking about it in relation to
this specific Royal commission, and I would
think, sir, it must be in order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And we are voting the
money to pay for this investigation.
Mr. Singer: Yes, sir, and we are voting the
money to pay for this Royal commission and
I am confining my remarks to that. At a
later stage, under the proper vote, I too will
have some general comments on telephone
tapping. But I am just relating it to this
particular incident because this is the first
occasion in this House that we have had
any admission that during the process of a
police investigation there has been telephone
tapping. And I just want to—
Mr. Chairman: Does the means of obtain-
ing the evidence really relate to a discussion
of the principles under which Royal com-
missions are handled under this code?
Mr. Singer: Yes, it relates to this specific
Royal commission, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Royal commission; not
the subject of wire tapping?
Mr. Singer: No. The Attorney General
put them into it, or the newspaper writer
put them into it. The Attorney General saw
fit to comment on it inside the House and
outside the House and certainly I think it is
most pertinent here.
Mr. Chairman: But might not there be
scores of ways in which the particular evi-
dence is behind the Royal commission?
Mr. Singer: I am not asking that. I am
asking particularly whether or not, Mr.
Chairman-I was about to give my authority
—whether or not an offence having been
conmiitted under certain statutes, tlie At-
torney General intends, as tlie chief enforce-
ment officer in Ontario, to take action under
the provisions of The Ontario Telephone Act
under the provisions of the criminal code,
and under the provisions of The Bell Tele-
phone Act, 1880, to prosecute those people
for breaches that he admitted had taken
place in the statutes? That is my simple
question and that was all I wanted to ask.
4938
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If the Attorney General wants an elabora-
tion, I will give it to him. I will give him
the details. The Ontario Telephone Act,
sections 110 and 112, subsection 372-1 of
the code, section 25 of The Bell Telephone
Act, 1880, applied together with section 107
of the code. But the Attorney General has
said: "Offences have taken place," and I
want to know if he is going to charge the
people who committed those offences?
Mr. Chairman: Does the Attorney General
wish to answer this question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I just want to clear up
one point, Mr. Chairman. I have never said
that offences took place in this regard what-
soever. I am not sure at all that The Ontario
Telephone Act applies to the Bell Telephone
Company; I have never thought that there
was any breach here to be considered— and
that is the question the hon. member asked.
I certainly did not admit to any offences and
I have not thought of any prosecution.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Now, I would say this—
I would expect if there was anything of that
natiu-e, that will be a matter again for the
commissioner presiding at the enquiry to
consider and weigh; lie may bring some
direction from that.
Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, now we
liave got the issue-
Mr. Chairman: I suggest to the member
that he has received an answer and—
Mr. Singer: It is not quite an answer be-
cause, as quoted in the Star, and in quota-
tion marks, "Electronic devices to pick up
certain messages on the phones of certain
other persons during the course of the in-
vestigation were used." Now, that is in
direct quotation marks. I presume the At-
torney General said that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Who says that is a
breach?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Who says that?
Mr. Singer: All I am saying is this, tliat
within the scheme of The Ontario Telephone
Act— and if he cannot find solace there, I
would suggest he can find it in the sections
of the criminal code I referred to and in
The Bell Telephone Act in 1880, section 25,
that it is an offence to interfere with the
privacy of telephone calls.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a point of order. For one who is not
learned in the law, it has been difficult some-
times for me to follow some of this, although
it has been very interesting. But it seems
apparent to me, sir— and I do not often agree
with the hon. member for High Park. The
hon. member is right. The hon. member for
High Park was told that this particular sub-
ject is to be discussed under another vote; I
do not know that any other member should
be permitted to discuss this subject under
this vote.
Mr. Singer: That is wire tapping in general.
This relates to this incident that the Attor-
ney General referred to, and I have been
careful to confine my remarks to the one
incident. All I am suggesting is that if the
Attorney General is not aware of these pro-
visions that he should make immediate refer-
ence to those statutes, and I am of the
opinion that an offence has taken place—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, may
I have your ruling?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Singer: —and that he should take
action.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. May I sug-
gest this— and in a way it is a repetition of
my earlier comment— that mainly, if you are
dealing with the adequacy or propriety of
police methods, this is probably a matter that
would come under 210. We are here dealing
not with police methods but we are dealing
with 201, a general section relating to poHcies,
commissions and the background of these.
Therefore, I would suggest that if you are
getting into the details of the ways of col-
lecting evidence, the ways of using evidence
and their legality or propriety, you deal with
it under 210 and not now.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I shall save the
balance of my remarks for vote 210.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, I have a number of comments and ques-
tions to ask. But first of all arising out of
some remarks made by the hon. member for
Humber this morning, about "dope sheets"
and about disclosures to defence counsel of
Crown information; on the whole I think-
particularly of the legal aid scheme for duty
counsel-I find that the Crown is becoming
ever more open with respect to it. I would
JUNE 28, 1968
4930
just make the wry comment that the day
that the hon. member, as a counsel for the
defence, make a disclosure of any portion or
miniscule of his position, then I would think
we would change the law.
Tjhe second point that I wish to make has
to do with some conmients made last evening
as to the mentality and earning power of the
legal profession. There was a brief remark
made by Fuller in tlie text that I was read-
ing last evening. He said, "Over the whole
proceedings hovers what Lord Coate proudly
called the artificial reason of the law." The
legal profession, according to one of its critics,
recruits its members by a kind of natural
selection from among those temperamentally
inclined to over-thinking and, listening to
part of the debate this morning, I felt per-
haps that a httle overthought was in evidence
here.
A point that was made at some length
both by myself and the hon. member for
Samia last evening has not particularly pene-
trated so far as I can see, particularly in
the reply by the Attorney General last eve-
ning, Mr, Chairman. In order to drive it
home, if I may be permitted, McRuer says
at page 944, the following. It has to do
with your relationship to the other Cabinet
Ministers in the introduction of legislation:
The major fault in the present system is
that the responsibility for deciding the
legal policy to be followed is not clearly
placed on the Attorney General whose con-
stitutional responsibility it is. Nor is he
given proper opportunity to discharge it.
That is the big point.
The departmental solicitor cannot and
should not be expected to discharge the
responsibilities of the Attorney General.
Although he may have a particular fami-
harity with the branch of law to which a
bill relates, his association with the ad-
ministrative operation of his department
will always tend to restrict his objectivity
and breadth of view. His major interest will
be to draft a bill to ensure that the
administrators of his department can meet
any administrative contingency with a
minimum of hindrance.
That is precisely what we objected to last
evening and what we take issue with.
In other words, we find in many pieces of
legislation coming before this House, there
is the feeling that it is a question of giving
too much power to a Minister, and he does
not want to be bothered with outside obstruc-
tive interference, all the gadflies of the
Opposition and what not, and public com-
ment, he wants to be a free-wheeling indi-
vidual.
So, his department comes along with legis-
lation about which the legislative counsel
knows very little, I suggest, as to the sub-
stance and is not really equipped to peruse
it. They forward it; it is so broad in its
terms that it meets every administrative
contingency that they can dream of with a
minimum of hindrance from people like our-
selves. The inevitable tendency is to confer
broad powers with little procedural restric-
tion, and little provision for appeal, in blat-
ant disregard of fundamental legal policy.
I would again ask that the direction and
tenor of those remarks be registered and
have some eflFect on future legislation or
you will have to listen to people like myself
ad nauseum repeating the text just as it
stands. This is a kind of penalty that you are
going to pay.
Coming now to somewhat more concrete
matters, in a report of the Toronto DaHy
Star of April 4, 1968, is says that justice
takeover is to cost $19,500,000. In the re-
port placed before this House, read yester-
day by the hon. Minister, he has indicated
that there was an increase in the estimates
of $20,712,000, exclusive of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police. He goes on to say of this
very substantial increase, approximately $14
million is represented by the costs. Further
down he says that this has not taken into
account the costs of buildings, and this
would be within Public Works.
I wonder, against the newspaper reports
at the time of the announcement of the take-
over of justice, has the Minister now got
any shrewd idea of what the total cost of
the take-over will be, and whether it exceeds
previous estimates?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, first I
would point out that the costs I referred
to in the remarks that I read in the opening
discussion of my estimates, do not include
the costs of the take-over of the facilities
which are witliin the jurisdiction of The
Department of Reform Institutions. We have
from die Provincial Treasurer— from that de-
partment that actually has the figures which
have been prepared and revised and com-
pleted as closely, I believe, as possible—
that the costs amount, as nearly as I can as-
certain and that department can ascertain, to
$19.5 million.
4940
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chaimian, might I con-
tinue for just a moment on Royal commis-
sions? In 1966-67 year, the amount asked
for by the Attorney General was $255,000.
Actually spent in that year was about $559,-
400, a very considerable increase. True, that
would be the year in which the Atlantic
Acceptance got going.
Then last year the Attorney General
asked for a little bit more than he had asked
for in the previous year, $300,000. This year
he is asking for $125,000, a good deal less,
according to his estimates here.
In view of the enormous discrepancy in
the last public accounts figure that we can
get our hands on, first of all can the Minis-
ter indicate what was spent last year, over
against what was asked for? Has he those
figures at this time?
My second question has to do with the
Royal commissions actually sitting and being
paid at the present time. I would ask him
to correct me if I am wrong. It seems that
the Mackay commission is sitting, the Rand
commission on labour legislation, and the
Atlantic Acceptance enquiry, together with
this new one. Are any others presently en-
gaged in this work, and if there are I
would tliink that $125,000 sounds like a
pretty small figure?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I think
that I dealt with this in large part last night.
I would point out that under the estimates,
tliis under the main office, we cannot estimate
with any accuracy what is going to be spent
on commissions or an enquiry. Some of these
are presently in the course of their progress
and some may arise during the year. For
instance, we have had this week the creation
of another enquiry.
We cannot estimate those, and the large
amounts which are increased beyond our
estimate is due to the expenditures by the
commission of enquiry.
The Atlantic and the commission on The
Workmen's Compensation Act, came out of
my estimates, the Royal commission on
labour relations and the Royal commission
on tlie pollution of air, soil and water. That
is the explanation.
I think that the hon. member asked for
the figure spent in the last fiscal year, and
I am trying to find it. I do not have the
actual figure, but I think I can say that we
were very close to the appropriations that
we obtained.
For the Atlantic Acceptance, the appro-
priation for 1967-68 was $255,000, and that
was an increase of $183,000 in our esti-
mates. This year the estimate for Atlantic is
$72,000, which I am sorry, would be a de-
crease of $183,400, but we asked for what
was appropriated last year. Workmen's com-
pensation enquiry, it was $20,000 in 1967-
68, this year we are asking for $5,000, a
decrease of $15,000. Labour disputes en-
quiry, last year $25,000, this year we ask
for $20,000, a decrease of $5,000. The pol-
lution of air, soil and water, we asked for
$28,000 in our estimate last year.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there is a report
in the Globe and Mail of June 28, 1968, and
the autlior is Warren Gerard, which reads as
follows:
Police asked for and received private
information from school records of a stu-
dent who was a Crown witness in a recent
court case, it was disclosed last night.
The information, which not even parents
are permitted to know, was given about
William Robert Dwight, a 17-year-old for-
mer Brockton high school student. The
vice-principal testified that the youth had
an IQ of between 85 and 95.
I think that is a sufficient quote from the
article on which to base my comments.
These matters, of course, come from an
extensive file of information that is main-
tained on each student in the province of
Ontario. These are normally maintained in
the office of the school which he is attend-
ing, but they are cumulative and contain
specific information besides the normal bits
of information that have accrued from confi-
dential reports from teachers over his whole
academic career.
Now, if you think about this a moment,
you would realize that there would be a
considerable profile of his personal abilities
and proclivities that would have been gath-
ered over his 18 to 20 years' scholastic career,
and what makes this particularly easy to deal
with in modem technology computers have
now been programmed to read this informa-
tion out on request and in very complete
and explicit detail. I have in my hand actu-
ally something that has been in my files in
the education department for some consider-
able time and it is an example of the sort
of computer read-out that is available when
the computer is properly questioned.
There is no doubt that school officials
and others must have authority in order to
have access to this information. Much of it
is routine and yet I suppose the best ex-
ample of a piece of information that is some-
JUNE 28, 1968
4941
thing other than routine is the intelHgent
quotient of the individual itself.
This is, in many ways, a most important
piece of information, usually not available
to the individual, at least from public sources.
I am not here to give you any expert opinion
as to the precision of an IQ test or the im-
portance of its reading and yet in my experi-
ence if an individual knows his IQ it is
perhaps one of the most important pieces of
information that he would have.
That this would be given in a court of
law as evidence as to the ability of the per-
son to testify and to be believed is incredible.
I believe it is severe intrusion into individual
right and I think the Attorney General has
an immediate responsibility to see that it
is well understood by statute and regulation
that this information is not to be used in
this particular way. I do not want to relate
it to the case I have mentioned previously;
the police oflBcer was found not responsible
under those circumstances and I do not want
to relate it to that at all.
The fact that this information, which is
surely privileged and personal, should be
brought out in a court of law under these
circumstances is something that I heartily
disapprove of. I think the Attorney General
is going to have to take steps to see that
those who have access to it, school prin-
cipals and others, will not be required to
divulge it in this sort of detail in a court
of law. I would be most interested in the
Attorney General's comments and what he
is prepared to do to protect the individual
liberties of our citizens in this regard.
Mr. Shulman: Are we on vote 201, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: I presume so.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I just wish to speak
briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I may do so. There
is no privilege accorded for this type of
information that I am aware of. There is
privilege between sohcitor and client; that
information cannot be given. I read the
article quickly this morning; I understood
how the information was first obtained. I
point out that the principal, or vice-principal,
who had the information, had access to it,
could have been subpoenaed and brought to
court and asked to produce it. Then it would
be for the judge presiding in the court to
decide if the evidence is admissible and the
weight to be given to it.
I think one would have to consider very
carefully whether one should have a blanket
rule, or a general rule, saying that such in-
formation is never admissible and is privi-
leged and cannot l)e disclosed. I can think
of situations where it would be most cogent
and most valuable as evidence for a person
charged, or the defence, and I think to say
at this moment that I am prepared to do
more than consider the suggestion of the
hon. leader of the Opposition is all I could
say. I think of situations where, if you have
a general rule, it might very well not be
justified. I could consider the matter, though.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I believe in
many cases it is brought before the court by
way of evidence of the psychological capacity
and maybe the psychiatric difficulty that a
witness might experience. But when we
realize that every one of our citizens from
now on, as they move through the school
system, is going to have this information
which can be read out to the court in great
detail, it means that we are coming into a
period where there is a tremendous depart-
ure from the impersonality of the individual;
that his privacy has really been completely
disrupted and lost. If these sheets— and I
suppose a complete one would be 10 feet
long— of information, can be tacked to a
person's name, an individual, when he ap-
pears in court under a charge or as a wit-
ness, instead of that being simply a person
standing before the judge, this, in fact, is
the person standing before the judge. I plead
most sincerely that automation and the tech-
nological advances of this type are often a
real challenge in the matter of individual
liberties and we must be aware of it.
Mr. BuUbrook: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough East (Mr. T. Reid), I beheve, had
the floor first.
Mr. Bullbrook: I thought I made it, sir,
but-
Mr. Chairman: If the member for Scar-
borough East will yield to the member for
Sarnia, it will be quite in order.
Mr. Bullbrook: No, it is not the same point,
so perhaps—
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Chairman, on the same point, I would like
to draw the Minister's attention to Hansard
for June 5, 1968, pages 3966 and 3967, where
my leader and myself discussed this problem
in the context of the Education estimates. I
want to make sure that the Attorney General
has seen our comments there and has seen
4942
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the reply the hon. Minister of Education gave
to us.
Mr. Cliairman, my leader has reiterated this
concern with individual liberties in the con-
text of the courts; I would like to suggest
that the context is much broader than this.
We are concerned with the collection of this
information about students during their school
years, particularly in primary and secondary
schools, and who has access to it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate the
three areas where I think this government
must take some action. I believe it probably
should lie under the present Minister's de-
partment, the hon. Attorney General's depart-
ment. The three points are these: First, I
think the Minister of Education of this prov-
ince has the responsibility to instruct the
school boards of the province about the type
of information they can record about indi-
vidual students. In this context we are talk-
ing about liberties in our society, the liberties
of the individual and the rights of individuals
in our society. At that time, Mr. Chairman,
my interpretation of Hansard is the Minister
acknowledged this was a problem and that he
was concerned with it. I would suggest that
the Minister of Education and the Attorney
General should get together on this because
this government, no matter whose responsi-
bility it is, must spell out specifically what the
Hamilton school board, for example, is al-
lowed to collect and what it is not allowed
to collect.
The second point is that with the introduc-
tion of regional computers, storage centres if
you like, this government does have a direct
responsibility. It is a responsibility that should
not He at the local level and this government
must make sure that the information that is
stored, that is allowed to be collected, and is
stored on those memory brains of the com-
puters, is not leaked out in a way that is
harmful to individual teenager's rights.
The third point, Mr. Chairman, was who
had access to this information? Witli com-
puters, access becomes much more possible,
I believe, and I think that this government
must spell out who can get at this informa-
tion—someone in the department, who simply
wants to find something out, or is it only those
people who are actually programming the in-
formation?
I would like to underline what my leader
has said, that this is the concern of the Lib-
eral Party. We are very concerned, not only
with this application to the courts of this
province, but to employers who might be
looking for records on potential employees
and even to the universities, Mr. Chairman.
I feel that there should be some very care-
fully thought out restrictions placed on the
type of information that is collected on the
individual such as subjective evaluation by
teachers who might not like the young teen-
ager because of his hair and put in a very
subjective, very biased report on the charac-
ter of that teenager. I think also, that we
must spell out very carefully and very pub-
licly, who has access to the computers and
who can get the information from the com-
puters.
The court is only one area; we are con-
cerned with other areas in our society as
well. For example, the credit rating agencies
who like to get this type of information be-
fore they put a credit rating on someone. I
think we need laws. I think they mui>t be
clearly spelled out and I urge the Attorney
General, in conjunction with other members
of the government, particularly, the Minister
of Education, to put this at the top of their
list of priorities in the current concern with
human rights and individual liberties in our
society.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, on tlie same sub-
ject. I am afraid I have a little advantage
over my friend who just sat down and my
illustrious leader because I am rather sur-
prised.
I would remind my friend that there were
civil rights involved. The civil rights of the
policeman to a fair trial and the right to
bring out all evidence which would point
towards his innocence. It is quite conceiv-
able that if this evidence had not been
brought forward, to which objection is now
taken, an innocent man may have been con-
victed. We must be extremely careful whose
civil rights we talk about, because everybody
is entitled to have civil rights. The accused
as well as the innocent; the witness as well
as the accused; all of them have certain civil
rights.
But we have always strongly guarded the
civil rights of the person who is on trial and
whose very safety may be in jeopardy. The
man who was accused, if my memory serves
me correctly, of attempted murder or some-
thing—well it was not that, but it was a
very serious offence at any rate and he could be
sentenced to be incarcerated for many years.
Now whose civil rights are more important?
I suggest that the civil rights of this man
who was charged there were just as im-
portant as anyone else's.
Now my friends do not know that I can
summons, in a court of law, anyone to give
JUNE 28, 1968
4943
evidence as to a person's reputation in a
community. All the computer has done is
gather various opinions as to that person's
reputation in a community— in this particular
case, it is in classroom and has gathered it
in one place and has made it readily avail-
able. In no way is it an invasion of any-
one's civil or legal rights, because the defence
counsel could have called every teacher into
a court of law and said: "What is your
opinion as to the character of 'A'? Is he
trustworthy? Does he tell the truth? Is he
prone to lie? Is he a person who exag-
gerates?"
All tliis is admissible evidence in a court
of law. Now the reason we brought com-
puters into being is to save mankind the
necessity of labouring, manually, to accu-
mulate all this information each time it is
required. A computer does it faster. It does
not change the situation in any way. It just
does, in a split second, what would take a
number of people maybe years and decades
to do.
Now we have to be extremely careful that
we do not deprive ourselves of civil rights
when we talk about preserving civil rights
and this is what could happen.
Now the sheet that my leader pointed out
is not admissible in a court of law because it
would be hearsay. You would have to pro-
duce the teachers themselves to give evidence
as to their opinion. This would just be a
correlation of certain facts and the sheet, the
read-out itself, is not admissible in a court
of law.
It would not be admitted by a judge. If
it was admitted it would only go to show that
there was a read-out on this particular indi-
vidual, that certain facts had been accumu-
lated on him. But it would not go to prove
the truth of what was on that particular
sheet of paper.
So I think we must be extremely careful
that we do not bite our nose to spite our face,
so to speak, and deprive ourselves of our
civil rights by saying that we are fighting for
our civil rights.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if I might ask something of the hon.
leader of the Opposition, who was kind
enough to send me this computerized record?
I am somewhat interested in it myself, be-
cause of course, we have records of some
3,500 children in our training schools.
I have been unable to find anything in
this sheet which gives an opinion at all.
Have I missed it some place? It merely gives
the attendance record and the grades and
marks and .so on but there does not seem to
be anything here, that I can find, which
gives an opinion.
Mr. Nixon: If I might provide a little more
information for my hon. friend who asked
the question:
This is information about an actual stri-
dent. Anyone who attended the conference
on computerizing was able to go to the
machine and was given the code \Ahich
would authorize the machine to give the
information that is contained in that table.
I understand that the first code gives name
and address. Then a person in a certain
position is provided with access to further
information.
You will notice at the bottom of that sheet
the answers come back with the letters NA
-not applicable. This is the answer that
comes from the machine when the person
questioning does not have the appropriate
code for further information. It is an example
of what the machine has within it and from
that point on, the information on this specific
student was not applicable in computer terms
for the person who was questioning.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But it only has to do
with the grades and so on.
Mr. Nixon: You see, that is where they
stopped using it. They tore the page off and
brought it back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chainnan, it may
be of some interest to those who are, as they
say, "learned in the law" on these matters,
that some time ago and I think there was
some criticism in the House on this score—
my department refused to provide a file to a
court of law, in which a man was being tried
for murder. The defence insisted on getting
this file and we were faced with a very
difficult situation because our files contain
a lot of information which is got together by
psychiatrists and so on.
There is a lot of personal information in
these files and it is felt by those who are
gathering this information that it would
jeopardize their position in getting this in-
formation from the wards or even in the case
of adults. The people gathering this informa-
tion would lose the confidence of the ward
or inmate if it was felt that they— or the
student, in the case of a training school-
might some day let these reports see the light
of day in a court. So, to protect the system
and to protect these people, to protect the
ability to get this information— the sociological
4944
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
history of these people— we feel it is impor-
tant to maintain the confidence that everyone
believes is involved in these matters.
But tliere was some criticism of us for
refusing this. We felt we had to do it, but
the judge— I do not think he quite ordered—
but implied that if we did not produce it
tliere would be an order and he did not think
we should put ourselves in a position to be
ordered to do so. He insisted that these be
produced in the court and all we could
manage to do in that instance was to make
an arrangement with the lawyer for the
defence and a representative of our depart-
ment to sit with the judge in his chambers so
that he could see the whole file and decide
whether there was anytliing in it which, in
his view, would be helpful for the defence.
This is precisely what we did.
Now, I just mention this in passing because
of the difficulty that we get involved in with
regard to information which was received on
the basis which we received some of this
information, that is confidentially. I really
do not think that— as the hon. member for
Humber pointed out, the computerization of
this, is pertinent to the situation at all. Either
the information is available or not. Whether
it is computerized or got together in a hurry
is of no consequence at all.
Mr. Nixon: I think that computerized in-
formation means that it is available and
that is the consequence.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to comment on my colleague from Humber's
remarks. We have had a little discussion
here, and his view is definitely that this type
of collective, highly-centralized information
and the access to it must be restricted. It
must be spelled out so that there is a clear
understanding on behalf of the people supply-
ing information to those memory files of what
the uses of that information will be.
This point was, as I understand it, that
witnesses must be called as opposed to simply
bringing a piece of paper into court. My feel-
ing on this is that— and I am certainly not
a lawyer— the information that a teacher sup-
plies to a student's file is certainly not
supplied under any oath, and that is one of
the key things. I feel that a lot of this
information that teachers do supply to these
files— the principals supply to files— is not
based on any sense of oath. Therefore those
files are perhaps the same as the hon. Minister
of Reform Institutions' files: The information
he has collected, to the best of his knowledge.
is accurate, but still it is not done under
oath, to my knowledge.
So I would simply say this, that certainly—
in terms of character witnesses as I believe
the lawyers call them— the character witnesses
have to come into court and testify. But I do
not think that this type of information that
goes on the student's record, which is not
taken under oath in any sense, as I under-
stand it, should be— I will not say blankly
it should not be used, but I would say that
its use must be very, very carefully scru-
tinized, and we should have a consistent
policy on this in the years ahead.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Attorney Gen-
eral wish to comment on this particular
point? I believe the member for Samia has
something on a difiPerent point.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I made a fair com-
ment, Mr. Chairman, to the leader of the
Opposition who raised the same point.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Samia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, yesterday
evening both the hon. member for Lakeshore
and myself took some refuge in the comments
of the hon. Mr. McRuer. I wanted to point
out to the House that, as had been pointed
out slightly, I think that in chapter 62 of
McRuer, tlie hon. gentleman therein dwells
upon the functions and duties of the Attorney
General. I would like to think he dwells also
on the functions and duties of the Deputy
Attorney General, and for that matter, all
those people who follow the directions of the
Attorney General in his responsibilities.
Mr. McRuer says in ejffect that there are
four prime responsibilities of the Attorney
General:
1. The supervision of the machinery of
justice;
2. The supervision of law enforcement;
3. The supervision of government litigation;
and
4. The supervision of legislation. Now,
it is in connection with No. 2, the supervision
of law enforcement, that I wish to direct my
few short remarks.
On page 937, Mr. McRuer says: "Law en-
forcement may be divided into three main
branches which have no clear lines of demar-
cation: investigation, policing and prosecu-
tion". And it is with respect to the first one
that I want to make a comment at the present
time. It is in connection with investigation.
As I understand the law here in the Dominion
JUNE 28, 1968
4945
of Canada, and applicable here in the prov-
ince of Ontario, we are somewhat unique—
not entirely unique— that in our courts, evi-
dence illegally obtained is acceptable evi-
dence. It has probative value in the United
States of America, in most of the states, and
I believe decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States are otherwise. Most evi-
dence illegally obtained is not admissible to-
wards the prosecution of any citizen, so that
here in the province of Ontario we must be
very careful, because in point of fact— to bring
it to the attention of my colleagues, as I un-
derstand the law— if a person is charged with
drunk driving, Mr. Chairman, he could be
forcibly put on the floor by the pohce, and
blood can be extracted from him, Mr. Chair-
man. And if there is too high a content of
alcohol in that blood it can be used to con-
vict him.
I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
hon. Attorney General, that circumstances
such as that cause a person great concern,
and should cause this Legislature great con-
cern, and should cause the Attorney General
concern, and the Deputy Attorney General
concern. But the judiciary has said, as I
understand it, that that evidence is admis-
sible. I put it to you therefore, that there is
a keen and broad arid most onerous responsi-
bility on the Attorney General in connection
with his duties relative to the directing of
police investigation.
In the last few days, sir, we have had com-
ments about wire tapping. I do not want to
talk about wire tapping. We will talk about
that generally again, but I do, Mr. Chairman,
want to talk about the responsibility of the
Attorney General in connection with the se-
curing of evidence this way, and I point out
to you, Mr. Chairman, that I believe the law
of this country still to be as shown in the
statutes of Canada in 1880, 43 Victoria. Sec-
tion 25 of The Bell Telephone Act reads:
Any person who shall wilfully or mali-
ciously injure, molest or destroy any of the
lines, posts or other material or property
of the company, or in any way wilfully
obstruct or interfere with the working of
the said telephone Hnes, or intercept any
message transmitted thereon shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor.
And the criminal code of Canada says, in
section 372, subsection (c):
Everyone commits mischief who vdlfuUy
obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the
lawful use or enjoyment or operation of
property.
Now, the point I make is this: We are going
to discuss at length the question of wire tap-
ping, but I suggest tliis, that I was disturbol
yesterday by the fact that it has come to our
attention that the Attorney General of this
province has told the press, "Yes, wire tap-
ping was used in this matter, in this case, the
case of the two magistrates". We have to
have a clarification of a position by the gov-
ernment here, and the only person who can
give us that clarification is the hon. Attorney
General.
I do not invite him today in any way to
adversely affect the position either of that
commission or enquiry, or the gentlemen in-
volved. I support the position of the Attorney
General, and always will that any matter of
this nature, if it has been ruled to be sub
judice then he should not make a comment.
And I say this most respectfully, that you
cannot rationalize the difiFerence because it
has been made pubhc. Either a matter is
before the court so to speak, or it is not, and
because the police leak out information— and
this is the only thing I can infer, as I read
tliat edition of the newspaper. It says, "Police
admit vdre tapping". If there is a leak where
did it come from? It seems to me it came
from the police. And it seems to me, having
regard to the position that I take— and that is
that here in this jurisdiction, evidence ille-
gally obtained has probative value, is relevant;
I mean, subject to its relevancy, it has proba-
tive value, and it will be accepted by our
courts. This is an extreme onus on the Attor-
ney General of this province, an extreme onus,
to most diligently guard the rights of the
individual in connection with evidence ille-
gally obtained, because let us hope we never
get to the situation in this province, Mr.
Chairman, where you and I are subject to
being, so to speak, put on the floor and hav-
ing our blood extracted from us by the pohce.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: May I ask the hon.
member if this is a case that he is supposing?
He is not surely talking of any case that ever
happened?
Mr. Bullbrook: I am putting this position
to you.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is a supposition.
Mr. Bullbrook: No, there are decisions, I
beheve— I cannot give it to you right now.
There is a decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada on this very point, that evidence of
alcohol content illegally extracted while the
person was unconscious was accepted as evi-
dence.
4946
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Oh, yes, but what I
was asking the hon. member— when he talks
about this example of a man being forced
down on the floor, held down, and blood
taken from him, this is not a case that he
knows about. I never heard of such a thing.
Mr. Bullbrook: I put this to you, Mr. Attor-
ney General— through you, Mr. Chairman— I
am not saying that. Perhaps I exaggerated.
I exaggerate for the purpose purely— the
principle hes there. This does not warrant
any laughter from the member for Lake-
shore because he should be behind me 100
per cent. The principle is there. This is the
principle I make, that evidence illegally ob-
tained will be accepted by our courts, so
perhaps I exaggerate in the actual manifes-
tation of my concern.
Perhaps the police would not ever do
this but if we are not the guardians of prin-
ciples here in this House, tlien where in
heaven's name in the province of Ontario
are you going to find the guardians?
The point I make— and I will stop now—
the point I make is this, that we must
demand now a position to be taken by the
hon. Attorney General in connection with the
investigatory conduct of the police forces in
this province. Either he is going to permit
it or he is not going to permit it, either he is
going to go half way with it, which seems
to be the reasonable approach— there are
times when justice is a two-way street. I
want to protect individual rights and liberties
as much as anybody else, but we also want
to protect the rights of society and I can
see that there are times that we require
abilities to investigate, that require this type
of conduct on the part of the police. But
the only way we can guard this is through
the courts. I exhort the Attorney General
and his department— are you on a point of
order? I am going to finish in a moment. 1
exhort the Attorney General really to take a
position in this connection. I say it is his
responsibihty.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I thought the hon.
member said just as I rose that the only
thing we could do is take the rule of the
court, which I think is a very sound thing.
I would think he would surely go along
with me when I say, surely, when our high-
est courts rule on these matters that is a
pretty good rule to follow. I cannot think
of any better body than our judiciary and
particularly those of the highest courts in
the land, who rule on these matters of evi-
dence, the way on which it is obtained and
the weight. We have not— in this country.
in the highest court of our land— we have
not followed the rule of the United States
courts, that tainted evidence, they call it,
is not admissible.
Our courts have said, and it is not for
the Attorney General, really, to change that
decision of the courts, when it reaches the
highest court of the land— they have said:
"We will consider how the evidence has
been obtained and we will take into ac-
count all the circumstances surrounding how
it was obtained, but the fact that it may
have been obtained in an illegal way does
not take away from its use in the court. It
may have some evidentiary value."
That is the rule our highest court has laid
down. And I think I have regard for the
rule of our courts particularly in this field,
more respect and more regard than those foi
the courts of our great neighbour to the
south.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, my concern
is not whether the Attorney General has any
ability or should have any intrusion in the
decisions made by the courts. My prime con-
cern—and perhaps I have not brought it to
your attention significantly enough or prop-
erly—my main concern is that, somewhere in
this municipality or in this province, some
police ofiicer of his own volition, sir, might
take it upon himself, through the guise of
some investigation— do you follow me?— to
intrude upon privacy. I feel there lies the
responsibility to the Attorney General. There
lies a question of direction from his oflBce.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I might just add, Mr.
Chairman, that I could cite for the hon.
member a number of recent examples where
we have exercised intervention, direction,
reprimand, control, advice to our police
forces.
These things come to our attention and
quite frequently they come right to my at-
tention—they are dealt with sometimes by
myself through the Ontario police commis-
sion and through other police commissions.
We have numerous instances— I should not
say "numerous"— a number of instances have
come to our attention and we do not hesi-
tate to act promptly and exercise, I would
say, reprimand— direction certainly. Orders
go out that such things shall not occur, shall
not be done. I think this is not something
that is infrequent and that we neglect or that
we overlook.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, following up
what my colleague has said and some of the
points I touched on earlier.
JUNE 28, 1968
4947
Would like specifically to get an answer
from the Attorney General, if I can, as to
whether or not, in view of the circumstances
that we have already referred to at some
length, he intends to take action under sec-
tion 110 or 112 of The Ontario Telephone
Act, under section 372, subsection 1 of the
criminal code or under section 25 of The
Bell Telephone Act? Either in this specific
case or any other case that comes to his
attention. Or, if it is not his intention to do
that, what direction does the Attorney Gen-
eral give to the police in these matters?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I thought I made it
plain tliat until the enquiry now going for-
ward has been finished, I will not be taking
any action in the matter. When that enquiry
is completed and all the matters therein re-
viewed, including the matter of how the
evidence was obtained, and so on, I will
then consider what action, if any, should be
taken.
Mr. Singer: All right, then let us leave
that alone. Supposing a policeman has
thrown a drunk down on the floor and put
a needle in him and extracted blood. Would
the Attorney General, quite apart from the
admissibility of that kind of evidence at the
trial, what would the Attorney General do
to the policeman involved, would he initiate
any proceedings, or would he say it is too
bad, or would he slap him on the wrist?
What I am trying to get at, Mr. Chair-
man, is what the Attorney General's attitude
is to evidence that has been illegally gathered
by law officers. That is a very simple thing,
really. There are certain actions occasionally
taken by law oflBcers that are illegal— they
breach some statute or are in violation of the
criminal code or they are illegal for other
reasons, and occasionally that evidence is
admissible under certain rules of the court.
But what is the Attorney General's attitude
to the gathering of evidence illegally by law
officers?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would say in the case
the hon. member mentions, used by the hon.
member for Samia, throwing tlie man down,
I would say that policeman should be
charged with assault immediately. The
Ellenor case is an example.
I think the pohceman should not be
allowed to breach the law without the law
pursuing him the same as it would any other
citizen.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, as I imderstand it, the hon. Attorney
General has said repeatedly that there is no
law in this province, in this country, against
wire tapping. He said, in his opinion— in
Hansard he says that in his opinion that,
where the court finds the need to use this
type of investigation, the court can come
and ask for permission to do so.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please, I would
point out to the member that the Attorney
General has ju.vt intimated to the committee,
in response to a similar question, that he does
not intend to enlarge upon or discuss this
particular matter until the completion of the
enquiry about which we have had con-
siderable discussion-
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I thank you
for your ruling but it is very important to
discuss this question.
Mr. Chairman: It is imjwrtant to everyone
and the Attorney General has indicated he
will answer no further questions regarding
that particular aspect. I would ask the mem-
ber to abide by the Attorney General's in-
timation to the committee.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, could I
perhaps help here? I think the member for
Grey-Bruce was probably wanting to ask
about wire tapping generally. Perhaps I
could say to you, sir, that we did agree that
the matter of wire tapping, generally, should
be discussed under, I think it is, vote 210. I
understand that other members will be dis-
cussing that general question at that time.
Perhaps that would cover your question then.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Chairman mis-
understood the Attorney General a few
moments ago. The chair then understands
now that the Attorney General will entertain
questions and debate pertaining to wire
tapping generally, under vote 210. The
member for Humber.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, I rise very dis-
turbed. I want to compliment all those who
have spoken in defense of the criminal and
be permitted to say a few words in the
defense of the victim.
It seems that civil liberties in this prov-
ince entail only the right of the criminal to
escape punishment and do not entail the
right of the citizen to walk freely along the
streets of the city, or through the grounds of
his public parks. In the United States, where
civil liberties have become such an issue,
where they have passed laws that you cannot
use in court, evidence obtained illegally,
people not only cannot walk through their
4948
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
public parks any more, they cannot even
walk down their streets without fear of being
molested, or assaulted or even killed. This
seems to be the type of government that
people are endeavouring to bring into this
province.
I shall fight that trend to my last breath,
because I want my children to be able to
walk with freedom and dignity through the
parks of their country and their province
and along tlieir city streets, whether it be at
day or at night.
We talk here of using so-called "illegal"
means. I think a proper word may have
been "improper" means, because the example
that was given even by my learned friend
from Samia, who has gone, about blood
being extracted out of the person, it would
not have been obtaining evidence illegally,
because there was no law against doing it
in such a manner. It would have been only
improper.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What about
assault?
Mr. Ben: The assault is illegal, but there
is no law which says that a policeman
cannot—
Mr. Singer: Assault?
Mr. Ben: That is assault. Assault is im-
proper, but there is no law which says that
you cannot pin a man down and extract blood
for the purpose of evidence.
Mr. Singer: Oh, do not be silly!
Mr. Ben: Well all right. We are going on
the defence of the criminal. I say it is im-
proper, and the assault is an assault and it
is punishable as the Attorney General said.
For instance, wire tapping, again, they want
to convict the police department of wire
tapping, and yet it is possible to get a court
order by the police department to go and
tap phones.
Mr. Singer: It is not.
Mr. Ben: It is so. They have done it in
the past, and wire tapping evidence has been
permitted in a court of law in this province.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 210.
Mr. Ben: The fact is, who are we going
to protect? Are we going to protect the
citizens or are we going to protect the
criminals? How far are we going to go to
permit these people to escape?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lawlor: You talked about everybody's
civil rights.
Mr. Ben: I am talking about the civil rights
of my children, my wife, your wife, yoiu"
grandmotlier, your grandfather, your children,
your grandchildren; those are the people
whose civil rights I am talking about. Those
are the ones we have to protect, not the
criminal element.
In tlie United States, if you read tlie presi-
dential commission on crime, three-quarters
of the crimes are not even reported because
people say it is a waste of time, you cannot
get conviction. I had a complaint in my own
riding-
Mr. Lawlor: That is what Barry Goldwater
is saying.
Mr. Ben: —because tlie police said there wa.s
no sense to it; we cannot go anywhere so we
are just wasting our time trving to do some-
thing.
You can go and talk about Barry Gold-
water, but your people, tlie NDP, are the
ones that encourage law-breaking. Last year
we had an example when the leader of the
NDP encouraged by voice the Oshawa people
to break the law.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ben: Well, there is tlie element that
they support and it is quite clear. I do not
support that element. I say that the police
ought to be entitled to use every electronic
device that is conceivable to carry out their
job. That is what we pay them for.
An hon. member: What does your leader
say?
Mr. Ben: If my leader says differently, then
I am willing to stand here and differ with
him, because to me tliis is a question of prin-
ciple; it is the question of the survival of
society, or at least the decent element in
society.
Now, if you want to go and protect the
other element as you have been doing, go
ahead, be my guest, that is what you have
been doing in the past.
I shall not take that position. I say it is
about time that the police in apprehending
drivers need not catch the automobile in order
to charge the driver with a breach of the
law. Too many people escajDe civil liability
and criminal liability that way, making our
JUNE 28, 1968
4949
streets dangerous. I think that the Crown
attorney, rather the Attorney General, ought
to supply a lawyer for every police force,
paid by The Attorney General's Department,
to give immediate advice. But they should
not have to do down to the Crown attorney's
office. They should have a lawyer on staff,
especially in big cities such as we have here.
I am not against this business of identifica-
tion. I think that every citizen owes it to his
society to produce identification to a police
officer when a police officer asks for it. That
is the least that he can do as his responsibility
to society.
Mr. J. H. White (London South): Tattoo a
number on your arm.
Mr. Ben: I am not suggesting that we
tattoo as the hon. member has suggested,
although I would point out to you that the
SS in Germany was tattooed as a means of
identification in case of a holocaust or in
case they were found dead. There are differ-
ent reasons for tattooing.
But a person can identify himself to assist
his servant, a police officer. We have lost the
thought, the idea, the concept that a police-
man is our servant. We look upon him as
some vile individual we have to tolerate in
this society. We brought him into being; we
made it necessary for him to be there; we
pay him, we instruct him what to do;
we control what he does. The least we can do
is have some respect for the office that we
created and the man we put into that position.
I think that this business, as I say, civil
liberties, has gone a little bit too far; it is a
double-edge sword. Unfortunately, it seems
to be cutting the user more than the intended
victim.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Attorney General
wish to reply?
The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to go back to Royal commissions, but before
I do I would just like to comment briefly
that we of the NDP never suggest that laws
be broken. We beheve that some laws are
bad laws.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: These laws should be
changed, and we are going to continue to
fight to have those laws changed.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl Order: The member
for High Park has the floor.
Mr. Shulman: If laws are bad, they should
be changed and that is what we arc here to
do. We are making suggestions constantly to
change the laws. There are bad laws on the
books; I am sure that mcml)ers on all sides
of the House would agree with that. T^cy
have got there for one reason or another,
they are out of date, they should be removed,
and I am sure there are people in the govern-
ment party and people in the Liljeral Party
who will make every efi^ort to change those
laws.
An hon. member: Do you advocate breaking
them?
Mr. Shulman: There are certain occasions
when laws should be broken. You found that
in Germany and you should know that. Now,
these are rare occasions; I hope they never
come to Canada, but if they do come I am
prepared to breach such laws.
Mr. Chairman: The member will please
discontinue the discussions across the floor
of the House and direct the remarks through
the chair.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Why do
you not tell them that?
Mr. Chairman: I called them to order in
the same manner as I have called other
members to order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: It is a one-sided street, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shulman: To defend the Chairman,
which I should not be doing, but I must
compliment him, I think he has been doing
a very fair job.
To come back to Royal commissions. The
thing that disturbs me about the Royal com-
missions is the cost, and I would hke to
comment briefly on that. There is no such
thing as a cheap Royal commission. They
are always costing up in the $50,000 plus
bracket. One of them apparently is going
to exceed some $1 million— one which is cur-
rentiy on now, very close to that figure now.
I have found by experience that this ex-
pense is partly unnecessary and I would
explore this matter briefly by taking an ex-
ample. Now, I do not wish to go into inquests
—that will be coming up later— but I wish to
compare certain inquests to certain Royal
commissions as this is a rather comparable
4950
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
situation, and I would like to take one
specific example.
There was a disaster in Hogg's hollow a
few years ago, and a Royal commission was
set up to look into it. There was a similar
disaster a year after that, here in the city,
where a subway collapsed and a coroner's
inquest was set up to look into that matter.
And certain coroners' inquests, paritcularly
up until last April, were very similar to
Royal commissions in that they were rather
exhaustive enquiries to look into every aspect
of the matter which had produced the dis-
aster, and which led to recommendations to
prevent similar disasters. In that way, they
were very similar to Royal commissions.
Royal commissions other than the perverse
type which we are also familiar with.
Now, the cost is so glaringly different it is
almost impossible to understand. In the
Hogg's hollow disaster, I do not have the
actual figures here, but the enquiry went on
for something longer than a year before the
results were produced. The cost, and again
I do not have the exact figure, but it was
a very high figure, somewhere I believe
between $50,000 and $100,000.
In an almost similar situation, the collapse
of the subway, the inquest was convened
within one month, and was similarily exhaus-
tive in its enquiry, it took nine days of con-
centrated work, not just an hour here and
an hour there that we see with so many
Royal commissions. The results were, if any-
thing, more productive in that the exhaustive
enquiry discovered the cause, and made sug-
gestions for the prevention of similar collapses
in the future. The cost was considerably
less than 10 per cent of the similar Royal
commission.
So, I would like to go into this matter
of the expense of Royal commissions, and
in order to be able to do it in a more intel-
ligent and detailed way— I am going to ask
the Attorney General if he will supply me
with a breakdown of a Royal commission.
The one that I am particularly interested in
is the one in which I have some personal
knowledge, the Parker inquiry. I understand
that this is now not available, but at your
convenience, I would like to ask you for a
breakdown of where all that money went.
If he agrees, I will discontinue my par-
ticular remarks now and resume at a later
day so that I can make a detailed study of
the cost of Royal commissions and try to
find out just what goes wrong in them and
why they have to cost so much money.
Would it be agreeable to the Attorney Gen-
eral to supply this to me at his convenience?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to say first that there is no comparison
whatsoever surely between a commission of
enquiry such as the Atlantic enquiry into a
vast field or empire of financial institutions
extending over detailed transactions and
various geographical areas, and into all sorts
of financial matters, there is no comparison
between that and the disaster in Hogg's
hollow.
And surely there is no comparison between
the investigation into a labour organization,
various organizations, and individuals, in the
investigation into The Workmen's Compen-
sation Act, and how it should deal with cases,
and a coroner's inquest. They are not com-
parable at all.
Surely an enquiry such as Mr. Justice Rand
is carrying on into labour relations matters
for he, again, has heard briefs from hundreds,
I would suggest, of individuals, labour unions,
management, government, and so on. Surely
this is not to be compared with a coroner's
inquest? Or even an enquiry into a disaster
which is a localized thing happening suddenly
and which can be dealt with in a small area
and time.
As to the request for the detail of the
Parker Royal commission, this was not in my
department at all. I do not have the accounts
for that; it was handled and paid for by The
Treasury Department.
Mr. Shulman: I certainly was not compar-
ing the Atlantic enquiry with any coroner's
inquest. Obviously there are many enquiries
which are quite similar. Perhaps you will
correct me, was there not a Royal commission
into the Hogg's hollow collapse?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Not in my time.
Mr. Shulman: No, of course it was before
your time. I was comparing the enquiry into
the Hogg's hollow collapse to the coroner's
inquest into the subway collapse, which I felt
was comparable. I still do not see why they
are not comparable. I think many of these
enquiries, which are comparable, seem to cost
a great deal more money. For that reason I
would like to have a more detailed break-
down of any Royal commission, if the Parker
one is not available.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It is not available be-
cause it was not in my department.
Mr. Shulman: Fine. Does the Attorney
General have available a breakdown of any
Royal enquiry? I would hke to look in detail
into one Royal enquiry.
JUNE 28, 1968
4951
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would think that
these would be found in the public accounts.
The Atlantic enquiry is a tremendous work
that is still going on, as is the Rand enquiry.
The workmen's compensation one is some-
what complete. The roads commission is
complete and I am sure that you will find all
the detail in the public accounts. But really,
and I do not want to curtail the hon. member
in his comparison, every one is different. The
work entailed is different and the area inves-
tigated is different; the time required is differ-
ent. What benefit a comparison would be— I
certainly do not think that you can compare
them with a coroner's inquest which lasts a
day or two, or a couple of hours in some
cases.
I am sure that the public accounts will con-
tain detailed figures of the Royal commissions
that have been completed. I tiiink that we
are really wasting time, to be frank. I am
prepared to discuss detail such as counsel
fees. The commissioner is a Supreme Court
judge and is salaried; the amount paid by the
federal and provincial government covers that.
I do not know what we would be gaining by
a discussion of this kind. I certainly do not
have the figures for the commissions wliich
the hon. member requests.
Mr. Shulman: Right; I will pursue this with
the Provincial Treasurer as he is the man who
would have this breakdown. The other matter
I would like to go on to is something which
was touched on yesterday, rather inadvert-
ently, when I was speaking on the question
of reimbursing people who appeared in front
of Royal commissions. At that time the Attor-
ney General brought up the matter of people
who are charged and subsequently found
innocent. Now, I would like to pursue that
matter because yesterday the Attorney Gen-
eral suggested that no one has ever suggested
that such people should have their legal costs
reimbursed.
I have been giving the matter a little
thought and I find that this is very disturbing.
I would like to give one or two examples to
the Attorney General of how very wrong this
can be, and the hardship that can develop
because of this apparently commonly accepted
sitviation.
Some six months ago, a patient of mine,
Edward G.— I will not give his full name, I
do not wish to embarrass him— was driving
home and two rather attractive young ladies
were hitch-hiking beside the road. Perhaps
rather injudiciously, he stopped and picked
them up and offered them a lift. Before he
had proceeded very far, his car was stopped
by the police and they searched these two
young ladies and found some marijuana cig-
arettes upon them. The two girls immediately
-I believe that they were 16 and 17-imme-
diately said that Mr. G. had given them these
cigarettes, whereupon he was charged, taken
to the station, spent the night tliere and was
bailed out the next morning. He hired a
lawyer, who offered to defend him in court,
and it appears that the lawyer advised that
he should ask for a judge and jury, so he had
a preliminary hearing, at which time on the
evidence of these girls-who it turned out had
lengthy juvenile records-he was committed
for trial. He subsequently appeared and num-
erous people appeared on his behalf-his
background as an electrician, had never been
in trouble or had any breaches of the law, and
has never smoked marijuana— of this I am
convinced-he was bewildered by the whole
series of events, and the judge in his wisdom
immediately dismissed the case and said tliat
it was obvious that the girls, in an effort to
avoid trouble for themselves, had made these
false statements. He was freed and walked
out supposedly none the worse.
But in trutli he was very much to tiie worse.
He is an electrician and he earns $150 a
week, which is a very reasonable salary in our
society. His lawyer fee came to $4,000 be-
fore he was finished. His life savings consisted
of a home, on which he had a mortgage; and
in order to pay this $4,000 he had to borrow
and he is in the process of selling the house
now to pay off the finance company from
whom he borrowed to pay the lawyer who
insisted on money before he would go into
court. He was not ehgible for legal aid.
Here is a man who, hterally, has been
ruined financially through no fault of his
own. It appears to me, and I find it amazing
that no has ever suggested this before, that
someone who is charged and is found innocent
should have the legal costs reimbursed. It
just appears common sense to me.
I have another case, which I brought up
here in the House yesterday with the Minister
of Reform Institutions, of Mr. Roger Whiting
who, on April 13, was shopping in Simpsons.
He was in tlie paint department when a fire
started and he was arrested as a suspected
arsonist. He was incarcerated in the Don
jail. He was kept there for some six weeks,
at the end of which time the police completed
their investigation and found they had made
an error. When it came to trial, they said,
"We are sorry, we made a mistake. We wish
to withdraw the charges." So an error had
been made but no one is reimbursing Whiting;
4952
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
not to mention the rather unpleasant tilings
tliat happened in the Don jail; he is an
epileptic who could not get his medication
and proceeded to have epileptic attacks, one
after the other. Leaving this aside, no one
is offering to reimburse him for the loss of
time or even basically, for the legal expenses.
We have had another case here which is
even more glaring. It has been discussed in
this House. A certain reverend is convicted
in court and subsequently, the court of appeal
found an error had been made, reversed that
and foimd him innocent. No one is even
reimbursing him for the time he spent in
jail. I would like to suggest to tlie Attorney
General that this a basically wrong concept.
If the state makes a mistake and charges
someone who is innocent and if the court, in
their wisdom, find that person innocent, then
they are innocent, and they should not be
punished by being forced to pay their legal
fees.
Now I have the three examples from my
own limited experience and I am siure that
every member has many others. There must
be tliousands of them in this province every
year and I think this is a legitimate expense
of the state and not of the individual who is
wrongfully charged. Apparently this concept
has not been discussed before and I would
like to ask the Attorney General for his views
on this matter. I would like to ask the official
Opposition if they do not agree with the
position which I have had the opportunity
to discuss with the members of my party and
which they agree with.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, certainly
I do not agree with the proposition that we
must be in a position to guarantee that in
every case we make an arrest— the police force
is the law enforcement force of the province—
tiiat they must be so certain before they
arrest, that the person-
Mr. Shulman: That is not what I am sug-
gesting.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It practically amounts
to that, in my view, and I do not think we—
Mr. MacDonald. But what if you make
a mistake?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would like to deal
with it tliis way. Mr. McRuer, in his enquiry
into civil rights, report No. 1, volume 2, in
chapter 54, deals with the matter of com-
pensation for wrongful convictions. He deals
witli it at length. I have read it and—
Mr. Shulman: That is another matter.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, I think these
things are pretty closely related surely. The
point I want to make is that he points out,
and I reading at page 838:
The problem is further complicated by
the fact that under our system of acquittal,
whether rendered by the court of first in-
stance or by a court of appeal, is not a
judgment declaring the accused irmocent.
A verdict of acquittal is not a judgment
declaring the accused innocent.
In a criminal file, the accused is pre-
sumed to be innocent. That presumption
may be rebutted only by proper evidence
that establishes guilt, beyond a reasonable
doubt. The verdict of not guilty merely
estabhshes that the onus imposed upon is
not met.
I think the member does not have this clearly
in mind that the verdict of not guilty is not
a verdict of innocence.
Mr. McRuer points out— and I am aware of
this, having given this matter some considera-
tion—that in some of the European countries
particularly, Scandinavian countries and in the
United States, or some of the states, I think,
there is provision for compensation where a
person has been wrongfully convicted and
imprisoned.
Now this is particularly the way it is in
the states. There has to be wrongful con-
viction and imprisonment. If it is established,
then it is upon the person who makes the
application for compensation to establish by
a certificate of the court or by a pardon that
he was innocent of tlie crime and had no
connection with it, that he was not only
convicted, but suffered imprisonment. Then
he may claim compensation.
In short, Mr. Chairman, what I would
say is that we are taking, as I have pointed
out before, all the recommendations of Mr.
McRuer under consideration. They are receiv-
ing study and Mr. McRuer makes recommen-
dations on this matter. I think there is merit.
I cannot say that I go all the way with
some of his recommendations but these are
receiving study. As you are aware, this report
was received only recently so that the matter
is before us and will be further considered.
I have nothing more to add at this time.
Mr. Shulman: The major point which I wish
to make, Mr. Chairman, is not in relation to
wrongful convictions, because I understand
this was dealt with by Mr. McRuer. I am sure,
when you have had an opportunity to con-
JUNE 28, 1968
4953
skier this, that you will take action to tliis
particular problem.
The problem which I am primarily con-
cerned with at this moment is the one which
has just come up here within the last 24
hours. That is: when a man is arrested and
is found innocent. Now obviously they do
not—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He is not found inno-
cent, he is found not guilty.
Mr. Shulman: Let me say, Mr. Chairman,
as far as I am concerned if anyone is pre-
sumed innocent they are innocent until
found guilty and you have just said this.
Everyone is presumed innocent until found
guilty. Therefore, they are found innocent
if they are not found guilty. If I come back to
my Mr. G., here is an obvious clear-cut case
of an innocent man who, through no fault
of his own, has literally lost every cent he
had. I think this is an injustice and I think,
as Attorney General of this province, you
should be prepared to look into this par-
ticular aspect, this particular type of prob-
lem, where a man is charged and is found
not guilty. As far as I am concerned, this
means his presumption of innocence has
been maintained and, as such, he should not
be penalized, because otherwise the police
or the law enforcement agencies can pen-
alize anyone they wish by charging them
and continuing to charge them whether or
not the courts ever produce a guilty result.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They do not do that.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 201.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman,
I might point out, too, in this regard, be-
cause I think that the people who. get hurt
are those who can least afford it. Obviously
people who are wrongfully arrested, who can
afford a lawyer and legal advice, are found
not guilty. I suppose it hurts them some-
what if they lose some money. But it has
not got the same effect. Although I have not
got it documented in front of me, I know
cases of workers who have been charged
wrongfully, found not guilty, had to get a
lawyer, lose time from work to proceed in
the courts and found not guilty. Okay, it
may not be a great sum, but it could very
well be, as the hon. member for High Park
related. If a worker is caught in a squeeze
of a $4,000 and $5,000 legal bill, then it
will take a good number of years to recoup
that kind of debt, particularly, if he is a
wage-earner.
I think that the member for Higli Park
has a real point in this regard, and not just
at the $4,000 and $5,000 level either, but
at that level where he is going to lose time.
This reflects on his standard of living. It
reflects on his wife and children. They have
got to pay as well. So it is not just the indi-
vidual who is charged wrongfully-his whole
family has to bear the brunt of this wrongful
charge.
I would think that this is one area that
the Attorney General, through you, Mr.
Chairman, ought to explore and docimient
those areas that people have been found not
guilty. He should find out the reflection on
those people in terms of the debt that they
acquire, on their family and children, and
the whole ball of wax as you might say. I
feel pretty strongly about this point because
I have run into some situations— not to the
extent that the member for High Park raises,
but the potential is there. I have run into
cases where people have had to lose time
from work, and were found not guilty, had
to hire a lawyer and go into the court at
some cost to them. I really think, Mr. Chair-
man, that this is wrong, and that this whole
area should be explored to find out how it
does reflect on these people.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 201.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
Mr. Chairman, may I intervene just briefly
on this point, and not allow the matter to
lie exactly where it is. I would like to men-
tion, as a practising lawyer, that there is a
good deal of confusion, I would judge, in
the minds of some of those who have spoken
—between the question of whether a person
under our legal system is irmocent, or, not
guilty.
I can say as a practising solicitor for a
number of years, and as a practising lawyer
in the courts for a number of years, that
there were many, many criminal cases which
I won. I am sure other lawyers in this cham-
ber will recall ones that they won, numerous
ones, scores where on any moral principle
your particular client was guilty, as guilty
as sin, but it was not able to prove them
guilty according to law.
Now I am just making a distinction here.
The question as to whether or not compen-
sation should be paid, I think, divides itself
along the line as to whether or not the
state has acted wrongfully or the state has
acted negligently and not as to whether or
not the man himself, on a technicahty or
otlierwise, may have been able to avoid the
4954
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
strict application of the law itself. This is,
I would suggest, the point. As I understand
it, for instance, under the Scottish system
of law that existed at one time, where the
state was not able to technically prove its
case, there was a form of verdict which was
described as, if I am correct, as "not
proven." In other words, a person— it still
exists, the Attorney General says.
I think there is a tremendously important
principle in the English law which is one we
should retain, and not water down. That is,
the principle that we do not have and shall
not have a fonn of verdict which says "not
proven." Under our system, with all its ills,
and even with some of the pain that has been
mentioned that occurs in relation to some
trials, at least a man is cleared and clean
100 per cent when he comes out of it. The
only way we can vindicate, I would suggest—
Mr. Sargent: He is clean all right.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence: He is clean in the
most important way. His reputation, his
record, is clean. That, I would suggest, is of
more value to him than having a "not
proven" verdict around his neck for the rest
of his life, whether or not he saves legal fees.
I will not go into it any further, Mr. Chair-
man, but I do think that there is room for
exploration and consideration by the At-
torney General and by the government, inso-
far as the field of wrongful or negligent
action by the state is concerned.
I do not think that, on any sensible ground
at all, you should say tliat tlie fact that you
are able to "beat a rap" means that you
should get compensation from the state.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on this par-
ticular aspect I would just like to reply to
the member who just spoke.
Undoubtedly there are guilty people who
beat the rap, as the member says, but the
compensation which I have been suggesting
is the legal fees. I would far rather see
1,000 guilty people who were found not
guilty receive their legal fees back, so that
the other, whatever number they are,
whether it is 1,000 or one person, is not
wrongfully penalized.
I think this is basically the issue. I am
sure the Attorney General will agree with
me. On occasion— and it is happening on not
such rare occasions— innocent people are
being charged, tlirough no fault of their own,
such as in just two of the cases at least which
I have just listed, which have just occurred
within the last very short time. Why should
these people, on this particular logic, be
penalized because other people who were
actually or perhaps morally guilty were able
to get off?
I think if a man is found not guilty he
should not be penalized in the form of legal
fees. This is the basis of the point I take. If
some people who perhaps should not have,
then have their legal fees paid, I would far
rather see it that way than the way it is
now, where we have innocent people— and I
mean innocent in every sense of the word-
are ruined financially.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Chairman, we are spending
money for legal aid, some $6 million— I am
not discussing legal aid, because it is not
under this item. We are prepared to spend
money to compensate people, who have not
been proven innocent, for their legal fees.
May I be so bold as to suggest that we give
some consideration to compensating the vic-
tims of criminal activities?
Last year a little boy, a juvenile, got stab-
bed. He was in the hospital between life and
death and it turns out that he is paralyzed
now. The boy that stabbed him was ap-
prehended and the whole machinery of
justice started to roll to protect that boy's
rights. Law>'ers, when he first appeared,
were ready— duty counsel paid by legal aid—
and I think that is wonderful. The duty
counsel can advise and, if he needs it he gets
legal aid to be defended, and, through the
aid of the machinery of government, through
legal aid, can be acquitted.
But that little boy in the hospital, he is
still paralyzed and nobody gives a tinker's
damn about him.
Mr. Shulman: He should get compensation.
Mr. Ben: Certainly he should get com-
pensation, but I did not hear the hon. mem-
ber speak about compensating him. We are
concerned again witli the criminal.
It seems that tliere is a pendulum swings
back and forth. At one time there used to be
a third degree system, when they used to
beat confessions out of people with rubber
hoses. Nobody agreed with that concept and
we got rid of that, thank goodness. We are
not advocating putting people on the ground
and extracting blood out of them either, be-
cause that went with the third degree.
The fact is that we have swung the
pendulum the other way now. That, in
essence, it is the victims that are being
persecuted and prosecuted more than the
criminal. I think it is a long time— the time is
JUNE 28, 1968
4955
here— in fact, long ago the time was here,
that we ought to have given consideration to
compensating the victims of crime.
Last year the Attorney General introduced
legislation that would compensate people
who were injured when they came to the
assistance of a pK)]ice officer. At that time I
argued that anyone who was injured in up-
holding the law should be compensated,
whether there was a policeman present or
not. The Attorney General would not go
along with that, I think he was wrong. I
think he is still wrong. Anyone who upholds
the law, and is injured or suflFers loss in so
doing, ought to be compensated by the state
because he is exercising one of the duties
imposed upon him in keeping the state and
society in safety.
I think it is high time that this government
gave consideration to putting some money
into the estimates to compensate the victims.
We go to such great extremes to protect the
criminals that we give little consideration
now to the victims.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, of course, I
would hke to associate myself, and I am sure
everyone here in this House agrees with the
member for Humber, that victims of crimes
should be compensated.
This is a concept which is gradually being
accepted across the world, certainly across
the western world. I am sure it will come
here. We lag behind other areas. I am sure
it is in the mind of the Attorney General, he
must be aware of the need for that. I would
not be surprised to see such legislation before
this Legislature is dissolved, but I would just
like to say, since the point may have been
lost, that no one is suggesting criminals be
compensated.
What I was suggesting was that the legal
fees of those found not guilty be reimbursed,
because this may be a result of the state's
error, and the state should not punish people
who are not guilty, and especially they
should not punish innocent people.
In regard to the other point, of course
victims of crime should be compensated,
whether or not they are assisting a police-
man. This is a part of the 20th century
world; it is a part of the socialist world, but
it is a part of socialism which is now accepted
by capitalism and I do not think you would
find a member in this House who will not
agree with that.
Of course we must have it. The only
question is, when are we going to have it?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, for many years
now at the time these estimates have come
up, we in the Lil>eral Party have advocated
a system of compensation for victims of
crime. This matter has become much more
topical and much more acceptable in recent
years but we still have had no action from
this government.
I have gathered together a series of re-
marks again in connection with this subject
and I intend to put them before this House.
Let me say, sir, that the time has come for
the province of Ontario to recognize its
responsibilities to compensate the victims
of crimes of violence. Every day we hear of
someone being raped, robbed, Ijeaten up or
murdered. If the offender is apprehended,
he is sent to prison, where the state tries to
its utmost to rehabilitate him, but that is
not the end of the matter. What happens to
the victim, or to his family, when he is
killed? Except for the fact that they can
apply for welfare aid like anyone else, we
in Ontario ignore these people completely.
We are more barbaric today than were
the Saxons and the Hebrews of old, who
made provision for compensating victims of
crime. True, a civil action for damages is
available against the criminals, but alas, this
right is an illusory one for seldom can
these people pay any judgment secured
against them.
In recent years, advanced jurisdictions—
and I underline the words "advanced juris-
dictions"—such as New Zealand, the United
Kingdom, New South Wales, California, New
York, have passed laws to help the victims
of crime. Saskatchewan followed suit last
year, Manitoba is seriously considering the
matter and tlie justice and legal affairs com-
mittee of the House of Commons in the last
House were holding public hearings in rela-
tion to that question. I think we can an-
ticipate that Prime Minister Trudeau is going
to bring in legislation in this regard just as
soon as that federal House of Commons goes
back to work.
But in Ontario the watchword is lethargy
and inaction. That is the order of tlie day.
We make these speeches year after year, we
do not get any objection, as the member for
High Park said, from anybody, but we do
not get any action, and why not?
Why should not victims of crime be com-
pensated? Why has such a powerful world-
wide movement developed to secure repara-
tions for victims of crime? The best reason
for doing so is that the state owes a moral,
if not a legal, obligation to crime victims
4956
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
because it assumes tlie responsibility for the
prevention of crime. Consequently, when
someone is beaten up, raped or robbed, our
police protection apparatus for which the
state is responsible has failed. Ordinary cit-
izens are helpless in the face of a criminal
attack and, therefore, the state, it is con-
tended, should reimburse the people who are
victimized.
Another reason advanced is that most of
the attention of the state is lavished upon
the offender rather than the victim. The
murderer is looked after for life and the
widow of the murdered victim is left to fend
for herself. This disparity of treatment strikes
many people as wrong. Some argue that
section 110 of the criminal code of Canada
places upon all citizens tlie duty to assist
police officers in making arrests if called
upon to do so. When they do respond and
are injured they should be entitled to com-
pensation. It is not generally known that
The Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario
already provides such aid, but it provides
for far too narrow a protection. The staff
of the workmen's compensation board can
recall not a single instance of a claim under
this section for financial aid.
The new Ontario Act passed in 1967 will
expand this protection to anyone injured
while helping a police officer with or without
request, but this is still woefully inadequate.
A further reason advanced by the pro-
ponents of reform is that the state, by in-
carcerating the criminal, is making it even
harder for injured individuals to collect in
private suits from their assailants.
Some sociologists contend that it is bet-
ter therapy for the criminal to feel finan-
cially responsible for his victim as well as
to the state. Moreover, in the modern wel-
fare state there is the desire to aid all vic-
tims of adversity, including the victims of
crime.
Lastly, by permitting money recovery to
the victims of crime it may encourage them
to report many crimes which now go unde-
tected. The profit motive may operate effec-
tively here as it does in other areas of
society.
There are, therefore, many valid reasons
for helping the victims of crime. Is there a
need to do this, Mr. Chairman? Is there any
proof of the need? Have our present social
welfare schemes like hospitalization, OMSIP,
life insurance and other private insurance
plans failed us?
Although there has been a substantial
public debate concerning this problem, there
has been little effort made to assemble the
facts upon which to base a judgment. Be-
cause of this statistical lacuna, the Osgoode
hall law school designed a survey to
assemble some of the factual data that we
now lack. Witii the co-operation of Metro-
politan Toronto Police Chief Mackey and
the Metropolitan Toronto board of police
commissioners, the records of the concluded
crimes of violence committed in Metropoli-
tan Toronto in 1966 were made available to
the Osgoode hall research team. The sur-
vey was executed and substantive findings
are available on the basis of 172 completed
questionnaires.
The survey indicated that some economic
loss was suffered by 79 per cent, 79 per
cent, Mr. Chairman, of all of the victims of
the crime study. Surprisingly, not all of the
victims of tlie crimes of violence incurred
financial losses. For example, a rape victim
might not require or seek any medical atten-
tion, and a robbed merchant might have
articles taken and returned immediately. Con-
sequently, 21 per cent of the victims had no
loss.
An examination of the type of the loss in
detail discloses that medical costs, for in-
stance, were incurred by 42 per cent of the
victims. Hospitalization expenses were suffered
in only 29 per cent of the cases. Income losses,
the most important type of loss because it is
normally the least well reimbursed, occurred
in 23 per cent of the cases studied. Property
loss was most prevalent, transpiring in 51 per
cent of the studied cases. But tliis can be
explained by the fact that the sample included
a large proportion of robbery cases. Many of
the people victimized by crime, of course,
suffered more tlian one type of loss.
One might have thought that public and
private insurance with the large amount of
intention lavished upon it these days would
have fully covered most of the expenses
suffered, but this does not appear to be the
case. Of those incurring medical costs, only
36 per cent were reported as fully recom-
pensed by the present medical coverage
schemes. Even in the case of hospital cost, the
recovery pattern was dismal. Of the respon-
dents suffering such losses, only 46 per cent
were shown as having been fully reimbursed.
Income expense recovery was, as expected,
still worse, with only 2 per cent of those
suffering such loss stating that they were
completely recompensed.
In the property loss cases, finally, 7 per
cent responded that they were totally re-
imbursed.
JUNE 28, 1968
4957
What role does the law of tort play in this
question? A tort suit for damages, as pointed
out above, is always available to the victims
of crime to supplement their recovery from
private and government insurance. The sur-
vey demonstrated conclusively how illusory a
right this is. Only 4 per cent of the victims
of crime studied actually recovered any money
from tlie person who attacked them.
Not only did just a handful of people
recover, but hardly any of the victims even
considered suing, still fewer consulted lawyers
with regard to their legal rights, and fewer
than that attempted to secure reparation.
Only 15 per cent of all the victims studied
considered suing, only 5 per cent took legal
advice and slightly less than 5 per cent
attempted to recover.
The reasons given for this are obvious. In
many cases, of course, the criminal was never
apprehended at all, which would make a
civil suit impossible. Many stated they just
did not think of suing, and others believed,
even though wrongly, that their private rights
lapsed if the state punished the criminal. Still
others felt it was not worth the cost and the
trouble to press their civil rights.
One can state categorically that the tort
suit claim for damages plays an insignificant
role in supplying financial aid to the victims
of crimes.
After taking into account all the receipts
from non-tort and tort sources, 55 per cent of
the victims of crime in the study group still
have out-of-pocket loss. This means of course
that 45 per cent of these people under the
present system did eventually recover all of
their expenses, or some of tliem, and thus in-
curred no out-of-pocket loss.
Looking more closely at the 55 per cent
who ended up with out-of-pocket loss, most
incurred only small amounts, and this is sig-
nificant. I think that we can do tliis without
any big cost to the people of Ontario. But
at least 47 per cent of those suffering losses
were out of pocket over $100, and 14 per
cent lost over $500.
These statistics demonstrate that the vic-
tims of crime are in need of financial aid,
despite present welfare programmes and
despite the assistance of the patent right to
sue. I think that the cost aspect of tliis is
most important.
Would the cost of such a plan be prohibi-
tive in view of the financial situation which
we face in the province of Ontario? Most of
the experience in Britain indicates that tlie
payouts are usually less than 200 pounds.
Only rarely have the awards been substan-
tial.
The student in Britain who sustained brain
damage recovered 15,000 pounds, and a
bludgeoned boy got 13,500 pounds. The
widow and two children of a n»an who died
while chasing a house breaker received 5,500
pounds.
A similar pattern could be expected to
emerge in Ontario. On the basis of some
rough comparisons with the British scheme,
and taking into account the population differ-
ential but no other factors, the cost of an
Ontario scheme similar to the British one,
and excluding administrative costs, could be
estimated at approximately $400,000 a year,
or a contribution of 5 cents per person in
the province.
Saskatchewan budgeted only $40,000 for
the first year of operation. I do not know
what their experience has been, but that was
what they put in the budget. There are
many types of plans available. Most of the
jurisdictions have utilized ex ratia payments
by a board to victims of specified types of
crimes. This means in effect that a board has
the discretion to withhold aid if it so chooses.
Most people object to this because it is arbi-
trary, and we need still another new Ixjard.
Perhaps we could adopt the principle of the
unsatisfied judgment fund, now used by every
province in Canada in uninsured or hit-and-
run motorist cases. We have had experience,
and we led the way in that field. I would
think that experience could be well adapted
to this province. It could work like this: The
injured person could sue the criminal under
ordinary court law. The defendant would be
found responsible, and if unable to pay or to
be found, tlie state could pay the award up
to a certain maximum, say $35,000, as is done
in automobile accidents. If the criminal is
not caught then the victim should Ije able to
sue that state as it can be now sued in hit-
and-run cases. Does it not seem strange that
if you are killed by an uminsured driver, your
widow can collect from the state; but if you
are murdered by an impecunious murderer,
then you get nothing.
We in tliis party have had this in our plat-
form for long periods of time, and we have
talked about it on many occasions every year
in this House since I came into the House,
and that is some ten years ago now. All over
tliis province I think that people are con-
vinced that this reform is necessary. It is
just, and will not place an unreasonable
burden on the taxpayers of the province of
Ontario.
4958
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman, all over the world, advanced
jurisdictions are responding. How much
longer must we wait for this kind of reform
in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Roberts moves that the commit-
tee rise and report progress and ask for leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
begs to report progress and begs leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Clerk of the House: The 13th order, re-
suming the debate on the amendment to the
motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair, and that the House resolve itself into
tlie committee of ways and means.
BUDGET DEBATE
(Continued)
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege to have the opportunity to
speak on the Budget debate and at this point
to have the right to ask questions without
being admonished by the chair insofar as
the scope of the question is concerned.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
And without getting any answers.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, but this week, Mr.
Speaker, has seen a great lesson in demo-
cracy. Millions of Canadians went to the
polls demanding something new, and I hope
that they get it. But this is the feeling in
Ontario today as we look at the situation
here. I think it was President Roosevelt who
said at a time like this that in the polling
booth we are all equals; and in the polling
place, as in the men's room, all men are peers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been accused of
bemg ungenerous to the government. Gen-
erosity, I say, is part of my character and I
hasten to assure this government that I
would never make an allegation of dishonesty
against it wherever a simple explanation of
stupidity will suffice. I say "stupidity" and I
mean it, in a boom time like this where
every government should be looking, as far
as costs are concerned, to giving its people
some tax relief, this government brings in a
"tax the poor" programme of legislation.
Last year, the government increased the
tax on gasoline, cigarettes, beer and liquor.
and hospital insurance, and already the high-
est tax in the nation, the sales tax, and yet
we went into debt for another $450 milhon,
ending up with a gross debenture debt of $3
billion. As I said before, we are going into
debt at the rate of $1.5 million per day. So
the Minister of Financial Affairs (Mr. Rown-
tree), the happy warrior of squandermania,
goes happily along, not realizing that pay
day is coming. He forgets tliat we are spend-
ing many millions of dollars a year on travel-
ling expenses, consultants' fees, and such
things as $2.5 million on studies on transpor-
tation that will never be read.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when a
fool and his money were soon parted but now
it happens to everybody in this province. We
say it is a place to stand. Many of the people
in Grey-Bruce are living on less than $3,000
per year. We hear a lot of talk from the
Minister about regional development, and it
is a lot of nothing insofar as the people that
I am talking about are concerned. For the
family that has to live on less than $3,000
a year income, is is a serious situation in
this day of affluence. All I can say is that
nothing was ever done so systematically as
nothing is being done now.
In our Grey-Bruce tourist area we have
unlicensed resort areas and we cater to the
tourist trade. The Americans come across
and they cannot get the things that they
are used to at home in terms of the refresh-
ment tliat they need at the end of the day.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment (Mr. Randall) has called my area, "dry
gulch." Well, I have nothing against the
fellow who takes a drink at all. In fact, I
feel sorry for the fellow who does not take
a drink. Tlie fellow who does not take a
drink, wakes up in the morning and he
knows he is not going to feel better all day.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about
the rules of the House here. An interesting
little side thought here— a story about Wins-
ton Churchill in the House in Britain. The
most extraordinary thing about the best club
in Europe, as Sir Winston used to call it,
is a mixture of formality and informality.
To mention a few of these formalities, on
each day's sitting there is a procession of
the bewigged and gowned Speaker from his
rooms through the central hall and the mem-
bers' lobby, preceded by the white-gloved
messenger and Sergeant-at-Arms, carrying
the mace which embodies the authority of the
House, and followed by his train bearer,
the chaplain and the secretary. As this pro-
cession approaches, one hears the loud cry
of "Speaker, Speaker," and everyone rises
JUNE 28, 1968
4959
and stands at attention. Now, during the
opening prayers each day, from which the
pubhc is excluded, ancient custom and tra-
dition require that the members turn their
backs on the Speaker and his chaplain
and kneel not on the floor but on the
benches, as in the days when the members
wore swords which precluded the kneeling
in any other way.
In front of the government and Opposi-
tion front bench there are two red lines, I
hear, just far enough apart that two men
with drawn swords cannot, if they stay be-
hind the lines, reach one anotfier. That
would be a very dangerous thing to have
here— to have swords here. But even today,
no member addressing the House may cross
these lines. The member speaking in the
House always refers to another member not
of his own party, as the hon. gentleman or
if the member referred to is the Speaker's
party, an hon. friend. Now if, as do all
Ministers in form, the Minister belongs to
her Majesty's Privy Council, he is referred
to as Right Honourable; members who are
lawyers are referred to as hon. and learned;
and those who have been soldiers are hon.
and gallant. There are a lot of them in this
House who could be termed that, I imagine.
But there are rules, very few, limiting what
may or may not be said in the House there.
Such as one forbidding a member to call an-
other member a liar or a fool, but even these
are circumvented as Sir Winston Churchill
did when he replied to a member in 1944;
he said: "I should think it hardly possible
to state the opposite of the truth with more
precision."
Such a term they could use here and get
away with quite often.
The custom of the House of Commons
there, Mr. Speaker, tliat is most different
from our operation here, and provides most
of the brilliant wit, is question time. Imme-
diately after prayers at 2:30 in the afternoon,
individual members may ask any question
they want of Ministers of the Crown, These
questions are submitted, in advance, in writ-
ing and numbered and printed on pale green
order paper. Having had notice of the ques-
tion to be asked, each Minister has had an
opportunity to prepare his answer.
There is no legal requirement that these
questions be answered, and for reasons of
security or politics, they are sometimes not
answered. By tradition, however, most of
them are. Also, by tradition, no question for
the Prime Minister is ever put earlier on
the list than number 45, in order that he
may have time for as long at lunch as he
wants at noon. However, at 3:15 on Tues-
days and Thursdays, the Prime Minister is
fair game. I see he is in the House today
and he is fair game.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
something that is very important to all of
us here. There are three major parties in
this Hou.se here, there is another party, a
fourth party called the bureaucratic party,
which actually runs the government. Each
session over there, you create new pro-
grammes, bills, administrations; you establish
bills and everlastingly expand this sphere of
work and influence and enlarge your numbers
accordingly. Today, it would be virtually
impossible for any one executive to be
familiar, for any one of us to know all the
bureaus, administrations and alphabet organ-
izations we have.
One person could hardly know their names
and certainly would not be familiar with
their duties and responsibilities. There are
endless cases of duplication and overlapping.
Each government agency, jealous of its own
prerogative, seeks to outdo all the others
while some were creating the hope that they
would work themselves out of a job by solv-
ing the problems which they were creating.
None ever do— like Parkinson's law, they keep
expanding but the system tends to develop
an economy from the elected control and
drifts farther from direct response and the
public will.
Most of the money that we vote here
today, in this Legislature, is actually spent
by the bureaucrats in the various agencies
elected by no one and effectively responsible
to no one. Mr. Speaker, this bureaucracy
represents a challenge to the democratic
concept that you really understand. A sug-
gestion is being made that government
departments should be streamlined, that dup-
licating agencies and administrations be abol-
ished or combined and that efficiency be
introduced where now there is little more than
organized confusion. We see this every day
in this House; a complete lack of co-ordina-
tion on any project except the perpetuation
of the agency. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a re-
newed and intensified effort along the lines
to have a complete enquiry or efficiency
check and to have this army of bureaucrats
surrender their powers.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about
the powers of the government in expropria-
tion. As I mentioned in the estimates the
other day to the very able Minister of Lands
and Forests (Mr. Brunelle), a case in point,
known up in our Bruce peninsula way. A man.
4960
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Joe Seager, had listed his property of 119
acres with a real estate firm for $21,000. The
government walked in and seized the land,
expropriated the land and sent him a cheque
for $645, as a compensation for the land,
$145 more than last time.
Here is a man who had his savings in his
land and the government sends him a cheque
for $645. He will not cash the cheque; he
thinks he will show this around the penin-
sula to show what happens on the part of
the government in expropriation proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, in the area of assessment,
there is great inequity being done to those of
us who live in smaller parts of the province.
May I say that under the present law the
business assessment for retail merchants in
the province is on a basis of 25 per cent of
the assessed value of the property occupied,
whether owned or rented, in municipalities
where the population is 50,000 or under— I
am sorry— 50,000 or greater. These munici-
palities with less than 50,000 population are
assessed on a basis of up to 35 per cent
depending on tlie population. For years we
have recognized the inequity of this assess-
ment related to population density, and I
repeatedly requested the government to
lower all retailers to 25 per cen,t, regardless
of population.
In 1961, the committee of the Legislature,
the Beckett committee supported this stand—
I recall that but unfortunately, the com-
mittee's recommendation was not acted upon
by the government. The plot has tliickened
now. The Ontario committee on taxation—
the Smith committee— has reported and is in
favour of a flat assessment rate for all retail
businesses. The rate suggested by the com-
mittee, however, is 50 per cent. The effect
of this recommendation, if adopted by the
government, is obvious— larger business taxes
for all retailers, which could be twice as
much for many who are now located in an
area of over 50,000 population. We have
seen the government's effort to redistribute
the tax funds by taking $150 million and
giving $60 to $2.5 million to homeowners
on an across-the-board basis.
This is admission that the government is
not doing the right thing by homeowners
and the large taxes on real esate. This could
very well have been handled by increasing
the per capita grants.
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot
the last few days about the Myer Rush case,
and his dealing with the Ontario securities
commission. Mr. Speaker, nobody has lost
any money in this Myer Rush case yet, but
they are making a big deal out of it and the
government is trying to get him back here.
I understand that he was arrested in London
last week without a warrant, and his lawyers
in England are going to press this case when
they come to Canada. Here is a man who has
had attempted murder against him— I under-
stand the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart) has
known, there are sworn affidavits, of six at-
tempted murders; this is backed up by affi-
davits. So we have a case, a celebrated case,
in front of us here.
But going back, we have had the case of
British Mortgage, Atlantic Acceptance, Pru-
dential, where millions and millions of dollars
were lost by trusting citizens in Ontario and
no one lost their job, and no one went to
jail. And here we have the big celebrated
case now of Myer Rush. No one has last a
nickel on the deal yet. The Attorney General
has had evidence of these attempted murder
charges; he is supposed to know the people,
but no charges have been laid. We are hear-
ing a lot of talk in the House about wire
tapping. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney
General repeatedly has evaded my questions
in the House insofar as the scope of wire
tapping in Ontario is concerned.
In Hansard, March 16, 1967, I quoted
from the Toronto Daily Star:
Police are using wire tapping and elec-
tronic eavesdropping to an extent that
would drastically shake public confidence
if it became generally known.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Speaker, would you rule
the hon. member out of order, please?
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I ap-
preciate the hon. Minister being helpful, but
I understand this is not sub judice at all;
tiiat I can speak freely on this.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: The magnitude of what is
going on insofar as our lives are concerned
in this province shakes one to even think
about it. They can put a dart into a gun
and fire it through the wall of a building;
you can eavesdrop on what is going on in
that building by electronics; you can phone
long distance to as far away as Los Angeles
and do a wire tap from your ofiice elec-
tronically. It shakes you by what is going on.
The Attorney General and this government
are taking no steps whatsoever to protect
the rights of people. I think it is getting
pretty close to a police state when the
police have unlimited powers to go out and
JUNE 28, 1968
4961
tap our freedoms, our homes, our phones,
our businesses. March 16, 1967, the Attorney
General said, in reply to my question: "At the
moment, there is no law on wire tapping."
So here we are with the police going out
at random, nobody checking their activities,
and heaven knows what is happening insofar
as the formation of a police state in this
province is concerned.
I think it is high time that the government
defined policy to portect the people.
The thing that is very important to those
of us in the outlying parts of the province
is the right of this government to invade the
Treasury to spend money which is not spent
equally across he province. Mr. Speaker, I
refer to the $45 million mistake we have here
on University Avenue, the subway. In asking
the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) last
week in the House, he evaded my question
by saying that for that specific subway there
was no moneys in grants or subsidies.
But on searching the records of The High-
ways Department, I find that there was
$17 million given outright by tlie proivince
to tlie city of Toronto for subway construc-
tion. It is a matter very firm in my mind,
Mr. Speaker, that on the estimates, the
highway estimates two years ago, we ques-
tioned the right of the government to give
this money for transportation, that they
would not give to the rest of the province.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister said
veiy definitely: "The rest of the province
will get like sums of money for transporta-
tion." This is another case of the government
not following through. Not one penny has
gone to any city, or jurisdiction in this prov-
ince that have transportation problems.
Another great inequity by this govern-
ment. Mr. Speaker, I have on my desk this
morning about 100 letters from teachers who
are concerned about what will happen to
them in the consolidation county boards edu-
cation, and I am very hopeful that the Minis-
ter of Education (Mr. Davis) will take steps
along this line to give these teachers a board
to negotiate transfers of teachers in the
outlying parts of the province.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of housing is a
tough one in front of us and I think the
government in this province is doing a woe-
fully sad job on it, especially in the area of
low-income housing. I suggest that the On-
tario housing corporation, through the Minis-
ter, take steps to form a consortium of large
companies, like they are doing in the United
States, where 368 firms have gotten together
to put a billion dollars in the pot for low-
income housing, to give loans for housing
on a low-income family basis, the same as
the states.
These interest rates, Mr. Speaker, could
be subsidized by the province and the fed-
eral government. The insurance companies
of this country, if you approach them, and
the large corporations, to lend, say, one
billion dollars at 6 per cent, and the prov-
ince and federal government to provide a 3
per cent annual subsidy to get this housing
programme into effect now, the housing
business would expand many, many times,
tliis income from income taxes generated
by this building boom would liquidate the
cost of the interest subsidy.
In the area of welfare, in the United
States government, Rockefeller has had a
two-day conference; he met with 90 top exe-
cutives of major corporations to discuss
public welfare problems. Why not here?
Big business has a responsibihty to do its
share in our economy. Business has a stake
in the soundness of our cities. But it is up to
us to give leadership, to bring business into
the act, to get them to do their share for
our people.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left
here at my disposal, I would like to say
something on behalf of the injustice being
done to the small forces being taken over by
the Ontario Provincial Police. There is noth-
ing less tlian a complete breakdown of agree-
ment, a breakdown of an understanding, of a
letter sent out by the Ontario police com-
mission. 1 have five pages here of Iwig
foolscap of the great indiscretion and the
injustice being done here for these people.
The Ontario police commission has not
perfonned its promise to these men. At this
point, 50 men have lost their jobs, and an-
other 250 will be losing their jobs shortly.
Time will not permit me to develop this
point at this time, because my colleague is
speaking next.
But through all my submissions in this
House, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a great
need for regional recognition on the part of
this government to the outlying parts of the
province. No one should suffer hospital care,
no one should suffer educationally because
of geography, and no one should suffer on
their income because of geography.
We have many cases to back up each
point, where there is disparity and inequity
on the part of the government. I know it is
all right for us to stand here and criticize the
front bench there, and someone has men-
tioned in tlie House last night tliat most of
4962
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the legislation that you bring forth is a
result of our submissions from our leader,
and the New Democratic Party.
Hon. S, J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Jump up on the band wagon.
Is tliat your idea?
Mr. Sargent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think
that you could do an awful lot more than
you are doing for the people of this prov-
ince. I know that is no job that you are
doing in your department. You kidded us a
lot, and I think you are a great fun man for
the government. Insofar as getting anything
done, this does not happen.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish I had about two
hours to tell you really what is on my mind,
but I thank you for the privilege.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk about govern-
ment and business today, not in the usual
sense of talking about their relations with
each other, but in a different sense. I am
interested in the concept of modem business
management techniques as applied to gov-
ernment departments. I think there is a lot
government departments could learn from
the business community in terms of capital
budgeting, efficiency, setting goals, and
maximizing returns. Mr. Speaker, like busi-
ness, this Ontario government must be lean
and fit.
The government department I would like
to use as an example is The Ontario Depart-
ment of Education. I would like to focus my
remarks particularly on primary and secon-
dary school education and the colleges of
applied arts and technology.
Now this emphasis on education may be
surprising, because hardly anyone ever
seems to criticize the management of our
education system. Education, Mr. Speaker,
is too often assumed to be like motherhood.
We are afraid to criticize it because it is so
important to us. It is so necessary and so
much a part of the growth and development
of all of us. Education is the cornerstone of
our democracy, and the key to our civiliza-
tion.
But, Mr. Speaker, is this any reason why
we should not get the most for our money?
If there is not enough money to do every-
thing, should not we make sure it is being
allocated to the right priorities?
Yet this Conservative government seems to
wait for disaster to strike before it decides
to take any action. This Conservative govern-
ment waits for a severe teacher shortage. A
shortage that v/as predictable 15 years ago
in this province, Mr. Speaker.
This Conservative government waits until
thousands of qualified high school students
apply for admission to our universities before
embarking on a frantic programme of uni-
versity expansion. Now that we have the
buildings, there is a frantic search for qudi-
fied teachers.
This Conservative government waits for
hundreds of high school students to be
standing on the threshold of matriculation
from tlie four-year arts and science pro-
gramme before even building the first com-
munity college. A college, I might add, that
was promised when those students started the
programme four years before.
And now there are chronic problems of
programme planning and development in
the community colleges of this province and
there is an acute shortage of qualified and
relevant teachers.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have
been allowing our cultural sentiment to
blinker our vision where education is con-
cerned and we fail to make a searching and
businesslike study of its expenditures and
results, as judged in terms of the aims of
education.
I am for education, but I am also for get-
ting full value for the money we invest in
education in this province.
Mr. Speaker, there are four main reasons
for my choosing education as a target for
business management concepts and practices.
The most obvious one is that the present
government of this province will spend over
$875 milhon in 1968-1969 on primary and
secondary education, that is the estimates of
The Department of Education, and that is
23 per cent of total projected government
expenditures for that year.
The second reason is this: I feel that the
non-government sector of Ontario would get
a great deal in return for a more efficiently-
managed educational system. There would,
for example, be a greater flow of better-
qualified manpower at all levels. And you
will remember, Mr. Speaker, the economic
council of Canada repeatedly places a great
deal of the blame for lower productivity in
Canada and Ontario, compared to the United
States, on the generally lower level of edu-
cation and acquired skills of the Canadian
and Ontario labour force.
The third reason, Mr. Speaker, is this: I
think that departments of education and their
education systems can benefit substantially
from the introduction and widespread diffu-
JUNE 28, 1968
4963
sion of modern business management con-
cepts and techniques.
And the final reason, Mr. Speaker, is simply
that I am more familiar with The Depart-
ment of Education than with some other
government departments.
The management of education must be
critically assessed and evaluated, just like
the management of any other large enter-
prise. Yet such a critique of an entire edu-
cation system is rarely attempted.
Now the most-frequently given argument
for not doing so is that the business enter-
prise and the educational enterprise can
simply not be compared. While they both
have their expenditures, capital and operat-
ing, how can you measure the output from
education? How can you measure the results
of teaching, the returns to the individual and
society. The doubtful thinkers claim that if
expenditures are increased, there is no mean-
ingful way of determining whether or not
there is a rate of return over cost or social
profit, if you like.
Tliis argmnent, like some members in this
Legislature, may be ten years out of date
for two good reasons. The first is that we
have come to understand the process of
learning somewhat more clearly than before.
This has been a decade of intense educa-
tional experiment involving many of the finest
minds of our generation. There has been a
tremendous increase in our understanding
of the nature of individual mental growth.
There have been profound changes in theory
which have led to new techniques in measur-
ing learning, including considerably more
reliable aptitude and intelligence tests.
The second factor is that in business there
has been a substantial improvement in the
quality of management. There has also been
a quiet revolution in the techniques of deci-
sion-making in business. For example, recent
management innovations in the area of group
problem-solving and decision-making tech-
niques that include lower-level personnel
participation have proved most effective in
terms of increased productivity.
These techniques could be applied most
creatively to The Ontario Department of
Education and the entire education system,
resulting, I would hope, in less bureaucratic
obedience from teachers and administrators
in the schools and more active participation
in the decision-making process, from the for-
mulation of goals to the techniques of teach-
ing.
Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if The
Ontario Department of Education under the
Conservative Party has heard of "five year
critical path planning" and "programme
evaluation and review techniques", commonly
known as PERT— techniques used in business
to avoid the cosUy errors of short-term ad hoc
planning, such as the kind I noted earlier.
I sometimes get the uneasy feeling, Mr.
Speaker, that the planning, or really the
patching-up process of this Conservative
government is done on a one-year basis in
response to public outcry. I sincerely hope
that I am wrong. It takes from 13 to
20 years for a child to learn and to be-
come an educated person. Long term plan-
ning, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely necessary in
education. Excellence in management should
be a goal in every endeavour, whether in
private business or in government operations,
or in some of the quips coming from the
other side of the House. I firmly believe that
this is an obtainable goal in the management
of the public affairs of this province.
I now propose, Mr. Speaker, to give an
economist's critique of this mammoth De-
partment of Education and the Ontario edu-
cation system. In case there are people who
still feel I am upending a sacred cow, I
would like to point out that a report in the
Glohe and Mail last year stated that the
Middlesex Presbytery of the United Church
of Canada called in a firm of outside man-
agement consultants to assess their internal
management.
Nothing, it seems, Mr. Speaker, is sacred
any longer from the business efficiency ex-
perts! The church leaders were told that the
presbytery was over-governed, over-aged and
had too many buildings. I quote from their
report: "It appears to have an introspective,
horse-and-buggy-age, prohibitionist attitude
which is out of step with the present day con-
cerns of the majority of its members". The
consultants also used the term horse-and-
buggy to describe its business methods.
By using this example I do not mean to
imply that The Department of Education is
in the horse-and-buggy age. It is not. It is
in the automobile age but I will not say
which year. But the products of this system
will be in the space age, Mr. Speaker, and as
a society and as citizens of one of the richest
provinces, in one of the richest nations of
less than space age education from the top
to the bottom.
The Ontario formal education system re-
sembles a large industrial enterprise in many
important respects. It is a vertically inte-
grated enterprise in the sense that there is
a flow of product through the many plants
4964
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of the enterprise. The child may go to pre-
kindergarten and then through kindergarten
and primary school into secondary school as
a teenager, and then into university or other
institutions of higher learning and advanced
training as a young adult. Also, in such an
integrated industry, decisions made about
education at one level of the enterprise have
a direct, if somewhat delayed, important
impact at the other levels. This makes care-
ful planning essential.
The education system has many plants
with very different operations, plants which
are widely dispersed geographically around
the pro\dnce. It is therefore, Mr. Speaker,
a multiplant enterprise.
The education system produces a varied
and diversified product, as varied as the
imique character of individuals. It is a multi-
product enterprise.
The education system has very complex
ways of producing its output; it has very
complex techniques of combining factors of
production, such as teachers, administrative
personnel, teaching equipment, educational
television, books, school buildings, and so
fortli. It is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, a multi-
in-put enterprise. Education has, perhaps
above all, a system of management and
decision-making which would defy under-
standing by the president of the largest inter-
national oil company.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the comparison of
a large provincial educational system to a
large corporate enterprise reveals that an
education system is a massive, complex en-
terprise, as massive and complex as the most
sophisticated and diversified industry in the
private sector and requiring the highest level
of excellence in management and creative
leadership at all levels in the enterprise.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to throw
out some ideas on how modem business-
management thinking could be profitably in-
cluded in tlie management thinking of a
department of education and an educational
system.
I have already mentioned the practice of
scientific "critical path planning," a tech-
nique tliat can be fully exploited by the in-
telligent use of computers. With such
long-range planning, shortages and bottle-
necks can be identified before they reach
crisis proportions.
Another essential aspect of managerial de-
cision-making is the rigorous choosing among
"expenditure alternatives" available to the
enterprise; this means the acceptance of
those expenditures with the greatest fore-
casted results and the rejection of those
expenditures with lower forecasted results.
The forecasted results of each posible ex-
penditure must be compared on a common
yardstick with those of alternatives, the "op-
portunity" cost of each possibility must be
taken into account, that is to say, each pos-
sible decision must take into account the
sacrifices of alternatives required by that
decision.
The obiective of this process is to ensure
the most ejBBcient use of available funds.
Funds must not be applied where the ex-
pected increase in effectiveness or quality
is less than the expected increase in other
uses. Mr. Speaker, all such allocation for
budgeting systems include some kind of cri-
terion, measuring stick or cut-ofiF point which
prevents the use of funds in areas with low
returns in terms of goals desired by the
management of the enterprise.
This basic approach is obvious to On-
tario's top-flight businessmen. But this kind
of modern management thinking has not
penetrated Ontario's Department of Educa-
tion over the last 25 years.
Let me give you a few examples in tlie
field of education. The teachers of North
York have said that the equivalent of 58
teachers' time is spent on supervising cafe-
terias, watching study periods and supervis-
ing student detentions each year— tasks that
could be performed by reliable but much
less expensive non-teachers.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Those were the programmes we
got from the Liberal Opposition.
Mr. T. Reid: Now, just to assure the hon.
members opposite that Ontario is not neces-
sarily alone in Canada in this regard, I will
give an example from outside Ontario. Last
year the Manitoba teachers' society— to cast
the net more broadly to give a proper per-
spective-estimate that as much as 40 per
cent of the average teacher's total workload
on the job, inside and outside the classroom,
was spent on essential but menial and rou-
tine school tasks.
Since good teachers are the scarcest re-
source input in the educational process, and
the costliest in money terms, and since such
tasks could be performed by reliable and less
expensive non-teachers, a rearrangement of
relative expenditures to hire non-teachers for
the supervisory school tasks would release
qualified teaching manpower for teaching.
This would go a long way in the next five or
ten years to meeting the severe teacher
shortage.
JUNE 28, 1968
4965
In economic terms, non-teaching personnel
would continue to be hired until a dollar's
worth of them was judged to have the same
impact on the quality of learning and school
experience of the pupil as a dollar's wortli
of teachers. This is the well-known "least
cost principle." The application of such an
approach would certainly improve the effi-
ciency of tlie school system in this province.
Another area where business long-term
planning techniques could substantially im-
prove the quahty of decision-making in the
educational system in this province, lies in
the area of technological invention and inno-
vation, particularly in the field of physical
capital improvements.
Today's technological revolution in edu-
cation, Mr. Speaker, consists of television,
film strips, tape recorders and devices for
programme learning and teaching machines.
A comparison between business enterprise
and the public enterprise of education will
indicate the gap that separates them in this
area. In education, in this province, it is
highly unlikely that more than 10 per cent
of the total capital outlay goes for instruc-
tional equipment, the other 90 per cent
being spent primarily on buildings.
In industry, Mr. Speaker, the allocation of
capital funds is almost the reverse, 25 per
cent going to buildings and 75 per cent for
equipment.
Now, as my hon. colleague in this House,
from London South (Mr. White), well knows,
while education is a service industry and does
not offer the scope for use of equipment and
machines found in industry, there seems to
be little doubt that in the long run and if
properly used, advanced technology makes
I)Ossible a greater use of instructional equip-
ment and machines tlian a 90 to 10 per cent
split between buildings and equipment would
suggest.
In concluding my remarks on this one
aspect of my remarks on the Budget debate,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that I
am not advocating, as some have in the
United States, that private enterprise take
over the entire educational enterprise on the
profit basis. That is to say, the better educa-
tion institutions as judged by the consumer
getting more business and more profits and
the bad schools going bankrupt. The few
examples I have given where the applica-
tion of business techniques would result in a
better use of expenditures, indicate that the
waste is substantial in the one department of
the present Ontario government I have
chosen to analyze.
The waste is likely high In other depart-
ments of this government and in my opinion,
the onus is on the departments of govern-
ment to prove otherwise. As ciitzens and
taxpayers, I think we should lend every
effort to closing the gap between our kno\\'l-
edge of the best available techni^iues ami
their application in the decision-making
process in government
Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to an-
other aspect of criticism which I have in
the Budget debate and commence my re-
marks, perhaps for the next five minutes. I
have entitled my remarks "The sham— the
Conservaties have created the health services
shortage in Ontario."
The Treasurer of the Conservative gov-
ernment of this province stated that the
Budget that he brought down earlier in
this year places "major emphasis on pro-
grammes in the health field." He went on
to say, in his Budget, that the reason for
this major emphasis is to avoid a serious
bottleneck in the supply of health manpower
and health services in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, merely by
using these strong adjectives, "major" and
"serious", he himself, the Treasurer of this
province, has condemned the efforts of the
Conservative government in this province
over the last quarter of a century. He has
condemned the Conservative government's
lack of foresight and planning to ensure an
adequate supply of health manpower and
services to meet the health needs of this
so-called province of opportunity.
I will give the facts of this failure in a
moment. This government, Mr. Speaker,
likes to propagate the myth that this prov-
ince offers all the people of Ontario "a place
to stand and grow." I suggest that this gov-
ernment commission the same talented movie
producer to do a film about the thousands of
sick people in Ontario and entitle the film
"No Place to Lie Down". Why is there a
bottleneck in the supply of health man-
power and services in Ontario today and a
real and present danger of a more serious
bottleneck in the months and years ahead?
I will give you one example of the failure
of the Conservatives to avoid tliis bottleneck.
I had hoped that tliis government would
understand what preventative medicine is all
about It is not only better medicine in
human terms, it is a lot less expensive than
the patching-up medicine that this govern-
ment believes in. Here is wliat the Hall
Royal commission on health services said
about an important aspect of Ontario's
4966
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
performance in the health field between April
1, 1948, and March 31, 1962. This is a direct
quote from that commission report:
All told, the federal government made
$603.5 million available for [health] grants
dm-ing the 14-year period [to all the prov-
inces]. Of this, $443.8 million or about
74 per cent, was taken up and used by
the provinces. The usual criticism of
matching grants, that they put pressures on
the treasuries of less well endowed fiscal
units and ease the financial condition of
wealthier ones which can readily take
advantage of such grants, cannot be ap-
plied. For example, Ontraio which has the
highest per capita personal income in
Canada, spent only two-thirds of its allot-
ment. The federal government has intro-
duced increasingly flexible features in
recent years, and thus grants not used for
one purpose may be transferred to an-
other programme.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I must object to that—
Mr. T. Reid: On a ix)int of order, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No-
Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order,
or personal privilege.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, it is not
a point of order I would just like to put the
hon. member straight. If he does not wish
it, fine.
Mr. T. Reid: All but one provincial gov-
ernment in Canada, Mr. Speaker, invested
more of its allotment than Ontario to health
programmes such as "professional training".
"hospital construction grants", "surveys of
health facilities", to mention only a few.
For example, Saskatchewan used 81 per
cent of its allotment; British Columbia, 81
per cent of its allotment; Manitoba, 79 per
cent of its allotment; Alberta, 78 per cent;
Quebec and Prince Edward Island, 77 per
cent; New Brunswick, 74 per cent; and
Nova Scotia, 73 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, should I continue with the
remarks now?
Mr. Speaker: Since the member is not
going to complete today, I think that he
might move the adjournment of the debate,
and commence the next time.
Mr. T. Reid moves the adjomnment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister moves the
adjournment of the House, I would like to
call to the attention of the members that we
finally have a group of students who have
come a long way, from Montague public
school, Smith Falls. They are in the west
gallery.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 2, we will
return to the estimates of The Department of
the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General; and following that, the estimates of
The Department of Financial and Com-
mercial AfiFairs.
Hon. Mr. Dymond moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 2:00 o'clock, p.m.
JOURNALS AND ^^OCEOOms^m^^m^
DIRECTION DES joURNAUXBTDBSBBCHBRCHBSENPKDCEDUiai
ROOM 1 640, WHITNEY BLOCK ^^, , ,^
QUEEN'S PARK, TOROhfTO, ON M7A 1A2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11